36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 220
CONTENTS
Monday, May 3, 1999
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill-374. Second reading
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1110
1115
1120
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1125
1130
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1135
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1140
1145
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1150
1155
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1200
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1205
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Shipbuilding
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Motion
|
1210
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1215
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
1220
| Amendment
|
1225
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1230
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1235
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1240
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1245
1250
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1255
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1300
1305
| Mr. John Herron |
1310
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1315
1320
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1325
| Mr. André Harvey |
1330
1335
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1340
| Mr. John Herron |
1345
1350
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1355
| CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL
|
| The Speaker |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| MILLBROOK AGRICULTURAL FAIR
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| POLISH CONSTITUTION
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1400
| WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| BOB WHITE
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| MONTH OF COMMUNICATION
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1405
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| SUMMER WORK PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| TVA NETWORK
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| UNITED ALTERNATIVE
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1410
| ALUMINUM INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
| INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| NATIONAL FILM BOARD
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| THE LATE GORDON OLMSTEAD
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| BLOC QUEBECOIS YOUTH FORUM
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1425
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| KOSOVO
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. John Manley |
1430
| TAXATION
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| ORPHAN CLAUSES
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1440
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| TOBACCO
|
| Mr. John McKay |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1445
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. John Manley |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1450
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. John Manley |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. John Manley |
| NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
1455
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PRODUCTIVITY
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| YOUTH SUMMER EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. John Manley |
1500
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| TABER, ALBERTA
|
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1505
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1510
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| TABLING OF TREATIES ACT
|
| Bill C-506. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1515
| PETITIONS
|
| Marriage
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Penticton Airport
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Genetically Engineered Foods
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Foreign Affairs
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Impaired Driving
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Young Offenders Act
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Trade
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1520
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Sumas Community Correctional Centre
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Yugoslavia
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Shipbuilding
|
| Motion
|
| Hon. John Manley |
1525
1530
1535
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1540
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1545
| Mr. John Herron |
1550
| Mr. Randy White |
1555
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1600
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1605
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1610
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1615
| Mr. John Bryden |
1620
1625
1630
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1635
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1640
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1645
1650
1655
1700
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1705
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1710
1715
1720
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1725
| Mr. John Herron |
1730
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1735
1740
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1745
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1750
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1755
1800
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1805
| Mr. John Herron |
1810
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1815
1820
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1825
| Kosovo
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1830
| Kosovo
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1835
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 220
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 3, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved that Bill C-374, an
act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff
(prohibited toys), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time since I was elected
to the House in 1993 that I have introduced a bill. I
introduced this bill, but it was inspired by people in my
riding, who took up this fight. I will describe this later in
greater detail.
I will first explain what the thrust of this bill is before
talking about a broader problem, namely the violence our
children are exposed to on a daily basis in society at large. As
lawmakers we have to ask ourselves whether we provide the best
possible framework to regulate this whole area.
The purpose of my bill is to ban the manufacture, importation,
marketing and sale of toys with instructions—and this is the
significant point—that clearly encourage violent behaviour. I
make this distinction because the toy might appear innocent
enough, but the instructions are not.
This is what happened to one of my constituents who bought a
doll, more specifically a troll, for her children.
At first glance, on the shelf, the toy was quite appealing, and
there did not seem to be a problem. Then one day she saw the
instructions accompanying the doll, which said “To keep your
troll happy, beat it, shut it up in the dark, deny it all
possible happiness” and so on.
This is where the problem begins, because it is totally bad
taste. It is inappropriate even and unacceptable that this sort
of message accompanying toys should appear on the market without
impunity.
Obviously, a person faced with this situation would react first
by saying “That must not be legal. I am going to find out”.
Ms. Ayotte, who is a resident of my riding, therefore checked
around and finally discovered that it was a perfectly legitimate
practice and nothing prevented it.
That led her to give thought to the greater problem of violence
in general.
I come back to my bill, which concerns toys specifically.
However, I would like there to be a much broader debate than
just the focus of my bill, because the problem of violence is
much broader.
My bill aims to introduce a prohibition in the Criminal Code, to
create a criminal offence for these kinds of instructions. I
will read the description of Bill C-374 in the summary
accompanying it:
The purpose of this enactment is to prohibit the sale to persons
under the age of eighteen years, the offer for sale in a place
to which persons under the age of eighteen years reasonably have
access or the importation into Canada of a doll together with a
label or writing urging any person to mistreat the doll or cause
it to suffer injuries or degrading acts, or the packaging of
which contains such a label or writing.
Why was the word doll included in the bill? It was included
because words have meaning in our language, and the word “doll”
means an object with a human form. So, obviously, the link is
even more direct when a person is encouraged to inflict injuries
on or treat in a degrading manner an object with a human form.
1110
Probably far more can be done. My approach is aimed at banning
this practice, using a specific example. I am sure, however,
that a number of improvements can be made to this bill.
It can be broadened to encompass all toys, although the point
needs to be made that a toy per se may be relatively
inoffensive. The problem lies far more with the use a child is
invited to make of it.
Coming back to the action taken by some people in my riding,
Mrs. Ayotte, who has five young children, set up a team, with
community support. The university provided researchers.
She started up a petition, which has taken on the form of a
giant jigsaw puzzle, and which people were invited to sign to
indicate their wish to see society take steps to decrease the
violence with which our children are confronted.
To date, the petition initiated by Mrs. Ayotte has been signed
by 400,000 people. The puzzle-petition, which has turned into
the project “Joue-moi la paix”, has been exhibited on two
occasions, one of them before this House. Unfortunately, when
they came to put it together in front of parliament, it was
election time, and most MPs were unable to see it.
It was also assembled in the riding of Rouyn—Noranda, and at that
time all necessary steps were taken to get it into the record
book, as it is the biggest jigsaw puzzle ever put together in
the world.
In the updated version of the Guinness Book of Records, the
biggest puzzle in the world is associated with the “Joue-moi la
paix” project.
The mayor of Rouyn was in attendance. So was our bishop, Mgr.
Jean-Guy Hamelin. A large number of citizens came that day, which
became a day of celebration in Rouyn-Noranda. They came to sign
this puzzle, if they had not already done so, or to see it being
assembled.
The group had a much loftier goal than my bill, and it conducted
much broader research. In the process, some became more
knowledgeable. Mrs. Ayotte met with officials from the
Department of Justice to submit her project to the government,
asking that steps be taken to reduce the number of violent
stimuli to which children are confronted on a daily basis.
Should we not be concerned about the violence shown through
video games and on television? A debate was held in the House on
this issue. A petition signed by a large number of people was
also initiated by a young woman, following a tragedy that had
triggered a debate on the violence shown on television. The
government followed up on this to see if additional measures
should be taken.
We need only think of recent events in our society. The tragedy
that occurred in Denver, Colorado, where two young men entered a
high school and killed several of their fellow students, is
still fresh in our minds. The same thing happened last week, in
Alberta, where a young man was killed and another injured
because teenagers entered the school with weapons. It was
terrible.
Obviously, there is no legislation, regulation or measure that
can guarantee us protection from this sort of catastrophe
indefinitely. Far from it. However, particularly in light of
recent events, we should ask ourselves if we are doing all we
can as individuals, as parents, and also as members of
parliament, as the lawmakers of our society.
1115
We can be glad that there has been much less overall violence in
Quebec and in Canada than in the United States, for instance,
but we are not isolated from trends that originate there and
eventually come our way.
The research showed that most of the toys I mentioned originated
in the United States, but they still end up in our stores. With
the way companies operate, and distribution networks and free
trade zones, the marketplace takes in all of North America, the
whole world. It is not true that, because they are made
somewhere else, we are completely free from them.
They end up in our businesses and they have an impact.
At the dawn of new phenomena such as the Internet or satellite
TV, we will have less and less control over these things, in the
near future. We will not be able to deny people direct access
to American channels. We will be able to regulate less and
less. It will come directly on the computer, which will be
hooked up to the TV. People will make their own choices about
what they want to watch.
What can we do? I would like to have the Standing Committee on
Justice consider not specifically the focus of the bill but to
consider what we can do. Can we do something?
There are experts in the field.
We have seen a little more of this with the events in Colorado
and Alberta, in the information programming on television and in
all sorts of public debates. Questions have been raised,
phenomena discussed. There are people who are experts in this
area.
Is a child really influenced growing up in this environment?
Maybe yes, maybe no. I do not claim to know for sure. I think
it does have an influence.
Why not debate the matter with these experts, who will give us
their opinion. It seems to me we study enough things here, for
a question of such importance to be studied, particularly after
the recent events.
Avoiding demagoguery and remaining realistic, I am not trying to
tell the government that what I am proposing is a magic
solution, far from it. This is not a simple or easy issue. We
can never be fully protected from phenomena or actions that are
violent, gratuitous, incomprehensible and unexplainable.
They result in individuals feeling so desperate and aggressive
that they can go as far as killing others. This kind of
occurrence can never be completely prevented. It will probably
never be fully understood, either, but there are a certain
number of things that can be done.
Within my very specific bill, it seems to me that what I am
asking for is not unrealistic.
Moreover, when a toy, which may be merely totally tasteless in
itself, also comes with instructions which, as the bill says,
urges any person to adopt a violent behaviour or commit
degrading acts, appropriate action must be taken against those
behind the marketing of these toys. We are not talking of
disproportionate penalties to be made part of the Criminal Code.
The bill speaks of maximum fines of $25,000 for manufacturers
and, in very serious cases, a sentence not to exceed six months.
This would not be the first time penalties would be applied,
but it would not be a bad thing to send a message to those
tempted to make money from such gadgets.
The message would be: “In Canada, the Criminal Code contains
provisions that prevent you from doing that, so take care”.
Public pressure will always be very useful.
The companies that will be judged negatively by the consumers
because they sell such products will suffer the consequences.
The vast majority of people find this unacceptable.
Moreover, this measure would make it illegal to do such things.
The price to pay would be very high, not just in terms of the
fine imposed, but also because of the negative publicity that
would follow. If this bill became the law, it would be a
deterrent.
Before concluding, I should point out one thing. I am not saying
that this is the sole responsibility of government.
1120
As parents—I myself am a young parent—we have a responsibility to
our children. The best guarantee against all this is certainly
the way we approach these issues with our children. The family
setting, friends and the environment in which children grow are
more effective than most laws.
Still, it is appropriate to start a debate on this issue and to
expand it to allow people to express their views on it.
Unfortunately, my bill was not selected as a votable item. This
means that, at the end of this hour, we will have heard nice
speeches but little action will be taken.
I am hoping this bill can be reviewed by the Standing Committee
on Justice. The committee could, of course, conduct this review
on its own terms, but the best guarantee would be to make the
bill a votable item in the House, so that it would be referred
to a committee between second and third reading.
I am asking all the members of this House—even though this is not
very appealing, since it only launches the debate—to give their
unanimous consent to put this bill to a vote after debating it.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to make this bill a votable item?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-374, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff,
would provide for a new criminal offence of selling to a minor or
offering to sell in a place accessible to minors or to import any
doll that comes with a label or packaging which urges any person
to mistreat the doll, cause it to suffer injuries or degrading
acts.
The hon. member's bill would further define doll as including a
model of a troll or a model of an imaginary creature with a human
shape.
The bill would create a summary conviction criminal offence with
a maximum penalty of $25,000, six months in prison or both.
In essence, the hon. member's bill is aimed at a product which
he believes, and I understand many of his very concerned
constituents believe, desensitizes children to violence and
fosters violent behaviour among children.
It is commendable that more and more people are now linking
products that society offers and the environment that we have
created to potential actions of our children and youth. For
example, I think of our laws on gun control. I hope that more
people start thinking of these connections.
I share the hon. member's concerns about the many depictions of
violence in the media and other aspects of our lives. I recall
when, as vice chair of the justice committee in the 35th
Parliament, we actually tabled a report dealing with those very
issues.
I must say that the criminal law is a very blunt instrument
which carries harsh penalties and procedures. It should be
employed to deal with conduct that causes or threatens to cause
serious harm to individuals or society. However, it should only
be used where other social control means are inadequate or
inappropriate. I would suggest that neither are present to the
degree necessary to create a new criminal sanction.
Does the hon. member opposite really suggest that fighting dolls
represent a possible threat to individuals or society in a
similar magnitude as the social and individual harm which is
caused by drugs, theft, guns or violence against people? I think
it is the relative situation here, although I understand the
premise of what the hon. member is attempting to do.
Dolls such as the one the hon. member is concerned about are
really just one aspect of a larger issue. Other forms of social
control are perhaps more appropriate for helping our children
deal with the images and the invitations to violence and
aggression which these products sometimes suggest.
Children are daily exposed to depictions of violence in all
forms in the mass media, from TV to movies to books. It is a
serious component of many of the video games and websites that
are now popular with children. Children's games sometimes
revolve around fighting, chasing and killing.
Does the hon. member want the Criminal Code to make it a crime
to have a G. I. Joe doll or to play cops and robbers? I am sure
he does not.
Parents make choices around those issues. I made choices with my
children and I am sure that all of us should be making those
choices. It is simply not reasonable to think that addressing
the availability of one kind of doll will have an effect on
children's tolerance and reaction to violence.
1125
We need evidence that the inclusion of a label urging
mistreatment may make some difference to a toy. Does it really
affect the outcome? Can we prove this? Can we prove it to a
criminal burden of proof? That is a little different. It is a
high burden.
We know by observing children that they often damage their toys.
This is activity which happens in homes and schoolyards. However,
I wonder whether we want to relegate it to criminal activity. If
we do then we have limited some of the freedoms we enjoy. There
is freedom of speech even in commercial labelling. Any law which
directly or indirectly regulates labels or packaging could
violate some of the freedoms that are guaranteed by our Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That is one area. It is an area that in some ways we already
overcome when the threat is serious enough. There could be those
instances and there are many times when we should be acting. We
certainly act when toy products affect physical safety. We
have regulations to deal with those situations.
I have not seen the product described by the hon. member, but I
am sure the message is rude. It is not something that most
people in Canadian society would want to see. However, in this
society we have freedom of choice in what we buy for our
children. Dolls are usually bought by children, with their
parents' money, under parental supervision. There are ways we
can choose products for our children or limit choices, just as
there are ways we can choose to let them watch any amount of TV
and any programming or to limit those choices.
It is important that parents do these things because how we
handle our children in the early years in our homes affects the
outcome. I am certainly a supporter of more protection and
social support for children, especially in the early years of
life. However, even when there are parents in the home, I think
there are safeguards and more resources we could use.
That is not what this bill is about. This bill is specifically
about creating a new criminal offence. I think what we really
have is not a criminal situation but a very important social
situation that needs to be addressed.
In my home I sometimes hear music on compact discs which causes
me to say “Get that out of here. I don't want to see you ever
having this kind of trash”. I do trash some of those compact
discs because they are not appropriate. They are more than rude.
They use language and incite behaviour that is not found in
Canadian values. That is the role of a parent and that is a role
which we should support.
