EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 126
CONTENTS
Friday, September 25, 1998
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-35. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
1005
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1010
1015
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WATERLOO SAFE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YEAR 2000 PROBLEM
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1100
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GRANDPARENTS' RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIA RAIL CONDUCTORS
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STRATFORD FESTIVAL
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUTUMN IN RENFREW—NIPISSING—PEMBROKE
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC'S JOURNÉES DE LA CULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1105
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA'S 150TH ANNIVERSARY
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNEMPLOYMENT IN NEWFOUNDLAND
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1110
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESIDENT OF SOUTH AFRICA
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 1999 MARCH 21 ANTI-RACISM CAMPAIGN
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1115
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1120
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1125
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1130
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1135
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1140
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1145
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1150
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1155
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1200
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments during Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1205
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sexual Offenders
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pedophiles
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sri Chinmoy Peace Blossoms Project
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Natural Herbal Supplements
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Firearms Act
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
1210
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Age of Consent
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-35. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1215
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1300
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1305
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1320
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1335
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA STUDENT LOANS
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
1350
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1355
1400
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-3—Notice of time allocation
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1405
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN STUDENT LOANS
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1410
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
1415
1420
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1425
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1430
1435
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1440
1445
![V](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 126
![](/web/20061116191216im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, September 25, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES ACT
Hon. Diane Marleau (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import Measures
Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
1005
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, today it is certainly a
privilege for me to begin debate on Bill C-35.
Essentially this bill contains amendments to Canada's
anti-dumping and countervailing duty law, known as the Special
Import Measures Act, or SIMA. It responds directly to the
recommendations contained in a 1996 parliamentary report on
Canada's trade remedy system.
These amendments will fine-tune the law by rationalizing the
investigative process, increasing transparency and procedural
fairness, and in fact enhancing the system's ability to consider
representations from various segments of Canadian business.
The bill also includes certain technical changes that clarify
existing provisions and practices under SIMA and the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal Act.
SIMA is an important component of Canada's trade remedy
legislation. It authorizes the federal government to impose
anti-dumping and countervailing duties to offset injury to
domestic firms caused by foreign dumping and subsidies. In this
regard it implements Canada's rights and obligations under the
World Trade Organization agreements on subsidies and
anti-dumping.
Two federal government departments and one independent tribunal
are directly involved under SIMA. As actions taken under SIMA
result in the imposition of duties on imported goods, the
Minister of Finance is responsible for the legislation.
Revenue Canada and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal
share responsibility for investigations under the law and Revenue
Canada enforces anti-dumping and countervailing duties at the
border.
With respect to international implications and negotiations, it
is foreign affairs and finance which work together on trade
remedy policy to co-ordinate Canada's import and export interests
and develop our international trade negotiating positions.
Before discussing the merits of Bill C-35, I would like to
provide some background as to why these amendments are being
proposed.
Canada has a long history in the use of trade remedies. In fact
in 1904 Canada introduced the world's first anti-dumping
legislation.
Since then our trade remedy system has undergone various
refinements due to changing economic conditions and the evolution
of international trade rules. These international rules are
governed by the World Trade Organization, or the WTO, which sets
out detailed rights and obligations of member countries in
administering trade and remedy protection.
As the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing duties
represents an exception from a country's WTO commitments not to
raise tariffs and not to discriminate in its treatment of
imports, the right to impose these special duties is carefully
circumscribed.
In general, the Canadian SIMA system is comparable to the
systems of other major users such as the United States and the
European Union. The WTO does, however, provide some latitude in
the administration of trade remedy laws. As a result, there are
some variations between systems, largely reflecting differing
legal cultures and economic circumstances.
There are, of course, important domestic interests on both sides
of the trade remedies equation.
One of the key challenges associated with the Special Import
Measures Act was to strike the right balance between the
interests of industries seeking trade remedy action and the
interests of consumers and other manufacturers who may be
negatively affected by the imposition of anti-dumping or
countervailing duties on imported goods.
1010
First and foremost, this law is intended to assist Canadian
enterprises by offsetting the injurious economic effects
resulting from dumping or underpricing practices of foreign
exporters, or in the case of subsidies, to remedy the injurious
effects of the subsidy practices of foreign governments.
However, the downstream economic interests cannot be ignored.
As markets operate increasingly on a global basis, market
openness becomes a critical factor in attracting investment and
maintaining the competitiveness of our domestic firms.
Canadian manufacturers often have to rely on imported inputs,
for example, to meet specific quality and technical needs of
their customers.
According to the OECD, the operations of Canadian manufacturers
rely more on imported inputs than their G-7 counterparts in the
U.S., France, Germany, Japan and the U.K. This reflects the
relatively smaller size of the Canadian economy, as well as its
high level of integration with the United States.
Given this, SIMA must represent a balancing act. It must
provide effective relief to Canadian firms injured by foreign
dumping or subsidies while not imposing unnecessary or excessive
burden on downstream producers or consumers. This was the key
challenge for lawmakers when SIMA was first developed in 1984 and
it certainly remains the challenge today.
When the Minister of Finance requested the House of Commons
Standing Committees on Finance and Foreign Affairs and
International Trade to jointly review SIMA in 1996, he noted that
significant changes had taken place in the global trading
environment since 1984 and that it was time to reassess whether
the law continued to reflect the interests of Canadian producers.
Two subcommittees were asked to undertake this review. They
heard from a broad range of interests, including domestic
producers, importers, retailers, academics, trade practitioners
and government officials. These parties gave evidence and
submitted proposals for changes based on their experience with
the SIMA system.
It was based on these submissions and their deliberations that
the subcommittees concluded in their report that Canada's trade
remedy system under SIMA continues to respond to the needs of
Canadian producers that seek protection under the law, while
affording downstream producers and consumers an opportunity to
have their interests considered.
They also identified areas where improvements could be made to
the system to make it more efficient and more responsive to
Canada's economic needs.
Generally, the recommendations represented adjustments to the
SIMA investigation process that allow the system to more
adequately consider the views of various parties which have a
stake in this law.
I want to be clear that it was for this reason that the
government supported virtually all of the subcommittees'
recommendations. What we have before us today is Bill C-35,
which essentially reflects the subcommittees' recommendations and
the requirement that the subcommittees put forward in asking the
government to review these recommendations and build them into
legislation.
There are key changes in Bill C-35, the first being the
rationalization of investigative functions of Revenue Canada and
the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to better reflect their
respective areas of expertise.
The second would enhance procedural fairness and transparency by
bringing Revenue Canada's treatment of confidential information
more in line with the tribunal's practice respecting the
disclosure of confidential information.
The third would ensure that the tribunal, in its fact finding,
would benefit more fully from expert evidence by permitting
expert witnesses to play a more effective role in tribunal
inquiries.
The fourth would establish new penalty provisions to deter any
unauthorized disclosure or misuse of confidential information by
legal counsel or expert witnesses in the context of SIMA
investigations.
1015
The fifth would improve the provisions which allow the Deputy
Minister of National Revenue to accept an undertaking from
exporters to raise prices as an alternative to the imposition of
anti-dumping duties and to ensure that all interested persons
are afforded an opportunity to provide views when undertakings
are being considered.
The sixth would require the tribunal to cumulate the injurious
effects of dumping or subsidizing from more than one country
consistent with the single price effect in the Canadian market of
such practices.
The final change would clarify the conditions under which the
tribunal can consider issues of broader public interest and the
types of measures it may recommend in a public interest report.
The discussions that took place in the recent parliamentary
review of SIMA reflected the changes that have taken place in the
structure of the Canadian economy since the law was established
in 1984. These changes will ensure that the Special Import
Measures Act remains a strong trade instrument which truly
protects Canadian producers injured by dumped or subsidized
imports, while at the same time allowing an opportunity for other
producers and consumers to have their interests considered.
It certainly introduces important changes to Canada's trade
remedy system which take account of the interests of all
stakeholders. It is for the reasons that I have outlined that I
would urge all of my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is unfortunate that the official opposition has to
look at the existing trade world and support Bill C-35, updating
the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International
Trade Tribunal Act, although we believe that this government
needs to give much greater and earlier consideration to the
impact on Canadian consumers when it is weighing the merits of
imposing countervailing duties.
After all, the first principle of government is to protect the
well-being of its Canadian citizens, which to me includes
law-abiding Canadian companies.
Why do I say unfortunate?
As long ago as 1904 Canada developed the world's first
anti-dumping legislation. Over the years since then Canada has
evolved into one of the world's leading trading nations. Canada's
trade legislation has been changed many times, including changes
to the Special Import Measures Act, or SIMA, needed to implement
the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay round of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT.
But after those piecemeal changes there has been no overall
public review of the legislation to ensure that it still serves
the needs of Canadian businesses and industry, as well as the
needs of the Canadian consumer.
It has been a couple of years since the finance minister asked
two standing committees of this House, namely the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and also the
Standing Committee on Finance, to review the Special Import
Measures Act and make recommendations to the government regarding
any changes needed.
Although this was not my critic area during this period of time,
I understand that fairly extensive joint hearings were held by
subcommittees of both groups, which reported back to their
committees. The government has now acted on the committees'
recommendations by bringing forward the legislation before us,
namely Bill C-35.
Some of the major interested parties which attended the hearings
of the subcommittees were representatives of the steel industry,
which has recently been subjected to major dumping by steel
producers outside North America.
At a time when large parts of the world are suffering major
economic reversals, we can expect many nations to export whatever
commodities they can, including steel, and to sell to countries
like Canada and the U.S.A. in a desperate attempt to prop up
their sagging economies at home.
During the subcommittees' hearings Canadian steel producers
wanted the Canadian government to get tough with American
producers. It is certainly within the power of the Canadian
government to do so.
It could make it more difficult and costly for U.S. importers to
meet SIMA demands and it could get the Canadian international
trade tribunal to find in favour more often of Canadian firms for
example through making new rules or changing the emphasis and the
interpretation of the existing rules.
1020
The question has to be raised as to who will benefit and who
will be hurt. If Canada moves toward tougher laws and stronger
restrictions on international trade versus easing restrictions
and working toward not only so-called free trade but, more
important, fair trade , nobody can be certain which way our major
trading partners will jump if Canada starts getting tougher with
anti-dumping and anti-subsidy laws. Would legislators be likely
to recognize how counterproductive such measures could be? Or
would they, as appears to be happening today with the American
states of Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota and Minnesota,
see such actions as an excuse to retaliate against this or that
sector of the nearly $1 billion per day of trade between our two
countries?
Given that Canada is more dependent on exports than the U.S.A.
it could be foolhardy to try to find out, creating what would
amount to a head on collision between a logging truck and a
motorcycle. I do not need to spell out to my colleagues in the
House which vehicle would represent Canada or the relative
amounts of damage which Canada and U.S. economies could suffer.
I am not an economist but I am very definitely a free trader. In
the long run I believe it would be very effective to identify
downstream U.S. users of Canadian imports to identify who gets
hurt by U.S. anti-dumping and subsidy legislation. Let us take
for example the softwood lumber deal which was instrumental in
raising U.S. housing prices. The problem is that certain groups
are very well organized and can mount a much more effective U.S.
lobby effort than other groups can.
In the case of Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota and
Minnesota if lower Canadian pork and beef prices at least partly
due to our lower dollar were to save money for American consumers
it is safe to bet in the real world that the American state
governments and the American federal government would hear a lot
more quickly and a lot louder from U.S. pork producers than from
the U.S. consumer.
This situation reveals another reason why it is unfortunate that
we are here today with regard to Bill C-35. For more than a week
now state governments across the northern U.S.A. have been using
state troopers to stop transport trucks carrying live Canadian
hogs and steers to U.S. markets.
When I first came to parliament in 1993 in my riding of
Okanagan—Shuswap there were to the best of my recollection about
five commercial hog producers around the community of Lumby
alone. Today I am sad to say the last one is closing.
Recently television reporters have been pretty well making a
joke out of the fact that hog growers in the province of Quebec
are so desperate that they blockaded Highway 20 between Quebec
City and Montreal with hay and a number of pigs in an effort to
call attention to their plight and to get some help from their
provincial government.
From the Fraser Valley in B.C. right across Canada to Quebec it
is no light decision, it is no small or laughing matter when pork
producers are shut down. For one thing these folks are not just
a bunch of good old boys in bib overalls chewing on a stick of
hay. Today's commercial hog barns involve quite major capital
investments with a large size and computerized feeding and record
keeping. If you wanted to buy a couple of so-called piggies to
raise in your small family farm you could drive your pick-up
truck to one of those growers and he could take you along the
cement floor pens where each age and weight from the little
wieners right up to the finished hogs are grouped by themselves.
He could tell you from his records exactly how much feed and
other costs he has committed to each of those groups and what
price he needs from you to cover the costs and to make a little
profit.
Sadly today he can also tell you that for all his hard work he
is no longer able to make any profit. Therefore many hog
producers are bringing all those animals to market weight and
selling off their breeding stock and going out of business.
Their one hope may be to order a big transport truck, load the
live animals on board and ship them across the border into the
United States where the higher U.S. dollar might offer our
farmers some hope of saving their farms.
1025
That is going to leave Canada open to the same kind of charges.
Bill C-35 was designed to allow us to charge non-Canadian
businesses for dumping and selling the product in the country for
less than it costs to produce. Such charges are going to take
time to investigate. Meanwhile Canada's only apparent choice will
be to bring charges against the U.S.A. under dispute resolution
mechanisms of NAFTA or the World Trade Organization.
Meanwhile what is happening to all those animals and the farmers
who own them? If those closely monitored hogs are brought to
finished weight, their owners are going to have to lay out even
more cash to keep paying for feed while the dispute drags on. Now
the farmers are going to have to face bills from their transport
companies because they cannot drive a truck for free, and even
though many farmers have already achieved some virtual
integration by raising the feed for the animals, they are not
likely to own a transport truck.
One thing to be learned from the situation is that the Canadian
industry clearly has a major interest in helping U.S. consumers
get better organized. It is American consumers who could be the
major beneficiary of cheaper Canadian commodities entering the
American market, if we really do have free trade. Perhaps the
Canadian government has a role to play in helping to accurately
inform consumers both in the U.S. and in Europe. Certainly that
would not be an unfair trade practice to tell the truth about
Canadian products.
Let us look at the Canadian exports of forest products and the
nasty role played by certain so-called environmental groups
trying to destroy European markets for Canadian forest companies.
These so-called environmental groups are subsidized by the
Canadian government with tax dollars paid in part by the forest
industry and its employees. Despite our world leading expertise
by many sectors of the Canadian economy, for example, forestry,
mining, communications and aerospace, many times our federal
government can act like babes in the woods over international
trade deals. If we are going to run with the so-called big dogs,
we have to do more than just bark once in a while.
Specifically, the federal government did not look down the road
and accurately assess the implications if we stood up and
challenged the U.S.A. on the softwood lumber deal, facing the
worst case scenario and saying almost anything is likely better
than this massive bureaucratic meddling in our multibillion
softwood industry by a bunch of folks who are more at home dealing
with chicken or egg marketing boards.
Today we have literally millions of dollars in added costs for
softwood lumber producers as they have to ensure such
non-market related factors as their exports do not exceed 28%
of their entire year quota in any one quarter. This is
regardless of the fact that we can face burning hot, dry summers
like this summer where loggers were banned from the British
Columbia forests for months due to the extreme fire hazards.
Loggers can be banned from the bush for many weeks every spring
because logging roads are so soft when the frost is coming out
and the load restrictions have to be enforced. The softwood
lumber deal only applies to exports from four provinces so
producers can move a plant to a neighbouring province and not be
subject to any quota whatsoever. This is a bad deal.
In the bill before us today both the SIMA and international
trade tribunal will be amended in line with the recommendations
produced after the joint committee hearings. My colleagues in
finance and international trade heard testimony from the
departments, academics and industry.
I want to praise one important aspect in the legislation before
us today. It is the clarification of provisions on disclosing
confidential information that is revealed in the course of
investigations about dumping and subsidies and new penalties for
making wrongful use of that information. The kind of expert
testimony which could be revealed in the course of these
investigations could do major damage to the companies involved.
It is critical for the information to be protected. Trying to
determine when bad trade practices have hurt existing Canadians
producers or have prevented development of a Canadian industry
can be extremely complex.
1030
For an example, the city of Vernon where I have my riding office
used to be the site of major canners of fruits and vegetables and
also for the major production of jams and jellies. This is no
longer the case. It would certainly be a major project trying to
determine whether these industries died due to unfair
international trade or because of unfair policies created by
politicians from Ontario and Quebec who have stacked so much
federal legislation against the interests of the west.
For another such example in the Okanagan Valley of British
Columbia a lot of growers produce tree fruits. American fruit
growers are allowed to export into Canada certain fruits with
some allowable residues of pesticides which Canadian fruit
growers are not allowed to use at all. Is that a fair trade
practice? I do not think so. The tree fruit growers tell me
nothing is being done to help them. Should they blame the
growers in the U.S.A. or should they blame Ottawa? I do not have
too much doubt as to who they should be blaming.
Both the provincial and federal governments are now being
pressed to provide subsidies to B.C. tree fruit growers. Instead
many of their problems are due to bad policies made right here in
Ottawa.
Let us take another example of the pinewood nematode. It is a
little bug that lives in Canadian softwood and can be carried
between trees by beetles. Our climate is such that this pinewood
nematode basically cannot multiply enough to kill any trees. In
the 1980s British Columbia was exporting in the vicinity of a
billion dollars worth of softwood into the European market every
year.
Suddenly several European nations, which by curious coincidence
also produced softwood lumber, decided to start demanding that
Canadian companies must kiln dry softwood lumber exported to
Europe. This added enough cost that our softwood exports to
Europe now amount to less than $200,000 per year. Every dollar
of lost exports to the European market means fewer jobs in the
Canadian forest industry.
My hon. colleagues might believe that surely plant health
constitutes reasonable grounds for making such a demand for kiln
dried softwood, and I might agree with them but for a couple of
facts. First, the Canadian forestry industry has done the
scientific investigations to prove that it is virtually
impossible for the Canadian pinewood nematode to multiply and
create any hazard in Europe.
Second, and this is the catcher, European nations import
softwood lumber green, which is to say not kiln dried, from parts
of Europe that have been infested with the European pinewood
nematode.
In my mind and according to representation from the B.C.
softwood lumber producers, this constitutes a non-tariff trade
barrier which has been in place for several years. However,
rather than going to bat for the B.C. softwood lumber industry
and pushing the complaint through the World Trade Organization,
this government took absolutely no action until this summer.
Meanwhile, British Columbia's coastal lumber manufacturers, who
have been the hardest hit in all of this by the recent economic
downturn in Asia, are seeing layoffs that run as high as 50% of
the forestry workforce in coastal communities. When one combines
those forestry layoffs with the destruction of the west coast
fishing industry, also due mainly to the politics of this
government which has done such outrageous things as close fish
hatcheries inland in British Columbia, including one in my
riding, while the American state of Alaska in particular has
strongly supported and expanded its hatcheries, we have an entire
region, west coast, which today is experiencing a major
recession.
I sometimes have to wonder where the thought process is when we
start doing things like this. Does anybody here in Ottawa care
that B.C. is in a recession? Does anybody here even know? Since
parliament began sitting again this week where is the legislation
this government has brought forward to assist British
Columbia in its time of need?
Have my hon. colleagues seen a piece of legislation that I
missed? No.
1035
I believe it is totally irresponsible for the government to
allow the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates to prop up our
sagging dollar while B.C. is already in a recession rather than
bite the bullet, cut taxes and pay down our enormous federal
debt. Instead, just like the APEC scandal, the Prime Minister
washes his hands or again blames somebody else.
Is the government responsible for setting fiscal policy? Of
course it is, just like it is responsible for setting defence
policy, for setting trade policy to be enacted through such
legislation as we have here before us today. Instead the Prime
Minister shrugs the responsibility off on to the governor of the
bank.
