Mac Harb

[Petitions, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by constituents in the national capital region calling on this House to declare Canada indivisible.

[China, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to stress the innovative and effective approach used by our Prime Minister to promote human rights, during his recent visit to China.

It is important to know that Asian countries are very sensitive to anything they perceive as a form of interference in their domestic affairs. Far from avoiding his responsibilities, our Prime Minister chose to raise the issue from the angle of "good government and the rule of law". Any society which, like China, is beginning to open itself to the world, soon realizes the importance of conforming to a number of universal rules.

Our Prime Minister used wisdom and intelligence to get his message across to his Chinese hosts. We are convinced that this approach will help increase China's awareness of the international values we endorse.

[Petitions, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition signed by many constituents throughout the national capital region calling on the government to remove the 7 per cent GST on books. I understand the government has taken action in this area, but the people who signed the petition want it to go further.

[Transit Strike, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the national capital region is under the threat of a bus strike. Yesterday a federal mediator was called in for marathon talks between OC Transpo and its management.

There has been some progress. However, there is still much work to be done. As the deadline approaches it is our responsibility to ensure that a fair and equitable solution is found and a strike is averted.

I consider the public transportation system to be an essential service. I believe that we should look at measures where strikes and lockouts would not be necessary in this area and where in the future arbitrations become the norm.

The negotiations over the next three days are crucial. OC Transpo employees, taxpayers and people in the Ottawa-Carleton region look forward to a quick and fair settlement. My staff hopes to take the bus to work Monday morning.

[National Child Day, November 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today is National Child Day. It is a day to recognize the importance of children in our lives and to celebrate their accomplishments.

This morning I had the honour of presenting the "You Made a Difference" award to four distinguished youths who unselfishly risked their lives to save the lives of others. Mark Zuccala, Mike Nicolitsis and Kevin Albert were recognized for rescuing three young children trapped in an automobile. Another true hero, six-year old Christopher Ings sustained injuries himself as he attempted to protect these small children with his own little body.

The actions of these kids is truly remarkable. On behalf of my colleagues I would like to thank and congratulate them on a job very well done.

I would also like to thank Janis Machin and Bernard Muzeen of Our Kids Foundation who played a key role in establishing National Child Day and who continue to work tirelessly on behalf of Canada's children.

I invite all Canadians to join in celebrating National Child Day. Please make it a very special and memorable day. And for those who are celebrating their birthday today, Happy Birthday.

[Competition Act, October 22nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Nickel Belt on his excellent initiative. This is an issue that I have been involved with for over eight years now. This issue has received a lot of attention both in terms of public attention and attention in this House. A number of members have raised this issue on a number of occasions. I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has pushed forward the agenda on this subject matter.

The idea is an excellent one. It is not a question of whether there is a need for whistleblower legislation when it comes to gasoline pricing in Canada but a question of when and how fast we can introduce such legislation.

I have had a chance to look at the proposal of the hon. member for Nickel Belt and I must admit that on the surface it seems that a lot of adjustments would be required for his proposal to be effective. However, to reject it out of hand would be unfair. I suggest that the fair thing for us to do would be to allow this proposal to go to committee. At committee, if members of any party have suggestions or amendments which they would like to make, that would be the appropriate time to do that.

I do not think it is fair to reject it out of hand because the people of Canada have asked us to take action on this issue. They want a system which is transparent, just and fair. They want a system whereby if someone sees a wrong or a mishap in the industry, that person will be able to come forward with the information without the fear of prosecution, peer pressure or employer pressure.

The Minister of Industry and his department have done an excellent job. After eight years of pushing and shoving, finally we have a government that is very responsive. It is responding to a request by the people. The department has taken action on this issue and there is an inquiry under way.

I want to commend the minister for his leadership, as well as the people who are working on the inquiry, without commenting on the proceedings of the inquiry. It is an excellent beginning. It is my hope that in the near future the inquiry will produce a set of recommendations and the government, as has been promised by departmental officials, will complete its review of the Competition Act and will introduce measures similar to those introduced by my colleague from Nickel Belt so that we can once and for all return some justice to the system.

There is price fixing across the country. Sometimes it is sporadic but sometimes it is properly orchestrated and organized. I have said this over and over again and I will continue to say it.

For us as a government to be able to get to the bottom of it, we have to implement provisions to protect people who have information. We do not only have to protect employees, as my colleague has proposed, but also employers, independent retailers, people who have outlets on consignment and anybody who has information about price fixing. They should be able to come forward with that information without fear. Unfortunately within the present system it is extremely difficult for someone to come forward with information because they are afraid for their lives. They are afraid for their jobs. They are afraid that their supply might be cut off.

My colleague from Saint-Denis told me about a difficulty which exists in the province of Quebec.

There have often been fierce battles in the oil industry. People from various parts of Quebec have mentioned the incredible pressures that were felt when an oil company decided to sell its gas below cost. This is really running roughshod over the competition. It was incredible. Such procedures also violate the Competition Act.

