Mac Harb

[Uranium, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have taken vigorous action on this issue. Back in March 1994 we initiated consultations with the United States on this issue. Our motives are to ensure that the export of Russian uranium to the United States does not unfairly discriminate against uranium exports to the United States. We were given assurances by the Americans that would not be the case.

Throughout it all we have worked closely with the industry in Canada. We are pleased to report that the outcome was a very positive one. We will continue to monitor the situation very closely. It is our hope that it will be an open and fair market for all concerned.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the hon. member. He was raving on about doom and gloom and negative things. I did not hear him speak at any time of the positive things this government has done since taking power.

I did not hear him talk about the fact that Canada for the first time in 10 years has led the industrialized world in terms of economic growth. I did not hear the hon. member talk about the fact that in a matter of one year and four months this government has created more jobs than the previous government did over a period of 10 years.

I did not hear the hon. member talk about all the progressive initiatives this government is taking in terms of embarking on major reforms, the foreign policy reforms, the social program reforms, the tax reforms. There are all of the major initiatives the government has taken on in order to look at the kinds of programs the federal government is suited to offer versus the provincial governments.

I did not hear the member talk about the infrastructure program this government has put in place. Municipalities from coast to coast have endorsed it and have spoken positively about it. People have seen positive things coming out of it.

I also did not hear the member congratulate the government on the fact that for the first time in a matter of 10 years this government will meet its deficit goals.

The business community is fed up with this negativism. The business community tells us day in and day out that it wants positive talk. It wants us to stop talking negatively. When will my colleagues in the Reform Party stop talking about the doom and gloom?

I will read a quote from a newspaper in Alberta where some of my colleagues were elected. The February 7 Edmonton Journal talks about the tax revolt which is being led by the Reform Party and states: "That is why the tax revolt incited by Manning and played out by the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation has the reek of raw manipulation about it. It is a classic case of setting up a straw man, knocking it over and savouring the victory. Instead of-

[Supply, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am not able to associate with this picture by my colleagues in the Reform Party. Day in and day out they try to paint this as a sinking country that one cannot live in and that has so many things wrong with it.

For the third time in a row the United Nations has clearly stated that Canada is the best country in the world in which to live and raise a family. Twenty years ago when I came to this country I knew Canada was the finest and best country in the world. I say that over and over again.

I do not understand what is wrong with my colleague. Perhaps we should establish a fund for our colleagues in the Reform Party to send them abroad to look at the world. When they come back to Canada, maybe then they will start talking about the positive things that exist here. Then they could truly appreciate all of the good things we have and will come to the conclusion that we have to work collectively in order to make it even better.

This negativity day in and day out, the doom and gloom is not serving anybody. It is not serving the interests of Canada. Business people have told us over and over again: "Give us the tools and we will make it happen". Government has to provide a proper environment in order for business to create jobs and we are doing that.

Economic indicators by all agencies, whether from Canada or abroad, whoever we talk to, all of the economists agree that Canada and this government is going in the proper, right direction. We are leading the other industrialized countries in terms of growth. According to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister we are way over what we have forecast in terms of economic growth.

What is wrong? In terms of what the government is spending annually versus what we are getting in terms of revenue, we are in a surplus position. However, we have a debt and interest to pay on it.

For my colleague to turn around and attack the government for its track record is unfair. He should stand up and congratulate this government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, every member of the cabinet and government for a job very well done. That is what he should do. Stop the doom and gloom. Talk about the positive. Smell the roses. Have some coffee. Maybe he would wake up.

[Pictou Landing Indian Agreement Act, December 12th, 1994]

That is an excellent suggestion, Madam Speaker.

[Questions On The Order Paper, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.

[Government Response To Petitions, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 19 petitions.

[Human Rights, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the hon. member for raising this very importance issue. I want to assure him that the Canadian government has raised the issue on several occasions, not only with the Vietnamese government, with whom we have had further talks, but also with various organizations such as the United Nations.

I have noted his question and will get back to him as soon as possible, on this specific case.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government has stated that the new tariff rate quota regime for agricultural products will include provisions for supplementary imports for various purposes. All stakeholders in the supply managed areas have agreed such access is necessary. However, legimitate questions have been raised as to the terms on which access for the specific purpose of preventing a market shortage should be allowed.

On the one hand, it is said that processors are increasingly able to control the level of production, especially in the poultry sectors, and so can artificially create a market shortage if they know they have guaranteed access to supplementary imports in such cases. Since this would reduce returns to primary producers, some argue there should be a higher duty on such supplemental imports than the one provided for within the tariff rate quota, so as to discourage such behaviour.

On the other hand, poultry and egg processors argue that they must guarantee price and supply to their costumers if they are not to lose contracts. They point out that their industries-including producers-face competition from other food products, and irregularities of price or supply will cost everyone market share.

There are also many misunderstandings about what is involved in the supplementary access scheme envisaged in Bill C-57. Perhaps I can dispel some of them.

First, current and prospective provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act enable supplementary imports but do not impose them. The government has no intention of letting in additional quantities at duty rates below the "high" MFN rate where this would be against the Canadian interest.

Second, imports for market shortages are not "within access commitment" under the proposed legislation, and will not result in permanent increases in market access. On the contrary, such imports are and will be let in at the discretion of the government.

Third, nothing in Bill C-57 prevents the government from examining the issue and introducing new rules.

In fact, Bill C-57 basically rolls the current system of supplementary access over in order to furnish an immediate means of allowing supplementary imports for a variety of reasons, including enhancing export competitiveness.

Finally, the situation calls for careful analysis and broad consultation. Should the government determine that additional duties on supplementary imports of supply managed products are advisable, we will take all appropriate measures to institute such a system, including legislation, if necessary. However, changing Bill C-57 to effect this would short-circuit the consultative process, and is not in the government's plans.

[Justice, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on November 16, 1992 I had the honour of introducing in the House two very important bills. Bill C-365 considered crossbows dangerous weapons and recommended that they be prohibited. Bill C-366 sought to prohibit the sale and use of replica guns that might be mistaken as a real weapon and used in crime.

These bills came about as the result of major crimes in our community. On behalf of the victims of these crimes, in particular Patricia Allen's family and friends, I want to congratulate the Minister of Justice in committing this government to taking action on the banning of these two items.

The people in my community are solidly behind the minister's bold, progressive and dynamic approach to addressing the issues of crime and community safety.

I would also like to take a moment to thank my former staff member, Mike Bonser, who worked very hard on these two bills, and my current staff for their continued support and hard work. As members know, an MP without staff is like a bird without wings. I thank all MPs' staff for making our job a lot easier.

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the hon. member did not answer my colleague's questions. We have put forth a proposal through the Minister of Human Resources Development, to receive feedback from the public. We would like to know what the Bloc has to suggest.