The crazy reality of international trade in Canada today is that
we must have legislation setting out the rules and procedures for
anti-dumping and countervailing duty action. We have to maintain
federal departments which are supposed to determine when another
country has a subsidy that does an injury to a Canadian company.
If politicians and bureaucrats here in Ottawa were to look out
into the real world they might recognize that this entire
exercise, including Bill C-35, is almost like a sick little joke.
What is an unfair trade practice? Which is an injury to a
Canadian business? When is a subsidy a subsidy and when is it
not a subsidy? Is it a subsidy when American business can
purchase gasoline for a trucking fleet at about half the cost of
Canadian business? Is it a subsidy when an American business can
pay its employees less but have the employees end up with
significantly more take home pay for several reasons, including
that Canadians pay the highest personal income tax in the entire
G-7 and that the policies of the Liberal government, added to the
policies of the Mulroney government, have seen the value of the
Canadian dollar falling against virtually all other major
currencies in the world for many years? Is that a subsidy?
Is it a subsidy when an American business does not have to hire
an extra accountant or an extra secretary to complete the GST
returns or to handle the extra mountain of paperwork which is
required by the unbelievable red tape that federal and provincial
governments impose on anybody brave enough or foolhardy enough to
try to operate a business in Canada today?
Is it a subsidy when a mining company can know who is going to
be its landlord for a given property in the U.S.A. but in British
Columbia especially the federal government still has not
successfully completed even one modern land claim? Is it a
subsidy that investors in British Columbia do not know who their
landlord may or may not be because Ottawa cannot get land claims
settled? Is that a form of a subsidy?
Is it a subsidy when an American company can pay its employees
in American dollars whereas Canadian companies pay our employees
in Canadian dollars? I have to wonder about that.
I can well remember when the Canadian dollar was valued well
above the U.S. dollar. Canada still has great natural resource
riches. We still have an educated and willing workforce. The
trouble is Canada now has suffered for many years under federal
governments which believe they can spend us, using our own money,
to riches rather than recognizing that we have a federal debt to
GDP ratio that is second only to Italy among the G-7 nations.
Is it a subsidy when an American company pays its employees in
American dollars? It is a serious question, because Canada's
high tech industries in particular, whose trained personnel may
account for a majority of their capital, are finding it nearly
impossible to get and to keep the well trained employees which
are their single greatest assets right here in Canada. Is it a
subsidy? We train them, they get them.
Instead of facing that basic economic problem I have received
letters from high tech companies in Canada which now want the
federal government to increase grants and subsidies to help our
companies pay for the costs of research and development.
They are struggling to survive, and this government can only
treat the symptoms of an illness that threatens their very lives.
1040
The policies of this government and the Mulroney government
before it have raised our taxes so high and dropped our dollar so
low that I understand both the current Prime Minister and his
predecessor have been named business people of the year by
several American states. The two of them together have instituted
and followed policies which are hammering the last few nails into
the coffins of many Canadian companies.
Let us just look at my own personal field of mining. Canada is
losing market share of worldwide mining investments. Is it
unfair trade practices that account for that harm being done to
Canadian mining companies?
For example, I have been alerted that the state of Alaska
has asked the American government to request a hearing by the
International Joint Commission, or IJC, of the Tulsequah chief
mining project being advanced by the Canadian company Redfern
Resources.
This is a project which has passed multimillion dollar
environmental assessments by both the federal government and the
Government of British Columbia. If Ottawa agrees to ignore our
own provincial and federal hearings in which the state of
Alaska—and I want to make it clear that the state of Alaska had
every opportunity to raise any concerns it had during these
hearings and never did. If Ottawa refuses to listen and goes
ahead with putting a delay in place on this process too long for
the investors to remain interested, will this constitute an
unfair trade practice? You bet it will.
The state of Alaska does not have to subsidize its own mining
companies in order to deal a death blow to a Canadian mining
company. It just has to ask this federal government to jump and
wait for Ottawa to answer “Just how high would you like us to
jump?”
Would such a request ever come before the Canadian International
Trade Tribunal being amended by Bill C-35? Not likely. Canadian
mining companies today not only have to cope with the falling
commodity prices but they have to cope with the high cost of
doing business in Canada.
What will the Canadian International Trade Tribunal do about
that problem? I suspect nothing.
This past spring I was fortunate enough and had the pleasure to
travel with my wife through the state of Oregon. While down
there, we met a number of business people, including mayors and
councillors in different towns. They actually thought our Prime
Minister was the best thing since sliced bread because we have
driven so many investors to the state of Oregon and they have
created so many jobs.
As an example, I was in a little town out of Lincoln, Oregon. I
met with a couple of mayors from other communities. Six new
businesses in six months have been started by Canadians right out
of British Columbia. Six new businesses created 138 new jobs
because they could not do it in their own country. I have to
wonder what is going on here.
Members can see that we are driving many investors and many jobs
out of Canada. I am in a difficult position here today because I
am a strong supporter of free trade. But free trade has to be
fair trade.
I look at the condition of the Canadian economy with our high
taxes and our once proud Canadian dollar reduced to 66 cents U.S.
I look around today and I see that not even one person blinks. We
have come to accept it. We have come to accept that maybe it
will get worse before it gets better.
I would have to be an extremely religious person with a firm
belief in miracles to think that Canadian businesses today can
compete fairly with their American counterparts.
Introducing anti-dumping and anti-subsidy laws are like putting
on a little band-aid after cutting a major artery.
I want to state very clearly that I do not believe the proper
long term solution to these problems is to institute
protectionist measures, including some of the very things put
forward in this legislation which is before us today.
1045
Instead I would like to call upon this government to change its
high spending, high taxing ways. It needs to institute profound
changes to greatly shrink the size and cost of the federal
government. It should not just pay lip service by keeping highly
placed Ottawa mandarins while laying off front line employees who
provide the real services to the public, and not just cough up
costly buyout packages only to hire the same people back on a
contract basis.
The only solution is to greatly reduce the number of things
being done by the federal government. Slash the red tape and use
the savings to pay down the debt and reduce taxes.
It has also been my pleasure recently to talk to a number of
students in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap. If members think
some of the things I have said here today might be a little hard
and a little harsh, I am serving warning to this House that when
these young grade 11 and grade 12 students get out on the street
and they have the time to vote, be worried of your jobs my
friends because they do not think we have done a very good job at
all.
These students know there are no jobs out there for them. We
had just better be worried. And remember that I said this. The
students are rejecting the image of cradle to grave coddling from
government. Students want the government out of their faces.
They want jobs. They want dependability. They want some form of
security. And the government is not supplying it. We can bet on
that. Students are sick and tired of being over-governed.
Back to the sad fact of this whole matter of anti-dumping and
anti-subsidies international trade regulations. They cannot
compensate for the grossly irresponsible behaviour of politicians
whom the Canadian people elected and once trusted to put the best
interests of the Canadian people first and foremost.
It is with some concern that we will support Bill C-35. I will
go back to what I said at the very beginning. The government's
first and foremost responsibility has to be to the Canadian
public as a whole, to our law-abiding Canadian companies and to
Canadian consumers.
One day hopefully the Government of Canada will wake up and find
out for a change that we were sent to this place to govern for
the people and not to the people. I await that day.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that we are vastly
outnumbered by the people in the gallery. That is shameful.
Perhaps a quorum call would get a few Liberals out of bed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We do have a quorum.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
like to start out by thanking my Reform Party colleague for
asking for a larger audience for my speech. He likely
anticipated how very interesting it would be and I thank him
warmly.
More seriously, I am pleased to speak today in the House to Bill
C-35. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Special Import
Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.
A serious and exhaustive examination shows this to be a complex,
technical bill.
It is a very important bill because it will greatly simplify
life for our companies, but particularly because it marks the
first attempt by the government to tidy up a complex, technical
bill, one which needs to be brought up to date quickly, because
of the increasing number of free-trade agreements being
negotiated with various countries and also because we now live
in an era of globalization.
1050
Quebeckers, Canadians and the Bloc Quebecois have long been
calling for less bureaucracy and more efficiency for our
companies, especially those engaged in exports.
Despite certain reservations, my Bloc Quebecois colleagues and I
will be voting in favour of Bill C-35. We have noted these
reservations in a report produced by the International Trade,
Trade Disputes and Investment Subcommittee of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, tabled in
the House in December 1996. Moreover, the government responded
favourably to this report in a document tabled in the House on
April 18, 1997.
This bill is therefore in response to the report. Current
legislation governs the imposition of antidumping and
countervailing duties on dumped or subsidized goods where this
dumping or subsidizing has or may have an injurious effect on
producers in Quebec and Canada.
Amendments have also been made to some provisions of the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act dealing with inquiries
related to this injury in antidumping and countervailing duty
cases. These amendments should hopefully improve the Canadian
trade remedy system so that it will better take into account the
new economic context and the evolution of international trade
rules.
Unlike our colleagues across the way, who changed their tune all
of a sudden after they took office in 1993—just think of their
anti-free trade rhetoric—we in the Bloc Quebecois have always
been in favour of free trade. We can therefore only applaud any
steps taken to help ensure businesses in Quebec and Canada are
full participants in this globalization era, but in a
well-structured context based on appropriate legislation. This is
the intention behind Bill C-35. It contains marginal changes,
which will nonetheless streamline the system.
An extensive review of the report has revealed a number of areas
that we feel ought to be improved. Some of these changes have
been included in the report.
For example, the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in improving access to
the investigation process for small and medium size producers
through recommendation no. 2, which reads as follows: “The
subcommittees recommend first of all that Revenue Canada take
concrete steps to ensure that small and medium size Canadian
producers have fair and equitable access to the recourses set
out in the Special Import Measures Act”.
The major industries, such as sugar, steel, aluminum or
asbestos, are not the only ones that can make use of an act like
the Special Measures Act. As well, increasing numbers of small
and medium size businesses and producers require easier access
to these laws, these privileges, which are sometimes a bit
complex for new exporters.
Like the other parties, the Bloc Quebecois has tried to simplify
access for small and medium size producers, as well as making
other changes in connection with the way the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal operates.
The Bloc Quebecois also proposed that recommendation no. 10 make
cumulation mandatory, when the tribunal is determining damages,
and the government party agreed to this.
A section on avoidance was also included in the report, at our
request.
Finally, recommendation No. 12 reads as follows: “The
subcommittees also recommend that section 76 of the Special
Import Measures Act be amended, so as to compel the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal to evaluate the cumulative adverse
effects of dumping or subsidizing, during provisional reviews
and at expiry”. That recommendation was improved following our
representations.
The Bloc Quebecois succeeded in having major changes and
improvements made. Unfortunately, several of our recommendations
were rejected by the government, and it is regarding these that
we disagree. A number of witnesses raised concerns when they
appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
1055
The Canadian Steel Producers Association was among those
witnesses who were worried about certain provisions in the
legislation. The Bloc Quebecois expressed these concerns in a
dissenting opinion, during the review by the committee.
Let us go over the arguments put forward by the Canadian Steel
Producers Association. The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the
association, which is asking that Revenue Canada do not take
into consideration the spontaneous presentations made by parties
other than the complainant before an investigation.
This would mean that Revenue Canada would only take into account
the information provided by the complainant, and would therefore
not have to take unsolicited comments into consideration.
This seems reasonable to us, since it would only apply to the
period preceding the opening of an investigation. Unfortunately,
the government does not seem to care about our requests or those
of such an important industry for the Quebec and Canadian
economies as the steel industry. It rejected that proposal,
which is therefore not reflected in the bill.
We feel that the definition of material harm also poses a
problem. The Bloc Quebecois is asking that a definition of
“material harm” be included in the Special Import Measures Act.
Such a definition, along with the criteria suggested in the
current regulations, would clarify this important notion for
everyone.
Another Bloc Quebecois proposal ignored in this bill concerns
the future or retroactive method of imposing duties. We want
Revenue Canada to continue using the future method. However, we
would, in cases where prices or costs are likely to fluctuate
significantly, like to have Revenue Canada authorized to use the
retroactive duty imposition method. This method would be used
only exceptionally and only when Revenue Canada considered it
necessary.
The Bloc Quebecois considers that Bill C-35 should not contain
provision for the minimum duty. We think it is premature to
include the concept of a minimum duty in the Special Import
Measures Act.
We think the government should stop approving policies that
reduce the protection afforded Quebec and Canadian businesses
when our main trading partners are not doing the same thing.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade recommends including the concept of a minimum duty in
section 45 of the legislation on public interest.
As you can see, the Bloc Quebecois worked very hard to improve
the bill. Nevertheless, certain conditions were not accepted.
The Bloc Quebecois will, however, support Bill C-35.
The Speaker: I must advise my colleague that he will have the
floor after oral question period. He still has time to speak,
if he so wishes. We will give him the floor then.
The House will now proceed to statements by members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
WATERLOO SAFE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week I attended a reception honouring,
acknowledging and recognizing the achievements of the
participating Waterloo businesses on their huge efforts and
success in attaining the Waterloo Safe Communities Program's goal
of reducing injury in the workplace.
Mr. Paul Kells initiated the Safe Communities Program after the
tragic death of his son Sean in a workplace accident in 1994.
Waterloo was one of the first cities to get involved in the
program in 1996. We now have 72 businesses that are members. Due
to their minimal injuries and improved safety awareness, about 48
of them received a rebate of $350,000 in saved insurance premiums
from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.
Congratulations to Waterloo's Safe Communities Program and
congratulations to Mr. Paul Kells for his initiative. He is a
true Canadian hero.
* * *
YEAR 2000 PROBLEM
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the clock is quickly running out before the start of the
new millennium. The year 2000 computer bug will cause serious
problems for those with electronic chips unable to read the four
digit year 2000.
Are we ready? Hardly. Every sector of the economy from energy,
to health care, to business, to transportation will be affected.
This includes everything from computers to life saving medical
equipment, to elevators and washing machines. In recent tests
some machines stopped functioning completely after the clocks
were turned past January 1, 2000. We can expect more of this.
1100
Many are aware of the problem but believe it is not serious.
Some even believe it is simply a ploy to make Microsoft even
richer. This is a ludicrous misconception.
What we need is leadership on this issue. This government has
been largely silent. The Prime Minister and his ministers must
speak out now about the consequences of not acting to solve this
widespread problem. It is serious. Time will not wait for any
of us.
* * *
GRANDPARENTS' RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, article
5 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
states that a child has every right to spend time with members of
their extended family, and these family members have an
obligation to provide appropriate direction and guidance.
Unfortunately, grandparents, as a consequence of the death,
separation or divorce of their children, are often denied access
to their grandchildren by guardians. This constitutes
discrimination, abuse and injustice.
We have a responsibility to ensure that our children continue to
enjoy the emotional support of their grandparents. Several
jurisdictions, including Quebec and Alberta, currently contain
provisions to ensure the right of access of grandparents to their
grandchildren.
It is now time for us to take action.
* * *
VIA RAIL CONDUCTORS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I call on the Minister of Transport to address the plight of many
former VIA conductors who lost their jobs when the position of
conductor was recently eliminated.
I refer specifically to the conductors who went to VIA from CN
originally and had an agreement that they would be able to go
back to CN if they ever needed to. This agreement, shamefully,
is not being honoured by CN, leaving those who were too young for
early retirement without a job.
This is patently unfair and I urge the transport minister to
speak to CN about honouring its commitment, a commitment made
when CN was publicly owned and which should be kept. Fairness
demands no less from CN and from the Minister of Transport.
* * *
STRATFORD FESTIVAL
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the cast and crew of the
Stratford Festival for another excellent season of theatre.
The talented cast of veteran and new actors made us feel a gamut
of emotions as we sat enthralled by the political intrigues of
Julius Caesar, saddened by the heart-wrenching Cherry
Orchard, enraptured by the musical mayhem of Man of La
Mancha and left laughing by Much Ado About Nothing.
As many of the members of this House can attest, the Stratford
Festival is boundless fun. I urge all theatre goers to attend
the festival as it will run until November. If not this year,
maybe next year.
In closing, I want to extend my best wishes for great success to
two Stratford Festival plays that will begin showing in New York
City this coming November.
* * *
AUTUMN IN RENFREW—NIPISSING—PEMBROKE
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, after so much inflammatory language during the first
week of this new session I invite my colleagues to enjoy a
wonderful spectacle from the great Upper Ottawa Valley.
The Flaming Leaf tour in my riding is a tremendous display of
autumn colours that will simply take one's breath away. Travel
along the Opeongo Line where pioneers worked tirelessly to build
a caring community and where lumber barons made their fortunes
floating logs down the Ottawa River.
The people who live in the great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke come from all cultural backgrounds.
We come together and live in harmony, a lesson that could be
learned by the people of this House.
Our Canadian maple leaf is a symbol that has earned worldwide
respect and admiration. The changing colours provide a portrait
of panoramic pride in this celebrated country called Canada.
Come to the valley and enjoy the vista.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S JOURNÉES DE LA CULTURE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, bonne journée,
have a good day: that is the theme of the second edition of
Quebec's Journées de la culture, which will be taking place
today, tomorrow and Sunday. Artists, artisans and cultural
organizations all over Quebec will be offering their fellow
citizens nearly a million activities free of charge.
Last year, 163,000 Quebeckers took advantage of these days to
sample the culture of their neighbourhood, their village or
their city.
This year, people will have the opportunity to watch a play in
dress rehearsal, to visit a television studio, to help a
composer write and then record a song, or to contribute an
article to their local paper. These special days will afford
them an opportunity to integrate culture into their everyday
lives.
My best wishes for success to all those involved directly or
indirectly in the defence and promotion of Quebec culture. May
they indeed have a good day.
* * *
1105
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the peaceful protesters gathered, charged with a fervent belief
in democracy. They stood tall and voiced their opposition to
tyranny, dictatorship and the denial of fundamental human rights.
When the risk of embarrassment was too much to handle, the
dictatorial leader ordered the police to move in and use
excessive force to silence those students who dared speak out
against the regime.
I am not talking about Tiananmen Square, I am talking about
Vancouver. We cannot take the incidents that transpired at the
APEC conference lightly, for the precedence they establish is
frightening. Canadians gathered to use their fundamental human
rights to raise the awareness of atrocities taking place in other
countries. Rather than extol the virtues of democracy, the Prime
Minister and the foreign affairs minister decided to make the
dictators feel at home by sanitizing the scene and shutting down
protesters.
The Prime Minister is concerned about what legacy he will leave
Canada. He will be remembered as the leader who called a
democratic election in his own country a joke and revoked
Canadian civil rights in order to satisfy a brutal dictator.
What a legacy.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, recent events in Malaysia should be of concern to all of
us who value democracy.
While most of us know of the imprisonment of the Malaysian
deputy prime minister for disagreeing with his prime minister,
few have heard of the plight of Lim Guan Eng. Lim Guan Eng is an
opposition member of parliament who is spending 18 months in jail
because he spoke out against a powerful minister and friend of
the prime minister of Malaysia.
Malaysia wants international respect, but its government fails
to respect the rule of law and the fundamental principles of
freedom of speech. It is time for all democratic nations to join
in speaking out against these violations of human rights and it
is time for the Malaysian government to free Lim Guan Eng.
* * *
[Translation]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for several
years now, the 29 OECD member countries have been trying to
conclude a multilateral agreement on investment, known as the
MAI. At the request of France, the negotiations, interrupted
last April, will resume October 20.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot subscribe to MAI unless it includes
certain protections, cultural ones in particular. In addition,
the Bloc Quebecois believes that the agreement should be
negotiated within the World Trade Organization.
Although it may be harder to conclude the agreement within the
WTO, the Bloc Quebecois is convinced that the outcome, once
signed, will be a better one, because it will represent the
positions of both developed and developing countries.
