Mac Harb

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is from New Brunswick. I am surprised he does not have enough faith in the people of New Brunswick who with their government have changed the course of things.

I commend the Government of New Brunswick, a Liberal government that came to power at a time when there was a big gap between the rich and the poor. There was not enough economic growth in that province. In a matter of a few years the sensibility, sensitivity and vision of that Liberal government enabled it to map out a strategy whereby the province of New Brunswick was able to attract businesses and investment. I repeat investment. I know my colleague in the NDP hates the word investment. He is allergic to the word investment.

There was economic growth in New Brunswick. New Brunswick is now more equipped than ever before to meet the challenges of the next century.

The member should not look at it as a negative thing. Investment has helped his province and it will continue to help his province. He should stand and say that he wants more investment, that he wants to encourage more businesses to be established in his province, that he wants it to do more trade not only with the rest of Canada but with the rest of the world. The world is his market.

Globalization means bringing down borders. It allows us to sell to five billion people versus selling to only two million or three million people. It gives us more opportunities. There is no need for fear. The world is better today than it was yesterday or the day before.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with my colleague from Mississauga South.

I do not know why my colleague has to lose his temper. A little earlier he was speaking in the House and was worried and concerned about the fact that if the MAI were to be implemented or if globalization is to take its course workers could not go to the bathroom. I am really surprised that the debate had to come to this level of argument.

Things are not as bad as my colleagues in the NDP would have us believe. We still are considered the best country in the world in which to live. For three years in a row the United Nations has identified Canada as the best place in the world in which to live. We rank number one, ahead of the United States, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and other countries.

We still have a quality of life which is higher than any other country in the G-7 which makes it the highest quality of life in the world. It is ahead of Germany, France, the United States, the United Kingdom and Italy. Canada also has the highest level of enrolment when it comes to higher education than any other country in the G-7. Things are not as bad as my colleagues like to make them look.

I do not want to say all these things are because of the government's action. All these good things have been achieved collectively by Canadians at every level of government, municipal, provincial and federal. All those things are happening because the government was able to collect taxes from people and corporations in order to spend on our wonderful social programs which are the finest in the world.

I want my colleagues to know that money does not grow on banana trees. It is not planted in backyards. We have to work and produce in order to generate money. That money would not be in the amount we see here in Canada if it were not for corporations that are investing in research and development and in products that are selling here and more importantly are being sold abroad in markets in the Asia-Pacific, Latin America, the United States and elsewhere.

I hope my colleagues are not suggesting that we should close our borders, bury our heads in the sand and wish for a sunny day because it is not going to happen.

The motion before us today is trying to blame everything on globalization. There is no way out. Either governments around the world will have to move into the next century smiling and co-operating or governments will move into the next century kicking and screaming. Simply put, the world is changing. All we have to do is to look at the past few years to see the revolution and the evolution which have taken place when it comes to information technology.

Governments are scrambling to catch up. In the past few years we have been able to unleash the intelligence of our people in Canada and in the United States. That is why today we have the most sophisticated mode of communication in the world, which is the Internet. Tomorrow we will see other technologies coming on board which will eventually render governments pretty well obsolete.

My view is that the government which is the fastest to move toward not becoming obsolete in the new world order is the government that will be serving its people the best. The government that is capable of coping with what is taking place around the world and establishing standards that suit the people of the world is the government that will be meeting the needs of its people.

The multilateral agreement on investment is not the end. It is the beginning. It is the beginning of something wonderful. No member of the World Trade Organization is biting the butt or chopping the head of another member. Everything is going fairly well. We finally have a world order and rules which govern the whole world when it comes to trade between the economies of countries. We finally have a mechanism in place where if one country is in dispute with another country there is a forum where they can resolve their dispute.

When we talk about rules also governing investment there is nothing to worry about because nobody is robbing anything from anyone. All we are saying is that we want to have a level playing field all over the world when it comes to countries that presently are or eventually will be members of the World Trade Organization and the OECD.

We want to have a proper level playing field so that we know what we are talking about. Billions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars are invested abroad, in the Asia-Pacific and elsewhere. We want to make sure these investments are protected.

I am not fearful. We have one of the most open economies in the world. We are not afraid of a takeover because our country is wide open for investment. We welcome investment. Investment creates jobs.

