Mac Harb

[Income Tax Act, February 13th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-323, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for mental or physical impairment).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will make a tax credit available to people who take care of those with mental or physical impairment.

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

[Income Tax Act, February 13th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-322, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (donors to food banks).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will make the donation of non-perishable goods to food banks tax deductible.

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

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, February 13th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-320, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to literacy).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will amend the Canadian Bill of Rights to ensure that youth and children have a right to literacy.

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

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, February 13th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-319, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to education).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will make education a right for every child until they turn 18.

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

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the multilateral agreement on investment currently being negotiated will protect Canadian jobs and investment in Canada and abroad.

In 1996 foreign investment in Canada grew to $180 billion. Canadian direct investment abroad stood at $170 billion, with an estimated $30 billion in individual Canadian mutual funds invested abroad.

As a trading country, Canada relies on these investments. Our social programs and safety net depend on the success of our economy.

The NDP says that the MAI will kill jobs, but it is wrong. For every $1 billion in new foreign investment 45,000 jobs are created in Canada. NDP members say the MAI threatens Canadian health care, social programs and cultural industries. They are wrong. These items are not and will not be on the negotiating table. They are opposed to the MAI. Those who are opposed to the MAI remind me of someone who cannot go to bed at night because they are worried someone else is still up having a good time.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, we will have to address three important elements in the whole scenario of the right of Quebec to separate from the rest of Canada. When Quebec entered into Confederation it became a part of a partnership. At the time there were no terms concerning what would happen in the event the partnership would come to an end.

First, to that extent any one partner of all 10 partners in the partnership would have to seek the consensus of the rest of the partners, or at least the consensus of the majority of the partners, before the partner departs.

The second one concerns the notion of native people in Quebec who entered into a historical agreement with the rest of Canada of the day. The agreement these people had with the rest of Canada has to continue to remain intact notwithstanding what would happen to Quebec.

Third, if we were to move with the assumption that Quebec is a level of government that has a right to decide on its own what happens to it, we would have to look at the third level of government, the municipal governments in Quebec in urban settings or urban cities such as the city of Montreal and other cities in western Quebec.

If we were to move forward with the notion that Quebec is a level of government that has a right to decide once it consults its people, the city of Montreal as a level of government would have the right to consult with its people and make a decision based on it.

The whole issue is irrelevant now in light of what has happened around the world. Borders are collapsing at an incredible speed, faster than the speed of light. People are coming together around the world faster than ever before. The European Union is now moving toward political, monetary, economic and social unions where language is no longer an issue. People to people relations are becoming the prime element of our global village.

To that extent, rather than continuing to frighten the people of Quebec and the small, medium and large businesses of Quebec with uncertainties, we as Quebeckers, as Canadians, must work together to ensure that society as a whole is meeting the needs of our people. There is nothing one level of government in Quebec, the provincial level of government, cannot do now within Confederation. It can do just about anything it would like to do. It has control over education, labour, health, immigration and transportation.

What is it the Government of Quebec wants to do and cannot do in the present Confederation?

[Ice Storm 1998, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that we have a debate about the ice storm tonight when in fact my view is that this debate should be about electricity.

If we did not lose electricity in eastern Canada perhaps we would not be having this debate at all. The loss of electricity has caused most of the problems we are faced with.

It is incredible that electricity can be the cause of so much happiness in our society. It helps us to refrigerate food in the summertime. In the winter we cook with it. We use it in order to shave, drive cars, trains and so on, but it can be the cause of much misery once electricity is not around. It is an extremely addictive source of energy, happiness but at the same time a source of sadness.

I grew up in a home where we did not have electricity. We did not have fridges. We did not have stoves. We did not have televisions and we did not have electric shavers or cars. We managed.

That was about 35 or 40 years ago. When this ice storm hit, the first thing that came to mind was what happened 35 years ago. It hit me. I said, my God, no way in this day and age would I be able to live like I was living 35 years ago.

I woke up and felt that something really needed to be done. I do not want to congratulate the government. I do not want to congratulate any department of federal, provincial or municipal government because frankly we are each doing our job. We are doing what is expected of us as elected officials, as levels of government, departments, ministries and municipalities.

I congratulate ordinary people who came together to do extraordinary things. On the very same day that the ice storm hit and the electricity disappeared, a radio announcer indicated that my office was receiving blankets to assist one of the outlying areas. Within minutes of the announcement a car pulled up in front of my office and a lady walked in with a blanket she had in her trunk. She wanted to do something.

This story repeated itself over and over. In a matter of three and a half days or so we had in excess of 23 trucks, vans and car loads of contributions from people throughout the community who wanted to help those in need. They filled my small office on Booth Street. In excess of 250 volunteers phoned my office from eight o'clock in the morning until eight o'clock at night to give their names. They wanted to assist.

Those are the people I want to thank. They made a difference in our community, in our regions and in our country. This is what I call a true Canadian. The devastation ranged in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I said to myself that it would take months and months before all the poles would be repaired and electricity restored.

I have seen devastation in other countries. I know the time and effort it takes to reconstruct damage done by man or by nature. I was extremely proud of the speed and the way in which individuals in different departments and at different levels of government came together to respond to the needs of the people and to reconnect the electricity in our region and in other regions across the country. This made me proud of the country and the people who live here.