If there is criminal activity, then obviously the criminal law
is appropriate. That is where there are violent actions.
However, we are talking about a doll and the labelling on the
doll. I think the concerns of the hon. member and his
constituents are very well intentioned. I could certainly
support doing something in this area.
There is a technical difficulty. The section in the Customs
Tariff to which the member's bill applies no longer exists.
However, there is another section that is comparable, so it could
be corrected.
1130
On balance, the criminal law is a very serious tool.
Environmental and social controls and actual social resources do
far more to address the problems for more people. A bill that
narrows it down to one toy at one point in time will not fix the
problem. It would certainly be a token acknowledgement that
there is a problem in a lot of areas around certain products, but
a lot of these products are still and will remain legal. They
have some protections under charters when we get into some of the
areas.
I commend the hon. member opposite for bringing this debate
forward because I think it is worthy of an hour's debate. I do
not think we should be going beyond that when our committees in
the House have already deemed something not to be votable. I
think that is the fair way and that all of us should play by the
same rules.
This scenario does not reach a threshold where a criminal
offence of such magnitude should be there, although I commend and
see the logic which started this process.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-374 introduced
by the hon. member for Témiscamingue.
I commend the member for this most worthwhile initiative and for
bringing before the House an issue with such profound
consequences for our children. At the outset I would like to
say that the work of the member's constituent, Mrs. Martine
Ayotte, should be acknowledged. Mrs. Ayotte has collected some
26,000 signatures in her petition to parliament to have this
product in question censored. Mrs. Ayotte is a responsible and
courageous individual, and we commend her for her bold
initiative.
The toy we are debating about today is the warrior troll. The
purpose of toys is to bring enjoyment, joy and a smile to the
faces of their owners. Toys are also effective tools for
education and often challenge our imaginative and intellectual
capabilities. They reflect society's moral and social values.
However, this warrior troll represents the direct opposite of
what we are trying to foster: a caring, loving, honest and
tolerant society. At a time when all parents seek the wisdom and
strength to properly raise and guide their children to wholesome
development and moral living, we have a corporation selling a toy
that is intended to foster and promote violence. This toy
attacks the foundation of law-abiding citizens who seek peace and
harmony, not violence and destruction. Allow me to tell the
House a little about this warrior troll.
It is my hope that I will dispel any notion this is a harmless
little toy with no psychological consequences. The toy in itself
is not bad. It is the instructions and the series of commands
recommended by the manufacturer that are harmful. In short,
these instructions call for the child to beat the warrior troll
each day. One is never to feed this toy. One is supposed to
keep this creation in a dark place that gives off a foul odour.
Finally, the instructions recommend that the child never show
this monster any love or affection. Is that what we want our
children to learn?
At a time when youngsters and society in general are yearning
for affection and love, we want our children to own a toy that
promotes these basic, positive human traits. Shame on the
inventor and the corporation that is marketing this toy.
1135
What is truly sickening is that the instructions go on to reward
this behaviour by stating that the warrior troll will gain
strength and be ready for battle and defend the owner. Let us be
honest about it. This toy is intentionally being marketed as a
tool to teach violence, neglect and hatred. Are our children not
exposed to enough of this negativity in society?
As we debate this worthy initiative I cannot help but be
reminded of the tragic events in Littleton, Colorado, and Taber,
Alberta. If ever this world needed proof of the destructive
effects of allowing our children to view, read and emulate people
of violence or violent acts then Littleton and Taber surely come
to mind.
Today there are memorial services taking place in Taber,
Alberta. It is heart wrenching to witness the pain and suffering
arising from the tragedy which took place there. I do not wish
to say more. It is very painful. At this time let me extend my
deepest and sincerest condolences to members of the family of
Jason Lang. We share their pain and grief.
Like thousands of parents I have a child who is about to enter
high school. The events of the past few weeks have made me more
than a little apprehensive about the safety of my children at
school. I can only pray that our children are spared the hatred
and violence that is plaguing our society. As parents and
parliamentarians in Canada we have a sacred responsibility to
protect our children from those people and from those products
which promote hatred and violence.
I listened to the member opposite for whom I have great respect.
She acknowledged that there was a social problem, but she did not
say what is supposed to be done. At least we have a bill that
is addressing an issue and something will be done. The member
acknowledges that there is a problem but that is all she said. We
know that if we do not do anything it will carry on and on.
We can make a statement today by supporting Bill C-374. Bill
C-374 would prohibit the sale of this doll to anyone under the
age of 18. It would also prohibit the offer for sale of this
doll in a place to which persons under the age of 18 would have
reasonable access. This bill would make it illegal for the doll
to be accompanied by labelling calling for it to be subjected to
degrading acts and mistreatment.
For the sake of our young Canadians, I call upon the House to
support Bill C-374.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
very much appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today
to speak in support of Bill C-374 as put forward by the hon.
member for Témiscamingue.
The bill coming forward at this time provides us with a very
important opportunity to talk about youth violence and some of
the causes of youth violence in society. Having listened to the
government member and the Reform Party member, it is fair to say
that all members of the House share a very deep concern about the
nature of violence in society. The consequences that we see in
communities like Taber, Alberta, or in Colorado are very tragic
and devastating.
This debate is also about a very specific bill that has come
forward. It gives us an opportunity to do something that is
concrete. I congratulate the hon. member and his constituents
who have worked so hard to bring the issue forward. It is amazing
that 400,000 people signed a petition calling on the House to
support the bill. This is something not to be put aside.
That is an incredible amount of support in the community. It
speaks to the very deep concern of people about what is happening
in society.
1140
As we have heard, the bill would not ban toys. The issue is not
toys. According to the bill, where there is production,
marketing or sale of various toys and where the use that is being
encouraged through written instruction is actually something that
is violent, that would be prohibited under the Criminal Code.
That is a very common sense approach. It is something we should
all be supporting. This is a concrete step we could take in the
House from a legislative viewpoint to deal with the vast array of
products on the market that are available to young people and
children. In this specific instance there are actually
instructions that are condoning, encouraging and supporting a
very negative and violent use.
The bill should be supported. One of the issues coming from the
bill is the question of social responsibility by the
manufacturing industry of children's toys. We are talking about
a multibillion dollar industry.
Parents want to do the right thing. Their kids are subject to
massive overload in advertising and are asking to have this toy
and that toy. Most parents try to do the right thing in terms of
monitoring these products, of trying to figure out whether they
are toys or games that are suitable and appropriate for the age
of the child and whether or not they are violent. Most parents
and most communities feel absolutely overwhelmed by the barrage
of stuff on the market.
Let us not forget we are talking about a marketplace. We are
talking about companies that basically are making massive profits
as a result of peddling and marketing toys such as the ones being
described today and their attached instructions.
There is a very serious issue of social responsibility in the
manufacturing industry of children's toys. If the bill were
approved, or if the issue were sent to the justice committee, it
would go some distance in saying to that industry that we expect
a measure of social responsibility. It is entirely unacceptable
to be marketing toys which encourage children to be violent and
to deny feelings of care, love and responsibility which they
learn from their families or communities. Children are faced
with very conflicting messages in society.
A primary responsibility in the House in terms of the
legislation we enact is the protection of our children. We value
that as a society. It is not just about freedom of choice or
freedom of speech. It is about protecting children and saying
that the marketplace has run amok. The marketplace is now
dictating and selling products in such a fashion that it is
contributing to a lot of confusion, a lot of mixed messages.
A government member raised a question as to whether or not this
kind of product would actually lead to violence against people.
We are talking about toys for sure, but does it lead to further
violence against people? That is the same issue that is being
raised by the member who put forward the bill. That is why the
member is suggesting it should go to the justice committee for a
proper debate about issues of violence so that we can look at
some of the underlying causes. That has to include the products
available on the market and the way they are marketed.
The New Democratic Party is very much in support of the bill and
very much in support of the debate taking place, in particular at
the justice committee, given the tragedies of the past week where
communities and families are grappling with the senseless
violence which takes place around us.
1145
We do have a responsibility to be reflective, to step back and
ask, “Where can we begin to put this picture right”. There is
a legislative and a community response to how we develop healthy,
strong communities and how we involve children in our society by
ensuring that there is no social isolation which I think is one
of factors that is beginning to emerge with the tragedy in Taber.
We see programs that have been cut to the bone. I remember
having a conversation with one of my colleagues who was telling
me about the level of suicides in her community in New Brunswick.
She said there were no youth preventative programs available and
no youth drop-ins. The kids had nowhere to go. All these issues
are linked. We all understand that they are linked but it is
sometimes hard for us to actually figure out how specifically we
can begin to address these issues.
We should not put aside the opportunity that is being presented
today in the House. We should actually move forward with this
kind of initiative and not just see it buried on some dusty shelf
as a private member's bill.
Let us take the bill today and continue discussion of it in the
justice committee because of the importance in terms of the
debate that can flow from that on how we can deal with products
on the marketplace. We want to ensure that there is adequate
regulation so that children's toys are not used for a violent
purpose. We do not condone nor encourage behaviour that is
violent in terms of how kids interact with inanimate objects,
with their peers, with other children or within their community.
We would support the hon. member if, in his closing remarks, he
chooses to seek the consent of the House for this matter be
referred to the justice committee for further debate. We believe
it is a very important initiative. We owe it to the 400,000
people, who took the time to think about this issue, to not let
debate die on the bill. Something useful and beneficial can come
out of it. It may well be an amendment to the Criminal Code or
some other option, but it is something that should be supported.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise before the House to debate Bill C-374, an act to amend
the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff with regard to
prohibited toys.
I congratulate my hon. colleague from the Bloc, the member for
Témiscamingue, for recognizing the inherent dangers that exist
within the labelling of some products that are readily available
to very young and impressionable children.
Although the bill focuses primarily on the labelling of dolls,
it does raise important questions about all labelling in general
and the effects the labelling could have on our children.
On the surface, it would seem that the information contained
within the labelling of dolls could not possibly be detrimental
to our children. However, nothing could be further from the
truth. Certain labels could realistically create subliminal
messages that negatively influence the perception some children
have in regard to what constitutes acceptable behaviour.
The impetus for creating the bill originated from the efforts
of one concerned citizen who happened to purchase a toy for her
child only to discover that it contained within the instructions
messages encouraging violence. Not only did the instructions
encourage violence, it suggested that violence would make the
child happier and more powerful in our society.
[Translation]
There is violence everywhere in our society. Evening television
abounds with examples of how we are influenced by it.
1150
What is more disturbing is the age of those committing acts of
violence. Increasingly, they are under the age of 20.
[English]
Bill C-374 speaks to a broader issue of the prevalence of
violence in our society. Everywhere one turns, children are
being bombarded with messages that effectively state that
violence is an accepted means of resolving one's problems.
One only has to look around to see that violence is depicted
just about everywhere. For years now the motion picture industry
has been competing against each other to see who can recreate the
most realistic special effects depicting violent acts within our
society.
Many television programs are also helping to accentuate the
prevalence of crime in major cities. The portrayals of these
crimes are so realistic that it is sometimes hard for some
children to differentiate between what is real and what is
fiction.
[Translation]
There is no doubt that our young people are influenced by what
they see on television. The Colorado tragedy is proof of this.
The method used to commit the murders bears a strong resemblance
to a film seen in theatres.
[English]
What happened in Colorado is truly appalling. I would like to
offer my heartfelt sympathy to all those who were affected by
this tragic event. This massacre was followed by another high
school attack on two teenagers in Alberta that left one young man
dead and another seriously injured.
Details of such vicious attacks are becoming far too prevalent.
Canadians used to believe that these terrible crimes were
confined to big cities in the U.S. However, the shooting in
Alberta and the terrible torture and murder of Reena Virk in B.C.
have opened our eyes to the reality that our youth are
increasingly turning to violence to resolve their differences.
The increase in crime is why the PC Party and Canadians as a
whole have been calling on the Minister of Justice to amend the
1984 Young Offenders Act to make it tougher on those who insist
on pursuing a life of crime. Canadians are sick and tired of
seeing violent young offenders getting off virtually scot-free.
Canadians want the government to start focusing greater attention
on victims. They want their rights recognized and protected,
just as much as the system presently protects young offenders.
In May 1998, the justice minister unveiled a new youth strategy
to renew the 1984 Young Offenders Act. During meetings with
provincial justice ministers, the federal minister heard her
counterparts demand tougher legislation that would respond to the
demands of society. Calls included lowering the age of
application of the Young Offenders Act for serious violent crimes
from 12 to 10 years of age and providing for easier transfer of
cases involving serious offences to adult court from youth court,
instead of a general reduction of the maximum age.
The PC Party endorsed measures to make the act tougher on youth
crime. Led by our party's justice critic, the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, a former crown prosecutor who
witnessed the lives of many of the victims of youth crime, we
fought hard to convince the government that tougher legislation
was needed to help protect society. Besides lowering the age of
application of the Young Offenders Act from 12 to 10 years of
age, he strongly supported giving judges more power to impose
mandatory treatment or therapy on troubled youth.
We now know that changes to the Young Offenders Act will fall
far short of what Canadians expected and what the country needs
to help reduce the prevalence of youth crime within society.
Therefore, it is important that as elected officials we continue
to pressure the government into accepting its responsibility of
protecting Canadian society.
Bill C-374 will not eliminate youth crime. However, it could
help to prevent young children from being exposed too early to
violence.
[Translation]
In closing, I again congratulate my colleague, the member for
Témiscamingue, as well as Ms. Ayotte, who took her petition far
and wide to educate us to the danger found on the labels of
children's dolls. Bill C-374 is a good initiative and I urge all
members to support it.
1155
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to debate this bill, which I know fairly well.
Together with my Bloc colleague, the member for Témiscamingue, I
met with Mrs. Martine Ayotte at the very beginning, when she
started her petition and her giant puzzle. She wanted to raise
the awareness of politicians, but mostly she wanted to find out
what they thought of this kind of toys. She was interested in
the Bloc's position, and more specifically its justice critic's.
Right from the start she got the unwavering support of her
federal MP in this matter, but she wanted to know what a member
of the Standing Committee on Justice thought of her petition and
giant puzzle.
I will not repeat what has been said so far on the issue. It can
easily be summed up as follows: a woman realized that in Canada
in the 1990s you can purchase a toy with instructions inciting
young people to violence. These instructions were aimed at young
children. Teenagers do not play with trolls, young children do.
We know how vulnerable young children are. The instructions said
“To make your troll happy you must beat it up, throw it around,
lock it up in the dark without food, and so forth”. This will
make a troll happy. Is this the kind of instructions we want to
give children in Canada? Of course not. I can see that all the
representatives of the opposition parties are against this kind
of violence.
Since this is allowed and legal, one must wonder if is it normal
that in a country as advanced as ours in every respect, toy
manufacturers, merchants, and stores are allowed to market toys
inciting children to violence.
What a five or six-year old does will stay with him all his life.
We know that at that age, at five or six, children are very
vulnerable and impressionable. If they are told that to make a
toy happy they must mistreat it, they might eventually come to
believe this is the way to behave when they grow up. This is
unconscionable.
