Mac Harb

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after hearing a few of the speeches by Reform Party members I concluded that we are in agreement about the need for an agreement.

However there is one exception. My colleagues in the Reform Party want the government to abandon its fight on behalf of cultural industries. I want to say for the record that we will not abandon that fight.

My colleague is trying to allude to the fact that certain Canadian laws will be affected if we were to sign the multilateral agreement. I want to correct the record. No Canadian laws will be affected as a result of that. Every Canadian law, whether provincial or federal, will continue to be in full force after the signing of the multilateral agreement.

I wanted to have straight that signing the agreement will not cripple the hands of the Canadian government from enacting special laws in Canada.

Would the hon. member stand and say that he commends what our Canadian negotiators are doing at the table?

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it unequivocally clear that the multilateral agreement among all of the OECD members is not an end in itself. It is a beginning. The next step would be to go to the World Trade Organization and, hopefully, every member of the World Trade Organization will abide by the same rules.

I also want to tell my colleague that our negotiators are not going to a round table with other OECD members to discuss our cultural industry as an open field. There are already protections under the FTA and the NAFTA for our cultural industry. We want to ensure, as a minimum, that what we have in terms of exemptions now under the NAFTA and the free trade agreement will continue when we sign the MAI.

To that extent, what the government is doing, basically, is the absolute minimum in a fair game.

I want to take my colleague's comments today as an endorsement of what the government is doing.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Yes.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe it. My colleague in the socialist movement is absolutely right. One thing about the NDP is that it was consistent in its opposition to anything having to do with a free market economy.

The hypocrisy of the party over there standing up today and suddenly pretending that it is the defender of those opposed to the multilateral agreement on investment is an ultimate insult to the people.

These people have no knowledge of what is going on around the table. They pick up their information in bits and pieces from what they receive in the mail or what they read in this paper or that paper. They never took the time to look into the agreement to see what it really meant for Canadians.

I want to close by saying that the agreement takes nothing away from Canada. There is everything to gain for us and nothing to lose. They should get their heads out of the sand and stand in support of what the government is doing rather than acting like a jacuzzi socialist without knowing the least bit about socialism.

[New Democratic Party, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, while on the topic of globalization, the leader of the NDP is quoted in today's Toronto Star as saying there really is a revolution going on.

Does this mean that the NDP has finally woken up? The NDP leader delayed this conversion to what we have been saying for generations, that we live in a global economy. I am not surprised to see the NDP leader speaking on both sides of the issue. On the one hand her party wants to nationalize banks and hire every unemployed person on the government payroll. On the other hand she wants others to do what her own party is not willing to do, embrace the global free economy.

I invite the leader of the NDP to stand up in the House today and admit that her party policies are and have been completely bankrupt.

I can see Karl Marx rolling in his grave over the loss of yet another devoted socialist.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want the member to tell us today whether or not his party position has changed on tax cuts. In the past it spoke continuously about across the board tax cuts.

I want him to tell us unequivocally, without budging, nudging or fudging, whether he still supports across the board tax reduction or whether he will support the government's balanced approach to reducing taxes for select people who need the tax reduction while maintaining spending on our social programs.

[Wages Liability Act, February 13th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-357, an act to amend the Wages Liability Act (definition of “adult”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Privacy Act, February 13th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-356, an act to amend the Privacy Act (definition of “minor”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Pension Fund Societies Act, February 13th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-355, an act to amend the Pension Fund Societies Act (definition of “minor child”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Land Titles Act, February 13th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-354, an act to amend the Land Titles Act (age of majority and definition of “infant”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)