There are unfortunate things happening. Certain companies and individuals know there are loopholes in the act and they can drive camels through them in some cases. They have studied the act and they know it inside and out.

In fairness to consumers, retailers and everyone, we have to come up with something which is fair and square and which will ensure transparency in the system. I would say it is fair to have legislation with a provision for people to come forward with information without fear.

I want to commend the department for taking the initiative to introduce the 1-800 line, an excellent initiative. I want to congratulate the department for taking the initiative in terms of the inquiry. I also want to congratulate the department for reviewing the act, which it is presently doing. That is excellent.

It would be fair to send the initiative proposed by my colleague to committee. There should be a provision within the committee to look at it. If the government comes forward with a proposal a month or two from now, my colleague may very well combine his initiative with what the government is trying to do.

In private discussions I had with him on a number of occasions he clearly stated that his intention was to see something happen because his constituents were demanding action. I join with him although I have a number of concerns. For example, retailers are not mentioned.

Discrimination also takes place against independent retailers, retailers on consignment or other individuals in the community who may have information. I discussed those concerns with my colleague and he was open to an amendment to his proposal. He was also open to allowing the government to make his recommendations part of a government proposal. That would be wonderful.

There is another element which is not addressed in this proposal, the relationship between oil suppliers and retailers. The relationship between the supplier and the retailer is not properly defined in the act and it must be. Unless we define the relationship between the supplier and the retailer we will find an undue influence.

Consider that a supplier of gasoline that owns company a sells to an individual who also sells gasoline from the same supplier. That particular supplier can influence the price of gasoline through his outlet and force the other person who is buying his gasoline to set their prices as per company a . It is a complicated issue to explain in the House but the bottom line is that it is time to pass this bill to committee.

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my colleague in the Reform Party said. He went out of his way to make the point that he is very unhappy that the government is making cuts in certain areas, such as in the defence sector and in some other sectors in his province.

I want to go on the record as saying that the area which I represent, the national capital region, has seen its share of cuts. Many of my colleagues have experienced cuts in their ridings. The government has been downsized by approximately 45,000 public servants. Agencies and crown corporations have been shrinking on a regular basis.

I share my colleague's concerns, however, it is a fact of life. The government takes no pleasure in making the cuts. It does not want to see people on the street. The cuts were part of an overall strategy

to stimulate the economy, to streamline services across the country and to eliminate duplication of services.

I am sure my colleague will agree with me that the government has done a bang on job of ensuring that inflation is at an all time low. It is the lowest it has been in 20 years. Canadian interest rates are lower than those in the United States. Also, in a matter of three years the deficit has decreased by approximately $12 billion. That is something of which my colleague should be taking note. He should be congratulating the government on a job well done.

With respect to job creation, the government should not be satisfied until the last person who is seeking a job finds a job. However, I am sure he would agree with me that the record on that front is excellent.

We cannot have the syndrome of "not in my backyard". Last week Reform members were on their feet attacking the government on the Newfoundland issue. They were trying to pit one government against another. This week they are trying to pit the government of British Columbia against the federal government.

Reform members are here day in and day out calling on the government to introduce cuts. When the government takes action they turn around and say: "Yes, but not in my backyard". I want to tell my colleagues that they cannot sneeze and breathe at the same time.

Why would the hon. member not tell the government that it is doing a great job in handling the economy and in dealing with complicated, cumbersome issues?

The hon. member is condemning the government for some of its actions, one of which has to do with the movement of grain to Prince Rupert, B.C. When the vote was taken in the House of Commons my colleagues in the Reform Party were not out in full force trying to defend the interests of the farmers. In fact, only 11 Reform members showed up for that vote.

[Petitions, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions on one issue signed by individuals in the national capital region and particularly in my riding of Ottawa Centre.

The petitioners call on Parliament to enact Bill C-205 to ensure that criminals do not profit financially from selling their stories of crimes committed.

[Income Tax Act, September 30th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-331, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, (tax credit for mental or physical impairment).

Mr. Speaker, this bill would ensure that a taxpayer who has a physical or mental impairment that prevents him or her from performing housekeeping activities at his or her place of residence would be entitled to a tax credit under section 118.2 of the Income Tax Act for a portion of the remuneration paid to another person by the taxpayer for performing those activities.

Such tax credits would apply particularly to senior citizens provided that they establish through a medical certificate that they are incapable of performing housekeeping activities. Apart from some pay for the performance of housekeeping activities, the taxpayer would also be entitled to a tax credit for physical or mental impairment under section 118.3 of the act.

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

[Income Tax Act, September 30th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-330, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (donors to food banks).

Mr. Speaker, this bill would permit the donation of food to a food bank to be treated as a charitable gift, notwithstanding that the value of the food has already been deducted as a business expense of the donor.

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