The Bloc Quebecois is therefore committed to keeping a close eye
on the minister in order to ensure that he does what he has said
he will do, and that any agreement takes into account the
interests of the entire population, not just those with money.
* * *
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA'S 150TH ANNIVERSARY
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in this House to tell you about the festivities
that will take place this weekend, here in Ottawa, to celebrate
the 150th anniversary of a great institution, the University of
Ottawa.
This reunion will provide an opportunity for alumni to get
together and share memories and achievements that are partly the
result of the high quality education they received while
pursuing their university degree.
As the member of Parliament for the riding of Ottawa-Vanier,
where the University of Ottawa is located, I am very pleased to
welcome all those who will come this weekend to take part in
this event.
I take this opportunity to salute my alma mater and I hope it
will continue its tradition of excellence “ad Vietnam aeternam”
as Les Cyniques used to say.
* * *
[English]
UNEMPLOYMENT IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
dictionary defines “decimate” as kill or remove one in every
ten. Since 1986 Newfoundland has lost 60,000 through
out-migration. Given that our population is below 600,000 people,
it is fair to say that Newfoundland has been literally decimated
by out-migration since 1986.
Our unemployment rate is 19%, more than double the national
rate, and I shudder to think what the rate would have been had
these 60,000 people not left.
Newfoundland's chronic unemployment problem is very much a local
tragedy, but it is also a national tragedy. Not until Canada
helps Newfoundland solve that problem can she truly deserve the
United Nations title of best country in the world in which to
live.
We appreciate our right as Canadians to seek work elsewhere in
Canada; however, after nearly 50 years in Confederation it is
time we had a share of these jobs at home.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
summer I had the pleasure of hosting an aboriginal round table
discussion in which 70 aboriginals from four provinces travelled
to meet with the Reform Indian affairs critic team. Their
message to us was very clear. They feel the Reform Party is the
only federal opposition party that is speaking out on behalf of
disenfranchised, grassroots, aboriginal people across the
country.
1110
They told us they are suffering at the hands of corruption
and financial mismanagement. The conditions of the Stoney
Reserve in my constituency and the injustices faced by Bruce
Starlight are typical. Their lives are not improving and with
the Liberal's callous indifference they have no hope for the
future.
Today I have compiled the names of close to 100 Indian bands
that are demanding accountability. As the newly appointed Indian
affairs deputy critic for the Reform Party, my pledge today is to
help them achieve this goal and settle for nothing less than the
quality of life all Canadians deserve. Reform will be their
voice.
* * *
[Translation]
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know
if, yesterday, we were back in the good old days of the Soviet
regime, or if Brutus was once again trying to become Caesar, but
Bernard Landry told us there is a new federalist in our ranks.
His name is Jacques Parizeau.
They tried to silence him, especially when he said that—but we
already knew this—Bouchard was not transparent, that he lacked
courage and, more importantly, that he had become the chief
waffler of the Quebec government.
It is time for an election in Quebec, so that we can get rid of
that bunch of separatists.
* * *
PRESIDENT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we
were honoured to welcome to this House Nelson Mandela,
one of the most illustrious defenders of human rights.
A driving force for peace and development in Africa, and a
pioneer in the struggle for the rights of his people, his battle
took him all the way to the office of President of South Africa.
Since the first free elections were held in 1994, South Africa
has continued in its role of economic engine of the continent.
Africa as a whole owes much to Mr. Mandela, at a time when this
continent is moving towards deeper self-understanding, giving us
all hope that there will be an improvement in the material,
social and political conditions of its peoples.
Yesterday evening, Mr. Mandela, you became the first head of
state to become a Companion of the Order of Canada.
This is an honour signifying for Canadians and Quebeckers how
important a beacon for humanity your struggle for freedom,
dignity and democracy is and will continue to be.
You are a model of courage and tenacity for us all.
* * *
[English]
MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
just yesterday it was announced that the Atlantic Salmon
Federation will be awarding the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
with the prestigious Atlantic Salmon Federation International
Award which recognizes achievement in the field of Atlantic
salmon conservation in the North Atlantic.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been very active on
domestic and international fronts putting conservation first, with
precautionary conservation and management decisions affecting
Atlantic salmon in Canada and Greenland.
I congratulate the minister for his leadership in conservation.
* * *
1999 MARCH 21 ANTI-RACISM CAMPAIGN
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the
Status of Women is launching the 1999 March 21 anti-racism
campaign at the “Mandela and the Children” event today at the
SkyDome in Toronto.
This will be the 11th annual public education campaign to raise
awareness of racism in Canada and encourage Canadians to act
forcefully to end racial discrimination.
President Nelson Mandela of the Republic of South Africa is the
honoured guest at the launch.
As members will remember, March 21 commemorates the massacre in
1960 of peaceful demonstrators in Sharpeville, South Africa.
President Mandela has many times expressed his appreciation to
Canada for supporting the United Nations in the proclamation of
March 21 as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination.
The 1999 March 21 campaign is direct and hard hitting. It
encourages all Canadians to join the fight against racism and
racial discrimination. A key element of the campaign has become
the “Stop Racism” national video competition which involves—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
recent poll conducted in my home province of Alberta has
confirmed what my party has always known. The vast majority of
Albertans want Senate reform and want it now.
Over 80% of Albertans want a direct voice in who represents them
in Canada's upper house.
1115
The poll also states that support for an elected Senate is
strong, deep and entrenched.
How does the Prime Minister respond to this plea for an elected
Senate? He goes ahead, fills an Alberta Senate vacancy with a
federal Tory, instead of allowing the people to say who will
represent them. This is Liberal democracy in action. It is this
arrogance which helps explain why Alberta's federal Liberal
caucus holds their meetings in a phone booth.
The Prime Minister cannot stop the people's will. It is only a
matter of time.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in 1986, while the government was in opposition and
the Conservative Party brought in legislation for the Public
Complaints Commission, the current heritage minister said “I
urge the government to make changes to allow the Public
Complaints Commission to investigate beyond the RCMP”.
The Acting Prime Minister knows that the Public Complaints
Commission cannot investigate the role of the PMO. Can the
minister tell the House if he will make changes so we can
guarantee that the PMO, if it is to be investigated, can be
investigated by the Public Complaints Commission?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Public Complaints Commission has been in existence
for some 12 years. It has built up a very fine record of
outstanding work looking into complaints that are brought before
it. I do not see any reason why one should assume that the
Public Complaints Commission will not do everything necessary to
thoroughly investigate the matters that are brought before it at
the request of the student protesters.
The student protesters want to see the Public Complaints
Commission look into this matter. Why does the hon. member try
to undermine the work of the commission before it even begins?
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is nice for the Acting Prime Minister to say we
are trying to undermine the Public Complaints Commission. In 1989
when the Public Complaints Commission wanted to investigate
Norman Inkster's role in a budget leak, it was this government
that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to keep the
Public Complaints Commission from doing its job.
How can the Canadian public be assured that this government will
allow the Public Complaints Commission to investigate the role of
the PMO in the APEC affair?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the value of the hon. member's question is shown by his
assertion that this government was in office in 1989. It was
not. We would have liked to have been, but we were not.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask the acting Prime Minister this question. In 1989 there was
an attempt to interfere on the part of the government of the day
and shut down the ability of the Public Complaints Commission to
do its job. As a matter of fact, their position was that Mr.
Inkster was no longer an employee of the RCMP, which is the
assertion that I was making yesterday. This board can only look
into the affairs of people who are employees or agents of the
RCMP.
Will the minister give us the assurance today that the Prime
Minister and the Prime Minister's office will—
The Speaker: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member talks about the government of the day.
It was not this government. I do not think that one should
attempt to hold us in any way responsible for the position taken
at that time by another government.
I also want to say that we want to see the commission do its
work in an active and thorough manner. That is what the chair of
the commission said when she announced the inquiry.
Let us see the commission start its work and get on with its
work. If after its report is out—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is another non-answer day in the House of Commons.
It is now clear that the real reason the chief actuary for the
Canada Pension Plan was fired was because Bernard Dussault would
not compromise his independence. Finance officials told the
chief actuary that he should not answer information requests from
the official opposition or the government of Ontario because of
their politically sensitive nature.
Why were the finance officials trying to compromise the chief
actuary's independence? Is that not the reason he was fired?
1120
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government
does not interfere in the internal relationships of public
service bodies. We did not and we would not.
What is the member really asking us in terms of reporting
relationships? Does he really think that the reporting
relationships within OSFI should not be determined by the
management in our professional public service? Is this is what
he is saying? Should it be somebody else who—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we ask the questions here.
This position is supposed to be politically independent. The
official opposition and the Government of Ontario asked some
questions. The finance officials indicated that the questions
should not be answered through the chief actuary. Is that not
really the real reason why this individual was fired? Own up.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue is
very simple. I refer to the press release of the superintendent
of financial institutions: “This has been an entirely internal
personnel matter at OSFI, and the decision to terminate Mr.
Dussault was taken within OSFI. Any suggestion to the contrary
has no foundation in fact”. That is the fact.
* * *
[Translation]
APEC SUMMIT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
connection with the “peppergate” affair, the government
repeatedly told us all week that the RCMP public complaints
commission will have all the answers to the questions we have
been asking since the beginning of this affair.
If this is the case, how can the Deputy Prime Minister explain
the remarks made by his colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra, who stated that the public complaints commission would
not disclose all that took place at the APEC summit?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will check to make sure the hon. member was not misquoted, but
as far as we are concerned, the commission is in a position to
conduct an in-depth investigation into these incidents, and we
expect the hearings to start as soon as possible.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said is that the mandate of
the RCMP commission would be limited to determining whether RCMP
actions were in accordance with the law and whether the nature
of these actions was appropriate.
So, will the government give us every assurance that this
commission will be able to get to the bottom of the events in
Vancouver, including the Prime Minister's involvement?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member's question is purely speculative and hypothetical,
since the Prime Minister has not been asked to appear before the
commission. We already know, however, that two senior officials
in the Prime Minister's office are prepared to testify: senior
secretary Jean Pelletier and former director of operations Jean
Carle. This goes to show how open we plan to be with the
commission.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
December 1997, the auditor general wrote the following about the
RCMP commission, and I quote “The Commission needs to
significantly improve the way it carries out public hearings,
both by prescribing clear and precise terms of reference for
each hearing and by providing its members with training in
conducting hearings”.
With the commission unable to clarify its terms of reference and
to properly hold hearings, how can the minister say to us that
he can give us all the details of the sombre events in
Vancouver?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
the public hearings were announced, the chair of the commission,
Ms. Heafey, said, and I quote “The commission has received 42
complaints concerning the incidents that occurred on the campus
of UBC. I think a public hearing is the best way to guarantee
the public that these complaints will be thoroughly, fairly and
impartially examined”.
1125
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let's get
serious. Even the present government in opposition had doubts
about the credibility of the RCMP complaints commission.
In 1986, the current Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is
sitting opposite, said that the government of the time
appreciated the work of the commission because it would help it
get out of trouble.
Are we to understand that the government is hiding behind this
commission because it has been in trouble for a week now?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since 1986, the commission has had a record of fine work—for
some 12 years. Furthermore, the work of this commission,
created by Parliament, is non partisan and at arm's length from
the government. The chair has assured the public that the
commission is prepared to do this sort of work, and we should
wait for the hearings.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister keeps dodging questions about his direct
involvement and that of his staff in suppressing peaceful
protests at APEC.
The correspondence between UBC and the PMO clearly documents the
extent of his involvement.
When will the Prime Minister come clean about his role in the
disgraceful Spray-PEC suppression of civil rights?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when will the leader of the NDP withdraw and apologize
for the statement she made in the House yesterday, which was
totally incorrect, that Jean Carle had declared that he had
destroyed documents? That is not correct.
Instead of asking her question the first thing she should have
done was got to her feet and apologized if she had any respect
for the traditions of this House.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
quite clear they do not want to hear the facts.
When the UBC president wrote to the Prime Minister complaining
about PMO decisions to unreasonably restrict protesters, she got
a letter from Jean Carle, a PMO staffer, and a phone call from
the PMO's closest adviser, none other than Eddie Goldenberg.
When is the Prime Minister going to stop denying his role in
this APEC fiasco?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the first thing to do is check the accuracy of
the hon. member's assertions. It will likely turn out that they
have no more value than what she wrongly asserted yesterday.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the top watchdog of the employment insurance fund sent
an e-mail to all of his buddy actuarials around the country
defending the former actuary of the Canada pension plan and
calling for EI premiums to be reduced: “The simple way to return
the UI surplus would be to just drop premiums which would help to
offset the rising CPP costs”.
Could the minister of HRD tell us today whether the government
is planning to fire the top expert of the EI fund for telling the
truth the way it fired his colleague for the Canada pension plan?
Is he going to be fired?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we took
office the deficit was $42 billion. EI premiums were going to
$3.30. We capped them at $3.07. Since then we have had four
consecutive reductions in the EI premiums.
In the last budget they went from $2.90 down to $2.70. This
represented a $1.4 billion decrease in EI premiums. We have had
additional tax decreases. In the last budget we began the
process—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, for having the secretary of state not have an answer.
The finance minister has made it clear that he wants to spend
the surplus EI fund. There is absolutely no question about it.
He wants new funding for new projects for the Liberal government
and he wants it perhaps to pave the way for the leadership.
Will the government give those dollars back to the employees or
is he going to fire the person who suggested that they go back to
the employees?
1130
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been on
a course whereby we have consistently reduced EI premiums. This
is a question of choice. In three and a half years we have gone
from a $42 billion deficit to a surplus budget. At the same time
we have chosen to reinvest in those most deserving in our
country, the disabled, children living below the poverty line,
working families with low incomes, the charitable sector, the
voluntary sector.
We have chosen a balanced approach for paying down the debt—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wanuskewin.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
all week long the finance minister has pompously claimed that he
does not politically interfere in the work of the chief actuary
of the Canada pension plan.
The truth of the matter is there was major political
interference. A special committee was established to deny
requests for information if thought to be politically sensitive.
Why did the finance minister allow his department to establish a
special committee to gag the chief actuary? Mr. Dussault
objected to this political interference. Is this not the real
reason why he was fired?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
superintendent of financial institutions has made it very clear
that this was a difference of management styles within his own
department.
If what the hon. member is saying is that individual members in
our public service should have the right to determine who they
report to, no matter who, and that issue should not be set by
management within the public service, then that would be a—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, when the question is asked I
believe we should give the person who is asked the question a
chance to respond. I appeal to you to please, if at all
possible, keep your voices down so we can hear.
I am sorry to interrupt. There is still some time if you would
like to complete your response.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, just as I accede to your
jurisdiction in the Chamber, this is what happened in this
particular case. Individuals within the public service have to be
responsible to their superiors within the public service. We
would not interfere with that.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, even after giving the hon. member two chances to answer
the question, he still failed to answer the question.
Management style is not the issue. The chief actuary is
supposed to be independent. Finance officials wanted him to
compromise that independence.
I ask again, and this time we would really like the answer,
which has nothing to do with management styles, isn't the real
reason he was fired because he refused to sell out to finance
department officials?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I go back to the
press release of the office of the superintendent of financial
institutions: “Mr. Bernard Dussault at OSFI has been terminated.
This action follows a long period of continued differences
between Mr. Dussault and OSFI management. These differences have
been over issues of management style and do not in any way touch
on the professional work of Mr. Dussault or his staff on any
actuarial projections or opinions.
The people charged with running those departments are
independent professional public servants and have the right,
independent of the political arm of government, to make
management decisions. It was their decision. It was not ours.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Minister of Finance indicates that his government is
preparing to sink its claws into the employment insurance fund
surplus, and thus to divert billions of dollars from its
intended purpose, which is to ensure earnings for those who lose
their jobs.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us if it
is indeed his intention to table a motion suspending part of the
legislation, the part concerning determination of the
contribution rate, yes or no?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very clearly, with the
deficit problems we experienced in 1993, steps had to be taken.
At the same time, we decreased employment insurance
contributions every year. We decreased them over four years,
with a freeze the first year. Every 10 cents of contribution
costs us in revenue more than—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
1135
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to go through you, if I may, to wake up the Minister
of Human Resources Development, and to ask him whether he is
going to get up and announce to us that he is going to ensure
that the employment insurance fund is not going to be misused
and if he is going to be the defender of the unemployed. Yes or
no?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is done with federal
revenues is really a matter of choice. For our part, we have
adopted a balanced program, which is to balance the debt,
decrease taxes, and invest for the economic and social future of
Canadians.
That is the same thing we had to do—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: But we had such a nice day yesterday. The hon.
member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance is showing utter contempt for
the laws that govern the EI surplus and he is showing utter
contempt for hardworking Canadians.
Because he cannot get his hands on the money legally, he is
simply going to change the law, something like Jesse James making
bank robbery legal.
The Speaker: A little too far. I ask the member to put
his question right now.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, why is the finance minister
so intent on ripping off Canadian workers and employees? Why is
he so intent on being some sort of modern day version of Bonnie
and Clyde?
The Speaker: I asked the member to tone down his
language. I will permit the secretary of state to answer if he
wants. If not, I will go on.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this
opportunity and other opportunities to clarify the situation.
In spite of the incredible fiscal challenges that our government
has faced, in the last budget where we achieved a balance we also
began the process of overall income tax reduction.
We took 400,000 low income Canadians totally off the income tax
rolls. For 13 million out of 14 million Canadian taxpayers,
there were reduced taxes including the elimination of the surtax
for all those with incomes—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is talking utter nonsense
when it talks about the tax reductions it has put into force.
As a matter of fact, since 1993 the Liberals brought in 39
individual different tax increases. They ripped an additional
$30 billion off Canadians in tax increases and they have taken $8
billion out of health care and education. How can they stand up
and talk like that?
My question is for the finance minister. Regarding the $6
billion surplus that he cannot have, why is he so intent in
scooping it? Is it for his own political—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laval Centre.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Everyone knows he is ultimately responsible for the use made of
the employment insurance fund.
1140
Since the minister has already abdicated his responsibilities
with respect to the Canada Pension Plan, can he, from his seat,
assure people that he will never allow his colleague in finance
to misappropriate the surplus in the employment insurance fund?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is really a matter of
choice—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The secretary of state has the floor if he wishes
to continue.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously a matter of
political choice, and our choice has been the following:
balanced policy, including paying down the debt, reducing taxes
and investing in the future of Canadians with transfers and
social programs for the disabled and for high tech.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
are we to understand that the minister is unable to defend his
portfolio, that he is too weak in cabinet to defend those who
are counting on him and that, in the end, he is the press
secretary to the secretary of state of the Minister of Finance?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is mistaken. She
is really mistaken.
The minister is one of the strongest and most respected
individuals. He enjoys the confidence of all his colleagues and
all Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question about the employment insurance fund.
Current premium revenue is double what is paid in benefits,
giving a surplus of almost $1 billion per month. It is clearly
against the Employment Insurance Act for the minister to be
taking this money. It belongs to the workers and employers of
this country. Why does he not just obey the law?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess it is a
question of what one's political priorities are.
Unlike the official opposition, we are prepared to adopt for the
benefit of all Canadians from coast to coast on all different
levels of means a capacity to compete in the future economy of
this country to invest in their future. We are prepared to say
that the future of this country depends on the quality of
education available to our young people. We are prepared to say
that a good health system is critical—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
is this not interesting. The secretary of state's idea of
investing in the future is to impose the highest personal tax
burden in the G-7 with a 16% youth unemployment rate and running
a $1 billion monthly surplus in the EI fund to subsidize wasteful
spending by this government. The premier of Ontario calls it
stealing. Every major business group in the country—
The Speaker: Colleagues, I have appealed to you today.
The language being used is not parliamentary. We cannot use
words in parliament that we say other people use outside. I would
ask, with respect, the hon. member to withdraw the word
“stealing”. Would he do that?
1145
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word.
The premier of Ontario says that this is misappropriation.
