Mac Harb

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Liberal democracy; I am frustrated by the illogical argument of my colleagues on the other side. I want one of them to tell me why they are anti-workers. I will sit now.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the proof is in the pudding. They are afraid of hearing the whole argument.

We are trying to enlighten them by saying that we live in a democracy. In a democracy the majority has the right to rule. If the workers of Canada want to organize themselves why do they want to stop them? At every single corner they try to block the people of Canada from—

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to put things in the context of Bill C-19, when we speak about democracy and the rights of people to express themselves in a free and democratic way. If we are truly concerned about the right of workers then we should be able to allow the workers to express themselves in a free way. If that is the case, the workers of Canada from coast to coast have told us that what is before us is a good step. It is a first step, it is an excellent step and it is something that is required and long overdue.

On this side of the House we have taken the initiative in order to respond to their needs. It is not an issue of a secret ballot or standing up and voting. Every day in the House we stand up. Compared to my colleagues on the other side, especially in the Reform Party, I am not afraid to express my views and say whether I am supporting a motion or not.

The notion of 35% is nothing short of trying to establish whether there is an interest in establishing a movement within a workplace. Once the employees establish their unions, once they certify themselves and become an organization, they can democratically, if they choose so, decertify themselves. Nothing is stopping them from doing that. The underlying thing in this debate for my colleagues in the Reform Party is that they are openly opposed to the right of workers to organize themselves. This is their true agenda.

I had an opportunity to listen to debates when public hearings were taking place. Frankly, I was ashamed to see that the level of debate had sunk so low. What do we call it? Is it sugar coated poison? This is absolutely terrible.

Those fellows have no idea what it is to be a member of an organization that defends the rights of workers. They do not believe in it. It is not in their philosophy. If it is up to them they will decertify every union or organization in the country.

We have a society that works. Employers and their employees, government, unions and corporations, work hand in hand in the best interest of the organization, of the government and of society as a whole. There is nothing wrong with it.

Germany is a perfect model. In Canada over the past 100 or so years our experience has not really been that bad. Unions have not bitten anybody's ears.

Why is there this agenda of being anti-workers? Why is it my colleagues in the Reform Party do not want to allow workers to organize themselves if they choose to do so? I do not know what they think. They think we do not know that. Of course we do.

They are trying to say that they are concerned about democracy. The bottom line of the agenda is anti-workers. Would members agree? My colleagues from Gatineau and Laval I am sure would agree that the agenda of the Reform is not to allow workers of Canada to organize themselves in a democratic fashion.

Let us not beat around the bush. They should stand one by one and say why they are anti-workers.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, is it ironic. Speaking about democracy and allowing people to express their views in a public forum, these are the very same guys who have been polarizing democracy. They wanted to call themselves fathers of democracy. They are not even distant cousins of democracy. They never heard—

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as you can tell, our blood has been boiling on this side of the House and I am sure on the other side of the House as we listen to our colleague, the member from the Reform Party, pretending that he and his party support the workers of Canada.

Speaking about democracy, it was not long ago when the very same party had ejected one of its own just because she spoke her mind and because she said what she wanted to say. She was kicked out. It is ironic, speaking about democracy. These are the same members who when they came into this House told us and the public that they will allow each member of parliament to vote according to their conscience and as instructed by their constituents.

I have not yet, with the exception of a very few votes, seen the members over there stand up and vote according to their conscience or as instructed by their constituents. They all stand up like hordes of sheep and vote collectively. We rarely see those members stand up and vote according to their conscience. I have not seen that. Have other members seen that?

Speaking about democracy, there are two faces to democracy. There is the Reform face to democracy and there is the other face to democracy. Now they are concerned about the workers of Canada.

[Petitions, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many of my constituents and other constituents in the national capital region asking parliament to review the mandate of the CRTC and to direct the CRTC to administer a new policy which includes the licensing of religious broadcasters.

[Canadian Naval Reserve, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, 1998 marks the 75th anniversary of the naval reserve in Canada. Located in 24 cities, the naval reserve is made up of individuals who have chosen to dedicate a few hours every week and a few weeks every year in the interest of serving their country.

These part time military volunteers represent more than one-third of the navy's total strength. HMCS Carleton located in my riding of Ottawa Centre is the second largest naval reserve in Canada and includes 264 volunteers who perform extraordinary deeds in difficult situations.

Naval reserves from across Canada are always ready to help in emergencies, like with the floods in the Saguenay and Manitoba and recently during the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec.

I would like to thank these dedicated men and women of the naval reserve for their commitment to helping others and for their service to this country. They have demonstrated what it truly means to be Canadian.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite ironic that we have a situation where too many people are chasing too few fish and relying on this resource to support themselves and their families.

This is not new. We experienced the same thing a few years ago in the forestry industry. The same thing has happened in other natural resource industries.

I think the message which we have to give clearly and unequivocally is that we have to work on the renewal of the resource. We have to diversify our economy so that we do not rely on one source of revenue coming from one natural resource. We have to have a renewal mechanism which will help it to grow.

I want to commend the government on its initiative.

Frankly, whether we like it or not, were it not for the actions of this government I would be surprised if we had an international agreement that deals with fish stocks.

I want to ask my colleague to enlighten us a little on the program established by the provincial governments of Atlantic Canada to diversify their economies so they can deal with some of the difficult situations which the people of Atlantic Canada are facing.

[Division No. 131, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that my name was called as voting with the government on this issue.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, first of all, old battles must not be dragged back into this House. All there is to say is that now we are all part of a civilized society, and life in a civilized and democratic society requires everyone to work together to develop the economy of that society. The way to do so is through free trade.