There is no fear here because simply put, with the multilateral agreement once and if it is signed, there is no need to change anything when it comes to existing Canadian laws. Canadian laws will not be affected. It will not take anything away from the Government of Canada when it comes to its ability to introduce new laws or to change existing laws, providing it treats everyone on the same basis with equality. There are exemptions. A lot of our industries are exempted.

I do not know what this is all about, trying to blame the poverty of the world on the multilateral agreement on investment or blame world poverty on globalization. Ask the people in Malaysia. They will say that thanks to investment in their country the level of income and the gross domestic product have multiplied many times over. Speak to the people in Singapore, Korea, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, India, Latin America and elsewhere in the world. They will say one by one that thanks to trade and thanks to our investment in their countries and their investment in our country, there is a much better world. We have to bring down barriers, not build them up. Protectionism could kill an elephant.

Madam Speaker, you bet your life if this motion were ever to become votable I would be the first one to vote against it and I would not be blushing because it is a ridiculous motion. It is not a thoughtful motion.

No one has done anything substantial in order to convince me that as an elected official I should be voting for something that is against the interests of the people. A multilateral agreement on investment and globalization will work eventually in the best interests of the people.

Somebody told me a story about a company that went to India and invested in toothpaste, Colgate or whatever. As a result of that investment the quality of life of the people who work in the surrounding area has dramatically improved. As a result of that particular investment, another nail has been put into the coffin of poverty.

That is one example. There are hundreds of other examples across the land where foreign investment has helped to improve the quality of life for people in countries where they live and eventually narrowed the gap between the poor and the rich.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his wise, logical and factual speech. It contained a lot of good points.

I simply want to remind the House that, if we really want to examine the issue of globalization and its benefits, we need only ask people in Malaysia, Indonesia and India what they think about it. They can tell us clearly that globalization helped not only the people of these countries in general, but also their economy.

I would ask my colleague if he could give us other examples where globalization has helped people all over the world.

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement reached by territorial, provincial and federal governments to compensate victims of hepatitis C is not perfect. No amount of money can ease the pain of those who have been infected.

By supporting the current agreement we are acting responsibly by providing assistance to those infected between 1986 and 1990. For those not covered in the current agreement we have a collective responsibility to find ways to ensure their needs are met.

The health care system in Canada is one of the finest in the world and provides a safety net for those who otherwise could not afford the services they need. That is why it is imperative to work with the provinces to improve services and ensure a better quality of life for every victim. As long as there is one victim suffering we still have work to do.

I applaud the Minister of Health for his courage and commitment to doing what is right.

[Taxation, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 28, volunteers from the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario held a tax clinic for seniors in my riding. These dedicated men and women provided an excellent service to over 80 seniors by helping them prepare their tax returns.

Can the parliamentary secretary to the minister of revenue tell the House what Revenue Canada is doing to help seniors and the disabled, those least able to cope with complicated tax procedures?

[Canadian National Institute For The Blind, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 80th anniversary of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

Over the last 80 years the CNIB has worked tirelessly to improve the conditions of the blind, to prevent blindness and to promote sight enhancement services.

Through its work at home and abroad, the CNIB has made a positive difference in the lives of the blind, visually impaired and deaf-blind persons.

In recognition of this, in 1996 CNIB President Dr. E.J. Herie was elected president of the World Blind Union which consists of both service providers and consumer organizations. The WBU brings under its umbrella 150 million blind and visually impaired persons in 160 countries.

I am proud that the CNIB Ottawa office is located in my riding. Today I would like to recognize Mr. Garrick Homer, chairman, and Dr. Euclid Herie, president and chief executive officer, for their hard work and dedication to this issue. Congratulations on a job well done.

[British Columbia, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the NDP Government of British Columbia promised to deliver tax relief and a deficit of almost $200 million. It sounds like something out of the Reform Party platform. Just like Reform the B.C. government fails to understand that good government means cleaning your house before you redecorate.

The priorities of Canadians in B.C. and across the country are clear. They want governments to eliminate their deficit first and then lower the tax and debt burden while improving our social programs. Promising a tax cut while running a deficit is like selling the house to save the furniture.

I wonder when the tail will stop wagging the dog. Is that as good as it gets?