I want to ask the hon. member, when is he and his government
going to follow the law instead of trying to change the law to
suit their political agenda to squeeze more tax dollars out of
Canadians?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do follow the
law.
The member mentioned personal income taxes. Last year we began
the process of continuing personal income tax deductions taking
400,000 Canadians off the rolls and reducing them for 13 million
out of 14 million taxpayers. The finance minister and the Prime
Minister have announced that we will continue that course of
reducing income taxes.
Let me also say that the member knows quite well that the
payroll taxes in Canada are the lowest in the G-7.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The minister is in the House. Does he have the courage to stand
up in this House and tell us—
The Speaker: We all have the courage to ask questions and to
answer them. I would ask the hon. member to please put her
question.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Human
Resources Development prepared to stand in his place and promise
to defend workers, employers and the unemployed, and not
abdicate his responsibilities as he did with the Canada pension
plan?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I have no
intention of abdicating my responsibilities, quite the contrary.
My priority is to ensure that employment insurance continues to
meet the needs of the unemployed across Canada.
It is important that the government discuss the issue of the
surplus in the EI fund in conjunction with all of this country's
social programs. Canadians want and deserve a social safety net
that is sustainable, strong and flexible, and there is no doubt
that employment insurance is at the heart of our discussions and
concerns.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
The Canadian merchant navy played a critical role during the
second world war in assuring the allied victory. Yet two
merchant mariners have indicated that they intend to go on a
hunger strike outside the parliament buildings in order to
receive compensation they feel they are owed.
Can the Minister of Veterans Affairs indicate to the House what
he intends to do with respect to this proposed hunger strike?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I met with the two veterans, Mr. Pope and Mr. McLean,
shortly after they arrived on the steps of the parliament
buildings. I had a good discussion with them. I promised them
and committed to them any creature comforts they might need as
they embark on this particular voyage.
I assured them that the legislation that was passed in 1992 was
not retroactive and that merchant navy veterans receive exactly
and precisely the same benefits that those in uniform receive
right now.
Furthermore we will be passing omnibus legislation this fall
which will remove any doubt that merchant navy veterans will have
regarding their status for the key contribution to the freedom
and democracy of this country that we exercise in the House every
day.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
week a report prepared for Health Canada was released and it had
dire indications in it or drastic consequences for the good
people of Cape Breton.
According to the report, Sydney residents have the highest
cancer rate in Canada and no small wonder because in their
backyards they have the worst toxic mess in North America and
possibly in the world.
My question is for the Minister of Environment. Will she
promise the people of Cape Breton suffering from the effects of
the toxic mess the resources needed to clean up this disaster?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has committed
itself to assisting the people of Cape Breton.
There is a memorandum of understanding that has just recently
been signed—it is not several years, it has just recently been
signed—involving the federal government. The leader of the
government in the other place and the Minister of the Environment
both signed the memorandum in co-operation with provincial and
regional authorities in the area. They will continue to work to
assist the people of Cape Breton and more particularly those of
Sydney.
1150
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
memorandum of agreement. We have been asking for action on this
issue for five years. This government has used rhetoric. It has
wasted millions of dollars and has no plan to clean it up. We
want a plan and the people of Cape Breton want a plan. When will
this action take place and in what form will it be?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong again.
First, I have no recollection of him raising this issue five
years ago. This government has been involved in this issue for a
long time. We have been negotiating with the province and the
local authorities. There is now a joint action group that has
been established with the federal government and the local
authorities. We want to clean up the site. Those are the aims
toward which we are arriving with the community and the people
involved.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Finance tells us he wants to make it legal to divert money
from the EI fund.
Let us hope the Minister of Human Resources Development does not
go along with the Minister of Finance.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development have the
authority to make the desired changes to facilitate access, or
is the Minister of Finance calling the shots?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that our
very clear priority as a government is to ensure that our EI
regime continues to serve Canadians and the unemployed in this
country well.
It is important that we discuss the matter of the EI surplus,
because we have managed the system well for a number of years
now. We have this surplus situation. The discussion must take
place in the broad context of the social programs that Canadians
want, and because they deserve and want these social programs,
we want them to be lasting and flexible.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, only 38% of
people qualify for EI even though it belongs to the workers of
this country.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development going to allow
the Minister of Finance to tell him what to do, or does he have
the strength of character to create an independent EI fund and
make decisions that benefit Canada's workers and the companies
that employ them?
The short weeks pilot project ends on November 15. While we are
waiting for the real changes to EI, will the government do the
right thing and make this project permanent?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: our
government has lowered unemployment in Canada by 3% over the
last few years. That is the lowest rate of unemployment Canada
has seen since the early 1990s.
Our priority is to help workers return to the job market.
Thanks to the Transitional Job Creation Fund, we have created
31,000 jobs so that the unemployed can go back to work in
regions where unemployment is highest.
Our entire government cares about the most vulnerable members of
our society and that is why our first investments in putting
Canada's fiscal house in order were to tackle child poverty and
help the disabled.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
employment insurance fund is an insurance fund. It is funded by
employers and employees. The surplus must go to them.
Is the secretary of state aware that there is an Employment
Insurance Act and the act is very specific that when there are
surpluses the premiums must be reduced? Political expedience
aside, are those premiums going to be reduced? Are they going to
be used as general revenues as the secretary of state has
indicated today?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a couple
of things to say.
First, we will follow the law. Second, as politicians we are
called upon to make difficult choices. Is the member saying that
he would rather have us reduce EI which is the lowest in the G-7?
Or would he rather have broad based tax breaks that go to 100% of
the Canadian taxpayers rather than to the 43% who would benefit
from a cut in EI?
These are choices all of us are called upon to make. All of us
wish that we did not have to be in a straitjacket where we had to
get out of a deficit of $42 billion.
1155
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have to admit I am shocked to hear the secretary of state admit
today that the funds have been put to different uses other than
for what they were intended which is employment insurance.
I have an e-mail sent by the chief actuary who says EI premiums
must be reduced, it is the law. The law must be upheld. Is the
secretary of state now saying they will not uphold that law but
that they will break the law?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think as
members in this House we have to look forward. We have to look
at what will be in the best interests of all Canadians.
For our part the government believes that in looking ahead as we
try to build up surpluses, however small they may be and however
precarious they may be, we should pursue a balanced approach. The
Prime Minister has talked about this, reducing the debt, reducing
personal income taxes which we started last year and will
continue to do, and investing in the future capacity of Canadians
through their economic and social programs to cope with the 21st
century.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the summer the minister of
agriculture conducted a rural dialogue. Workbooks were sent to
thousands of Canadians and 33 workshops were held across the
country.
Could the parliamentary secretary assure the House that the
dedication of the rural residents who participated in the rural
dialogue was not a waste of their time but will pay real
dividends for their communities?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member has stated, the minister held rural dialogue workshops
across the country over the past number of months.
There will be a national workshop held in Belleville on October
2 to 4 where the results of these workshops will be presented. As
far as having the input that was picked up over the summer from
these workshops really show results, the minister and all
ministers of the House should attend the national conference in
Belleville to make sure something will happen from the work we
are doing.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after
that question I think it is important that we ask a question that
really is important to farmers.
Yesterday in response to a question from the Leader of the
Official Opposition, the trade minister said he had initiated
action under NAFTA and the WTO as his response for dealing with
unfair trade action on the part of Americans against Canadian
farmers. We know that it will take weeks and months for any
conclusion to be reached.
I ask the minister what are farmers supposed to do for the next
weeks and months, farmers like those in the gallery, to put bread
on their own tables as a result of this unfair action?
The Speaker: My colleagues, when posing questions we
usually do not refer to who is either in their seat or in the
gallery. I would ask in future that be kept in mind.
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is about time we
got this question.
As the minister of trade indicated in the House yesterday, he
along with the minister responsible for the wheat board, the
minister of foreign affairs and the minister of agriculture have
been working with our Canadian embassy in Washington and our
consulate in co-operation with the provinces, farm organizations
and the industry to pressure the United States to bring them in
line with their international trade obligations.
Yesterday we took unprecedented action at both the WTO and the
NAFTA. We continue to work with these colleagues to make sure
that the United States keeps to its trade obligations.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
William Johnson's boycott of Montreal stores is being funded by
money from Heritage Canada. But Heritage Canada is not funding
the tenacious battle being fought by Gisèle Lalonde and the
francophones of SOS Montfort to keep the only francophone
hospital in Ontario open.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not think it is time to
re-examine her policies and make sure that the small amounts at
her disposal for defending minorities go towards those who
really need them, that is francophones outside Quebec?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): How odd
it is, Mr. Speaker. Last week, the Bloc Quebecois had an action
plan that did not once mention francophones outside Quebec.
1200
What is even more interesting is that on August 27, 1996 the
member for Québec East, in agreement with Howard Galganov and
William Johnson, appeared in the market here in Ottawa to call
for bilingual signs in this city. That is what he did in
1996. Why does the Bloc Quebecois have a double standard?
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
seems that everyone here agrees today that the EI system is
broken because no one qualifies for benefits any more. The
one-half million members of the building trades unions are among
the hardest hit. For years now they have been promoting a simple
seven point plan to fix the system so that their members can
receive some benefits.
Will the minister of human resources commit to meeting with the
building trades and implementing these changes to ensure
eligibility and benefit issues are met before any surplus is
dealt with?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
raising this very important question.
I have had the opportunity of meeting time and again with the
construction workers and their trade unions. I can say that
every meeting has been very helpful and very useful. We are
trying to do our best for ensuring that the EI system serves all
Canadians and all unemployed Canadians. This is something we
continue to pursue. I am ready to meet with the construction
workers as I have already done a number of times during the
summer.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
every first time applicant for CPP disability pension is rejected
as a matter of policy according to HRDC staff in Fredericton, New
Brunswick.
Take the case of Brian Loman. He is on heavy medication for a
cranial disorder and has a severe bowel problem causing chronic
pain. His family doctor and two specialists say he will never be
able to work again, yet CPP has rejected his claim twice.
Will the minister of human resources indicate why a legitimate
disability pension applicant is being denied access to the
disability program?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, I cannot
discuss in the House a specific point such as that being raised
by the opposition member. I will take it under advisement and I
will report back on it.
I can tell the hon. member that the CPP is being improved to
ensure that the waiting time is shorter. We have hired people.
We are training them. We are trying to serve Canadians the best
we can.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during question period I said that the public complaints
commission had been in operation for 12 years. I should have
said 10 years, but that is still long enough for the commission
to prove itself and build up a very good record.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1205
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to three petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
CRTC
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am here today to table several petitions. In the first the
petitioners pray that parliament review the mandate of the CRTC
and direct the CRTC to administer a new policy which will
encourage the licensing of religious broadcasters. There were 94
individuals who signed this petition.
SEXUAL OFFENDERS
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): I have two
other petitions, Mr. Speaker. The petitioners call upon
parliament to enact two strikes legislation requiring that
everyone who is convicted for the second time of one or more
sexual offences against a minor person shall be sentenced to life
imprisonment without eligibility of parole or early release
whatsoever. There were 333 individuals who signed these two
petitions.
PEDOPHILES
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another petition dealing with the pedophile registry. These
citizens of Canada call on parliament to enact legislation to
establish a pedophile registry. They are concerned about making
the streets safer for our children. They consider the sexual
abuse of our children or anyone in society to be intolerable.
They are opposed to any early release of sexual offenders and
Pedophiles. There were 147 petitioners who signed this petition.
The last petition I have, Mr. Speaker, also deals with the
convicted pedophile.
The petitioners call upon parliament to eliminate the right of a
convicted pedophile being let out of jail on bail pending his
appeal. They consider this early release as a further threat to
their community. There were 149 petitioners who signed this
petition.
SRI CHINMOY PEACE BLOSSOMS PROJECT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given
Canada's historic role as a supporter of peace, a mosaic of
different cultures and an international proponent of democracy
incorporation, the petitioners feel it would be fully appropriate
for Canada to join the ranks of peace blossoms worldwide with the
symbolic designation as a peace nation.
These petitioners call on parliament to officially endorse
Canada as a peace nation through the Sri Chinmoy peace blossoms
project.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my honour to present three petitions on behalf of
my constituents of Cariboo—Chilcotin from the communities of
Williams Lake and 150 Mile House in the central interior and from
the west coast community of Hagensborg.
The first petition is calling for public hearings on the
multilateral agreement on investment prior to ratification.
NATURAL HERBAL SUPPLEMENTS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition calls for public hearings to be held
prior to any board or group removing or confiscating natural
herbal supplements.
FIREARMS ACT
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Finally,
Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls upon the government to
repeal changes to the Firearms Act as passed in Bill C-68 and to
redirect that money to programs that reduce violent crime and
improve public safety.
MARRIAGE
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by 37 citizens of Oxford. They call upon
parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage
(Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act, so as to
define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
1210
AGE OF CONSENT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition from 275 of my constituents who ask that
parliament raise the age of consent for sexual activity between a
young person and an adult from the current age of 14 to the age
of 16.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, an
act to amend the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the NDP with respect
to Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import Measures Act,
SIMA, and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, which is
sometimes referred to as the CITTA.
Our position is one of opposition to this bill. We support the
bill insofar as it improves and clarifies SIMA. SIMA remains one
of the few mechanisms left that can effectively regulate trade
and protect Canadian industry and jobs in our ongoing trade wars
with the United States and in the increasingly liberalized global
trading environment.
Certainly we do not have to be reminded this week of the fact
that in spite of the free trade agreement, the promise of which
was that we would not have trade wars with the United States any
more, we continue to have such trade wars. This week we see the
American governors in the northern states violating the rule of
law, violating these trade agreements and making it difficult for
Canadian grain and other Canadian agricultural products to make
it into the United States.
Where we find the locus of our opposition to this bill is in the
measure to adopt the lesser duty provision. We feel that to
adopt the lesser duty provision at this time of global
instability would be to weaken SIMA as a protection from unfair
trade. Since the U.S. has not implemented such provisions,
incorporating them at this time puts us at a further disadvantage
with our major trading partner.
Here again we see a pattern that emerges time and time again in
Canadian trade law and in Canadian trade policies. Whenever
there is some liberalization to be done or some weakening of a
nation-state's ability to protect itself, Canada is always first
to do so. Canada is always eager to play the game, so eager that
we leave ourselves vulnerable to other nations, in particular to
the United States.
I do not know how many times we have to learn this lesson. How
many times do we have to leave ourselves vulnerable to the fact
that whenever the United States feels like it and when it suits
its purposes, the United States has absolutely no respect for any
agreement it enters into. The United States is the last country
to amend its laws in such a way as to conform to whatever other
nations may be doing in order to liberalize trade.
Here again we have the government moving ahead of the United
States. The U.S. has not adopted this lesser duty provision, but
no, we will be the eager ones. We will be out there leading with
our chin. Go ahead, hit us again. Teach us one more time
because we Canadians are the unteachable when it comes to this
kind of thing. We love punishment. We are the trade masochists
of the world. We just cannot get enough of being screwed around
by other countries and being the first to hail it as some kind of
testimony to our free trading spirit.
1215
Well this is a free trading spirit that the NDP has been
critical of from the very beginning. We are not against fair
trade. We are not against trade agreements that incorporate into
them real, meaningful and enforceable protection for workers, for
labour standards, for environmental regulations and for the
continuing ability of governments to act in the public interest.
However, we are against the kind of trade agreements and trade
policies that this government has adopted over the years,
particularly since 1993 when this Liberal government after its
election in 1993 signed on to NAFTA, after it campaigned against
the free trade agreement in 1988. We have now seen the Liberal
government become the most uncritical, simplistic, check your
brains at the door cheerleaders for free trade agreements all
over the world, whether it is signing on to NAFTA, the
Canada-Chile free trade agreement, free trade with the Americas,
the multilateral agreement on investment, or the WTO.
The Liberals have become totally uncritical. It is one thing to
plead certain kinds of arguments but they do not even do that.
They have just become completely uncritical. They have become
evangelists for the very thing that they deplored when they were
in opposition.
Many Canadians have a right to feel utterly betrayed. With
respect to certain other parties, at least they have been much
more upfront about their approach to these kinds of issues. But
not the Liberals.
This certainly gives me an opportunity, in the context of
debating a trade bill, to say that not only are we opposed to
this bill, Bill C-35, we are opposed to the entire approach that
the Liberal government has pursued with respect to trade. The
most recent of course has been its pursuit of a multilateral
agreement on investment which would include the investor state
dispute settlement process. This summer it was revealed to us
just how inadequate it was.
I asked the minister of trade a question in the House the other
day referring to the fact that Ethyl Corporation had sued the
Liberal government pursuant to chapter 11 of NAFTA in respect to
the government's ban on MMT, a gasoline additive, and that the
government had backed down from its position on MMT and not
allowed that suit to be carried forward under NAFTA. It was thus
admitting, from our point of view, that it is not able under
NAFTA to enact environmental legislation that particular
corporations do not like, in this case Ethyl Corporation.
In our view, the reason the government did not allow that case
to go forward was because it did not want the fundamental flaw of
NAFTA to be exposed. Instead, it withdrew and made a settlement
out of court with Ethyl for $13 million and hoped that maybe no
one would notice. The government tried to attribute its backing
away from that to a dispute having to do with the internal trade
agreement among the provinces. Well that just will not wash.
What the government was trying to do was to avoid revealing the
flaw that is in NAFTA and the flaw that it wants to replicate
over and over again, 29 times at the OECD if we were to get an
MAI that included that same investor state dispute settlement
process.
When I asked the minister that question in the House the other
day, he got up and either because he does not understand NAFTA or
he was trying to avoid the question, he said “Oh well this never
even went to a NAFTA panel”. I never said it went to a NAFTA
panel. I said it went to the investor state dispute settlement
process. Those are the words I used in the question. Does the
minister not even know about the investor state dispute
settlement process? Is he that stupid or was he trying to avoid
the question?
The fact of the matter is that we have seen how insidious this
investor state dispute settlement process is. And this is a
government that wants to replicate that at the OECD and in the
MAI and presumably some day at the WTO in the form of a global
agreement on investment that would enshrine this investor state
dispute settlement process that gives corporations the status of
governments.
Prior to NAFTA, prior to the trade agreement that the Liberals
betrayed their word on, the only way that trade dispute
settlements could be dealt with was if the governments of
particular countries decided to bring a certain matter to the
level of dispute settlement.
1220
Now corporations can do that on their own, thanks to the NAFTA,
and would be able to do so much more often and from many more
vantage points if the MAI were to be implemented.
The government's trade policy is fundamentally flawed. It is
playing into the hands of those who would like to see the role of
parliaments, of governments, of nation states and of citizens
further and further devalued. It is playing into the hands of
those who would like to see the power of the multinational
corporations increased beyond what it is already, and it is
already at an unacceptable level. The government does this all
in the context of a trade policy which completely ignores human
rights.
I do not think I would have anticipated that I might be able to
say this, but the Liberal government has made the Conservative
government which preceded it look good on human rights. The one
place where that government was good on human rights, and I am
willing to admit this, was with respect to fighting apartheid.
Prime Minister Mulroney has rightly been given credit for the
role that he played in that, along with other prime ministers
going back to John Diefenbaker.
This government, and not just in respect of APEC and the
disgraceful events that took place there, in which we have every
reason to believe that the Prime Minister and his staff were
directly involved, has adopted a trade policy going right back to
1993 which has basically said “Money first. Exports first.
Opportunities to invest in other countries first, regardless of
what may be going on in that other country”. In doing so it has
not been reflecting the values of Canadians.
Instead of it being true, as the Liberals argue, that if we
trade with these people they will become more like us, it seems
that we are becoming more like them. This is a legitimate
concern, not just in the context of Canada, but in the context of
globalization and the WTO.