Rather than talking about the ice storms and what nature has done we should be celebrating the fact that in times of crisis Canadians have passed the test and communities have come together to make it happen.

I want to thank some individuals such as the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. He did an exemplary job in pulling his people together. He tried to do everything he could, day in and day out, to make it easier for the people of his riding.

In my constituency of Ottawa Centre there were problems. Our electricity was restored in a few days. My heart went out to the people living in the outskirts. Some of them are still suffering the consequences of the ice storm and lack of electricity.

In closing, I thank my staff, Liz Johnston, Tim Sen, Paula Franco, Alison Deakin and Shari Duffin. They are ordinary people who have done extraordinary things during a time of crisis in my constituency. They manned the office seven days a week to assist people in my constituency, in the city and in the outskirts of our region. I thank them publicly.

I also thank every person who made a difference, in particular Mr. Bob Chiarelli and his staff, the people at the region, the municipalities, the Ottawa police, other police forces, hydro workers and our neighbours to the south, the Americans. At the time when they had a crisis in New York State it was moving to see them coming here to give a hand to people in eastern Canada, Quebec and eastern Ontario. I thank them publicly for their assistance as a neighbour in time of crisis.

I am proud to be a Canadian and I am proud to live in and to represent such a wonderful community.

[Ice Storm, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the ice storm brought out the best in people.

On Monday, January 12, just a few minutes after hearing an announcement on the radio, a woman stopped by my constituency office to donate some extra blankets she was carrying in the trunk of her car.

After watching on television the damage caused by the storm, a Quebec City grandmother decided to do something. She sent her granddaughter, who lives in Ottawa, a cheque to buy baby food and items for a shelter in eastern Ontario.

These are but two examples of the generosity displayed by Canadians. In this difficult period, Canadians showed total and absolute dedication toward one another. This is why Canada is said to be the best country in the world.

On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to thank the residents of Ottawa-Carleton for supporting their neighbours, and I congratulate people from all over the country for demonstrating what it really means to be Canadian.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what planet my colleague is living on. In fact, he has forgotten that in a matter of three years this government has been able to win the war on the deficit and to balance its books. We came out of a devastating recession. We came out of a situation that was beyond control.

Before we decide to take every single penny of surplus and dump it in across the board tax relief for what he calls Canadians, I wonder whether he is advocating this tax cut relief be given, for example, to someone who makes $500,000 or whether it should be given to somebody who makes $30,000. Is he really advocating across the board tax relief without having a balanced approach to say if John Smith or ABC Canada Inc. or whoever is making enough money, they do not need the tax relief? These are the people who can make it on their own.

I do not understand how he can stand up without blushing and call for tax cuts across the board when what this government is doing is providing incentives, proper programs, proper dividends and proper assistance for people who need the assistance.

He cannot just say that the government has not done anything to help people like Mrs. Lee. As a result of this government policy Mrs. Lee and many others like her across the country have been able to save. For example, on a house with a $100,000 mortgage they could save over $3,000 a year. That dividend is a result of what the government has done. That came as a result of what this government has done in terms of proper fiscal management of the nation as a whole.

Sometimes I wonder about that kind of poison coated statement that comes from some of my colleagues on the other side of the House when they talk about special interest programs. I believe it is their objective to eradicate every single grant that is given to special interest groups. Mrs. Lee, her husband and her children fall under those special interest groups. These are the kinds of groups, organizations and individuals who benefit from what they define as special grants or special interest groups.

They want to eradicate every single grant for every single special interest group because they probably call women a special interest group. They call organizations for the disabled special interest groups. They call groups that are multicultural organizations special interest groups and they paint everybody with the same brush and they want to cut grants all across the board.

My colleague should stand up within the next 30 seconds or so and congratulate the government on the excellent job it has done in trying to strike a balance between controlling the deficit, reducing the debt and ensuring that Canadians get the net dividend out of its proper fiscal responsibility. Would he stand up and congratulate the government right now?

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from the NDP while she was speaking about having a full employment strategy. The first thing that came to my mind is that government in general does not really create jobs. It in itself does not go out and hire everyone to work on the government payrolls. However the government creates a proper environment for job creation because the real engine of job creation is the private sector.

Frankly my head somehow was boiling and spinning at the same time. The member wants the government to stop fighting the mythical phantom of high inflation and to stop being obsessed with inflation. She thought that the government should have a full employment policy.

Suppose that inflation went above 3% or 4% and there was a downturn in the economy in two or three years and we begin to have the same problems we had in the 1980s of a high deficit, high debt loads, high inflation and high interest rates, is the member proposing that the government should hire all those people and put them on the public payroll?

I also want to say to my colleague that it is extremely important to put things into perspective. All of the economic indicators she is talking about are fair game. However, there are certain indicators that I as a member of Parliament totally disagree with.

For example, here in Canada we had a deficit. I want to congratulate the government for winning the war on the deficit. We used criteria that are very much different from the criteria being used by OECD members around the world.

When we talk about assets in Canada and somebody from the auditor general's office says that we have $50 billion in assets, in my view, Canadian assets are really in excess of $150 billion taking into consideration crown corporations and everything else the government owns in Canada.

We have to put things into perspective when we talk about shrinking wealth and economic indicators when comparing them with other countries around the world.

If the private sector does not really create the jobs she is asking for and the private sector is not meeting the target she is setting, is the member proposing that the government hire all those people who were not hired by the private sector?