[Foreign Affairs, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Cooperation.

Millions of children in North Korea are at risk of starvation. With Canada's great tradition of helping the poorest of the world can the Minister tell the House what action she is taking to help the people of North Korea?

[Reserve Force Act, March 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the intentions of the bill seem to be quite reasonable. However, when we look at the two aspects proposed, it might prove to be counterproductive.

In Canada we have many reservists who have served their country extremely well. For example, when the flood took place in Manitoba, over 800 reservists participated. Over 4,000 reservists participated in local communities in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick and elsewhere across the country. The recent ice storm that struck a good part of eastern Ontario as well as western Quebec and the Montreal area saw many reservists helping out local communities. Reservists have played an incredible leadership role on the national scene. Many of our reservists have participated in international peacekeeping missions around the globe and have proved to be model citizens we are all proud of.

The intent of the bill is to do two things. First, it will ask the Government of Canada or any crown corporation to allow each employee who is a reservists to have two months leave at most. The second intention of the bill will also ask the private sector to do the same. As a result of that, each reservists will have two months leave to participate in reservist activities, whether he or she works for the federal government or for the private sector.

When we look at this in isolation it sounds reasonable. However, many of the activities our reservists participate in will require more than two months. In some cases reservists will have to be on the job for 10 months or more. If there is an activity that requires more than two months, reservists will not be able to participate. At the federal level we have a system which will allow reservists to have 10 or more months leave when it is required. We have no need to concern ourselves with government policy concerning reservists. When it comes to the private sector, however, if we pass this legislation in the House of Commons, provinces will have to modify their labour codes to be consistent with what we have passed here. If we tell an employer that by law he has to allow a reservists leave for two months every year, we will create an absolute reverse discrimination against reservists. The employer may choose not to hire a reservist because he is obliged by law to give the reservist two months leave per year in order to participate in activities.

The intention of the legislation may be good, but the implementation of it may prove to be counterproductive.

We now have in place a better system. It leaves an arrangement existing now with the liaison office to deal with reservists entering into agreement with the private sector so that the private sector can do it as a part of that agreement.

I am happy to report and to share with my colleagues that presently there are approximately over 3,000 employers across Canada who participate in the hiring of reservists and who work with the military and the armed forces in order to make it easier for those reservists to have a position that is flexible and a position that will allow them to serve their country in times of need here in Canada or outside the country.

We may as well not have any legislation that is not consistent and that does not provide the reservists with a better opportunity.

I want to congratulate my colleague for thinking about the importance of making the job of reservists easier and for helping them to participate. But these reservists would be better off with what we have now than to move to the new proposal.

Now over 25% of our military deployment in Canada are considered reservists. They are doing an outstanding job for the country. Frankly, if we were to move with some sort of proposal, it would have to prove to be better than what we have. To that extent, I would be inclined not to support those two amendments in the legislation as proposed by my colleague.

I want to go on record once again on behalf of my constituents in Ottawa Centre and many of the people who live in eastern Ontario in passing along our great appreciation and thanks to not only the reservists who worked so diligently during the recent crisis in eastern Ontario and across Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces but to the military as a whole.

Frankly, quite often we forget to look in the mirror to see who we are and to realize that in fact we have some of the finest military forces in the world, that we are extremely proud of what they have done not only here in Canada but across the world.

They are model citizens. They have served their countries greatly, reservists included. They have participated in missions and they were model citizens. They have done great service to their country.

I have many reservists in my constituency in Ottawa Centre. I want to congratulate them too. I have many young Canadians who want to be part of that wonderful service and also I want to tell them that this is a great service to their country, go for it.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have never in my life seen so much confusion from a party which is really in total disarray. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.

For example, two days ago the party's finance critic stood up to say that a Reform government would give across the board tax relief, regardless of the level of income. In other words, someone who makes $500,000 a year would get the same tax break as someone who makes $25,000 a year. Across the board tax relief.

Today the party's health critic stood up to say that the government should spend more money on health care. Then another member just before him stood up to say the government has to give more tax relief.

We have not yet declared victory. We still have a debt which is close to $600 billion. We have to take the balanced approach.

How can the member justify his party giving across the board tax relief to the rich as well as to the poor on an equal footing while reducing the debt and keeping the deficit under control?