Once everybody gets into the WTO the democracies will be a
minority at the table, in spite of the growth of democracy that
we have seen in the world in recent years. It is not too hard to
imagine all these non-democratic delegations and leaders saying
to the leaders of the democracies “Why do you put up with all of
this? Why do you allow things like elections and the wishes of
the people and the well-being of your citizenry to get in the way
of these agreements? What is with you guys? Be like us. We do
what we want to do, when we want to do it and to whom we want to
do it. We do so with the approval and the support of the global
corporate sector because they love to take advantage of our weak
labour laws. They love to take advantage of our lack of
environmental regulations. They like to take advantage of our
low taxes because we do not like to use public money to pay for
health care and things like that. They like to take advantage of
all those things. Why do you guys not do that? Why do you not
get with it?”
In fact we have been getting with it. We have been slowly, as a
country, conforming to the model that the multinational corporate
sector would like all countries to conform to: a country in
which there are lower and lower corporate taxes; a country in
which there is a smaller and smaller public sector; a country in
which more and more of what used to be done by the public sector
is privatized; a country in which more and more workers who used
to be covered by unemployment insurance are not covered by
unemployment insurance. The list goes on of the ways in which,
since the adoption of the free trade agreement in 1988, we have
slowly but surely begun to conform to this model.
Unfortunately, that has happened with the collaboration of
almost all the political parties and political traditions in this
country, with the exception of the NDP.
1225
I say this particularly to my colleagues in the Bloc who
sometimes fancy themselves as social democrats. They, more than
anyone else, with the exception of the NDP, who think of
themselves as social democrats, should have been on their toes as
to what the effect these agreements would have, not just on
Canada but on the ability of the government of Quebec, or any
other government for that matter, to act in the interests of its
own citizenry.
With respect to macro trade policy and with respect to Bill
C-35, I thought I would put those few thoughts on the record.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is rather enjoyable that I rise to speak to Bill C-35, an act to
amend the Special Import Measures Act.
As the hon. member of the New Democratic Party indicated, major
changes have taken place in international trade since the Special
Import Measures Act, SIMA, was passed in 1984. The Canada-U.S.
free trade agreement, the NAFTA and the WTO agreements are but a
few of the major changes. Quite frankly, it was the Progressive
Conservative Party which recognized that globalization and global
trade was absolutely necessary. If Canada was to retain its high
standard of living, it could only be done with rules of trade
being set for our trading partners.
The purpose of Bill C-35 is to reflect the changes that have
occurred in international trade, especially relating to the
anti-dumping measures which protect Canadian industries against
potentially unfair practices by our trading partners.
In 1996 a special joint committee on the review of SIMA was
struck between the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Both the
Bloc and the Reform have written dissenting reports.
It is ironic that the Reform Party's minority report states “We
urged the government to resist the demand for getting tough
measures with the Americans”. I find that terribly ironic for
the simple reason that we are now dealing with a very specific
trade dispute in agriculture with the Americans. That same
party, which suggests it represents not only the west but
agricultural producers, is saying not to go with Bill C-35 and,
if we do, let us make sure it is not very tough on our American
trading partners. If this is true, the Reform Party must be
suggesting that we do nothing about the situation affecting
western Manitoba and South Dakota.
I believe we would not have to get tough with Americans if this
Liberal government had some influence with its American
counterparts. Trade is not a science, it is a relationship that
has developed between our trading partners. It makes sure that
we have a good two-way line of communication. It makes sure that
we have relationships developed with those trading partners and
the officials of those trading partners to recognize when there
are problems and to resolve those problems without having to go
to the NAFTA or the WTO. That is obviously playing a bit of
political hardball which, unfortunately, this government does not
understand and does not know how to achieve.
The Ministry of Finance responded to the committee in April
1997, accepting about 16 of the recommendations by proposing Bill
C-35. Changes to SIMA and the CITT act are intended to
rationalize the investigative functions of Revenue Canada and the
CITT to better reflect their respective areas of expertise. That
was a very good recommendation and it is a very good suggestion
within the body of Bill C-35.
Bill C-35 will also allow expert witnesses to play a more
effective role in tribunal inquiries. Once again, that is a very
positive way of developing trade defences within our systems.
Bill C-35 will also harmonize the way Revenue Canada and the
CITT treat disclosure of confidential information.
This is to enhance procedural fairness and transparency. It is a
very good proposal within Bill C-35.
1230
Bill C-35 will establish new penalty provisions to deter any
unauthorized disclosure or misuse of confidential information
provided in the SIMA investigation. Bill C-35 will make several
housekeeping changes aimed at clarifying existing positions of
SIMA and the CITT act, to name a few.
As the fathers of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and the
NAFTA, obviously our party is in agreement with the broad thrust
of bringing SIMA up to date to reflect the current realities of
international trade. Since we know that dumping and
subsidization are measures still used by foreign governments, we
see that there is still a need for SIMA to protect Canadian
industries from unfair practices by our trading partners.
However, we have to ensure that laws such as SIMA are reviewed
periodically to ensure they achieve the purposes for which they
were passed. Rapid developments in international trade can make
these laws obsolete and counter-productive very quickly.
More specifically, we are happy that the government agreed to
recommendation No. 2, which requests Revenue Canada to take
concrete measures to ensure fair and equal access to the SIMA
process by small and medium size Canadian producers. This is
extremely important as the majority of our economy and the jobs
developed in this country are done by small and medium size
businesses. That will be implemented through improvements to
administrative practices and I appreciate that in fact this bill
speaks to that.
It is rather interesting that we are discussing Bill C-35,
changes to international trade and corrections to our defence
mechanisms because today we are dealing with a very specific
issue of trade in western Canada.
Agricultural products in western Canada amount to in excess of
$10 billion per year for western Canadian producers and Canadian
producers in general. Currently we have a situation in western
Canada where there are a number of northern states which are
impacting Canadian trade going into the United States of America.
I am very disappointed that the Reform Party in its dissenting
report would say “Let us not get tough with our American trading
partners; let us politically try to work this out”. Obviously
that has not happened because of the ineffective politics that
have been practised by the Liberal government.
There are currently non-tariff barriers that are being set up by
some governors in the United States. This can be dealt with in
fashions other than going through the very lengthy process of
the dispute mechanism, going to the WTO and the NAFTA, which the
government has been waffling on for the last six months. As of
yesterday the minister responsible indicated, by patting himself
on the back, that yes we have now filed with the WTO and the
NAFTA. The minister indicated that this would be a 10 to 15 day
process. That is not factual truth. That simply gets the
complaint to the table. There is a long term process with this
particular dispute mechanism and it could take months to resolve
it.
Western Canadian producers do not have months. They have only
days. They sometimes have less than that in order to make sure
their product gets to market.
I am very disappointed that the rules which are already in place
are not being upheld by our American trading partners. But what
it does speak of is the fact that we need rules. It would be
terrible if we did not have international trade rules which we
could follow. Sometimes people break rules. Sometimes trading
partners break rules, as has been identified over the last couple
of months with the South Dakota situation.
What we need are rules. Bill C-35 provides a substantial number
of those rules on which we as Canadians can depend to protect not
only our industries here in Canada, but our exports outside the
boundaries of Canada.
I am very pleased to say that Canada has developed global trade.
Unlike my colleague from the NDP who suggests that the NAFTA and
the Canada-U.S. trade agreement were the worst things that ever
happened, I would disagree with him. Because we were not only a
partner to those agreements but we were the authors of them,
Canadians have a higher standard of living, with the exception of
more taxes being paid to this particular government. But I will
not get into that particular area.
1235
All of the dollars that are being generated seem to find
themselves in the coffers of the federal government, which is not
the best place to have them, but that is a debate for another
time.
There are 32 million to 35 million Canadians and we require
international trading partners in order to sell what we produce
outside our domestic marketplace. There is no question that if
it was not for the international marketplace we would not have
what we have today.
However, if we are to open up the international marketplace
there must be rules to that trade. The rules to the trade must
be very specific. We have done a very good job with the NAFTA,
the Canada-U.S. agreements and the WTO of setting the rules so
that Canada will be the benefactor. We have done it very well.
I am very pleased to say that happened, in most cases, because of
the previous Progressive Conservative government.
Canada must provide its business community with the tools it
needs to face international competition. Most important, our
ultimate efforts should support the efforts to move forward,
eventually making such trade remedy unnecessary. It would be
very nice if everybody followed the rules. Ultimately,
hopefully, all will follow the rules and this act will not be
necessary.
We need to continue trade negotiations with our partners. The
South Dakota trade dispute is one recent example which clearly
shows there is a need for more work to be done in our trade
relationships. In 1999, with the WTO negotiations, we will have
a window of opportunity to achieve trade success. If the
government develops a comprehensive plan and does not leave
things to the last minute, as it did with Kyoto, success can be
achieved if there is the political will to do so.
This party supports the amendments put forward in Bill C-35 to
amend the Special Import Measures Act.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
before I start I would like to say that I will be sharing my time
with my colleague from Surrey Central.
I rise today to speak to Bill C-35, the Special Import Measures
Act. This morning my colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap made an
excellent eloquent speech and I wholeheartedly support what he
said. He brought up excellent points on international trade and
very eloquently showed the shortcomings and the shortfalls of the
government.
Canada as a nation is a willing and active participant in the
increasing globalization of the world's economy. Canadians have
the education, innovation and motivation to prosper in the global
economy. There are literally hundreds of thousands of successful
stories of Canadian participation in the world economy, whether
in business, communication, the arts, science or technology.
Canadian companies have made their mark on the world stage not
with production and subsidization, but with brains and hard work.
Participation in international trade has provided many positive
benefits for our country. However, we must also be vigilant.
Trade disputes will inevitably occur. They may be over fish
quotas, computer parts or National Hockey League teams.
Therefore, it is our job as legislators to ensure that protection
mechanisms are in place when they are needed and only when they
are needed.
The Special Import Measures Act is one such protection for
Canadian industry that is adversely affected by product dumping
or subsidies. Again I repeat, this act is protection for
Canadian industry that is adversely affected by product dumping
or subsidies.
1240
In fact, the Special Import Measures Act is the principle legal
instrument which allows Canadian companies to request and get
anti-dumping and countervailing duties against imported goods
which are found to be sold at too low a price or whose production
is subsidized.
Revenue Canada and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal are
responsible for administering the system while Revenue Canada is
responsible for policy and legislation.
The process is technical in nature but is essential to determine
if there is a threat of material injury to the domestic industry.
If an investigation determines that an injury has occurred trade
remedy actions could be applied.
Actions will include eliminating the dumping of goods by foreign
exporters by introducing a duty or in trade remedies against a
foreign government for unfairly subsidizing a product or
commodity. The injury investigation is clearly the most critical
component of this process.
Under existing international rules authorities must determine if
dumping or subsidization of goods has caused damage to a domestic
industry of the importing country before duties can be imposed.
It is at the preliminary stage where the investigation is most
important. Careful consideration must be given to all parties
involved. Therefore the appropriate balance must be maintained
between the right of the industry to seek trade remedy projection
and the rights of those who may be affected by such measures.
This must include the effects that any anti-dumping measure
could have on downstream processors and on consumers. At present
considerations are given to downstream repercussions after a
final determination of injury by the Canadian International Trade
Tribunal.
Let me give an example of a recent case involving Gerber baby
food. The residual effects of the trade tribunal's decisions
were not considered and the public interest was not protected.
U.S. baby food manufacturer Gerber Canada says it will have to
abandon the Canadian market because of the ruling by the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal that forced the company to increase
the selling price of jars of baby food.
The ruling has sparked an outcry from various public interest
groups and concerned parents across the country. A 60% increase
in Gerber prices has effectively eliminated Gerber from the
Canadian market and created a de facto monopoly for Heinz, a
company which already holds 80% of the market share.
This threat of a monopoly by Heinz has attracted the attention
of the Competition Bureau with the aim of reversing the decision
of the trade tribunal. Clearly the system is not perfect. Often
we cannot predict all the consequences of a decision.
However, it is crucial that we structure the process to ensure
that the interests of downstream producers and the public
interest are examined before any decisions are made if the
effects could greatly harm an industry and have a negative impact
on the public.
Canada is intrinsically tied to the world economy. Participation
in NAFTA and WTO and numerous trade agreements between individual
nations ensure Canadian companies have a place to sell their
goods and services.
Similarly, foreign countries look to Canada as a potential
market for their goods and services. This is healthy competition
but as long as the rules are fair for all competitors. When the
rules are broken legislation like Bill C-35 must be in place to
offer remedy to those harmed by unfair trade practice.
I support the proposed changes to the Special Import Measures
Act introduced in this bill, but with some reservations.
I support that the existing legislation and the proposed
amendments to this bill abide by agreements already in place with
the World Trade Organization anti-dumping and countervailing duty
agreement.
1245
I support the attention given in this bill to administrative
and economic efficiency, procedural fairness and transparency in
decision making.
However, I would like to see an amendment to this bill that
would ensure a more comprehensive examination of injury at the
preliminary stage. This to safeguard the interests of all parties
involved and to assess the impact right down the line on the
public and on downstream producers.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I compliment the member on his thorough comments on the
bill. It reflects very much the constructive way in which the
members from his party participated in the discussions which we
had on this matter before the trade committee when these
proposals were originally being considered.
The member was not a member of that committee but he may recall
that his party, as was pointed out by the member for
Brandon—Souris when he spoke earlier this morning, filed a
dissenting report to the committee's report with respect to the
bill outlining the recommendations made to the government.
Curiously enough, the Reform Party's recommendations drew to the
attention of the committee and thus to the House, when it was
filed here with the House, the fact that when dealing with the
United States it is important that we deal with it in a calm,
measured and appropriate way.
In the subcommittee dissent the Reform Party pointed out that
getting tough with the Americans could be a strategic error. Its
report states: “And since we rely so much more on exports than
do the Americans, the damage to the entire economy in such a
process of escalating SIMA type trade disputes could damage
seriously the entire Canadian economy. Thus getting tough with
the Americans would be a mistake. Rather we should work through
proper channels. We share this opinion and urge the government
to resist the demand for using tough measures with the
Americans”.
What was good about that is good about the process where we are
dealing with the Americans today over transborder transfer of
grain and meat into the United States. It is exactly the same
problem.
This government is suggesting we work through proper channels.
We use our legal remedies. We are not going to sit and be shouted
at and told we have do something dramatic or crazy. That was the
position of the Reform Party in that. I suggest it should be its
position today. What does the member think of that?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can
deny the fact that our economy is tied very heavily to the United
States and Mexico with NAFTA. I do not think the Reform Party was
off track when we said we need a balanced approach when dealing
with one of our most important trading partners. There is
nothing wrong with that.
However, it has to be fair on both sides. We are saying we
should not be tough on the U.S. We do not trust the Liberal
government. It can be tough on this and destroy the good
relationships we have. What we are asking for is a balanced
approach, a balanced view.
That is most critical. They are our important partners. We
have to recognize that. This is where most of our trade is.
Therefore I do not think there is anything wrong with the
dissenting report.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central once again to
support the amendments to Bill C-35, the Liberal government's
proposal to amend the Special Import Measures Act, SIMA, and the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, CITTA.
SIMA legislation governs procedures under which two types of
duties are imposed on imported goods, anti-dumping and
countervailing duties.
1250
Under world trading rules, every country is permitted to impose
these duties on imported goods in two cases, if these goods are
being dumped into their own country, or if the production of
these goods is being subsidized in the country of export.
Before we proceed further into the debate, I want to explain
that dumping occurs when goods are sold to importers in Canada at
prices that are less than their selling price in the exporter's
domestic market or at unprofitable prices.
Countervailing duties are a tax put on imports to offset the
subsidy used to produce the good in the exporting country.
Let me read to the House an example from my own constituency.
Last month Bed-Roc Industries scored a victory against an
American competitor who was dumping tiles in British Columbia and
Alberta.
Bed-Roc Industries has been manufacturing in my constituency of
Surrey Central for the last 10 years and suffered material injury
when Custom Building Products imported and underpriced its
wonderboard tile, damaging Bed-Roc's business. Bed-Roc was forced
to cut prices and lost sales to maintain market share.
The American company Custom Canada was charged with weighted
average margins of dumping at 36% and Revenue Canada imposed
duties for five years.
If dumping had taken place on its part in the first year when it
started, Bed-Roc would have been out of business. While I
congratulate the management of Bed-Roc, I shall say thanks to
SIMA and CITTA and NAFTA.
Chapter 19 of NAFTA, which contains virtually all the provisions
of the free trade agreement, addresses at length restrictive
trade practices including anti-dumping measures and anti-subsidy
measures.
SIMA passed into law in early 1984. Since then, to comply with
the new international obligations, this House has passed many
statutory amendments to SIMA, mainly with respect to the
definition of a subsidy and the determination of injury and the
matter of establishing dumping margins.
Since 1984 SIMA had not been reviewed to determine whether it
continues to meet the expectations of the Canadian business
community or whether it is consistent with the international
environment.
The House of Commons subcommittees that studied SIMA recommended
16 improvements and 64 technical amendments and corrections that
we are debating in this bill today.
I have mentioned all this because the bill is fairly complex.
Since time will not permit extensive debate on this issue, I will
summarize the overall assessment.
Canada must provide the Canadian business community with the
tools it needs to face international competition. To cope with
dumping and subsidizing, SIMA and CITTA are essential
instruments. Passage of the proposed amendments will make these
tools really effective. Globalization and the nature of the
complexities of international trade will force further reviews in
the future.
The official opposition is satisfied with the proposed changes
but would like to see the assessment of public interest brought
in earlier in the process. That is very important.
Any negative impact than an anti-dumping duty would have on
downstream processors or on consumers is not considered until
after an assessment has been rendered.
A final determination of injury by the CITT and downstream
repercussion of injury should be considered much earlier. For
example, in the famous case of U.S. baby food manufacturer
Gerber, it was charged with dumping baby food in Canada.
The resulting 60% increase in Gerber prices for the next five
years has eliminated Gerber Canada Inc. from the Canadian market
and caused the loss of all its customers to it almost sole rival
H. J. Heinz Canada Ltd.
1255
Heinz already had 80% of a $70 million a year market share and
now enjoys almost a monopoly.
The decision sparked an outcry from Canadian public interest
groups, including the Canadian Pediatric Society and the College
of Physicians and Surgeons. If public interest had been
considered prior to the duties being rendered, the parents who
had been feeding their babies with the Gerber brand and who were
satisfied with the suitability and taste of the food and found no
allergic reaction would not have suffered.
However, the consumers buying Gerber were not considered and
they suffered injuries, even though the duty was imposed to
protect them on the other hand.
In talking about countervailing duties, there is another side to
the story. The economy of British Columbia is in or near a
recession. The British Columbian government has imposed a 70%
stumpage fee on softwood lumber. The government has now created
such a bureaucratic situation that the lumber industry is in
trouble. If the government reduces the stumpage fee, the
Americans on the other side will think we are giving subsidies to
the industry. This will cause a problem because the rules and
regulations are not laid out clearly. If the stumpage fee is
reduced our industry suffers and if it is increased our industry
also suffers.
Canadian businesses and consumers are supportive of the measures
we have to ensure that in the Canadian marketplace we have a
level playing field.
Our federal government can and does take measures to ensure that
the competition in our marketplace is conducted in a fair manner.
However, there are other examples. In the salmon fishery, the
agricultural industry and with dairy products the rules are not
clearly laid on the table.
The Special Import Measures Act ensures fairness. So far the
Liberal government has acted like a blood sucking parasite on the
thin skin of small and medium size businesses in our country. We
just saw the largest tax hike in Canadian history, a 73% increase
in CPP premiums. Can anyone believe this?
About 90% of jobs in this country are created by small
businesses. The government has to have a fair attitude and a
fair marketing environment for our businesses to grow so they can
create the jobs we need. It is a good thing our Canadian firms
have the means to lodge complaints.
We support a comprehensive effort to realign Canada's economic
policies to be consistent with our international trade
requirements. As the official opposition, we can support this
bill if it is amended. We ask for one amendment only. As the
official opposition's international trade critic, the hon. member
for Peace River, has said, we are satisfied with what the bill
will accomplish but if we go one step further we on this side of
the House will support, with amendment, the effort that Bill C-35
represents in terms of meeting the expectations of Canadian
businesses.
What we are offering is an opportunity for the government to
consider what we are asking for and we are looking forward to its
co-operation at the committee stage so that this bill can be
supported by the official opposition. It is up to the Liberals.
Our demand for a simple amendment along the lines that I have
described is not unreasonable. We shall see if the Liberals are
willing to accommodate us so that we can contribute the best
intentions to strongly support our small and medium size
businesses.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on Bill C-35.
It seems to me that we are bringing in a fix for a problem here
that was not properly thought out when the agreements were
struck. It strikes me also that this is not an unusual problem.
1300
As we talk about the Canada pension plan, we are involved with
short term planning with the determination that there will not be
long term planning. We can understand why that is. The
government is in such a financial mess that it cannot look
farther down the road than perhaps two or three years so we are
stuck with a mess, planning from day to day how we might get out
of that mess.
We see the problems with the medical plan in Canada, largely as
a result of not thinking and planning and preparing as we go down
the way, thinking into the future. We see this in the trade, as
the hon. member talks about.
Countries like China which have come out of terrible situations
with large populations and an economy that was doing nothing for
them have been able to plan, to put money in the bank, have trade
surpluses and provide for the long term future for their
citizens. It should be possible for a country such as Canada with
the wealth of resources that we have had and have squandered to
be able to do some long term planning as well.
The commodities, the agricultural products, the mining, the
petroleum, the wood, the forests have kept us in the secure
position we have had up to the point we are at. These have been
our treasures, but these are no longer going to carry the weight
for us in this modern technological age.
I am dismayed that there is no long term plan for the future of
Canada. We are going day to day and year to year. I believe the
government has a serious responsibility to begin planning in a
way that protects the future of our citizens.
Many of us are here for the benefit of our grandchildren, and
yet we see such a small and limited future for our grandchildren
in the scope of planning as it exists today. I not only call on
the government to begin thinking things through for the long term
and not for the present day, but I also want to ask my colleague
if in his estimation these changes that are being instituted are
going to serve us well into the future, or is this just an
immediate short term plan for the shortcomings of the day.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question.
He is right when he talks about the mess the government has
created. The other day we were debating the gun legislation. The
government is always focusing on the wrong thing. It does not
focus on the people who are killing people, it focuses on the
people who are shooting ducks.
Another example is the APEC scandal about which we were talking
in the House. The government, the Prime Minister and the
bureaucracies are focusing on the rights of brutal dictators and
not on the rights of peaceful protesters.
There are a number of examples where the government has focused
wrongly, but in this case there are many examples, with
globalization and the complexities of international trade, that
things are changing in the world. It is a very dynamic field we
are talking about.
In the past there were some improvements needed, some where the
government failed to address the issue at the time, some because
of the change in the overall global business environment. These
changes were to be brought in, which they have been. I am
expecting the government to listen to the amendments by the
official opposition this time so that we can make it effective.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this today. I would
like to say, as my other colleagues have said before me today,
that the basic principle of the bill we do support.
1305
Certain measures obviously have to be put into place. The
clearer it is and the more explicit it is, the better that bill
will be. It never hurts to reiterate to the government the one
proviso which we have said at considerable length today to ensure
that it understands exactly where our level of support is coming
from.
When I first came to Ottawa I said that I was not here to oppose
for opposition sake. I do not care about the statistics or how
many we support, how many we reject, whether we support a
government that we would ultimately like to replace. If it
writes good legislation I will be the first to congratulate it.
If it writes legislation that I think has some merit but that
could be made better, rather than criticize we will try to show
alternatives to amend it so that the bill which is possibly
supportable could be made better. It could be something that we
maybe are having a little trouble supporting which could be made
into something which we could support. It would still be its
legislation. It behoves the government to listen and carefully
consider the amendments put in by the official opposition or
another opposition parties. The bottom line is to get good
legislation.
The chief thing we have asked for in this legislation is a
measure that will take into consideration the downstream impact
of what this bill might put into place. Something that we
consider will show how it is going impact on industries in Canada
and whether it is going to create a problem for some of those
industries, and how is it going to impact on the consumer. It
may be extremely well intentioned to put some countervailing
duties or tariffs in place in terms of the fairness of the
concept of it because it thinks that, in the case of the Gerber
baby situation, it needs to be dealt with. It is irresponsible
to put something like that into place before considering the
impact on consumers. That is a glowing example for the
government to look at. There are a lot of other examples out
there.
It would be relatively simple for the government to move an
amendment or to accept our amendment to ensure that these
concerns are dealt with. I believe that all reasonable people,
regardless of party, who look at this and give open minded
consideration to our proposed amendments in this area will see
the merit of them.
I would like to deal with one other aspect of this. We talk
about downstream benefit, impact on people and other
considerations with this legislation. We also have to look at
and balance the other side of this. This is dealing with import,
the Special Measures Import Act. What about export? Whenever we
start putting into place regulations dealing with how we are
going to treat imported goods from other countries, we cannot do
that unless we take a serious look at problems, regulations
needed or regulations already in place that are oppressive when
dealing with our exports.
Because of the nature of my resource based riding, its proximity
to the U.S. border and its absence of good transportation
networks to other Canadian markets, the one I am most concerned
about is the softwood lumber industry. Prior to free trade and
under free trade we have had one problem after another with
exports of softwood lumber to the United States. All kinds of
outrageous claims have been made by the American administration.
It claims we had subsidized our forest industry. This is ironic
as right now British Columbia, with our NDP government, has
placed the cost of producing B.C. lumber among the highest in
North America.
In spite of that we still manage to stay competitive but the
softwood lumber deal is killing us. Every time the United
States' lobby managed to get some kind of countervailing tariff
in place against softwood lumber we appealed it through the
process and we won. We no sooner win then it comes out with
another one in a different area for softwood lumber. We would
fight that one and we would win. Still the threats kept coming.
I will not say in its wisdom but finally the government, the
bureaucratic system, decided that we should do something
different.
It was proposed to the government that we should go into the
softwood lumber quota system.
1310
I have had a lot of problems with the softwood lumber quota with
a variety of different companies in my riding. I have gone to
the softwood lumber division of foreign affairs. I have a pretty
good sense of how this whole thing has come into play and how it
works. Those people have been quite candid with me and I
appreciate that because they have to work with what they are
given.
When the quota system came in they did not have the slightest
idea how it was going to work. Companies in my riding were told
“we have no idea what your quota is going to be, just keep on
shipping and keep track of everything, we will sort it out
somewhere down the road and we will figure out how it is going to
work”.
I can tell members how it works, terribly. One company in my
riding basically shut down. People were shipping and using their
number and softwood lumber could not even track it properly. We
played the greatest numbers game for a year and a half. They
operated from hand to mouth never knowing from one day to the
next or one week or one month whether they were going to be able
to sell anything they manufactured, whether they should even try
to buy timber in order to turn into lumber because everything has
to be done ahead. The last thing you need is an inventory of
logs if you cannot cut it into something you can sell.
On the other hand, it does you absolutely no good to win on the
softwood lumber quota war and find out you do have quota but you
do not have any logs because you did not dare put in the kind of
financial outlay that was necessary in order to have the
inventory when you did get it sorted out.
We no sooner got sorted out with one company when another one,
the biggest timber supplier and manufacturer in my riding, was
told on each of three successive years that the quota it has will
be held and it will not get any further cutbacks, and in each
successive year it gets more cutbacks. It is a big operation
with three locations in my riding. It has been told that the
latest cutback that it was promised in the previous year would
not happen is equivalent to the amount of output from its main
centre operating in the riding. That means the company would
shut down the entire operation in one city in my riding. It
affects over 100 people.
This is not the kind of balance we need. When we start talking
about import acts we had better take a very serious look at our
export requirements as well because they go hand in hand. I am
not pointing fingers at any party but in the past Canada through
successive governments and bureaucrats negotiates with the United
States on bended knees. That is not a Clinton joke.
We have to start dealing with a little more strength. We have to
start saying that there is a quid pro quo. If you start doing
unreasonable things with us we are going to make sure our act
allows us to balance that out. We cannot have deals where maybe
it is good for one area or region of a country and we say we will
let this in because it is good but we do not care what is
happening in another part of the country. Or we will balance it
out by letting something good happen in that part of the country
but which is maybe not good for the first region. That is not the
way we should be working in this country. There should be an
open fairness. The quote system does not provide that.
The way we have dealt with the United States prior to the
softwood lumber quota does not do that. I do not see how we can
enter into a new act to lay out the rules so that all the people
who export into Canada know exactly what the rules are and those
rules are perfectly fair. That is very utopian. Why are we
providing other countries like the United States with a clear set
of rules saying what we will do and how it will work? Then they
can look at that and say now they know how to work the system but
they also still get to turn the screws whenever they do not think
something is quite right in coming into their country exported
from Canada.
1315
I think we have to come up with some way of saying this is what
we are proposing to do but we have some problems with what you
are doing to us and we have to resolve those first.
I remember going down to the United States as part of the
Standing Committee on Transport a few years ago. One of the
things we were talking about was the St. Lawrence navigation
system into the great lakes, the locks, where we have this
incredibly unbalanced system. We end up paying the majority of
the cost of operating the lock system into the great lakes even
though the American shipping system gets 65% of the economic
benefit of making use of it. I believe that what is fair is we
either at least split it or better still that we pay for it based
on the economic advantage gained.
We had a meeting with some of the American big boys in
Washington, D.C. and their reaction was that is the way it has
always been and that is the way it is going to be. What are you
going to do about it, close it down?
I think if somebody puts that type of bluff on the table we have
to call them. When I was having that conversation I was getting
more and more irritated talking to this American good old boy. My
response to him when he put that idiotic question to me was
obviously we do not want to shut down the navigation system of
the great lakes but obviously you do not want it shut down either
because you are getting more advantage out of it than we are. If
you leave us no other alternative I guess we are going to have to
look at that, and I walked away.
I think we need to deal fairly with these other countries but we
need to deal with a little more strength. Internationally
Canadians are known as those nice people who never raise their
voice, those nice people who never argue, those nice people who
when you hit them turn around so you can get a good shot at the
other side.
I am tired of that. So are my constituents and so are the
employers in my riding who are hurt by some of these acts that we
come out with without thinking of the full ramifications, and
employees especially, the everyday constituents in my riding who
are impacted by these things, whether import or export.
In another part of my riding I have a tremendous agricultural
area, the south Okanagan, and every year they fear the dumping of
the American apple crop into the south end of my riding.
Yes, we need things that lay out clear rules we are going to
follow in terms of imports but by God we had better have some
very clear rules that go hand in hand with these things dealing
with our exports as well. I do not think we can come in and put
this all in place and say there, see how nice we are, don't you
want to follow our example. They will say no because they never
have in the past.
I believe we had better take a good hard look at this before we
finalize it. By all means let us move on but let us do it
cautiously. Let us put the amendments that have been talked
about today in place with proper consideration for people who are
going to be impacted by anything we do as a result of this act.
Then let us stop before we make that final passage and start
dealing with the export side of it as well because any time we
are laying out all our cards and being incredibly fair to our
competitors without the competitors showing some evidence of
fairness and laying their cards out as well, we are dealing with
a blind hand and, as any poker player knows, we will lose every
time.
I trust the Liberals will consider what is being said not to
oppose them and not to run them down. It is being said very
seriously to ensure the legislation passed in this House, not the
Liberal legislation, the legislation passed collectively in this
House, is good legislation and that everybody who participated in
it can feel satisfied.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. colleague is touching on something peripherally
which has bothered me for a long time. I would like to ask him
about it.
Bearing in mind that we are the largest trading partner of the
U.S. both ways, import and export, I would expect in the normal
course of business affairs that we should have some influence
down there but we do not seem to have much.
1320
The reason is that we are so eager to play by the rules, to lie
down and let people walk all over us. Sure, we have these trade
disputes and we win almost every time but the hearings go on and
on and on. We will win a dispute but they come back at us
immediately on the same matter and do it all over again. In the
meantime producers, employers and employees in this country are
being crucified because we do not as a nation have the huge
economic base to fall back on that the United States does.
There is a situation right now in my riding and in neighbouring
ridings. Exporters of agricultural products are being subjected
to what can only be described as harassment by the governments of
the border states. They are using state troopers to stop goods
which have legally entered into the United States at the border
crossings. We have complained. We will go to NAFTA and the WTO.
This will take weeks and months before it is resolved. I think
we will win but in the meantime there are people who are really
hurting.
I wonder if my colleague would give his opinion on my suggestion
that when we are bitten we should bite back. Every week thousands
of tonnes of American beef cross the border coming north into
Ontario and Quebec. Why do we not find a pretext similar to the
ones that are being used by the governors of North Dakota and
Montana and say “Sorry fellows, but the packages are the wrong
colour. We are not going to let that garbage into the country
until you straighten up your act”. I think we would find that
the border problems on the other side of the country would very
quickly be adjusted. How does my colleague feel about that?
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, it is a very good example by
my colleague and I think it is one we do need to deal with. The
one thing I would caution when we do this is not to be subtle.
Subtlety is a hallmark of Canadians. We like to tiptoe around
and are always afraid we will offend somebody.
The example he gave is excellent. But if we do that, make sure
people understand exactly why we are doing it. Do not just simply
do it and let them put two and two together and maybe come up
with what we are up to. Make it absolutely clear. Do this to us
and here are the consequences. We talk about that in the
criminal justice system. We talk about it with almost every
example one can think of. It is consequence of action. Whenever
something is done there will be a consequence for what is done.
We talk about it in our own lives. Let us start talking about
it with the Americans as well. Let us say “Here is what we
think is fair. Here is what we are prepared to do. But if you
do not want to play by this rule, if you do not want to be fair,
above board and completely open, then know now that if you start
messing with us, we will retaliate. We will not get carried away
in doing it. We will do it in the best Canadian tradition to try
to do it in balance with what you do”. But make sure they know
we are going to do it. If we lay that out, do not back down when
the time comes. Make sure they understand when they take an
action, if it is an unfair action, there will be a consequence
and we will indeed follow through on it.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank my hon. colleague for
the speech he has given.
As a nation we have been facing serious economic difficulties
for a long time. It is interesting to hear how economic leaders
in other parts of the country talk about Canada. When they are
asked what is wrong with our economic system in their eyes, they
point to things that we talk about consistently in this place.
They say first of all “Your debt is way too high”. Second they
say “Your taxes are way too high”. Third they say “You have
not had a plan for 25 years. You do not know where you are
going”.
1325
I listen to my colleague talk about the softwood agreement, the
quota system, a system that has affected mills in my
constituency, particularly the newer mills but now even the large
traditional mills are complaining about the difficulties of this
agreement. It strikes me that here we are again in a situation.
Two years ago when we were talking about this quota agreement and
I was raising objections, I was being told this is the answer to
our problem. Clearly this is a matter where long term planning
was not brought into effect. Less than two years after this
agreement has come into force, our mills are in trouble with it.
It is the issue of long term planning that I am raising again,
an issue that affects us in every sphere of this government's
jurisdiction and rule. Whether it is health care, whether it is
our pensions, whether it is our trade policies and trade
agreements, we lack a vision of the future which takes into
account the needs of our children and our grandchildren.
The difficulty now is that we have come to a point in the
technological advance of the world where simply having forests
that have not been harvested, mines that have not been opened up,
oil wells that have not been drilled is not enough. We have to
have a plan on the table. We have to have a future in mind. And
we have to be able to direct our people and our companies in a
way that they can take advantage of the opportunities that lead
to that future.
Does my hon. colleague see in this legislation the long term
planning that is necessary to rationalize the agreements that
they affect, or are we simply stumbling along from day to day as
we have so frequently in the past? Is this just another example
of that?
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, indeed as my colleague implied
in asking his question, there are serious implications in the
lack of long term planning and long term vision in this
particular bill. As has been addressed on a number of occasions
today during the debate, there is not proper consideration for
the impact. We look at the short term closely in impact on this
but we do not look at the long term in terms of how it is going
to affect other manufacturers, employers and producers in this
country, how it is going to affect and impact on the consumer in
this country.
Again, I cannot help but draw the comparison between this and
the softwood lumber quota system. When we talk in terms of a
long term plan, I have spent a lot of time on this and in my
opinion there was not even a short term plan in terms of the
softwood lumber quota. When it came in it was as if the Americans
said “Here is your overall quota. Here is your total quota that
we will allow to come into the United States under no fee, then
under the low fee base and then under the upper fee base”. They
did not have the slightest idea as to how they were going to
implement that, how they were going to monitor and track it, how
they were going to assign it out. It was something that they
made up as they went along.
This particular bill is not quite that bad. I think we can fix
some of the things in it but the problem is we have to fix them
before we pass the bill. We cannot keep making things up as we
go along, trying to determine whether or not we have done enough,
or gee, we have problem, so let us put another little fix in
here.
Once the legislation is passed it becomes much more difficult
and onerous to try to impact further changes down the road. The
government should go nice and slow, make sure that it makes the
amendments that make sense according to what it has been hearing,
make sure that it has considered the things that we have said.
Also I would ask that the government take a very serious look at
the balance I mentioned, the need to make sure that not only do
we have our import house in order but also to make sure that
exports are dealt with so that we have balance between what we
take in and what we export out and the rules which both sides are
going to play by.
1330
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been some discussions among
the parties. By agreement, we would ask that we extend the
debate for no more than 15 minutes.
One of our colleagues from the opposite side is making every
effort to arrive in the next few moments to participate in the
debate for approximately 10 minutes. Perhaps we could extend the
question and comment period by five minutes so that hopefully the
member will arrive. We will conclude no later than 1.45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
as outlined by the chief government whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his remarks earlier
today.
As I listened to the concerns of the hon. member regarding
certain issues on this debate, the hon. member questioned the
issue of our trading situation with the cross-border crisis with
North Dakota and some of the other states in the United States in
terms of stopping our trucking operations going across with
agricultural products.
On the one hand, one of the hon. members said that we should be
taking very strong, very tough action. I sat on the SIMA
committee in the past. The dissenting report said that we were
going too strong with SIMA, that we should not be taking the
tough action.
Could the hon. member explain to this House the differences in
approaches by two different members in his party?
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, each of us deals with the
problems that affect our own ridings. Of course we all work in
concert with one another in a co-operative method not only within
our own caucus but with those from other parties as well. If
there are problems for Canadians, I do not really care if they
are represented by Reform, by Liberals or by whomever. I do
think we need to talk and work that out.
In terms of tough action, yes, we do need to take tough action
but not knee-jerk tough action. The tough action we need to take
needs to be planned out. It needs to be done in such a way that
it leads to the kind of outcome we are looking for.
Tough action is necessary for that but not just fast reaction to
an individual instant. If we look at the overall problems we
have with trade in and out of our country, if we sit down and
plan where we are going and then determine how we will get there,
we will have better trade relations across the border. I think
things will certainly be much fairer for Canadian manufacturers
and also for Canadian consumers.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. For clarification, I understand that
the member has arrived to participate in the debate on Bill C-35.
There will be no questions or comments to that member and of
course the question can be put at the termination of that
10 minute period.
The Deputy Speaker: Are the additional understandings
expressed by the chief government agreed to by all hon. members?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I was going to seek clarification on
that point. I thank the chief government whip.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-35. I would like to
thank my colleagues from the government and all members in the
House today who have allowed me to speak for 10 minutes on Bill
C-35 which is the Special Import Measures Act. This is an
important bill. It goes into some extremely important issues
that are affecting my constituents in British Columbia and are
affecting Canadians across this land.
British Columbia has been particularly hard hit by the economic
downturn the whole country has seen. Some people point
legitimately to the Asian flu and others point to the Russian
meltdown. Although those have had a contributory effect, there is
much we can do within our own house to rectify the situation at
least in part. I would ask the government to please look into
this.
1335
To the government's credit, it has actually employed something
from Industry Canada that has improved the Small Business Loans
Act. It is going to provide small businesses with an added
amount of capital which will enable them to restructure and work
on their businesses and become more competitive.
One of the problems is that the private sector is finding it
increasingly difficult to actually work in today's environment.
I am going to illustrate some of these areas and try to develop
some solutions that exist and which we can use in this House. We
can gather together with other Canadians and even our provincial
counterparts to employ them in the policy area to help the
private sector employ more Canadians and become more competitive
in an economic environment which is becoming increasingly more
global and more competitive.
The first area which I alluded to yesterday was our high
taxation rates. The high taxation rates today when we compare
them to the situation down south are quite traumatic. An
American two-earner family will take home 44% more in their
pockets than a Canadian two-earner family. That is a significant
difference. Also, the top marginal tax brackets make it very
difficult for business people to invest in their businesses.
Some very interesting work has been done on surtaxes. If we
look at the many surtaxes that now exist in our country, those
surtaxes significantly compromise people to invest in companies,
hire more people and invest in the future of the country. It is
estimated that a $1 extra surtax would actually diminish
productivity by about $64. The reason is that taxing more at the
top end or adding more taxes on to anybody actually decreases the
amount of investment that goes into the private sector. The
behaviour of individuals is such that they work less and because
they work less, less money is paid in taxes to come back to the
public coffers.
Not only do we have a decrease in competitiveness by taxing
more, we also have a decrease in the ability of people to work
harder and a diminishment of money that comes into the public
coffers. What does that do to the most disadvantaged people in
our country? With less money coming into the public coffers,
less money is available for our social programs, for health care,
education, pensions and others.
In the Conservative regime, I believe it was in 1992 when Mr.
Mulroney actually decreased taxes for a short period of time and
there was an actual increase in the amount of money going into
the public coffers. This would have provided governments with
more money for programs necessary to help the most
underprivileged in our country, to help our health care system
and to provide for the educational framework our young people
desperately need to become employable in the future. After that
the Conservative government then taxed more which actually
resulted in a decrease in money going into the public coffers.
This is very significant and something we cannot ignore.
The other added factor of increasing taxes is that it actually
drives our best and brightest to south of the border and to other
countries. It also drives Canadian companies to other countries.
We have had a massive brain drain. In my profession among
physicians, some of our best specialists, particularly our
orthopaedic surgeons and neurosurgeons have gone south of border,
two-thirds of our neurosurgeons and one-third of our orthopaedic
surgeons.
We are going to have a gap in specialists in nephrology dealing
with people with kidney problems. We are going to lose about 40
people from this country over the next 10 years. This is a
significant problem given the fact that more and more people are
actually going to need specialist care for renal problems.
The cause of this is the high taxation rates and the dampening
effect of the egregious rules and regulations that we have which
prevent the private sector from being as aggressive as it can be.
One of the things that is killing our private sector, if we
speak to the business community, is the corporate surtaxes, the
surtaxes that occur in specific businesses. There is also the
capital gains tax which is preventing them from being able to
sell their businesses and properties and reinvest that money in
their own companies.
That is why a lot of companies are holding onto their assets.
The corporate tax rate is a huge disincentive. If they sell
their assets the capital gains will be so high they will incur a
loss.
1340
The status quo with high taxes, and specifically with the capital
gains tax on corporations, causes an inertia within the system
that prevents companies from generating the finances to reinvest
within their own companies. The government should carefully look
at removing those taxes. It would benefit the people who are
most disadvantaged in our society. If companies cannot hire,
people will be unemployed. That causes a greater demand on our
social programs and also, from a societal perspective, greater
social problems.
We could also create strategic alliances. The Canadian Export
Development Corporation has been very much an innovator in
developing ideas of strategic partnerships. I implore the
government and companies to look at strategic alliances where
companies that have different areas of specialty can work
together to further a particular product. That situation can even
occur across borders.
A natural alliance would be the United States. There are
companies in the U.S. and Canada that have specialties in certain
areas. If they were to form strategic partnerships they could be
a very aggressive tool and an effective marketer of their
particular business abroad. Since we live in an era of
globalization, that would make Canada a more effective competitor
internationally.
Years ago I tried to take all the best ideas I could find from
Canadians across the country and put them on my website. The
private sector could then extract the information and use it to
their advantage. I know there are members of the House who will
be working very hard to stimulate companies in their ridings to
be more effective.
Although we support Bill C-35, there are some amendments that
could be made. Examples have been put forth by my colleagues
with respect to baby food. Heinz got a monopoly because the
public interest was not taken into consideration. Those things
must be carefully looked at when dealing with international trade
issues.
The government has to deal with decreasing taxes in an effective
manner, looking at innovative ways in which it can provide a
lower tax rate for people in the lowest socioeconomic area. If
these things can be done we will be able to provide a better
state of affairs for Canadians across the country.
The government can also increase the foreign ownership maximum
on RRSPs from 20% to 30%. With the lack of confidence that
Canadians have in the CPP, it would be very important and useful
for the government to give Canadians the option of helping
themselves by enabling them to increase the foreign ownership
content of their RRSPs.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order adopted earlier
this day, the House will now proceed to deal with the question on
Bill C-35.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
1345
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My
understanding was that the bill was actually going to be referred
to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the order be
amended to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:
It being 1.45 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CANADA STUDENT LOANS
The House resumed from May 5, 1998 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to
respond to the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver East
regarding the Canada student loans program.
Let me begin by assuring the hon. member and the House that the
government is always very much aware of the needs and problems of
young Canadians pursuing post-secondary education. It is this
very concern that prompted the government to enter into
consultations with the public, the provinces and the territories
on ways to improve the system of providing loans to Canadians
students.
Indeed, last February's budget incorporated many of the
recommendations of the report of the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development, measures which ensure Canadians have
access to post-secondary education.
The fact is that developments affecting the student loans
program have rendered the motion under discussion largely
irrelevant. Let me illustrate.
The motion calls first of all for the reversal of the
privatization of the Canada student loans program. But the
Canada student loans program has not been privatized.
Prior to 1995 the program provided financial assistance to
students in the form of 100% government guaranteed loans from
private sector lenders. Lenders financed and distributed the
loans to students and were responsible for collection. There was
little incentive for the lenders to police the loans, so the
federal government ended up holding more than $1 billion in
unpaid loans for which it had reimbursed the lenders under the
guarantee provisions.
In 1995 new financing arrangements were introduced which
enhanced lender accountability and improved client service. But
these arrangements do not by any means constitute privatization.
Governments, not the lenders, continue to determine student aid
policy and the nature of the Canada student loans program.
Under the new risk-shared financing agreement, government
payments against loan guarantees will decline from $382 million
in 1996-97 to $67 million in 2000-2001. Abandoning these
arrangements, which I assume is the intent of the hon. member's
motion, would cost Canadian taxpayers a great deal of money.
Government payments against loan guarantees would increase. We
would lose the benefits of sharing the risk with the lenders and
the government would have to pay penalties for breaking lender
agreements before their expiry in the year 2000.
Next, the motion calls for the government to reject proposals
for income contingent loan repayment. There is no difficulty
here since the government has already rejected proposals for
income contingent repayment. Students, lenders, the provinces,
the territories, education organizations and groups made it
clear that they do not consider income contingent repayment a
viable option. The repayment schedule would be too long and
accumulated interest payments would be too onerous.
Ontario is the only province that has shown any interest in
income contingent repayment. But while the federal government
worked closely with Ontario to analyse various models of such a
system, the government has also respected the view of the
remaining provinces, territories and stakeholders.
1350
Lenders declined Ontario's invitation to implement a provincial
income contingent repayment scheme for 1999. What the federal
government has done, however, is incorporated income sensitivity
into the new interest relief program and debt reduction measures
announced in the federal budget.
The motion calls upon the government to implement a federal
student grant program. Once again the Government of Canada has
already done that. Canada study grants are available for the
following students: high need part-time students; students with
a permanent disability; female doctoral students in certain
fields of study and, as announced in the recent budget, students
with dependants who can demonstrate a financial need. Canada
study grants, totalling $145 million, will be available in
1998-99.
In addition, the $2.5 billion Canadian millennium scholarship
fund will provide an average of $3,000 each year, to a maximum of
$15,000, to more than 100,000 low and middle income students for
the next 10 years.
That leaves us with the consideration of the motion's last
recommendation, accessibility as a new standard for
post-secondary education.
On this point I should emphasize that accessibility has been a
fundamental principle of the Canada student loans program since
its inception in 1964. Indeed, the government's ongoing
commitment to the principle of accessibility was clearly
demonstrated in the 1998 budget. A key element of that budget
was the Canadian opportunities strategy which will help ensure
that Canadians continue to have affordable access to
post-secondary education.
The federal government is working toward harmonization of Canada
student loans with provincial student loans. Accessibility is
one of the key principles of a harmonized student loan regime.
Since the federal government's interest in post-secondary
education is shared with the provinces and the territories, the
government carries out continuous consultations with student
groups, educators, lenders, provincial governments and the
territories. Further developments in financing and ensuring
accessibility to post-secondary education will involve all of
these groups, as they have in the past.
The Government of Canada is pursuing a course that is in the
best interests of students across the country. They are our
future. Considered in the light of the work that has already
been done, we must conclude that the motion of the hon. member
for Vancouver East is irrelevant.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to commend my NDP colleague for precipitating the discussion
we have before us today. The issue of students struggling with
their debt loads is very crucial and an issue of great interest
to many across the country.
We agree that governments need to help students financially, but
what is the best way? I think that would be the crux or the nub
of the difference on all sides of the House.
My main contention this afternoon in the matter of the student
debt problem will be that since both students and society benefit
from education, both should contribute financially. We need a
balance here.
Students cannot be without benefits because in this era in which
we live an education is the path to a good income. On the other
hand, society also benefits because in the economy in which we
live Canada cannot prosper without an educated workforce. Hence
the balance and hence both should be contributing.
But this particular NDP motion before us puts too much onus on
society, letting students off the hook, while the Liberals put
too much onus on students, letting society off the hook and
without responsibility in this matter.
1355
This NDP motion does not take seriously enough student
responsibility in this. It puts too much emphasis on grants.
Money does not grow on trees. The taxpayer pocket is not a
bottomless pit. I also want to emphasize the fact that Reform
does advocate interest free student loans. That is what we mean
in this income contingent loan plan and program. I will explain
more of that later.
On the other hand, the Liberals are not taking seriously enough
society's responsibility for educating students. I will describe
for members the Liberal approach and its effect on students. As
we know, the Liberals have made some massive cuts in transfers to
the provinces. This has led to tremendous problems with student
debt. Rather than restore funding for post-secondary education,
the Liberals have brought in a number of measures that merely
attempt to patch-up the mess they have made of many students'
financial situations.
They prefer to help students in debt by means of tax relief on
the interest portion of payments, interest relief extended to
graduates if they go to the next step and need more help. Before
we have any applause from the opposite side of the House, I want
members to know that this is going downhill from here. It is a
downward spiral and we finally get to the bottom.
I guess the Liberals next stop-gap measure from there would be
to provide an extended repayment period for those who need it. If
that does not help then an extended interest period for
individuals who continue to face financial difficulty. Then they
come again with cap in hand, on bended knee if maybe to have a
reduction in the loan principal for individuals who still face
financial difficulty.
These measures hardly represent a bold initiative to address the
problem of student debt levels. They do nothing to prevent
students from falling off the cliff of financial disaster. They
merely attempt to cushion the impact when they do fall to the
bottom. It would be like having a sign around a treacherous
corner, a curve with a cliff with a steep drop-off. Instead of
having warning signs or doing what can be done to prevent falls
off the cliff, they have ambulances at the bottom of the cliff.
They are reactive measures rather than proactive measures that
provide a genuine solution.
The Liberal approach to student loans makes the following
situation possible. I reiterate the example of a student who
gets a low paying job. Now he is attempting to make payments on
his student loan. The tax relief on the interest portion of his
payments does not help because he does not get his refund until
after tax time. In the meantime he cannot make the payments. So
he applies for interest relief. He jumps through that
bureaucratic hoop to qualify. If he is still in trouble he must
make another appearance to beg to have that payment period
extended.
If that does not solve the problem then he can apply for an
extended interest relief period. Once again he goes cap in hand,
on bended knee humiliated to beg for assistance with his
education. If problems persist he might qualify for a reduction
in the loan principal. It is exactly this kind of situation that
is repeated time and again across our country with students in
respect to debt.
This reveals the inadequacy of the Liberal approach with regard
to student debt. It keeps students in debt and offers assistance
only after things have gone wrong. Instead of repairing the
leaky boat of funding for post-secondary education, the Liberals
have offered a hodgepodge of measures to help students after the
Titanic is already going down and students are up to their neck
in water. At that point they come in with these supposed
solutions. Rather than trying to help students from the outset
so they can avoid a financial crisis, the Liberals approach
appears to be that of assisting students after they find
themselves in the middle of the crisis.
It is like a brick wall set up by the Liberals that students
have been trying to jump over. Far too many have been breaking
bones on the wall, unable to jump high enough. The Liberal
response is to have some doctors on hand on this side of the wall
as they bounce back bruised, bleeding and broken. They have them
there to treat the injured. But the Liberals say that under no
circumstances should that wall be lowered so as to reduce the
risk of injury in the first place. Students are left to continue
worrying, anxious about the matter and damaged and hurt over the
course of their lifetime.
Reform believes that it is administratively inefficient to help
students in stages like that. On the other hand, Reform's across
the board proposal of interest free loans is what students would
prefer.
I could liken the approach of the Liberals in the matter of
student loans and the recent changes even to a patient screaming
from pain there in the corridor of the hospital. The doctor kind
of saunters in and he gives a little pain killer, just enough to
take the edge off but there is still a lot of discomfort. But
the patient at least is not yelling any more, at least for a
while. Then the doctor waits until the patient is screaming again
before administering a little more painkiller again to take the
edge off. But there is still lots of discomfort.
1400
My point is simply the doctor never really relieves the pain,
just as the Liberal approach never really addresses the problem
of student debt. It just catches them one by one trying to
soften the impact, as they fall off the cliff and crash, rather
than setting up a program that prevents them from crashing in the
first place.
Reform's principles with respect to education are fairly clear.
I cite principle number six from our blue book: “The people of
Canada are this country's most valuable resources and that the
nurturing and development of human knowledge, skills and
relationships are keys to full participation in the knowledge
based service economy of the 21st century”. In other words,
people are the resource. People are what counts here. They are
the most valuable resource we have.
The leader of the Reform Party said on October 21, 1994 in
Commons debate: “One of the few areas where Reform does not
advocate any spending reduction is in the area of financial
support for post-secondary education. Post-secondary education as
an investment in Canada's future is so important that we are
prepared to make massive spending reductions in other areas, some
focused government spending in areas like health, education and
the basic social safety net”. We are prepared to do that in
order to make and maintain the current levels of funding for
post-secondary education.
I suggest that of all the things the government does, of all the
money it spends, its one true investment in the future is its
investment in the education and training of the young generation
of Canadians.
Reform has a balanced approach where both students and society
contribute with federally funded income contingent loans. There
has been misunderstanding about what Reform means by income
contingent loans, so I will read our policy statement: “The
Reform Party believes that the federal government should
institute a federally funded income contingent loan plan that is
as near to being interest free to students as possible”.
Let us be clear about several things. First, in the Reform
Party policy the banks would not be the lenders. I think that
should make my colleague from the NDP happy. Rather than the
loans being through the banks and therefore making money off our
students, the loans would be federally funded. In our plan the
student would be lent money and asked simply to pay back the same
amount without interest over time at a pace in keeping with the
graduate's income.
That proposal then would solve the perceived problem brought
forth by the Canadian Federation of Students. It said that in
such an income contingent loans program, a misunderstanding of
Reform's proposal, the flexibility of the payments geared to a
graduate's income works against the student since graduates with
lower incomes will by necessity repay their loans over a longer
period of time and will be paying a great deal more in interest
payments than those with high incomes.
But if they are only paying toward the principal there is no
interest. Benefits are extended longer based on that graduate's
income and there is no downside to this. Because Reform would
like to see students get interest free loans this problem would
be completely avoided.
It has been a privilege to speak with respect to this motion. We
cannot support the motion as it presently stands, but I do thank
the hon. member for precipitating and provoking discussion on
this very crucial area of the student debt problem today.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
BILL C-3—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the House
that after consultation an agreement could not be reached under
the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to
the third reading of Bill C-3, and act respecting DNA
identification and to make consequential amendments to the
Criminal Code and other acts.
Therefore under provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give
notice of my intention to propose at the next sitting a motion to
allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration
and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1405
[Translation]
CANADIAN STUDENT LOANS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as always,
it is a pleasure to rise in this House to speak to a number of
issues of great importance to Quebeckers and Canadians alike.
As I read the motion of the member for Vancouver East, I
realized there was no question of the member's good faith. No
indeed. However, is she indeed talking about new national
standards in her motion? This goes right to the heart of the
Quebec-Canada debate.
To most Quebeckers, federalists or sovereignists, the word
national refers to Quebec and not Canada.
Here, the reference to national standards, to most English
Canadians in the rest of Canada, means Canadian standards for
Canada.
As I said, this goes right to the heart of the Canada-Quebec
dichotomy. It indicates an obvious lack of understanding of
Quebec, its reality, its values, and the will of all Quebeckers,
federalist or sovereignist, to defend certain jurisdictions
awarded Quebec in 1867, the main one being education.
In Quebec, we have had our own system of loans and grants for
over 30 years. This was one of the major achievements of the
quiet revolution headed by the Liberal government of the time
under Jean Lesage with the support of a few important ministers,
including Georges-Émile Lapalme and, naturally, René Lévesque.
Quebec's system of loans and bursaries works very well, and
suits everyone.
I can quote a figure in support of this: the average debt load
for a university graduate in Canada is $25,000, whereas it is
$11,000 in Quebec. It is therefore easier for a Quebec student
to graduate from a university in Quebec, find a job and repay
his or her debt. It is easier when the debt is smaller than
that of a student completing university in English Canada.
I speak from experience, having taken much of my higher
education in Quebec, but having taken some of it in Ontario.
Finally, what the member is after, when we read between the
lines to find her objective, is to have a Quebec system or
equivalent throughout Canada, because the Quebec system works
well. It is efficient, inexpensive, fair and equitable.
We recently had an example of national standards in education
with the current Prime Minister's toy, a monument to his rule:
the millennium scholarships. It was clear that in Quebec none of
the stakeholders—young people, student federations, labour
unions, universities and their presidents, political
parties—were interested in these scholarships.
Millennium scholarships are awarded partly on merit instead of
being solely based on the needs of individual students. That is
unfair because we know full well that students with less
privileged backgrounds find it much harder to study because they
must hold one, two or even three jobs, which of course
interferes with studying and getting good grades in university.
Most parties in this House, with the exception of the party
opposite I believe, strive to avoid overlap. Education being a
provincial jurisdiction, establishing national standards, that
is federal standards applied in a provincial jurisdiction, would
only result in more overlap, more spending and ultimately
bureaucratic chaos that would benefit no one except the
bureaucratic machine itself, which has a tendency to develop
programs just to support itself and prosper.
1410
I mentioned earlier that, in putting this motion forward, the
hon. member was not showing bad faith, far from it, but rather a
misunderstanding of Quebec that is unfortunately endemic in
Canada, as I myself experienced in Ontario.
Finally, it always boils down to the same issue. Here we have
two distinct societies sharing the same legal framework. The
solution is very simple: each one should have sole jurisdiction
over education and every other area in the public domain. That
is what is called Quebec sovereignty.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on the occasion to debate the motion brought
before the House by the hon. member for Vancouver East.
The hon. member is asking for substantial changes to the way the
government supports post-secondary education. With all due
respect, I do not think the hon. member has done her homework
before presenting her motion. I will address her points
individually.
The first point is proposed changes to the Canada student
loans program. The hon. member says the government should
reverse the privatization of Canada student loans.
The government has stressed from day one that partnerships are
the key to ensuring strong economic and social provisions that
will serve Canadians. We still believe that. As for the Canadian
student loans program, we can go back to its inception in 1964
and find that the government of the day worked with private
sector lenders to finance the Canadian student loans program.
That is hardly a radical concept.
Prior to 1995 the Canadian student loans program provided
students with financial assistance in the form of 100% government
guaranteed loans from private sector lenders. These lenders
financed and distributed the loans and were responsible for
servicing and collecting them.
In theory this seems like a good system but in practice there
was little incentive for lenders to maintain loans in good
standing, to prevent defaults or to provide quality service to
students. The result was a significant cost to the government.
Hon. members will recall that in the early part of this decade
Canadian taxpayers insisted that we get our financial house in
order, which we have done. Part of that necessary and beneficial
process was to negotiate new financing arrangements for the
Canada student loans program, which we did.
New arrangements were introduced in 1995. Under these new
arrangements lenders assume responsibility for servicing and
collecting the loans.
In return for the risk of loans not being repaid, the Government
of Canada pays lenders a premium of 5% of the loan's face value
when it goes into repayment. This is a much more favourable
arrangement for Canadian taxpayers.
Before these new arrangements were implemented, the Government
of Canada held over $1 billion in loans for which it had
reimbursed lenders under the guaranteed loans provision, a rather
costly situation and one that Canadians would no longer tolerate.
The hon. member may ask how the system is an improvement. As a
transition to risk shared system progresses, the cost of claims
for guaranteeing loans will decrease dramatically while the cost
of the risk premium will increase only moderately.
For example, payments against loan guarantees are expected to
decline from $382 million in the fiscal year 1996-97 to a more
reasonable $67 million for the year 2000-2001.
1415
But during the same period it is estimated that the risk premium
will increase only from $200,000 in 1996-97, the year after risk
sharing was implemented, to $73 million in the year 2000-2001.
If we were to adopt the hon. member's motion and reverse this
process the result would be forfeiture of the projected savings
and there would be a significant increase in costs regarding
claims for guaranteed loans. Surely that is not what the hon.
member wants.
The government has signed contracts with lenders. Changing these
arrangements would mean breaking contracts or renegotiating them,
both of which could prove very costly.
The hon. member's motion also calls on the government to reject
proposals for income contingent loan repayment. If the hon.
member had done even preliminary research she would know that
after discussions with our provincial partners it was agreed that
a system of income contingent loan repayment was not feasible.
The idea of income contingent loan repayment came about
following reforms to the Canadian student loans program and the
coming into force of the Canadian Student Loans Financial
Assistance Act in 1995.
In the 1997 budget we again expressed our willingness to discuss
the possibility of an income contingency repayment with
interested provinces. The bottom line is that only the province
of Ontario expressed interest and potential lenders were, shall
we say, less than enthusiastic about participating in such a
scheme.
Ontario and the lenders have not been able to come to an
agreement and the Ontario government said an ICR plan would not
be introduced by the 1999 deadline it had set.
Last November a national stakeholders working session on the
Canada student loans program determined that an ICR scheme was
not viable so the government has no intention of implementing an
ICR system at this time.
I point out, however, that the February 1998 federal budget is
sensitive to a student borrower's income. The budget announced a
package of new measures, including interest relief changes and
new grants.
For example, eligibility for interest relief is based on income.
The 1998 budget increased the threshold for students to qualify
for interest relief, extended the interest relief period over a
longer period of time and introduced debt reduction measures to
assist students in severe financial hardship.
The hon. member for Vancouver East is calling on the government
to implement a federal student grant program. Where was the hon.
member during the budget speech debate? Is she not aware of the
Canada millennium scholarship fund and the Canada study grants?
Both have been topics for discussion in this House on a number
of occasions and both are student grant programs.
The Canada millennium scholarship fund will start off with an
endowment of $2.5 billion from the Government of Canada. Over 10
years scholarships will assist more than 100,000 low and middle
income students annually. Grants will average $3,000 a year.
The new Canada study grants for students with children and other
dependants which came into effect on August 15 will help over
25,000 students this year alone. Other Canada study grants have
been in effect for some time and include grants for certain
female doctorate candidates, high need, part time students and
students with permanent disabilities. The government is backing
its commitment to Canada study grants with an allocation of $100
million in the upcoming fiscal year.
I trust these federal student grant programs will satisfy the
hon. member who is also calling on the government to establish
accessibility to a new national standard for post-secondary
education. Again, accessibility has been a fundamental principle
of the Canadian student loans program since its inception in
1964. That is some record. Not only that, but both federal and
provincial governments have stated that accessibility should be
the key principle in any joint programs offering student loans.
I also point out that since post-secondary is the responsibility
of both federal and provincial governments, the Government of
Canada cannot unilaterally declare a national standard, if that
is what the hon. member is suggesting.
1420
I encourage all hon. members to give the new provisions designed
to help post-secondary students an opportunity and see how
effective they will be. It is far too early to start considering
amendments to these programs, and for that reason I cannot
support the hon. member's motion.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington I am very
pleased to speak on this motion.
While I share the member's concern for students and their
ability to finance higher education, I do not see how the
proposals presented here in this motion would produce a better
system than the one we now have.
For example, the motion calls on the government to reverse the
privatization of the Canada student loans program. The
implication is that we have changed from a publicly funded
program to a private one, and yet the Canada student loans
program has always been based on private capital. That has not
changed so there is nothing to reverse.
The student loans program has been financed by private capital
since it was first introduced in 1964. There were some changes
made to the program in 1995 but the objective was not to
privatize the plan. These changes were made in order to broaden
risk sharing and to put more decision making into the hands of
the private lenders. The changes were designed to improve the
way the plan operated, not to privatize it.
When the plan was first introduced in 1964 the federal
government provided guarantees to private sector lenders who in
turn financed and dispersed loans, but this system gave little
incentive to private lenders to maintain their loans in good
standing, to prevent defaults or to form a close service
relationship with the borrower. If the loans failed, the lender
simply called in the guarantee from the Government of Canada.
This resulted in significant extra costs for the federal
government under the original program design. In fact, by 1995
when changes were made the Government of Canada held over $1
billion in defaulted loans for which it had reimbursed lenders
under the guarantee provisions of the plan.
Under the new risk sharing arrangement private lenders assume
responsibility for both servicing and collecting the loans as
well as dispersing them. As its contribution to the risk sharing
approach, the federal government pays private lenders a premium
of 5% of the face value of the loans when they go into repayment.
The government estimates that this risk sharing approach will
significantly reduce the cost of the student loan program without
reducing the money available to students from private lenders.
Thus we have brought the federal government and private lenders
more closely together in a public-private sector risk sharing
approach to achieve a reasonable balance between costs to the
federal government and loan availability.
The second part of the motion asks us to reject proposals for
income contingent loan repayment plans. While it is true that
the question of income contingent repayment plans was discussed
with varying degrees of interest by other parties, including the
provinces, discussions were broken off, and that is unfortunate.
The Government of Canada was alone with the Government of
Ontario among the provinces in advocating this approach. The
lenders and Ontario did not come to an agreement.
The motion proposes the implementation of a federal student
grant program. The Canada millennium fund will go a long way
toward providing financial assistance to improve access to
education and these scholarships are to be based on need and on
merit.
This $2.5 billion program will provide scholarships averaging
$3,000 each to cover over 100,000 low and middle income students
each year. Eligible individuals will be able to receive up to
$15,000 over a maximum of four years toward undergraduate
degrees, diplomas or certificates.
The budget also recognized the changing demographics of our
student population as more and more of them who have been in the
workforce return to their studies to upgrade their skills.
The budget introduced a new Canada study grant for students with
children or other dependants. These grants came into effect
August 1, 1998 and are expected to help over 25,000 students over
the next year.
There is also the Canada education savings grant to help
families save for their education, and the Government of Canada
will give a grant of 20% on the first $2,000 invested in a
registered education savings plan.
1425
The motion proposes the establishment of accessibility as a new
standard for post-secondary education. Accessibility can mean
many things. In terms of program funding accessibility has been a
fundamental principle of the Canada student loans program since
it was introduced in 1964, and it remains so.
If the motion refers to accessibility to education we must
remember there is a shared responsibility between the federal
government and the provincial and territorial governments on
matters related to higher education. Traditionally the
operations of an education system are seen as outside the federal
area of responsibility.
Any proposal to establish national standards for access to
education would have to be considered within the wider and broad
context of shared responsibility between the federal government
and our provincial and territorial partners. It could not be
unilaterally imposed by the federal government.
Thus we cannot support the motion for a number of reasons.
First, the system has not been privatized as the motion implies.
We have moved to a system of sharing the risks of the Canada
student loans program with the private sector but we have not
privatized the program. Any moves to change a risk sharing
arrangement would cause potential extra costs to the Government
of Canada and would upset the existing program.
Second, the Government of Canada has already committed $2.5
billion to the Canada millennium scholarship fund which will
provide students with financial support. We do not believe it is
prudent to add further to our grant programs at this time.
Third, accessibility is already a fundamental principle of the
Canada student loans program and will remain so. Issues of
accessibility to education in the operational sense are matters
for discussion at the provincial and territorial government
levels. The Government of Canada believes in a partnership
approach to policy development and has no intention of
formulating andor imposing any national accessibility standards
in this regard.
We do not believe the proposals presented in the motion are
necessary, nor would they improve the existing system in support
of Canadian students. While the government is always willing to
listen as always to constructive advice and to make helpful
changes, we are not persuaded in this instance that the actions
proposed in this private member's motion will provide the kind of
result needed. It is for these reasons that I ask that we oppose
the motion.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government has said in the throne Sseech and the
budget that it was a government for youth. It even announced
the millennium scholarship fund for students.
Before going any further, I must explain how this government is
really helping today's young people. First, the Liberal
government has cut $1.5 billion from federal funding to
education via transfer payments to the provinces. Over the past
ten years, tuition fees have increased by 240%. Last year, the
increase nation-wide was 12%, seven times higher than the rise in
the inflation rate.
The average student debt load is $25,000, compared to the 1993
level of $13,000 when the Liberals came in. There are even
students in my riding with debt loads of over $50,000.
Student bankruptcies among those with loans have also attained
record levels, with a 700% increase since 1989.
Thanks to the Liberal government, there is another factor
contributing to the debt load of our young people: poverty.
This government continues to impoverish the parents of these
young people who end up at the mercy of the banks to finance
their post-secondary education. We must not forget either the
famous millennium fund, which is contributing to the debt load
of thousands of young people throughout this fine country and
will help 7% of the country's students.
1430
Despite the increased assistance to students announced in the
throne speech and in the budget, the situation of thousands of
students is in fact very sad. The intent of the motion is to
rectify this injustice, to underscore the hypocrisy of the
Liberals and to clearly establish a link between the attempt to
privatize post-secondary education and the heightened despair of
the young at finding themselves unemployed, and some of them
even in a state of poverty at the end of their studies.
The Liberal strategy has undermined public funding of
post-secondary education to the point where it is now completely
in the hands of the private sector. With this motion, the New
Democrats are continuing to try to force the Liberal government
to acknowledge that students are critically in debt.
We want the government to listen to what they are saying. We
want members to defend public education and say that stronger
measures must be taken to reduce the student debt load.
[English]
We must keep a close eye on the Liberal government. One would
want to think that the government actually cares for our young
people, for the ones who will be running this country sometime in
the near future, but let us not be mistaken. The government is
very clear: profits first, students' future later, much later.
[Translation]
By introducing this motion today, the NDP wants to make it very
clear that it resolutely defends our public education system.
We in the NDP will not let the federal government forget the
debts that students face and the crises these debts provoke.
A number of surveys were carried out in 1997. In one survey
done in the maritimes, high school students were asked why they
were not going to university. Forty per cent of them said they
were not going on to university because they simply could not
afford it.
In 1995, the Liberal government gave financial institutions
greater responsibility over financial assistance to students.
Until then, although they were assessed by the banks, student
loans were fully guaranteed by the government.
In the last budget, the federal government announced another
giant step towards privatization. Buried deep within the budget
legislation is a provision giving banks greater authority to
turn down student loans. This provision allows cabinet, outside
of the scrutiny of the House, to decide which students do not
deserve loans. The implications of this are staggering.
Instead of creating student loans programs or millennium funds,
which duplicate existing scholarship programs and are of no
assistance to students in need, we have on several occasions
asked the government, and we will continue to do so, to take
measures that will reduce student debts, rather than defer them.
By the time the millennium fund is established in the year 2000,
$3.1 billion will have been cut from post-secondary education. At
about $250 million a year for 10 years, the millennium fund will
not even come close to compensating what we have lost as a
result of this Liberal government's policies.
Today's motion calls on the government to promote public
education and restore the $550 million that was cut from this
year's budget.
We in the NDP are asking the federal government to create, in
co-operation with the provinces, a national grant program for
first and second year students. We have had enough of the kind
of unilateral actions we have seen in this House with regard to
post-secondary education. The millennium fund was established
without any consultations with the provinces and other
stakeholders. It was an arbitrary measure that was taken by the
government with no consultation and no information provided.
We believe that a national grant program has to be established
within the context of a new federalism in which the provinces
are active participants. The federal government must take the
lead in establishing accessibility as a new national standard.
The issue of accessibility must be tied to the federal
government's financial contribution and payments to the
provinces.
This is what we need to do in Canada, and what the Liberal
government needs to do.
1435
It must also be kept in mind that this is a fine country we live
in, but there is something increasingly unfortunate happening to
that fine country, as it becomes very clear that there are two
systems of post-secondary education. Perhaps, in fact, there is
actually only one, a system for young people who can afford
post-secondary education, or whose parents can. This must stop.
Too many young people are without access to post-secondary
education, and this causes social problems, which result in
additional costs to government and to the taxpayers of this
country.
Steps must be taken today to put an end to this vicious circle,
which ends up costing the taxpayer very dearly and is highly
unfair to families who need help if their children are to gain
access to education, good jobs and success in life.
Unfortunately, governments are continuing to present policies
that are harmful to our young people.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to join the debate on the motion.
The idea of post-secondary education has come up a number of
times in the House. To listen to the various parties one would
think it was an issue of great concern but in actual fact the
track record has been that the Liberal government has been
cutting funding for post-secondary education in a significant way
ever since it has had the power to do so. Since 1995, $1.5
billion has been removed from federal funding to post-secondary
education. These are startling figures.
The motion as put forward by the member for Vancouver East tries
to remedy the problem. It tries to say something about access to
funding for post-secondary education for the many students who
need it and who are not getting it.
Virtually every study emphasizes the need for a highly skilled
workforce and more education. We are hearing the point made over
and over again that grade 12 is not enough any more. At least
one post-secondary degree is needed to make it in the world of
work today. When the public schools act came into place in the
1930s, grade 12 was adequate. That is why it was decided that it
should be freely accessible to everyone who wanted it and needed
it. Students were strongly encouraged to stay in school to at
least get their grade 12.
The facts have changed. All the experts are telling us 15 years
to 17 years of education is the minimum. Although I understand
why the motion was put forward and I believe in it, it does not
go far enough. Our caucus is calling for free tuition. I
believe that we should join the 27 countries in the world that
already provide education free of charge to all the students who
have hopes, ambitions or aspirations to join the workforce of the
20th century with the tools that they need.
Only 15% of students actually graduate; 15% of our youth are
getting the education they need. What we are hearing is that
many more students would take part in post-secondary education
were it not for the insurmountable barrier of access to
affordable loans so that they can follow through with their
dreams and ambitions.
In a 1997 survey of high school students in the maritimes, 40%
of the students interviewed not going to university said they
were not going because they could not afford it. They simply
could not get the wherewithal to go to school.
The average student debt in the country is $25,000. That is up
from a $13,000 average since 1993 when the Liberals took power.
The average debt in 1993 was $13,000; today the average debt is
$25,000. It is not tolerable and it is inconsistent with what we
know about the need for access to post-secondary education.
Bankruptcies for students who are trying to pay off student
loans are at record levels. They have increased by 700% since
1989. The number of students who are struggling to repay student
loans and have been forced into bankruptcy has increased 700%
since 1989, figures that we should be shocked at.
Currently 130,000 students are in default on student loans. This
is not because of a lack of will or because they are charlatans
or they are trying to defraud the system.
Simply the structure of the system is such that it is not
possible for them to get the education they need and make good on
their loans.
1440
It is easy to see why. Over the last 10 years tuition fees have
climbed by 240%. When $1.5 billion in federal funding has been
cut from post-secondary education, it is not hard to see why
tuition fees had to go up. It is a natural consequence of
starving our post-secondary institutions.
We are going in the direction of whole costing our tuition to
where all the cost of tuition would be borne by the student. It
was never the idea when we embraced the idea of accessible
post-secondary education for it to be to the point where tuition
fees almost have to match the whole cost of education. It is
completely 180 degrees opposite from what most Canadians would
embrace. This is the reason that we have to start looking at
broadening the public schools act to include post-secondary
education.
Maybe we could say that the first degree would be free of charge
to students. It sounds like a radical idea but we have to start
seeding that idea today and then find a way to make it happen and
bring it to fruition. If we do not start talking about it now,
it simply is not going to happen.
I would like to point to the example of the country of Ireland,
my homeland. At a certain point in recent history, it was very
slow to attract investment and have job opportunities for its
young people.
The reason Ireland is enjoying a bit of an opportunity now and a
bit of an increase in investment with high tech companies coming
to that country is that it has the highest skilled workforce in
terms of academic excellence in the world. Even though Ireland
had high levels of unemployment, it never sacrificed the idea of
post-secondary education for its people. Ireland knew it was
building the base that would eventually attract the type of
business and the type of investment that would ultimately lead it
out of the economic slump it was in.
There is a real lesson to be learned there. We may say that we
have high unemployment and that we need transition from school to
work for young people. In actual fact, we need a more highly
skilled workforce to where every student who has the ability can
go forward as far as their ability will take them in a chosen
field of study in post-secondary education.
The motion we are speaking to today, Motion No. 132, hopes to
rectify this injustice but it is also really to highlight what
can only be looked at as Liberal hypocrisy in this matter. To
pretend that there is a real interest in post-secondary education
and at the same time cut $1.5 billion out of funding for those
institutions is such a glaring contradiction that more and more
Canadians are starting to see how fundamentally wrong it is and
how fundamentally wrong-headed it is.
It is said that poverty is a consequence of poor education and
also a cause of poor education. We can bring this whole subject
around to the issue of the war on poverty and the redistribution
of wealth. One of the ways people who are stuck in the bottom
echelons of the economic system can pull themselves up is to have
the marketable skills that they need to go forward and follow
their chosen field.
I am not saying that is the be all and end all. There are other
aspects to post-secondary education. The universities do not
have a monopoly on providing the skills people need.
I am a journeyman carpenter myself. I like to think of
apprenticeship as legitimate post-secondary education. I would
like to see any student loans initiative broadened to include
labour market training as well as the more traditional B.A.,
Bachelor of Education or Bachelor of Science.
We know that the institutions are in crisis through lack of
funding. They passed on that crisis to students. It is students
who are now in a crisis. They need relief. They need a remedy
and they need some support. That is why this motion would take us
at least one step in the way to providing some satisfaction.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morrison): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business having now
expired, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the order paper.
1445
It being 2.45 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.45 p.m.)