The private member's bill introduced by the member for
Témiscamingue deals with dolls. It could have included video
games, board games, violent movies and so forth.
But to respond to the request of one person in particular, Mrs.
Martine Ayotte, the member specifically restricted its scope to
dolls, more particularly trolls.
What member for Témiscamingue and I are asking its that the
House unanimously agree to make this item votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to make this bill
a votable bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see—I must point
this out for our audience because it is not clear—that the
Liberal MPs are the ones refusing to give consent for this bill
to be votable.
1200
I would like to thank the hon. members for London West, Calgary
East, Vancouver East and West Nova, for having expressed their
opinions. I particularly thank the NDP, Reform, and
Conservative members who have supported the bill, and in
particular the idea of expanding the debate to encompass an
examination by parliament of the entire issue of the violence
faced by our children.
Since there will be no vote on this bill, the issue will not get
to committee by that means. I hope that the members of the
justice committee—the majority of them from the party in
power—will take it over and address this issue, which has become
so terribly timely. We cannot continue to do nothing and to not
examine this situation.
In the two or three minutes I have left, I also wish to thank
Mrs. Ayotte and all those in her region, in all of Quebec, and
in all of Canada, who have supported and encouraged her. I want
her to know that today is far from being the end of the matter.
We took an hour to discuss it here in the House today, but
things will not stop there. I will continue to focus my
energies on trying to persuade my colleagues in the House that
we must do something.
I will also encourage members of the Standing Committee on
Justice to initiate the consideration, discussion and public
debate of the issue of the violence children are subjected to.
I would also like to respond to the Liberal member, who spoke,
raising legitimate questions. Is the Criminal Code the most
effective way? Care must be taken when the Criminal Code is
used. I am very open to this sort of criticism. This is why we
want a debate.
However, I think we have to create a criminal offence.
Obviously, offences under the Criminal Code are not all the same
sort. And they are punished differently. The fact that they
come under the Criminal Code does not mean they are judged the
same way. Nevertheless, they are criminal offences. Then there
are degrees.
We must look closely at the fact that a number of business are
aiming their marketing directly at our children. We have to
react when these marketing strategies focus on behaviour we
consider unacceptable in society, such as violence. We do so
with anti-smoking campaigns, where we fight to ensure that young
children cannot have access to tobacco products, and with good
reason. We must do likewise to prevent companies from directing
at young people messages inciting them to violence and
encouraging them to use these products and to behave this way.
To those who still have doubts and are saying “No, we must not
act”, we put the following question.
One can rightfully argue that children are also influenced by
their parents, their family, their environment and other
factors, which are not necessarily regulated by the government.
But are the members across the way sure that all available means
have been used? Are they sure nothing more could be done?
If there is any doubt in our minds, then we should continue the
debate and expand it to include the general public, which has
something to say about this issue.
I want to thank and congratulate Mrs. Ayotte and her group, all
the stakeholders who supported her, including those who
sponsored and financed the representations, the university that
provided the research staff, and all those who were involved—I
will not name them, because there are many—and those who
supported this initiative, including the hon. members from the
various political parties who spoke to the issue today.
I hope further consideration will be given to this issue and
that action will be taken. We should go the extra mile and hold
a broad public debate to find out whether the federal government
is using all the means available to it to try to further
restrict these messages of violence to which our children are
confronted on a daily basis.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
this item is dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1205
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—SHIPBUILDING
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC) moved:
That this House calls on the government
to develop a new national shipbuilding policy to support the
revitalization of the Canadian shipbuilding industry by
maintaining and advancing the degree of excellence and the
technologies for which Canada is historically renowned, given
that Canada has the longest coastline of any nation in the world
and that historically Canadians are among the finest shipbuilders
in the world.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the
hon. member for Burin—St. George's.
A new shipbuilding policy is a pan-Canadian issue. Shipyards
are located across Canada, in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec,
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I and Newfoundland. Many ridings
from coast to coast in Canada, including my riding of Saint John
in New Brunswick, are suffering from the lack of leadership from
this government on the very important issue of a national
shipbuilding policy.
Twice in the past six years the Liberal Party of Canada passed
resolutions at its 1993 and 1998 national meetings stating that
it considered shipbuilding to be a priority and that it was going
to establish a new, modern, national shipbuilding policy. We are
still waiting for it.
This government has let the industry slide to the point of near
extinction in Canada. Many shipbuilding companies are on the
verge of shutting down without a policy from this government to
bring our industry to a competing level with our competitors
around the world. How can a Canadian shipbuilding company
survive when our ships end up being almost twice the cost of
those built half a world away?
We are not winning contracts. Just to give hon. members an
example, if Saint John Shipbuilding does not land a contract
soon, it will be closing its doors. Saint John Shipbuilding is
the most modern shipyard in the world, but it will have no
choice. It has bid on over 50 contracts around the world and it
is unable to compete.
Canadian shipbuilding at its peak employed almost 12,000 people.
It is not unrealistic to think that the number of spinoff jobs
was around the same, for a total of 24,000 people across Canada
employed, happy, contributing to the tax rolls and the economy
and contributing to their communities as well.
Now at its lowest point, the Canadian shipbuilding industry
employs roughly 4,000 people across the country. Again, the
number of spinoff jobs is about the same. Through this
government's lack of initiative, approximately 20,000 people are
out of work. This is simply not acceptable.
Back in the days when the government was in opposition the
Minister of Industry was the transport critic. Many pieces of
correspondence, of which I have copies, were sent to the
shipbuilding industry members by the transport critic, now our
Minister of Industry. He claimed that the issue of a revamped
modern shipbuilding policy was an utmost priority. This
sentiment was echoed by the current Prime Minister when he was in
opposition. I quote from one of those letters. The Prime
Minister when in opposition stated “It is safe to say that most
people recognize that something needs to be done to create a much
more competitive shipbuilding industry”. Today where is the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry?
In 1993 the Liberal Party membership voted in favour of
developing a new national shipbuilding policy. In 1993 the
Liberal Party became the government. It was being given the
chance to make the changes that it for so long decreed as
necessary.
Suddenly the sentiment of the government changed. In further
correspondence with members of the shipbuilding industry the
current Minister of Industry started to change his tune. He
stated “Your proposals were insightful and creative; however, to
implement these would require the dedication of significant
resources which are not presently allocated to shipbuilding”.
A national shipbuilding policy was no longer on the top of his
agenda nor on the top of the agenda of this government.
It was relegated to the bottom of the list apparently, because
after six years of being in government, no sign of a modern
national shipbuilding policy has been seen.
1210
What happened to the Liberal promise of change? Need I ask? It
has gone to the same black hole with other Liberal promises from
the red book, just like the GST, the helicopter situation and the
Pearson airport deal.
The last Tory government considered national shipbuilding to be
a priority and developed many initiatives to promote our skill in
this field.
For example, the Canadian patrol frigate program produced
thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada and Quebec through contracts
that produced 12 new frigates. This program brought worldwide
attention to Canada's capability to design, integrate, test,
construct and manage large projects.
Also in 1991 we awarded 12 maritime coastal defence vessels for
the Canadian navy, designed and built here in Canada. The
contract for the MCDVs created a steady flow of work into the
shipbuilding industry.
The following is from experts and is in today's Ottawa
Citizen:
Unlike other countries, the Canadian military has no dedicated
transport ships necessary to move equipment overseas. It must
either rent commercial vessels to go to a conflict area or hitch
a ride from its allies.
That is a disgrace.
The PC government in its time was in an era of fiscal
responsibility and had to reduce total transportation subsidies.
However we took the steps to ensure the viability of the
shipbuilding industry because of the many positive spinoffs to
Canada.
We are asking the current Liberal government to recognize the
importance of a national shipbuilding policy and to develop it
immediately so that people will still be working in our shipyards
across the country at the turn of the new millennium.
In discussions with members of the shipbuilding industry, we
have determined what the industry requires in order to survive.
There are four things: one, exclusion of new construction ships
built in Canadian shipyards from the present Revenue Canada
leasing regulations; two, provision of an improved export
financing and loan guarantee program similar to the title XI
program in the U.S.; three, provision of a refundable tax credit
to Canadian shipowners of shipbuilders who contract to build a
ship or contract for conversion with change of emission, mid-life
refit or major refit; and four, eliminate the one-sided aspects
of NAFTA which allow the U.S. to sell new or used ships duty free
in Canada yet absolutely prohibit Canadian access to the U.S.
market.
I am asking the government today to live up to the promises the
Liberals made to get elected and form the government in 1993 and
again in 1998. The Liberal government adopted resolutions, as I
have stated, that this situation with shipbuilding would be
rectified. The Liberal government has not followed through and
the people are still waiting.
These highly skilled workers will have to leave this great
country of ours and find work in the U.S. if we do not get a new
national shipbuilding policy immediately. I say that because
they came up from Louisiana, U.S.A. to my riding a month ago and
offered jobs in the United States to 200 men.
To make sure these people can stay in Canada to raise their
children on Canadian soil and be proud to be among the best
shipbuilders in the world, please let us all work together in
this House. Let us develop this new shipbuilding policy with
this end as our goal for our people.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite
speak about shipbuilding and some of the things the previous
government did. I did not hear anything about the Jones act in
the United States when her party decided to throw in the cards
from Canada and did nothing about changing the Jones act. Maybe
the member could address why the member opposite did not do
anything about changing the Jones act and allowed the
protectionism in the U.S. to continue.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, we are asking for changes
in the Jones act. The Liberal government has been in power now
for six years. The Liberals see the problem. It was not a
problem when we were in government because we were supporting
shipbuilding. We gave the frigate program. We gave the program
to Halifax and to B.C. as well, all across this country. But if
they do not change the Jones act, then there should be an act to
protect the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
1215
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate the member for Saint John on her motion and
speech, which echo Bloc Quebecois sentiments.
However, I would tend to agree with the parliamentary secretary.
I think that the Mulroney government did not have enough time
to implement certain solutions. It had begun to propose a
rationalization of shipyards and had approached all provincial
governments with shipyards in Canada. Quebec took action. We
had three major shipyards, one in Sorel, one in Longueuil, and
one in Lévis, and all operations were shifted to Lévis.
I would like to know why the maritimes have not fully
rationalized shipyards.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, when we were in power we
did not rationalize the industry. The industry rationalized
itself at a time when the demand for ships was in decline. Our
government continued to provide assistance and support to the
industry. We invested $60 million in capital improvements in the
port of Vancouver, which allowed Vancouver to become an
internationally recognized maritime centre.
The Canadian patrol frigate was the largest federal program ever
awarded. The original contract for six frigates in 1983 and the
additional six in 1987 went to the Saint John shipyard. The
frigate program brought worldwide recognition of Canada's
capability to design, integrate, test, construct, manufacture and
manage large projects.
When the Liberal Party was in power it gave the first contract
for the first six frigates to Saint John and Quebec. Then we
came into power and we gave the six frigates contract to Saint
John. There are companies in the country which are hoping and
praying that once again the government will bring in a national
shipbuilding policy. There are trained people, manufacturers and
so on waiting for this policy.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
applaud my colleague from the neighbouring riding of Saint John
for the efforts she has put forth on a consistent basis, not just
during this mandate of 1997 but during her first mandate between
1993 and 1997. She knew it was imperative to have a viable
shipbuilding industry.
I commend the member for her efforts. I also point out to the
parliamentary secretary that Canada has benefited from a rules
based trade regime such as NAFTA and the FTA. This does not mean
that we have stopped fighting for our shipyards, and I know the
member for Saint John will.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I have to say
that in today's society when we are running to become a member of
the government in the House we cannot make false promises any
more. Our people across the country are educated people and—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but
her time has run out. I understand the member is sharing her
time with the hon. member Burin—St. George's who has 10 minutes
for his speech and 5 minutes for questions and comments.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to second the motion put forward by my
colleague from Saint John.
As the member for Fundy—Royal said, we have been trying to
raise the issue of the shipbuilding industry in the House of
Commons over the last number of months because there is a crisis
in that industry. As we speak a campaign is being organized by
the marine workers union and by the CAW across the country to try
to have some impact on the federal government, in particular the
industry minister, and to impress upon him the need for a new
shipbuilding policy.
1220
The shipbuilding industry and the ship repair industry are
presently dying a slow death in Canada. If the government does
not implement some new fiscal measures, we will see the situation
worsen.
In 1990 there were some 12,000 people employed in the
shipbuilding industry in Canada. In 1996-97 those numbers had
dropped to approximately 5,000. In 1998 it was down to 4,000 as
my colleague from Saint John mentioned in her address. That is a
significant drop. The shipbuilding industry provides very good
jobs and well paying jobs for the people employed in it.
Shipyards and ship repair centres are located across the country
in some of the areas hardest hit economically. We could talk
about Atlantic Canada, Quebec and British Columbia. We need all
the economic stimulation we can get in these areas.
This is why we have brought forward this motion. We are trying
to get the support of our colleagues in the House of Commons.
This matter goes beyond our own constituencies. I have a
shipyard in my constituency of Burin—St. George's located at
Marystown. It is a great economic stimulator for the Burin
peninsula and for the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.
However the motion goes beyond our own parochial needs. It
talks about the need for a national shipbuilding policy.
Shipbuilding is a very important industry. It does wonders for
us economically by creating employment. All we are asking is for
the industry minister to attach some priority to the issue.
However he refuses to meet with the major players in the
industry. He refuses to meet with the unions that are
spearheading this campaign. Why does the industry minister have
such a closed mind on this issue when just last week he hastily
arranged a summit of the NHL franchises in Canada?
As pro sport and pro hockey as I am, and my background speaks
volumes about that, how can the industry minister so hastily
arrange a hockey summit to talk with the owners of NHL franchises
in this country that are struggling because of our situation
compared with that of the U.S.? We are paying our players in
U.S. dollars. We are a small market.
Yet he refuses to deal with the major shipbuilding crisis. One
of the main problems is the competition from the U.S. which
builds new ships and repairs them and sends them to Canada, but
we are not allowed to return the favour and send ships to the
U.S.
Why does the industry minister not treat shipbuilding in the
same way he is treating hockey? The shipbuilding industry is
certainly as important to the country as our NHL franchises. They
are important as well. That is my point.
My colleague from Saint John has highlighted very well some of
the fiscal measures we would like to see the government
implement. No one is asking for direct subsidies. The industry
minister, time after time when he has risen on the issue in the
House, keeps talking about subsidies. No one is asking for
subsidies.
We are asking for fiscal measures which will level the playing
field for the shipbuilding industry in the country, level the
playing field with the U.S., with the European countries and with
the Asian market so that we at least have a fighting chance to
bid on work and obtain work.
I want to move an amendment, seconded by my colleague from
Chicoutimi, before I conclude my remarks this morning:
My colleague from Saint John alluded to a number of fiscal
measures which we would like to see the government implement such
as a loan guarantee program and tax credits. Changes have to be
made to taxation laws for vessel leasing, and trade and tariff
policies need to be reviewed. May I be so bold as to suggest
that they need to be revised to provide a level playing field for
the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
We are trying to raise the profile of this important issue in
parliament. There are still 4,000 to 5,000 jobs in the industry
in Canada today. There is potential to double or triple that
number and provide good paying jobs in all regions of the country
where shipbuilding is present.
1225
By putting forth the motion we are asking members of the House
of Commons to join with us and vote to support a motion which we
consider most important for the shipbuilding industry, for
employment and for economic stimulation.
The Speaker: The amendment is in order.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the
member for Burin—St. George's. He indicated that the industry
minister refused to meet with the association and the
shipbuilding industry. The minister reported to the House once
before that he met with the shipbuilding association and the
industry executives from New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and
British Columbia.
Rather than trying to mislead the Canadian public, the member
should indicate the minister reported to the House that he had
met with them. The member's statement is totally incorrect. As
an hon. member he should withdraw it and insert that the minister
met with the association and executives from New Brunswick,
Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia last March.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, if I did make any
incorrect statement to the House about the minister and his
meetings with representatives of the shipbuilding industry, I
would certainly withdraw it. The information I had was that he
refused to meet with representatives from the Atlantic provinces.
Maybe I did not get the information correctly, and I apologize
for that if I did not.
I am not interested in playing petty politics. This issue is
too important to be taken up with what I said was correct or
incorrect. It is too important for the parliamentary secretary
to rise in his place and talk about a government with which the
voters of Canada dealt six or seven years ago when they voted out
the Conservatives and elected the Liberals. That is not what it
is about.
The Liberals have been in power now for six years. In 1993 they
became the Government of Canada. It is time for the parliamentary
secretary, the minister and others over there to recognize they
are now the government of the country. Canadian taxpayers and
people involved in the shipbuilding industry in Canada expect
them to make decisions for the benefit of the shipbuilding
industry.
It is no good going back to Mulroney, Diefenbaker, Trudeau,
Laurier, Pearson and others. People in Canada want the
parliamentary secretary, the minister and the government to make
decisions which will improve the shipbuilding industry in Canada
today.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I really do think that the federal government is very
concerned about this issue, but I would like to ask the member,
though, do the provinces not have a role to play in this. Should
the provinces not be active in helping out these industries which
are indeed in their territories?
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I meant to make that
reference in my remarks. There is a very important role for
provincial governments to play in revitalizing and regenerating
the shipbuilding industry. They cannot be let off the hook, but
it is the federal government and the industry minister which must
take the lead role. We must have a new national shipbuilding
policy.
When I was a member of a provincial government in Newfoundland
and Labrador we entered into a trawler replacement program with
Fishery Products International Limited. We built offshore supply
vessels on spec at the Marystown shipyard. As a provincial
government we were very proactive in the shipbuilding industry in
creating employment in one shipyard in Marystown on the Burin
peninsula.
There are possibilities for provincial governments to get
involved. Only last week the auditor general said in his report
that we do not have enough patrol vessels to enforce our
fishery's policies and regulations. There is a place for
provincial governments to play a role, but the major role and the
most important government is the government of which the hon.
member is a member.
1230
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, is it
not true that representatives of the shipbuilding industry have
stated to the hon. member that if Revenue Canada excluded
Canadian built ships from leasing rules as it does for furniture,
computers, rail cars, autos and vans, they then would be able to
be competitive?
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, the industry
has indicated that to me, and my colleague has alluded to the
four or five measures that the Canadian shipbuilding association,
the marine workers union and the CAW want. I want to go on
record again as saying, yes, that certainly would level the
playing field.
I cannot emphasize enough that no one in the shipbuilding
industry, whether it be the people who own, manage and operate
the yards, or the unions, is asking for direct subsidies from the
government. They are not asking for subsidies.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to assure the
House that the usual discussions have taken place with
representatives of all parties. Therefore, I believe you would
find consent for the following motion:
That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's
Opposition Motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this
motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and
deferred until Wednesday, May 5, 1999, at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint John
is right to point out that shipbuilding is a long and honourable
tradition in Canada. It is an important part of Canada's marine
industry.
In 1997 the shipbuilding industry employed 5,400 Canadians and
had total revenues of around $625 million. Canada's current
strength is in building high quality, relatively small vessels,
such as ferries, icebreakers, tug boats, fishing vessels,
excursion craft and so on. We are also internationally
competitive in commercial ship overhauls and mining platforms.
Many regions of Canada have shipbuilding companies. Activity on
the east coast has recently centred on the construction of two
container ships, two offshore vessels and tugs, the refit of one
oil rig, the manufacture of oil rig components and various
commercial repair work. The industry in Quebec has been involved
in upgrading one oil rig, constructing tugs and doing ship
overhauls and commercial repairs. The Ontario industry is
currently active in the reconstruction of three bulk carriers,
the conversion of two ships into one self-unloading ship and
commercial repairs. The primary construction activity in B.C.
has been the three high speed ferries, but the industry is also
active in the construction of smaller ferries and in commercial
and government ship repairs.
The health of the shipbuilding industry concerns four regions
and seven of Canada's ten provinces. The Government of Canada
recognizes the importance of the industry. It has a shipbuilding
policy that benefits the industry and acknowledges that taxpayers
want to stop business subsidies. This policy includes an
accelerated capital cost allowance of 33.3% for Canadian
shipbuilding. Many other industries would not mind having that
type of capital cost allowance write-off. The policy includes a
25% duty on most non-NAFTA ship imports, domestic procurement on
a competitive basis for all government shipbuilding and ship
repairs, a favourable research and development tax credit system,
including the technology partnerships Canada program, as well as
Export Development Corporation financing for commercially viable
transactions.
1235
Last year, after consulting with the industry, we extended the
pay back period for this financing from eight years to twelve
years. In fact discussions with the Export Development
Corporation continue in that area.
I would also add that one of the major contributions the
government makes to the competitiveness of our shipbuilding
industry is through the facilities of the National Research
Council. In Saint John, NRC's Institute for Marine Dynamics
offers R and D programs in ship design and advanced navigation
systems, ice structure and wave structure interaction, and
innovative concepts in such areas as underwater vehicles and
recreational craft.
The federal government is not alone in supporting the
shipbuilding industry in this country. Two provinces have come
forward with programs to foster shipbuilding in their
jurisdictions. Nova Scotia has a shipbuilding loan guarantee
program similar to Title XI in the United States. The program
consists of loan guarantees up to 87.5% of the buyer loan, with a
maximum $80 million to be guaranteed at any time.
Last March Nova Scotia announced that it will provide $47.5
million in loan guarantees to Secunda Marine of Dartmouth for the
construction of two supply vessels for the Terra Nova offshore
oil project.
The Government of Quebec has also stepped forward with a program
for the shipbuilding industry. Quebec will provide a 50% subsidy
on the direct labour costs of the first ship built in a series or
converted into series. The subsidy may be as high as 20% of the
ship costs, with the subsidy decreasing to zero over the first
four ships. Quebec has also provided income tax exemptions on
the foreign income of Quebec mariners and has reduced the capital
tax for owners of new ships operating internationally.
Hon. members opposite have been calling for similar subsidies to
be provided by the federal government. I would ask them if they
would be prepared to offer similar subsidies to every other
industry in Canada that must meet the test of tough international
competition. Some say that shipbuilding is an exceptional case
because other countries subsidize their industry so heavily. The
Bloc in particular wants Canada to match the kind of subsidies
provided by European countries and the United States. What it
neglects to say is that even if we tried to match these subsidies
dollar for dollar there is no guarantee nor even a likelihood
that foreign buyers would turn to Canadian ships instead of ships
from their own country or region.
The international market for ships is much more complicated than
that. It is not just a case of who offers the best price or who
puts more of a burden on their taxpayers so they can offer a good
price. In the case of the United States, for example, the Jones
Act of 1920 prohibits non-U.S. boats from taking part in domestic
U.S. commerce.
The Canadian government is participating in the OECD and WTO
negotiations to eliminate subsidies and remove the barriers that
impede the ability of our shipbuilding companies to compete
internationally. We offer generous tax and export support. We
are continuing to meet with industry representatives to fine tune
the programs now in place and ensure that the industry takes
advantage of them. That is a more realistic response to the
challenges faced by the Canadian shipbuilding industry than the
spend thrift proposals we have heard from the opposition parties
to date.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it cannot be said that the parliamentary secretary does not care
about the shipbuilding industry. There is a shipyard in his own
riding. I met with him during the summer. He is worried about
the industry, but he seems to be the only Liberal that is. He
is unable to convince his colleagues to do what the shipbuilding
industry and unions would like them to do.
What is stopping the Liberal Party from holding the shipbuilding
industry summit Liberal candidates promised during the 1993
election campaign? They were talking about the following year,
1994, but five years have gone by.
It could be dismissed as an election promise but, more recently,
members of the Liberal Party from the maritimes also called for
something to be done for shipbuilding, for a good policy to be
developed.
1240
Again, just recently, the Liberal premier of New Brunswick, Mr.
Thériault, criticized the Minister of Industry's attitude. The
minister always says that he has a good policy but, if it is as
good as all that, why is the shipbuilding industry operating at
only 40% of capacity?
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question and I also thank him for his tour last year of my
area to review shipbuilding and to understand the shipbuilding
industry in Ontario, which is not only in southern Ontario but in
the Ottawa area as well.
I should remind him that we do not want to get into a subsidy
shipping war because of other countries. We have heard over and
over “not a subsidy”. However, when we get down to reviewing
proposals it becomes a subsidy.
I am interested in proposals, as long as they do not involve a
subsidy campaign. I am willing to meet with the member, as I
have before. However, let us understand that the Export
Development Corporation, in conjunction with the member for
Fredericton and a representative of the shipbuilding industry in
New Brunswick, met to discuss the EDC's financing and over time
it changed from eight to twelve years. They are still meeting
on an ongoing basis to discuss various other alternatives. That
is the way it should be done, sector by sector.
The member from Lévis mentioned the premier of New Brunswick, to
whom I have written in objection to his comments that there is no
shipbuilding industry in Ontario and that if there were, maybe
there would be interest. I immediately wrote to him so that he
could understand the shipbuilding industry across Canada. I do
not believe he understood that the shipbuilding industry exists
from coast to coast to coast. I am interested in how he would
proceed from there.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
caution the parliamentary secretary to be far more judicious in
his comments in terms of the use of the words tax incentives
versus subsidy. Revising Revenue Canada leasing regulations is a
tax incentive. It is not a subsidy in any way, shape or form.
He can ask the finance minister or the secretary of state for
finance. It is a concrete initiative which was tabled by the
industry, the premiers, labour, shipowners and shipbuilders, who
all agree that it is not a subsidy.
The wording of our motion comes from Liberal Party policy
conventions of 1993 and 1998. Did the parliamentary secretary
support it at those conventions? If he did, will he support it
when it actually comes to a vote?
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, yes, I had discussions
with members across our country on shipbuilding. My comments
there were the same comments as here.
There is a need to understand all aspects of the shipbuilding
industry. Before we know it, when people talk about the various
items, it becomes a subsidy. The important thing is that if
there is to be an initiative we must back the initiative down. Is
it a subsidy in the end or is it not?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion before
the House, put forward by the member for Saint John and seconded
by the member for Burin—St. George's.
I regret that the motion is empty and meaningless and would
compel the Liberal government to do essentially nothing to help
the shipbuilding industry that it is not already doing through
the discredited technology partnerships Canada program and the
failed research and development tax credit system.
I will address both of those issues further, but I would like to
first address what the Reform caucus had hoped for with this
motion.
1245
I had hoped to introduce an amendment to the motion. While I
know this is no longer possible, I would like to read the motion
into the record:
That this House calls on the government to develop a new national
shipbuilding policy that includes broad based tax relief for all
Canadians and a commitment to pursue better access to
international markets, particularly American markets, through
equitable trade liberalization.
The amended motion would have called on the government to
specifically address high taxes as the primary cause for low
productivity and slow economic growth in the shipbuilding
industry. It would have addressed the unfair trade practices
exempt under NAFTA which effectively exclude Canadians from
participating in a $1.1 billion U.S. shipping market.
Once again I would like to take the time later in my speech to
address the issues of taxation and the serious problem of
inequality with the U.S. However, to ensure that the members of
the House understand the Reform Party's position on the motion, I
will quote from the Leader of the Official Opposition. He stated:
The Official Opposition believes that tax relief and the
expansion of Atlantic Rim trade are the keys to job creation in
Atlantic Canada, and we will vigorously represent those views on
your behalf in parliament.
The Leader of the Opposition made these remarks, which are
embodied in the proposed amendment, on October 16, 1998. The
remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition are not that much
different from the remarks made by the hon. member for
Fundy—Royal in 1997 when the Tory motion on shipbuilding was
debated in the House. The member insisted he was not interested
in subsidies but deregulation and improving Canadian access to
international markets, in particular U.S. markets. Therefore,
the motion would have been consistent with the Tory shipbuilding
policies.
My questions for the Tory members of the House are: Why does
the motion not address the issue of high taxation; and, why does
it not address the important issue of trade barriers and trade
discrimination?
Broad based tax relief for all Canadians is needed to ensure
that shipbuilding and all other Canadian industries survive. It
is that simple. It is so simple that even the Minister of
Industry is beginning to understand this.
Tax relief is not part of the Tory shipbuilding plan. The
Tories have consistently called for loan guarantees similar to
those provided by the United States which has several federal
assistance programs. Financial assistance is provided in the
U.S. through the federal ship financing program, capital
construction fund program and the maritime security act. Loan
guarantees force the taxpayer to take on a financial liability
that banks and venture capitalists consider to be too risky. This
is an unacceptable burden placed on taxpayers.
The Shipbuilding Association of Canada argues that there has not
been a single default under the U.S. federal assistance program.
This begs the question: If default rates are this low, why does
the government need to provide incentives for banks and venture
capitalists to provide capital for shipbuilding projects?
What is needed is real competition in the financial service
sector so that banks are compelled to compete for medium and high
risk loans. Lack of competition in the Canadian financial
services banking sector has made banks complacent about funding
any medium to high risk ventures. Furthermore, broad based tax
relief would leave more money in the pockets of Canadian
consumers and entrepreneurs. This would lead to greater savings
and higher corporate profits which can then be reinvested into
the shipbuilding industry.
Why do the members of the Progressive Conservative Party not
care enough about tax relief, particularly tax relief for
Atlantic Canadians, to make it part of their shipbuilding plan?
On the issue of access to international markets for Canadian
shipbuilders, the Reform Party supports the pursuit of equitable
trade liberalization policies as an essential part of our
industrial policy. In this instance, we are very concerned with
what appears to be unfair trade practices with the United States
with respect to the 1920 Merchant Marine Act currently exempt
from NAFTA.
The 1920 Merchant Marine Act, commonly known as the Jones Act,
legislates that cargo carried between U.S. ports must be carried
aboard ships that are U.S. built, U.S. registered, U.S. owned,
U.S. crewed and repaired and serviced exclusively in the U.S.
This legislation was exempt from NAFTA and without amendment it
effectively prevents Canadian shipbuilders from building a ship
that could be used in the United States' domestic trades while
allowing U.S. shipyards the right to sell to the Canadian market
new or used ships and barges duty free. The legislation
effectively excludes Canadians from participating in a $1.1
billion shipping transportation market.
In order to be completely forthright in this debate, I believe
the members of the House must also recognize the provisions in
place currently protecting the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
1250
Under Canada's Coastal Trading Act, the owner of a ship built or
purchased abroad must pay a 25% tariff to have it flagged
Canadian and operate in Canadian domestic trade. Also, the
Canadian government policy dictates that government fleets must
be renewed and repaired in Canada.
While we must recognize these trade barriers, it is clear that
they do not cause the same material damages to the U.S.
shipbuilders as the Jones Act does to the Canadian manufacturers.
Canadians must appreciate, however, that trade liberalization
efforts will bring these protectionist government policies under
closer scrutiny. We cannot call for freer trade and then also
call for protectionist policies.
I offer this point to my colleagues as a word of caution. Canada
has many barriers to trade and the Liberal government looks like
it will continue to violate the spirit of global trade
liberalization. We must be aware of this before we tackle trade
disputes like the one I have just addressed.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that the Tory motion
succeeds in that it brings attention to the need to address the
lack of Liberal vision for the shipbuilding industry. Sadly, it
makes no specific policy recommendation.
On the plus side, there is nothing in the motion that is
outwardly objectionable to Canadian taxpayers because there is
nothing in the motion at all. Although it fails to address the
primary cause of our deteriorating shipbuilding industry, which
is high taxes and unfair trade practices, the motion before the
House has the qualified support of the Reform caucus.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the last presentation
by the member opposite. I am glad that he brought up the area of
the Jones Act, an early 1920's act. I know that he is a small
businessman and has experience negotiating.
In order to do away with the Jones Act, there was an opportunity
during the trade negotiations, including NAFTA, to hit that
straight on. By Canada giving up cards and not getting the Jones
Act straightened out, it leaves us no choice but to go into the
OECD and WTO negotiations with an item that needs to be discussed
and moved forward. The Jones Act should really have been tackled
by the previous government when it had the Canadian cards to be
able to discuss that item. I would be interested in the hon.
member's comments.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member
for his comments and his brief question. I know that within the
industry committee the hon. parliamentary secretary is always
open to discussing various issues. Shipbuilding has been one
that has come up on the table which we have been looking at and
planning to deal with in the future. Hopefully, we will be able
to address some of the issues in the Jones Act that were left out
during past trade discussions.
Instead of blaming past governments or looking at past records,
especially when it comes to shipbuilding, we should be looking at
ways to make shipbuilding more competitive and become an industry
that can survive on its own. We should start moving away from
areas of subsidies, such as the technology partnerships Canada
program. Right now the World Trade Organization is ruling that a
lot of subsidies are illegal. We must look at ways to get the
shipbuilding industry moving through tax relief.
When we look at the issue of tax credits, we basically have some
of the highest tax credits in the country for the shipbuilding
industry when we look at our R and D and tax breaks. However, we
still have the lowest spending per capita when it comes to the
shipbuilding industry, specifically in the overall basic R and D
spending and investment in those areas, even though we spend a
fair amount in research and development.
We have to address those key problems. I think trade
liberalization is the key, but we must also balance that with tax
policies.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member says that our motion does not include any recommendations
to correct the situation. If he had listened to my presentation
he would know that we brought forth the recommendations that we
are asking the minister to look at. These recommendations come
from the shipbuilding industry, not from us. The people building
the ships are the ones who know what has to be done.
1255
Does the hon. member have a problem with the exclusion of new
construction ships built in Canadian shipyards from the present
Revenue Canada leasing regulations, when one looks at the fact
that Revenue Canada excluded Canadian-built ships from the
leasing rules but allowed those rules to apply to office
furniture, computers, rail cars, autos, vans, trucks, everything
but ships? The workers are telling us that if they could have
this it would give them an opportunity to compete around the
world and would put 24,000 people back to work.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the
recommendations, I know the official opposition would have been
happy to see within the motion some of these recommendations
coming from the industry so we could see exactly where the Tories
wanted to go with the motion. That is really all we were asking
for. We know the spirit of the motion is a positive one and that
is why we are supporting it.
On the issue raised by the hon. member, the official opposition
has always been committed to creating fairer tax incentives for
everyone. We obviously want a simple tax system that would be
more competitive and equitable to all industries in being able to
write off certain parts of their industries that deteriorate in
value and so on.
Although I know the hon. member is concerned about that
specifically with the shipbuilding industry, we in the official
opposition have said that is something we would look at right
across the board. Although shipbuilding is one of the more
important industries in the area the hon. member comes from, we
know there are various industries across the country where
inequalities within the tax system cause them to be less
competitive. That is what we would like to address across the
board.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to rise today, on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois, to debate the motion introduced by the PC member for
Saint John.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House calls on the government to develop a new
national shipbuilding policy to support the revitalization of
the Canadian shipbuilding industry by maintaining and advancing
the degree of excellence and the technologies for which Canada
is historically renowned, given that Canada has the longest
coastline of any nation in the world and that historically
Canadians are among the finest shipbuilders in the world.
An amendment was introduced to add the word “immediately”. And a
good thing. Back in 1993, after the general election, when the
Liberal Party was fresh from the opposition, I remember hearing
the Prime Minister's current executive assistant say on TV that
we absolutely needed a national shipbuilding policy, and that
sometime in the coming year, that was in 1994, a summit on the
future of shipbuilding in Canada should be held because the
situation was urgent.
Naturally a summit would involve representatives from the
shipbuilding industry. In terms of numbers, shipyards, small and
big ones, account for 4,000 jobs. At one point, however, the
industry employed up to 12,000 workers. A summit would also
involve people for the shipping industry as a whole.
Who makes up the shipping industry? Shipowners, of course, and
sailors. People who tow boats in harbours, and shipping
companies. Even today, they represent 40,000 workers. This is no
small industry.
Contrary to what my colleague from the Reform Party just said,
the shipbuilding industry is not exclusively located by the
Atlantic ocean or on the St. Lawrence, in Quebec City. There is
the Pacific Ocean out west.
If we consider how interrelated the entire industry is, goods
are also shipped by ship, as far as Thunder Bay. The western
grain producers ship from Thunder Bay to other countries, in
Europe and elsewhere.
1300
The word “national” is not superfluous in this case, as the
national interest is at stake. It is a national transportation
mode, like rail, road and, of course, air transportation.
But which one of all these industries costs the least per tonne?
The maritime shipping industry. Which is the most economical,
the most environmentally sound, the most accident-free, and the
one in the past that was most respectful of the environment
because of the gross tonnage of each vessel? The maritime
shipping industry.
As I told the hon. member for Saint John, and as the motion
states, we have the world's longest coastline.
We also have the St. Lawrence Seaway, which goes as far as the
tip of Lake Superior, and constitutes the longest navigable
waterway in the world. This should be a considerable plus for
Canada. Navigable waterways may be one of the greatest natural
resources we have.
In my opinion, the St. Lawrence is far more than that. It is
the backbone of Canada's economic development. What does it do?
It carries freight right across Canada from the port of Halifax
to the markets of the U.S. From the Great Lakes, freight
travels down the Mississippi and the Missouri to other water
routes in the heartland of the major world market the United
States represents.
My congratulations again to the Progressive Conservative Party
for choosing shipbuilding as the topic today.
That enables us to show that this is a truly national issue,
more than just local interests or a fight against seasonal
unemployment. It is strategic and vital economic development.
Often in government, here in Ottawa, officials and politicians
live in—I was going to say their shell—their own world and often
forget the regions.
They say that it is a traditional industry, outdated, a lame
duck. But when people know about it as I do or as does the
member for Saint John or the parliamentary secretary, they know
it is not the case. The parliamentary secretary knows too that
in shipbuilding, they are as technologically advanced as in the
aerospace industry. A ship has as many computers as a plane,
even more. Navigation is by satellite, in the same way.
The qualifications required for jobs are the same too. It is
not an outdated field.
I would like to take two minutes to talk about the situation
worldwide. What is happening in the world? There are Asian
shipyards, where ships are subsidized as much as 30%. This is
wrong. European shipyards get a 9% subsidy, and the small ones,
16%. We must speak out against this. Canada is complaining
about it through the OECD, but as the United States opposes this
policy, what do the European countries do while the OECD tries
to convince the Americans to support this policy? They
subsidize their shipyards. We are not saying that, no one here
is saying that. Here we talk about tax measures.
And what are the Americans doing? There is the Jones act, and
also title XI, which is a program for shipyards specifically.
Finally, I drew on this for the financing program, which is
exactly 87.5%. That is exactly what the Americans do. There is
nothing scandalous about this. This is what they do. When it
comes to refundable tax credits, this is what Quebec does. I
weigh my words carefully when I say refundable. These are not
subsidies. The parliamentary secretary has studied the leasing
measures in depth.
1305
He is obviously a little shaken by our arguments or the pressure
exerted by us or by the union front all across the country.
The Americans are doing something worse that is detrimental to
us. They do not allow Canadian shipbuilders to enjoy the same
benefit as their American counterparts, who are not charged
anything. The fact that shipbuilding was excluded from the free
trade agreement is a national tragedy. Not many members knew
about this, but it is a fact.
If shipbuilding had been included in the free trade agreement,
and considering the exchange rate with the U.S. dollar, the
contracts signed by Canadian shipyards would be incredibly
lucrative. But this cannot be changed through legislation.
Negotiations are required to make changes to an agreement.
We would need a summit, as the Liberals had planned in 1993.
However, six years later, in 1999, they seem to have forgotten
all about it.
A coalition of unions was organized across the country. A large
number of Canadians signed postal cards, which the Prime
Minister will soon receive.
It is no longer just the Bloc Quebecois member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière whining alone in his corner, but all
the opposition members, with the exception of the parliamentary
secretary, because there are only Liberals in Ontario. But where
there is a shipyard, the riding is represented by a member of
the opposition. Given their small majority in the House—only five
members more than all the opposition parties put together—they
should do something about this issue, because the two-year
deadline is drawing near.
[English]
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to pay tribute to my hon. colleague.
[Translation]
Last summer he worked hard on this bill. He will table a private
member's bill this week or next week. This legislation will
require the support of the members from all the provinces.
[English]
I would like to compliment his efforts and ask him about one
particular initiative. The free trade act has been very solid
for this country in terms of augmenting our trade. That is beyond
dispute. However, given that the Jones act was exempt, even
though we got a pretty good deal for the country in general,
would it not be a decent idea for us to say to the Americans that
we should develop some kind of bilateral accord for developing
certain types of ships so we could get some market penetration? I
would recommend perhaps shipshape drilling hauls where they are
having a capacity problem.
We should begin an initiative sector by sector by going after
certain types of ships as a starting point. Would he agree that
is a good initiative in beginning to break down the trade
barriers?
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to
clear something up. I presented Bill C-493—it already has a
number—on April 15. I have been seeking members' support ever
since. This week, I am already close to the 100 signatures I
need to have the bill introduced for debate more quickly.
As for the idea of a court, that would be consistent with what I
said earlier about a summit, or negotiations with the United
States. It is one suggestion that could be made as part of the
negotiations to have Canadian shipbuilding included in the free
trade agreement.
I would remind the House that, at the time, it was the United
States that wanted shipbuilding excluded. The Progressive
Conservative government of the day could not persuade them
otherwise. They have two associations, one representing the
seven or eight largest shipyards, and the other representing the
others, and one of the two associations would not budge.
At the time, the Republicans controlled the Senate and Congress
and the idea was therefore defeated.
1310
I will conclude by thanking the member for Fundy—Royal, the
member for Saint John, and the New Democratic Party members for
their excellent co-operation and their devoted efforts on this
issue. Reform Party members were initially hesitant about a
shipbuilding policy.
If we all put the national interest first, perhaps the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry will at last
be able to convince his colleagues to adopt a truly national
shipbuilding policy.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate my colleague from
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for his most interesting speech on
shipbuilding in Canada, and in Quebec in particular.
I have always believed that, since it boasts one of the world's
finest rivers, Canada could have a shipbuilding industry. It is
a leading edge industry. Maritime engineers have told me that
we in Canada possess certain advantages for the development of a
shipbuilding industry.
I would like to ask my colleague whether he has projected
figures for job creation and wealth that would be generated by
the development of a shipbuilding industry.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I will answer very briefly, since
I do not have a lot of time.
The MPs who joined together to discuss this matter say that we
would have to get back to the 10,000 to 12,000 job level we had
in the past. At the present time, we are operating at only 40%
of capacity. These are well-paid jobs, but no more so than in
other countries. We are competitive. Even in constant U.S.
dollar levels, wages here are no higher than elsewhere, with the
exception of Korea.
The most important thing is the economic fallout of those jobs.
In the export sector for instance, the number of jobs that would
be created in Canada would be fourfold.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion. It
is a very important motion so I am going to read it again.
That this House calls on the government to develop a new national
shipbuilding policy to support the revitalization of the Canadian
shipbuilding industry by maintaining and advancing the degree of
excellence and the technologies for which Canada is historically
renowned, given that Canada has the longest coastline of any
nation in the world and that historically Canadians are among the
finest shipbuilders in the world.
The motion has been very well crafted and it says a lot. It is
important that all of us give serious consideration to it this
afternoon.
Undoubtedly there is a need for a national shipbuilding policy.
I say that in all sincerity. Many times I have questioned the
government with respect to a shipbuilding policy and I have often
got back the reply that we do not need a policy, that we already
have a policy. Yet, this policy seems to be long forthcoming. I
requested a copy of the policy quite some time ago through the
standing committee. I was told that it would be made available
but I have yet to see anything.
What the government has is not a shipbuilding policy per se but
a mishmash of little initiatives here and there which it can
remotely tie into the concept of shipbuilding and it calls this a
policy. What we are looking for when we talk about a national
shipbuilding policy is something that is very clear and concise,
that sets a sense of direction and gives hope and optimism to the
people who work in the shipbuilding field.
Ships have been sailing between Canadian ports for many years.
We believe firmly that they should be built in Canada, crewed in
Canada and serviced and repaired in Canada.
We know that the U.S. has the Jones act which ensures this for
its industry, but we in Canada for some reason seem to want to go
in a different direction. We do not want to ensure a sound
industry for our citizens.
1315
On December 31, 1996 there were 2,589 ships on order around the
world. Yet shipbuilders on both coasts of Canada sit idle. One
has to ask oneself why this is so. When there are so many ships
being built around the world, why is it that in Canada, which has
been historically known for its shipbuilding and technology in
that regard, the shipyards are idle?
The U.S. provides generous long term loan guarantees for buyers.
There are many other initiatives it takes to ensure the industry
survives in that country.
On October 29, 1990 the right hon. Prime Minister, while he was
in opposition, wrote a letter to the marine workers federation in
which he said “It is safe to say that most people recognize that
something has to be done to create a much more competitive
shipbuilding industry. The government should now, as they should
have done long ago and indeed as they promised to do, take steps
to alleviate the problem”. The Prime Minister wrote that when he
was in opposition. We heard quite a different story today from
the government side in terms of what has to be done and the
importance of doing something now to maintain this industry and
to help it survive.
Employment in this industry has plummeted from 12,000 workers in
1990 to fewer than 5,000 in 1996. I would venture that today it
has probably gone even lower.
Why is it in this day and age when there is so much unemployment
we cannot do something positive to aid people to find the
necessary work to feed their families and look after themselves?
Coastal communities are facing economic stagnation and chronic
unemployment. We see it in the fisheries industry. Now the same
thing is happening in the shipbuilding industry.
We should look at ways of making sure the shipbuilding industry
survives and picks up. We can bring in tough environmental
standards, such as calling for double hulls. That would create
employment and work within this area.
We note that the Liberal red book in 1993 called for provisional
funds for the shipbuilding industry. Today we do not see
anything happening in that regard.
The premiers in August 1997 unanimously passed a resolution
aimed at helping the Canadian shipbuilding industry become more
competitive on the international scene.
Even more recently we had a meeting here on the hill with the
shipbuilding industry, the workers, management, the associations
and so forth. All the parties except the government joined with
these people to look seriously at what could be done to help this
ailing industry, what could be done to put men and women back to
work, and what could be done to ensure that our children had a
secure future in the Atlantic provinces and on the west coast.
We have to ask ourselves, what is the problem? Perhaps part of
the problem is that the majority of the members on the government
side come from a province where they do not appreciate the
importance of our marine industry, where perhaps they do not
appreciate the importance of shipbuilding to the Atlantic and
Pacific areas. This may be part of the problem. We know
certainly that where there is a will and an understanding, there
is a way to resolve these problems.
We have the equipment and the skilled workers. This is the
important point. We have a battery of workers who are skilled,
willing and able and wanting to work. Nowadays people are
criticized far too often for being on the welfare rolls as people
who do not want to work, who have no industry, no ambition or
whatever. This is not the case with the shipbuilding workers.
They have indicated over and over again that they want to work.
They want to be productive members of society. They want to put
into reality their experience, technology and skills.
We have the equipment and we have the workers, but do we have a
government with the will to stand up for Canada's shipbuilding
industry? No. If we did have such a government, we would see
this industry moving forward.
1320
A national policy should include such things as loan guarantees,
fixed and comparable interest rates, long term amortization, and
regulations to ensure that ships that are delivered to or from
Canadian ports are subject to Canadian rules on health, safety
and environmental standards. This is very important.
The shipbuilding personnel and the people involved in the
industry whom we met with made it very clear that they are not
looking for any handouts. They do not want handouts. They want
to contribute their skills in a meaningful way to help this
country move forward. Those individuals are sincere when they say
that. We know these individuals and we know them to be
honourable people.
For some reason it appears the government has a distrust of the
shipbuilding industry and the people involved in it. The
Liberals are constantly saying that they cannot subsidize the
industry, that they do not want to do this or that. I assure
everyone this is not what these people are asking for. All they
are asking for is a fair chance, a fair opportunity to put
forward a program that they know, based on their experience, will
work and help make Canada a more productive society.
We have the workers but unfortunately we do not have a
government with the will to help them. Many countries have
shipbuilding and industrial strategies and policies. For
example, the United States, France, Britain, Italy, Spain, Korea
and China all have their specific shipbuilding industry policies.
Is Canada so backward that we cannot match these countries and
come forward with a strong policy of our own to ensure work for
our citizens? I would say we are not.
We need some leadership to be shown by the government to give
this matter its due consideration. The government should work
together with the industry, work with all those who are
interested in supporting the industry and make sure we move
ahead. We know that where there is a will, there will be a way.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, it was
brought to my attention that the present Minister of Finance said
“I fought to have my ships built in Canada but was unable to
convince the government of the need for an aggressive
shipbuilding policy and if we are not going to do that, we cannot
be a factor in commercial shipping”. The present Minister of
Finance stated that he had his ships built in Brazil because
Canada does not have a national shipbuilding policy whereby we
can be competitive.
The present Prime Minister when in opposition said that we have
to have a new national shipbuilding policy, that we have to keep
that resource going. The present Minister of Industry when he
was a critic kept saying that he was for a national shipbuilding
policy. Now he says it is not part of his agenda.
I congratulate the hon. member on his presentation and I thank
him for it. Does he see any support whatsoever from the present
government sitting in the House of Commons today for a national
shipbuilding policy to put our people back to work, to give them
their dignity and to make us competitive?
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have to
answer the question in the negative. I do not see any hope with
the present government that we will move ahead on this issue
unless there is a drastic change in events and a drastic change
in the government's opinion.
As the member has rightly indicated, statements have been made
in the past. When people were in opposition they said one thing
but then suddenly they took a different approach when they became
the government. Time and time again I have said it is very
important that if we as politicians are going to have any
credibility with the people who elect us, we must not be
hypocritical. We must not say one thing and do another. We must
not make promises while we are in opposition and do something
different when we are in government.
The government has to look strongly at its past statements and
live up to those statements and move this issue forward in a
positive way.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the member for Halifax West for his remarks. I
understand his concerns about shipbuilding, because, in his
region, a lot of people work there.
However, I do not share his pessimism over the impossibility of
influencing the government to change its policy and its current
attitude.
1325
I can see positive signs at the moment. By way of example, the
four opposition parties seem to support the motion by the
Progressive Conservative Party.
The three main unions representing shipbuilders in
Canada are in agreement. They even agree with their employers
at the shipbuilders' association. Shipowners agree. All the
provincial premiers agree. The Liberal Premier of New
Brunswick, who will be calling elections soon, agrees. At their
latest convention, the members of the Liberal Party managed to
vote a resolution in favour of having a policy on shipbuilding.
I must watch my words, but the Minister of Finance's situation
is rather unique, and he does not dare go too far ahead, being
himself involved in the sector.
However, I do not share my colleague's pessimism and I would
like him to react to my question.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
excellent question.
I agree that important things are happening, but it is thanks to
the opposition, not the government.
[English]
I feel very strongly that we should be optimistic and we should
look forward to something happening on a positive basis. The
hon. member before asked me whether I felt there was any hope the
government would address this problem adequately. I have to be
quite honest. While we in the opposition would like to see some
changes and see something positive take place, I have seen very
little encouragement come from the government side that it is
going to move in a very real way to make the shipbuilding
industry a viable industry for the people in Atlantic Canada and
on the west coast.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in this debate and to express my support for the
proposed amendment and the main motion introduced by my
colleague for Saint John.
The motion before the House today seems crucial to me. If
there is one issue with a national dimension, it is
shipbuilding. It does not involve one region in particular, but
several.
In spite of our political differences, I want to mention that
there is in this House a member who deserves our thanks for his
many constructive inputs regarding shipbuilding. It is my
colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, whom I salute.
He has traveled across the country.
He is just as aware of the issue of shipbuilding as my
colleagues for Saint John and Burin—St. George's. We are
extremely well represented in the maritimes. These people help
us raise our awareness of this major issue.
There is nothing new in this morning's motion. Remember last
election campaign. In 1993, and that is not yesterday, the
current government had promised it would abolish free trade. We
knew this was a hare-brained promise, but to win votes one tends
to go overboard sometimes. So the current government had
promised to roll back the free trade agreement. How ridiculous.
As we know, our exports have increased from $90 to $250 billion
thanks to free trade.
If the government is now in a sound financial position, it is
partly because of the free trade agreement negotiated by the
former Prime Minister of Canada, but also by our current leader,
Joe Clark. Incidentally, the Liberals had promised to tear up
the free trade agreement.
It is difficult to fight this kind of talk during an election
campaign. I remember the debate on free trade. Everyone was
opposed to free trade for reasons that were partly based on
demagoguery, and in the 1993 election campaign, the Liberals
promised to abolish it.
Another broken promise was to scrap the GST. We knew that it did
not make any sense.
1330
During an election campaign, when demagoguery prevails, it is
very difficult for rationality to take over. In the end, the
Liberals were elected. There was however a few measures
contained in the red book with which I agreed. I think our
government colleagues will be pleased to hear that.
In their red book, the Liberals made an interesting commitment
regarding shipyards. I would have liked them to live up to their
commitment, but they did not.
The Liberals did not make good on many of their commitments.
Obviously, with free trade, the GST generating $22 billion in
revenue, $31 billion in additional revenue from the surtax, and
$25 billion taken out of the employment insurance fund, it is
easy to fight the deficit.
When we in the Progressive Conservative Party raise issues like
shipyards, the government always gives us the same line “You
left us with a deficit of $42 billion”. The problem is that the
Liberals had left us with a debt of $200 billion. Before we came
to office, the debt had increased elevenfold, from $18 billion
to $200 billion, in ten years. Under the Progressive
Conservative government, the debt increased twofold, from $200
billion to $400 billion, over a nine year period. During that
time, we adopted progressive measures such as the GST, the free
trade agreement and the tax reform.
On the topic of shipyards, the members for Saint John, Burin—St.
George's, and Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière as well, gave some
quite excellent speeches. Attacks on the Progressive
Conservatives are always the same.
The Progressive Conservative government was not responsible for
rationalizing shipyards. Shipyards were rationalized by the
industry itself, but I am pleased to mention some measures for
which the Progressive Conservatives can take credit.
Given the importance of the sector, we created a maritime
transport co-operation group. We invested $450 million annually
in the maritime, land and air transportation sectors, including
in Quebec.
We invested $60 million to improve the port of Vancouver.
It has become a world renowned shipping centre.
Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that I would be splitting my
time with the member for Fundy—Royal.
The Canadian Patrol Frigate Program is an extremely important
program. Through it, Canada has built up an international
reputation in the design, integration, testing, construction,
development and management of large-scale projects. The
expertise we have built up, thanks to the initiatives of the
Progressive Conservative government, make it possible today for
us to be increasingly effective. We are calling on the
government in power to allow our shipyards to compete on other
international markets.
It is impossible for us to compete with European shipyards right
now, because they have support measures of 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and
even 30%.
We cannot compete on the American market. It is a very captive
market, with controlled zones. There is a complete ban on
potential outside markets.
We are even certain that the majority of government
members will vote in favour of the motion.
This was one of their most important election promises in 1993.
I am sure there are not many colleagues on the government side
who have forgotten the proposal to develop a national
shipbuilding policy which would allow Canada to compete with the
Europeans, the Americans and the Asia-Pacific countries to take
advantage of the technological expertise that we have developed
in our shipyards.
I remind the House of the work done by all political parties,
with the exception of this government, and namely by my
colleague from St. John, the members of
Levis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Burin—St. George's and all the
others who have met with people from this industry.
1335
A government cannot be listening to recommendations that came
out of all those meetings held just before the holiday season.
This is why we want to use this day—not by dealing with
farfetched issues that are out of touch with reality—for the
benefit of the thousands of workers who are forced to fight and
compete with other shipyards across the world, which benefit
from tax privileges granted by their respective governments.
This is why we would like the government to support the motion
and act on its 1993 campaign promise to give Canada a tax policy
that would allow all our shipyards to be competitive on the
world scene. Furthermore, considering the technological
expertise that we developed and the high value our shipyard
workers can add to their finished products, we want the
government to support the initiative proposed in the motion
before the House today.
It is extremely important for the Bloc Quebecois, for the Reform
Party and for the NDP. There are today tens of thousands of
vessels for sale in the world that need repairs and we do not
want our local shipyards to be penalized compared to shipyards
in other countries where the governments take their
responsibilities.
In 1993, the Liberal Party promised all Canadians that Canada
would have a tax policy that would allow its shipyards to be on
a level playing field with shipyards all over the world.
I am delighted, in supporting the motion, to remind my
colleagues across the way that we read their red book very
carefully. One of the few rational promises contained in that
book was to give Canada a shipyard policy that would compare to
what exists around the world.
We knew that the red book promises did not make sense: abolish
the GST, abolish free trade and change the helicopter package
that had already cost Canadians $600 million. We ask the
government to be reasonable and to adopt today's motion.
We do not want a dramatic change in the way the government
manages the country. All we want, is for it to support our
efforts to give Canada an exciting new policy for the future.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I do not know if the fact that the Liberals are not questioning
the party that brought forward this motion in favour of a
shipbuilding policy this morning is a sign of openness on their
part. I hope it is.
I just wanted to react to a remark made by my colleague from
Chicoutimi, to tell him that I do not always agree with him.
Sometimes, in the political arena, it is normal to be in
opposition, to have democratic debates, and so on. On the issue
of commitments, a Liberal member opposite said they were made in
1988.
I was a candidate in 1993 and I recall very clearly watching on
television the Liberal candidate for Quebec City, who is now the
Prime Minister's chief of staff, when he said “We will adopt a
shipbuilding policy, hold a summit in the following year, and
put in place concrete measures to revitalize the Canadian
shipbuilding industry”. That is all I wanted to say.
The member for Chicoutimi has had experience in the previous
government.
Does he think it would be possible, if the government really
wanted to do it, to renegotiate the free trade agreement to
include shipbuilding? Canada has been in favour of its inclusion
since the beginning.
Does the member think that, with all that is being done in the
WTO and the OECD, the United States might be open to the idea of
including shipbuilding in the free trade agreement? If so, does
he think it would be a good thing, considering the weakness of
the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar, and does he
agree with me that Canadians shipyards could benefit?
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for his questions.
Indeed, this is certainly an item that ought to be on the agenda
of multilateral negotiations, unless all countries negotiating
merely decide to say “We will continue, each in our own areas,
to fully support the industrial sector shipbuilding represents”.
1340
We cannot ask that of our local yards. We will try not to be
too partisan in this matter. At the present time, our
shipyards' inability to compete costs thousands of direct and
indirect jobs.
When there is bidding, how can we compete with others, such as
the Asia-Pacific region, when their subsidies may account for
more than 30% of the value of a project?
In Europe too, they can be as high as 16% of the value of a
project.
When there is a 15% to 30% difference right off the bat, it is
impossible to compete. That is why all parties, including the
government party, ought to show some open-mindedness. We would
be in favour of broader discussions with all stakeholders in
this industry. The government and the four opposition parties
must arrive at a consistent policy, one which would enable us to
take proper advantage of the expertise we have developed for
meeting needs anywhere in the world.
I can assure the House that this could result in a tremendous
boost. Many jobs could be created in this industry. We are not
asking for any special privileges. We want our shipyards to be
treated on an equal footing with other shipbuilding industries
internationally.
[English]
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to discuss a very important issue which
is critical from an economic development perspective for the
region of Atlantic Canada and, I would argue, for Canada. We are
talking this afternoon about the issue of the survival and the
overall competitiveness of a very fundamental industry.
My colleague from the Reform Party said earlier that he was
unsure about why we did not table any specific initiatives in the
question we put forth. I will share with him some of the
rationale for why we chose that approach.
The wording in the question we chose today is the same policy
initiative that was accepted and agreed upon by the Liberal Party
of Canada at its policy conferences in 1988 and 1993. I would
wager that many members who are sitting in the House today and
will be sitting in the House come vote time actually voted for
the very same initiative when they were before their own
membership. I could not figure out why in any shape, way or form
these members would vote against the same initiative.
Mr. Mark Muise: There is no reason.
Mr. John Herron: There is absolutely no reason, as the
member for West Nova has just pointed out to me.
We are putting forth some initiatives, some financial
initiatives, some tax incentives, to provide the industry with a
more level playing field. There has been a lot of discussion that
we cannot compete with the subsidies that exist in the Koreas and
the Chinas. My comment is so what. We do not care. There are
other markets we can chase down.
Competing with some countries that have subsidies of up to 20%
or 30% of the cost of a ship is not a market we are interested in
anyway. Those markets have ships with high steel content and low
amounts of mechanical outfitting. That actually means they do
not have sophisticated, high tech, cutting edge navigational
equipment. They do not have systems in terms of the high tech
industries such as shipshape drilling hauls which would be used
in offshore exploration or drilling in that regard. Those are
the kinds of ships we can be competitive with. Our labour is
competitive in that regard. The only thing that is not
competitive is our tax regime, plain and simple.
I believe fundamentally that the role of government is to do two
principal things when it comes to industry. The first is to
provide it with sound viable access to markets. That means
physically in terms of rails and roads and trade regimes as well.
This is something I would like to discuss in the next few
minutes.
1345
The second thing the government has to provide is an
internationally competitive tax regime. The initiatives that
have been put forth have been agreed upon by an unprecedented
number of individuals in our society. The shipowners association
is on side. The shipbuilders association is on side. Labour is
on side. In fact, in 1997 at St. Andrews, New Brunswick all 10
premiers voted for the development of a national shipbuilding
policy with fundamental principles that the federal government
must and should pursue. To date I am very sad to say that action
taken by the federal government essentially amounts to nil.
An hon. member: No pursuit. Zero.
Mr. John Herron: There is no pursuit. We have heard
comments as to why the Jones act was exempt from the free trade
agreement in 1988 and 1993. That is the kind of rhetoric that
has been put forward. Everybody in the House understands that
the free trade agreement is the fundamental cornerstone of our
economy today in terms of augmenting our trade with the
Americans. We have over $200 billion worth of trade with the
Americans. Previously it was only $80 billion. However, we were
not able to get this one particular industry into the trade
agreement.
The government has been in power for over six years. It has not
once taken the opportunity to look at improving this. Rather, it
has put the blame on the previous government. Not once has the
government said that it would be a very good initiative to set up
a trade component sector by sector. The parliamentary secretary
mentioned that it is imperative that we take a sector by sector
approach. Why do we not set up a trade component, go to the
Americans and negotiate a bilateral accord on certain types of
ships? Maybe they would be drilling rigs. Maybe they would be
ocean going tugs. We have not taken an initiative to penetrate
the Jones act.
I will outline very briefly what we are considering because my
colleagues have done a fabulous job in terms of the initiatives
put forward by my friend and colleague from the neighbouring
riding of Saint John, the member for Chicoutimi and the member
from Lévis. There are a number of members who really believe
this is something we need to do.
We need to develop a loan guarantee program similar to the
American title XI, which has been in effect since 1936. Do
members know how many loan defaults there have been since 1936?
Since 1936, under this very prudent criteria, with the federal
government guaranteeing the loans, there have been zero loan
defaults. Absolutely none. Why are they scared to look at
something that works and implement it in our country? I know
there are people listening to this at home and in the House who
cannot fathom why that initiative has not been taken.
I believe that Reform agrees with me that this country is
overtaxed. Why do we want to tax an industry so that it has no
chance of competing? What we are advocating is to revise the
Revenue Canada leasing regulations concurrently with accelerated
depreciation. That would lower taxes. We do it for rail cars,
computers, trucks and other industries.
I ask my colleagues again: Why would they not want to take that
initiative if it is done for other industries? What do they have
against this cutting-edge, high tech, modern industry?
We should revise Revenue Canada leasing regulations to make
them similar to the title XI loan guarantee program.
I will give the government a bit of credit in this regard. It
has taken some steps with respect to the Export Development
Corporation. However, I would argue that it should look at doing
that for the domestic market as well.
I have talked about the need to have a bilateral accord in terms
of the Jones act. This comes down to three fundamental
principles. First, we have to be able to establish a
marketplace.
The marketplace is threefold domestically. The ships which exist
on the Great Lakes today are aging and will be need to be
replaced or refitted. We need to ensure that we have a
competitive indigenous industry to take advantage of those
opportunities.
1350
The second market would be to go after a bilateral accord with
Americans, which I just pointed out.
Third, we could compete with the EU if we provided the
appropriate tax regime.
The last point, which I cannot fathom, comes downs to political
leadership. This is not a debate about what needs to be done;
this is purely a debate about who is going to get the job done.
The Minister of Industry should be an advocate for this industry.
If he does not want to be the quarterback, then I suggest he
step aside and let someone take over who actually cares about the
industry.
I am suggesting that the Minister of Industry step aside and let
the Prime Minister be the quarterback of this initiative so that
he can bring the Minister for International Trade, the Minister
of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance on side to get
the individuals in this industry working by opening markets,
lowering taxes and re-establishing the industry.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the
last speaker, who referred continuously to the example of rail
cars.
I wonder if the member opposite is suggesting that the same
arrangement for leasing rail cars be brought in for ships and
that the accelerated rate for shipbuilding be reduced from 33.3%
to 10%. Is that what he is suggesting so that leasing could be
applied?
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary
secretary and I worked collaboratively and had very co-operative
debates on this issue back in October 1997. I will admit that he
has a sincere interest in terms of advancing this file.
The motion calls for the commitment of the government as a
whole to address the issue.
We are not even going to argue what particular initiatives have
to be taken. We have put forth some very constructive
suggestions and we are challenging the government to say “This
is what we are capable of doing”, as opposed to “This is hands
off. What we have now in terms of our national shipbuilding
policy, in terms of tariffs, in terms accelerated depreciation is
all we are going to do”.
As far as rail car initiatives are concerned, whatever is
competitive for the rail car industry should be afforded to the
shipbuilding industry as well. However, it has to be done by
revising Revenue Canada leasing regulations concurrently with
accelerated depreciation.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Fundy—Royal is a very staunch defender of
shipbuilding. He is very familiar with the whole area.
Could he tell me why the Minister of Industry claims the policy
is working fine, and the shipbuilding industry is working fine,
when only 40% of shipyard workers are in fact employed, and 60%
are unemployed?
If everything is fine, and nothing needs changing, how can it be
that things are going so badly?
[English]
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I think the issue we are
troubled with, and this has been a very troublesome debate in
this regard, is that the initiatives that have been discussed
have been supported by an unprecedented level of individuals. As
I stated, all of the premiers supported financial initiatives as
well as other initiatives at St. Andrews in 1997.
1355
I really am at a loss to explain what the problem is, other than
to say that we need to have some political leadership on the
file.
I reiterate that this is a public policy initiative that was
tabled at the conventions of the Liberal Party in 1993 and 1998.
It is the very same wording. I am sure that every member of the
House said that this was an issue which we have to re-visit. In
fact, the member from Lévis said that this was a priority of the
government as well. If it is a priority, then let us do it. A
priority is something on which there is an intent to follow
through.
A government that has too many priorities, by definition, has no
priorities. What we are asking of this caretaker government is
that it engage and do something with the industry. We have put
forward four initiatives. The government should show the people
that it is sincere about addressing this issue.
Governments have a role to support a tax regime when two
regional economies have an indigenous advantage. We have ports,
we have an ocean and we have access to those markets. All we are
looking for is sound and viable access to our markets through
trade and taxation regimes.
* * *
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL
The Speaker: Before proceeding to Statements by
Members, I have the honour to lay upon the table the 1998 annual
report of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MILLBROOK AGRICULTURAL FAIR
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to inform the House that
Millbrook, a village located in the riding of
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, will be celebrating the 150th year
of its agricultural fair.
Agricultural fairs were first established to provide service and
education to the second and succeeding waves of settlers. It was
where they acquired needed supplies, livestock, seeds and the
knowledge of how to gainfully put them to use. The Millbrook
fair has taken this concept and used it to become one of the most
successful agricultural fairs in the region.
These are special times for the community as we near the
beginning of the new century. By any standards the Millbrook
Agricultural Society's annual fair is a grand old lady. She
continues to reflect the past while inspiring the future.
I would invite all Canadians to this wonderful occasion of the
150th Millbrook fair to be held June 11 to 13. I wish the
residents of Millbrook all the best in making their 150th fair
the best yet.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is an e-mail I received today from a frustrated
Canadian job creator:
As small business owners, my wife and I employed 15 people in
various permanent, seasonal and part time roles in 1998. Of
those 15, it was known all along that 11 of them would be working
for four months or less. Several were students, had no other
employment during the year and hence would never be eligible for
employment insurance benefits. Nevertheless, we deducted a total
of $856.52 as EI premiums from these individuals, matched by
$1,199.13 from our business.
It should be no mystery that the reason the EI program is
running a surplus is because recent changes have made it more
difficult to qualify for benefits and because premiums are
collected from people who will never be able to qualify. This is
unfair, unjust, a drain on the private sector and on the poorest
households in our country.
* * *
POLISH CONSTITUTION
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to offer my warmest
congratulations to Polish Canadians and Poles worldwide on the
occasion of the 208th anniversary of the Polish constitution.
The constitution was passed on May 3, 1791. It is the oldest
constitution in Europe and the second oldest in the world.
The Polish constitution was an important contribution to the
development of parliamentary traditions. In this respect it
contributes to the proud heritage of all Canadians of Polish
descent and is a confirmation of our basic values and freedoms.
Recent years have brought exciting changes to Poland. Its
democratic tradition has been restored and it has now become a
valued member of NATO. Poland and Polish Canadians have much to
celebrate on this day.
May today's memorable event strengthen our resolve to uphold
those common values we hold so dear and build upon the bonds of
our two cultures. Please accept my best wishes on this
anniversary.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in 1939 the ladies auxiliary branch 229 of the Royal Canadian
Legion was founded.
Recently it celebrated its 60th anniversary in Elora, which is in
my riding of Waterloo—Wellington.
1400
Formed to help the cause of the second world war, the ladies
auxiliary branch 229 has worked hard for many years and been
extremely active in the community. This ladies auxiliary branch
continues to do a great deal of fundraising in and around Elora
for worthy causes.
I urge all Canadians, especially my constituents, to join with
me in congratulating these courageous and hard-working women,
many of whom have been involved in this cause for a great part of
their lives. Their many efforts do not go unnoticed. We must
constantly thank Canadians such as the women of the ladies
auxiliary branch 229 for helping to make Canada such a great
place in which to live.
* * *
WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
is World Press Freedom Day. Established in 1993, this day serves
as an occasion to recognize the extraordinary sacrifices made in
the struggle for free expression.
This year's theme, violence against journalists, highlights a
serious problem in many countries. Last year, 27 journalists
were murdered in the course of their duties, among them the
former editor of the Indo-Canadian Times. Journalists have
faced arbitrary arrests, threats, aggression, harassment and even
torture. Currently, at least 117 journalists are behind bars in
25 countries.
In Canada, freedom of the press is a right guaranteed by section
2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We sometimes
take this freedom for granted, but we must never forget its
importance to our democratic society.
Today we call on governments everywhere to respect their
commitments to press freedom, and especially those who still deny
their citizens access to a fully free press.
I salute the courage, integrity and commitment of all
journalists.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I observed the last two weeks of debate on the Nisga'a
Treaty in the B.C. legislature. What I saw was not encouraging.
The legislature was presented with a done deal by ministers who
themselves had little understanding of the implications of the
treaty and who were intolerant of legitimate concerns raised by
the Liberal opposition.
The decision to put off consideration of the treaty in this
place until fall was a clear admission by the government that it
was not ready to face parliament with the details of what has
been negotiated away.
The limitation on access to the charter of rights and freedoms,
the undermining of neighbouring treaty claims, the creation of a
new unaccountable tier of government and the end of the public
fishery are all issues which must be resolved before this treaty
becomes part of our constitution.
The treaty provides that there can be no amendment without the
consent of the Nisga'a, a significant derogation of the
sovereignty of Canada.
The Indian affairs minister had one chance to get this treaty
right and she blew it. She knows it and she knows that it will
take more than a summer of spin doctoring to fix it.
* * *
[Translation]
BOB WHITE
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we learned
today that Bob White, the head of the Canadian Labour Congress,
will be leaving his job on Thursday during the meeting of the
CLC being held in Toronto.
As the head of a union federation representing 2.4 million
Canadian and Quebec workers, Bob White has fought, for 48 years,
to obtain fair and equitable working conditions for all.
A man of integrity, he has always had a sense of the new
realities of the labour market.
He has also understood, beyond our constitutional differences,
the reality and demands of modern Quebec. A great democrat, he
has recognized Quebec's right to self-determination and respected
its democratic process.
A few days before his departure as president of the CLC, the
Bloc Quebecois would like to pay tribute to this man, who
promoted such fundamental values as social justice, fairness,
equality and solidarity. These are values we share with him.
* * *
MONTH OF COMMUNICATION
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the month
of May is the month of communication, a theme that is
particularly important in the context of a world rapidly
changing.
However, beyond the great technological advances of this
century, is it not appropriate to wonder if the time has not
come to redefine human communication?
It is all very well to communicate from one end of the planet to
the other, but sometimes we forget the first meaning of
communication, which is understanding—understanding between
world powers, generations, parents and children and employers
and employees.
In short, is it not time to get back to basics in this art of
communicating, which first and foremost is the art of
understanding one another in order to resolve conflict and
problems peacefully?
* * *
1405
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over
the past month and a half, the world has witnessed a human
tragedy that few could have imagined happening at the dawn of the
new millennium. A systematic ethnic cleansing has been taking
place in Kosovo. It has turned children, women and the elderly
into refugees overnight. Hopes and aspirations have been
chattered. Why? To satisfy a dictator's political ambitions.
Today I rise as a proud Canadian, proud that my country has
risen to the occasion and has offered food, security and shelter
to those currently exiled to refugee camps. Tomorrow, Canada
welcomes the first of the 5,000 refugees from Kosovo. These
suffering people will be given safe haven in Canada while our
brave soldiers fight to regain their homes.
To the refugees, I would like to extend, on behalf of the
official opposition, a welcome to Canada. We pray that peace
returns to their homeland so that they may return and rebuild
their lives. Bienvenue au Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday, Canada agreed to take in 5,000 Kosovar refugees whose
living conditions have reached a critical stage in the crowded
and unsanitary camps.
By its action, Canada is showing its solidarity with a
population that needs much more than just moral support. Canada
has clearly established that these people's lives were in danger
where they were.
By taking concrete action, Canada is once again demonstrating
its openness to other nations at times of crisis.
Any day now will see the arrival of people who are suffering
greatly, and there is no doubt that what the government has said
and done represents the views of all Canadians.
The spontaneous gestures and many expressions of support from
Canadians are proof to the entire world of our concern for our
fellow human beings.
* * *
[English]
SUMMER WORK PROGRAM
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, every year at this time, hundreds of
thousands of young Canadians look forward to the summer work
program where they can begin working for the summer. Small
business operators, non-profit groups and so on, also look
forward to it. Everyone benefits from the program.
The problem, at least in British Columbia and the Yukon region,
is that the funds have not been allocated yet. They have not
been announced. All sorts of programs which should be starting
today are in fact not starting today nor tomorrow. They are going
to start some time in the future.
All of the programming and planning that has gone into this is
now being sort of tossed out the window. Students are
frustrated. They are calling to ask us what is going on. They
want to know if the programs are being approved.
On behalf of British Columbians and the people from the Yukon, I
would urge the minister and the staff to make these allocation
announcements as soon as possible.
* * *
[Translation]
TVA NETWORK
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over the
weekend, TVA officially broadcast its signal Canada-wide under
the terms of the licence recently granted by the CRTC.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois congratulates all those who, directly
or indirectly, made this long-awaited initiative possible.
The Bloc Quebecois is particularly happy for the 618,000
francophones outside Quebec who speak French in the home.
A new French broadcasting signal in North America is no small
achievement. This one enriches the audiovisual environment of
francophone, Acadian, and francophile communities, giving them
access to a more balanced selection of English and French
channels.
TVA has promised to serve the francophone and Acadian
communities. The Bloc Quebecois pays tribute to TVA's initiative
and hopes that this co-operation between Quebec's most popular
broadcaster, its viewers in Quebec, and francophone viewers
outside Quebec will foster renewed solidarity for the
Francophonie in Quebec and Canada.
* * *
[English]
UNITED ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this past weekend, the so-called grassroots of the Reform Party
got a chance to speak their mind on the Anderson plan for the
united right. Many of them gave this clearly crass and
opportunistic scheme to try to win power a big thumbs down.
Here is what one Reform member said at a town hall meeting held
in Edmonton, “To me, UA is a threat to the very cause of what I
signed up for”. Here is what another Reformer said in
opposition to the UA, “We want to take part in party policy from
the ground up. We do not want to be governed; we want to be
represented”. From a woman in Calgary, “Political parties”,
she said, “are not meant to be merged together. They need to
remain distinct and separate in order to be able to distinguish
between their beliefs and ideas. Conservative and Reform go
together”, she said, “like oil and water”.
If the Reform leader believes in listening to his grassroots,
then he had better pull the cotton out of his ears because they
are telling him this united alternative just will not fly.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
ALUMINUM INDUSTRY
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, in
Chicoutimi, the federal government announced, through its
secretary of state, that the processing of aluminum would be a
primary objective for the future of our country.
Indeed, the secretary of state for regional development demanded
that, in co-operation with the National Research Council,
departments with an economic mandate prepare a document on
aluminum processing technologies to help all potential investors
make aluminum processing one of our country's primary
objectives.
I take this opportunity to thank all those who worked with me,
particularly friends of my region like Marcel Demers, Lucien
Gendron, Pierre Tremblay, and André Tremblay from Alcan.
I also want to mention the excellent work of the secretary of
state for regional development, who recognized that the
processing of aluminum is a key component in ensuring our
country's economic future.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the International Year of Older Persons
1999 celebrates the increasing importance of our older people in
today's society.
To celebrate the occasion, VIA Rail Canada has just introduced
its “Take a Companion Along For the Ride” program for seniors.
This program allows a companion to travel free when a full fare
senior ticket is purchased.
I would encourage all levels of government across Canada to
offer some incentives to seniors during this special year for
seniors. Various municipalities, including those in my riding of
Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, for instance, should consider
offering special public transportation programs to seniors. In
that way we can show due respect to our seniors whose dedication
and hard work over the years have made Canada the number one
country in the world.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pride that I extend our best wishes to the National Film
Board on its 60th anniversary.
Since 1939, the NFB has played a leading role in the development
of the Canadian and international film industry, from both an
artistic and a technical point of view.
So far, the NFB has won 3,861 awards in Canada and abroad,
including ten Oscars. And there are more to come; for instance,
When the Day Breaks, a short animated film, has been officially
nominated for a Palme d'or at the next Cannes international film
festival.
On the 60th anniversary of its foundation, it is important to
pay special tribute to the NFB's history.
The John Griersons, Norman McLarens, Claude Jutras and Kathleen
Shannons, to name but a few, have left a filmmaking heritage of
which we have every reason to be proud.
Bravo and happy 60th.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE GORDON OLMSTEAD
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's merchant navy of World War II suffered losses more than
the other three services at war.
Cold lonely duty, constant targets of a deep sea foe. Simply, a
shudder of ship as torpedo explodes is the only notice of
impending doom for the lucky. Lucky because in being alive there
is still hope. For others, the shudder ushers internment to the
finality of the ocean's depth. For some who did live, enemy
prisons of hell were their fate until war's end.
Gordon Olmstead survived both, to return home and fight for
veterans' rights. Gordon excelled at his task and Bill C-61
reflects his hard work.
Gordon Olmstead passed away on April 24. How fitting it would
be to rename Bill C-61 the Gordon Olmstead act.
* * *
[Translation]
BLOC QUEBECOIS YOUTH FORUM
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this past
weekend, the Bloc Quebecois youth forum held its general council
in Sorel. We would like to thank everyone who had a hand in the
success of this event. Participants in Forum Jeunesse had an
opportunity to take stands on various topical issues, as well as
discussing the Bloc Quebecois' chantiers de réflection.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to congratulate Apraham Niziblian on
his election as head of the executive of Forum Jeunesse, and to
thank outgoing president Mathieu Alarie for all he has
contributed over the past year. Finally, we congratulate Sandra
Hernandez on her re-election as vice-president.
We should also point out that not only does the board of Forum
Jeunesse give representation to the various regions of Quebec,
but women are in the majority as well. This is a fine example
of a political organization that is representative of the
population it serves.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
industry minister and the minister of taxes are at it again. It
is too bad taxpayers have to pay the price while these two start
fighting the yet to be announced leadership race.
On the weekend the industry minister admitted that the high tax
policies of the finance minister were forcing our young people to
leave for the greener pastures of a low tax United States. The
industry minister says tax relief is needed now while the finance
minister says everything is just fine the way it is.
Will the Prime Minister step in between these two and just
declare a winner? Will he cut taxes for Canadians now as the
industry minister wants, or will he stick the status quo to us
like the finance minister has been doing for the last six years?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have already started to cut taxes. I do not know
where the member was.
We have reduced the EI contribution from $3.07 to $2.55. We
will reduce taxes by over $16 billion over the next three years.
I will give an example. A family of four earning $60,000 will
have almost a 10% federal tax reduction a year.
We have also introduced a tax credit to help poor families and
have increased the revenues of those at the bottom of the scale,
and we have balanced the books. That is not too bad.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is too bad the Prime Minister did not share the epiphany with the
Minister of Industry. I will quote his revelation from the
weekend:
I've been saying for a long time we've got to lower taxes.
Personal taxes are much higher than in the U.S.
He says we are falling way behind our American counterparts. In
fact, if the finance minister were doing his job, average
Canadian families would have $28,000 more in their pockets than
they do under the high tax policies of the finance minister.
Why does the Prime Minister not agree just for once with the
industry minister that taxes are way too high and they have to be
lowered now for Canadian families and businesses?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we do it in a reasonable way because we do not want to
cut taxes and increase the deficit.
At the same time we know we have some problems in society that
need attention and the Liberal government is thinking about the
poor in society. That is not a big preoccupation of the Reform
Party.
There is the reality of the last two years, that 600,000
Canadians who were paying taxes are not paying taxes any more.
There was a surtax imposed by a right wing government before of
3% that we have eliminated. Now we have a tax credit of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
industry minister knows that the average Canadian family is down
by $28,000 compared to our American counterparts.
It seems now that the finance minister realizes something is
wrong and he says he hopes that very soon he will be able to meet
with somebody to talk about it.
He has had six years to set up some meetings. He has had six
years to actually lower the taxes. He has had six years while
the standard of living of Canadians has dropped like a rock due
to the tax gouging policies of the finance minister.
When will the Prime Minister step in and say enough is enough,
give tax relief to Canadian businesses and families, and do it
now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will never say enough is enough of anything or of a
good government. It is never enough to have a good government,
but a good government is not only taking care of one element of
society.
We are not preoccupied only with the rich. We are preoccupied
with the poor. It is why we are preoccupied with the health care
of people. When they compare us with the Americans they do not
tell Canadian citizens that 40 million Americans are not covered
at all by medicare while every Canadian in Canada is covered. We
have a very good story to tell the Americans.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a bit rich for one of the members of the millionaire's club
on the Liberal front benches to start crying crocodile tears
about poverty in Canada, but it is hard to keep—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Please be judicious in the
choice of words.
Mr. Jason Kenney: They are a little sensitive. The
industry minister first told us that taxes were helping Canadian
productivity. Under pressure from the finance minister, he
flipped and said that productivity was a real problem after he
had said our productivity had plummeted to Mississippi levels.
Now, lo and behold, he is telling us that we need to lower taxes
to U.S. levels.
1420
I am a little confused. Could the industry minister tell us
whether he has flipped or flopped today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when he was not a member of parliament he was the one
who was afraid that the Liberal Party would reduce the deficit by
increasing taxes.
We have reduced the deficit from $42 billion and have reduced
taxes at the same time. The member should look back at what he
has written in the past.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have to assume the Prime Minister does not do his own taxes. If
he did and he filed them last week, he would see that his taxes
like those of most Canadians have gone up because of the bracket
creep of the government and the increased CPP premiums.
Why on the one hand does this Prime Minister deny that we need
deeper tax relief, real tax relief, while the industry minister
is telling us that Canada's productivity is lagging because of
our job killing tax burden?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Again
he is late, Mr. Speaker. We have increased the personal
exemption by $675 for every taxpayer so there is no more bracket
creep. He should go back and look for himself before getting up
in the House of Commons.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
figures released on the weekend show that, although 100% of
young people pay EI premiums, only 15% qualify for benefits.
How can the Prime Minister justify the policies of quotas, cuts,
and harassment of unemployed workers, particularly young people,
espoused by the Minister of Human Resources Development, who
claims to be concerned about what is happening to young people
and says he is looking out for them?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
reformed the EI program and it is running much better. Reforms
always cause problems, but we were not afraid to go ahead. We
are now looking at possible adjustments.
The fact is that the system is working much better now that it
is based on hours rather than days worked. More of the people
who formerly did not qualify do now, and they have much more
flexibility. No system is perfect, but the one we have now is
working well and, if improvements are indicated, the minister
and other members of cabinet intend—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
opposite is in fact true. Since the reform, all young people
have been paying premiums, but the percentage who qualify has
plummeted to 15%.
Does the Prime Minister realize that the youth unemployment rate
has dropped twice as slowly as that of other age groups? Is
that what looking out for young people means? Is that what the
Prime Minister is proud of?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what I am proud of is that, before, we had a system strictly to
help those without jobs, with no active measures to create jobs
for young people. I am happy to see the member confirm that in
Canada unemployment rates have dropped, both for adults and for
young people.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is a wide gap between the fine talk of
the federal government and the day to day reality of our young
people. Before the reform, 84% of young workers paid into
employment insurance and 50% received benefits. Now, 100% of
young workers contribute, but only 15% draw benefits.
Is this what the Prime Minister considers a society that is
looking after its young people properly?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the
member opposite that the number of jobs created for youth rose by
7% last year. That was the best performance in 20 years. Since
we were elected the youth unemployment rate has gone down by over
3%.
Youth employment is still something that our government is
focused on. To address it we have a two pronged approach: the
youth employment strategy to get youth to work and the Canadian
opportunities strategy to enhance their educational
opportunities.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the Prime Minister's
desire to go down in history. Instead of jumping into all
manner of extravagant projects, why does the Prime Minister not
merely give the young workers back the money he has taken from
their pockets by making them pay into employment insurance, when
they have virtually no chance of drawing any benefits?
1425
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
hearing the same attitude from Bloc members as we hear every day.
They are people who think that youths should receive more
employment insurance. On this side we think young Canadians
should be given the opportunity to have access to a good
education and a good job. That is how we on this side are trying
to help them.
* * *
KOSOVO
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Momentum is building toward
a diplomatic solution to the Kosovo crisis. There is growing
recognition that give and take are required to reach a peaceful
resolution.
Viktor Chernomyrdin, Koffi Annan, Mary Robinson, Jesse Jackson, and
our own foreign affairs minister have called for compromise.
Will Canada make a solid contribution to the diplomatic momentum
and push for an immediate suspension of the bombing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing at this time. We are
making the best contribution we can. We were among the first to
take away the notion that it was to be a NATO force and make it
an international force. Everybody accepted that.
Last week the Minister of Foreign Affairs was in Moscow with Mr.
Annan of the United Nations and the minister of foreign affairs
of Greece. He met with his counterparts and they discussed the
possibility of finding a solution.
The solution belongs to the President of Yugoslavia who should
stop what he is doing, the murdering and the cleansing. He
should withdraw his troops. The minute he does that, the
Kosovars will be able to go back in peace and the bombing will be
over.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, every
day images of death, misery and despair among civilians
demonstrate the urgent need for a diplomatic solution. We must
leave no stone unturned on the path to peace.
Will Canada contribute to the diplomatic momentum and take bold
action? Will Canada call for an immediate suspension of the
bombing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are doing the utmost to help in the diplomatic
solution, but to have unilateral stoppage of the activities of
NATO would be completely counterproductive.
Leading up to the Rambouillet agreement, Milosevic was delaying
and delaying while he was doing the cleansing. That is why we
had to start the air strikes. It is not through stopping them
that he will come to the table. He wants to finish his job
before he comes to the table, and we want the Kosovars to have
freedom in their homes in Kosovo.
* * *
SHIPBUILDING
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
low productivity has recently been criticized. We all know high
taxes and ineffective policies kill productivity.
We just have to look at the shipbuilding industry as an example.
Soon this industry will have zero productivity in Canada. Why?
Because the government has failed to implement a national
shipbuilding policy.
Will the Minister of Industry act on his party's policies
adopted at its 1993 and 1998 conventions and implement a new
national shipbuilding policy and put Canadians back to work?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a national shipbuilding policy. The
significant tax and other advantages accorded to that industry
are consistent with the kinds of support we provide to other
industry sectors. We expect those will do the job.
The amazing thing about this member's persistence on this issue
is that she claims repeatedly that she does not want subsidies
for this industry. