Mac Harb

[Petitions, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, given Canada's historic role as a supporter of peace, it would be fully appropriate for Canada to join the ranks of peace blossoms worldwide with the symbolic designation as a peace nation. There are many petitioners in my constituency and throughout the region who are calling on parliament to officially endorse Canada as a peace nation through the Sri Chinmoy peace blossoms project.

[Literacy, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada spends close to $50 billion on education and still over 25% of Canadians cannot read, write or use numbers well enough to meet the demand of our society. Obviously our education system is failing.

As we move into the 21st century it is imperative to rethink the way we educate our children. As a start, the provinces have an obligation to work together to implement important initiatives such as establishing national literacy and education standards.

I am pleased to report that yesterday our city, Ottawa, hosted its first “Word on the Street” festival to celebrate the pleasure of books and reading. This event highlighted the work of local writers and was organized in support of literacy programs.

I would like to congratulate and thank everyone dedicated to the promotion of literacy, especially Peter Calamai and Joyce Fairbairn. Their work has not gone unnoticed.

[Petitions, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, given Canada's historic role as a supporter of peace, a mosaic of different cultures and an international proponent of democracy incorporation, the petitioners feel it would be fully appropriate for Canada to join the ranks of peace blossoms worldwide with the symbolic designation as a peace nation.

These petitioners call on parliament to officially endorse Canada as a peace nation through the Sri Chinmoy peace blossoms project.

[Grandparents' Rights, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, article 5 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that a child has every right to spend time with members of their extended family, and these family members have an obligation to provide appropriate direction and guidance.

Unfortunately, grandparents, as a consequence of the death, separation or divorce of their children, are often denied access to their grandchildren by guardians. This constitutes discrimination, abuse and injustice.

We have a responsibility to ensure that our children continue to enjoy the emotional support of their grandparents. Several jurisdictions, including Quebec and Alberta, currently contain provisions to ensure the right of access of grandparents to their grandchildren.

It is now time for us to take action.

[Petitions, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that is signed by many of my constituents calling on this House to support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which would set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons all over the world.

[Competition Act, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly on Bill C-20. In particular I would like to speak on a whistleblowing amendment which the committee was dealing with.

Before I do that I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Nickel Belt who has been working with me on this issue for quite some time. If not for his excellent work on this issue in the very early stages, I do not think we would have been able to see this amendment before the House as part of Bill C-20, legislation which will hopefully sail through the House of Commons early this afternoon.

I want to thank him because I know his constituents will be as happy as my constituents and consumers all across the country when they see that the government has taken action on important issues dealing with consumer rights. It deals also with the question of the ability of the consumer or a member of a corporation or an organization to speak out when they see something wrong taking place in their place of work or within their organizations.

The amendment deals with everything under the Competition Act. Any organization already covered by the Competition Bureau or by a federal statute, this amendment deals with them.

The motivation behind it really has to deal with the question of gasoline prices, the oil industry across the country as well as with people who either work or have anything to do with those types of industries.

It has three components to it. It is a whistleblowing amendment. In other words, an employee or a retailer can speak out when he sees something wrong.

In the past when we had a consumer, a worker or a retailer who wanted to speak out they went before the Competition Bureau, which remained confidential up to a point.

At some point in the process that confidentiality cannot be maintained because they will have to bring the name of the individual forward before the court.

This legislation makes it imperative that the identity of the individual who brings forward information to the Competition Bureau remains confidential.

The other element of the proposal deals with prohibition. In the past many retailers or employees of companies feared reprisal. They were afraid that if they were to speak out and if their employer found out these individuals would take action against them and would at some point let them go.

This amendment prohibits employers or contractors from dismissing or retaliating against someone who speaks out if that person is under the belief that something wrong or something illegal has taken place.

There is a third component to this proposal which deals with offence and punishment. This amendment would make it a criminal offence for an employer or a contractor to take action against an employee because this employee or retailer has spoken out.

What this government is doing is sending a very strong message across the country to those who are thinking about playing around with the consumer and also to those who know of someone who is doing something illegal. This government is telling those who are trying to do something wrong that it is a criminal offence and the government will take action against them. This government is telling consumers and retailers who might be speaking out that it will defend their right to speak out.

It is a great day for our democracy because now, for once and for all, we can say we have another loophole that we have closed. In the past we had many people who phoned our offices and told us they could not speak out because of fear. This amendment deals with this.

At the same time this amendment sends an unequivocal signal from coast to coast to say that we want to see fairness in the marketplace, we want to see transparency in the marketplace and we want to see consumers protected in the marketplace.

This amendment would not have seen the light of day if not for the assistance of my colleague from Nickel Belt as well as the parliamentary secretary, the staff members of the department who have co-operated at every level and the people in the Competition Bureau who came forward and responded to questions that were posed to them by members of the committee.

I want to say how delighted I was to have been able to join the industry committee which has adopted this amendment unanimously. I thank every member, including the chair, for a job very well done. It crossed all the boundary lines of both sides of the House and every one of my colleagues has supported it.

To that extent I want to say it is excellent news and I want to tell my colleague from Nickel Belt congratulations, felicitations and good luck. It is my hope that this bill will become law very quickly, go to the Senate and receive royal assent so we can get on with the business of this House to deal with other issues.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you heard what you heard. Frankly it is unbecoming of the official opposition but it is an indication of the fact that it is bankrupt when it comes to ideas and innovations.

It is shameful for them to be so opportunistic as to exploit public sentiment and to time, even though the bill has passed the House, their motion to coincide with a special interest group yapping outside on Parliament Hill without the true understanding of what the government is trying to do when it comes to public safety. They should listen to their own constituents who have told them over and over again that they support the bill the government has proposed, Bill C-68, because it controls crime in society. This is community safety legislation which is well thought out and well planned.

The government has spent a lot of time and energy travelling around the country from coast to coast consulting the people, including special interest groups, the Reform Party, and every individual organization that had an opinion to express to the government. The government has given them that opportunity.

This legislation balances the interests of everyone. It is balanced legislation and, by the way, it is not before the House. It has been passed.

I wish colleagues in the Reform Party would wake up, smell the coffee and come up with something that is relevant to the people of Canada, such as how the government has dealt with the economic situation, community safety, health care and educational issues. The government is handling these issues extremely well, so the Reform Party is trying to dig up issues that were before the House months ago and are not before the House now. The only reason for this is that some special interest groups are out there.

The Reform Party is trying to exploit the sentiments of Canadians without having any consideration for the victims and their families who wanted to see that party stand and be counted rather than continue to hear this and that without really focusing on the overall interest of Canadians who have told us over and over again that they support what the government has put before them when it comes to the crime control bill. Let the member stand to endorse what the government has done on this issue.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, never in my entire life have I heard so much nonsense coming from the opposition party. It is incredible.

When the legislation was introduced by the House that party indicated it opposed the bill but did not put anything on the table to say how to improve it or the things they would like to see in the bill. The bill has gone through all stages. That party had all the time—

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled. I do not understand the contradiction in Reform Party policy when it comes to community safety. I do not understand why it would oppose crime control Bill C-68. Why does it want to oppose crime control legislation that will guarantee the safety of our communities?

The bill takes into consideration the interests of law-abiding citizens who own guns and the community at large. It strikes a balance between those who have and those who want to be protected.

I do not understand how the member could stand in the House to oppose gun control legislation and crime prevention Bill C-68.

Victims groups in his constituency, the majority of people in his community and across the country, chief of police organizations, police associations and health organizations were involved in the development of the registry part of Bill C-68.

On a number of occasions his own party has indicated the need to control the use of firearms. Back in 1994 it passed a motion that if elected a Reform government would introduce legislation by which the criminal misuse of firearms would be severely punished.

What happened between 1994 and 1998? Why is the Reform Party now falling into the trap of special interest groups and lobby organizations? Why is it not defending the interests of its own constituencies and those of victims? Why are Reformers not standing up for the rights of those who wanted them to stand up for their rights, for those who have written to them over and over again to tell them to support Bill C-68? Why are they going with special interest groups and against the will and interests of the community at large?

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the Leader of the Opposition would stand in the House to attack a bill that deals specifically with the safety of our communities from coast to coast. I am surprised because I thought the Leader of the Opposition would stand to say that he was sorry his party voted against Bill C-68. I thought the Leader of the Opposition would stand to talk about all the benefits that exist in Bill C-68.

I represent an urban riding. In my constituency—and I would say this is probably the case across the nation from coast to coast—there is overwhelming support for Bill C-68. There is overwhelming support for banning firearms. There is overwhelming support for the government's initiative when it comes to community safety across the country.

I am surprised to see the Leader of the Opposition stand in the House to attack Bill C-68 and cater to the fundamentalists of firearms, those who have not taken the time and energy to read the bill to see what is in it. I have not seen one of those people come forward with a logical approach or logical reason for being opposed to it.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to tell all victims of stolen firearms specifically what is in Bill C-68 that he does not like.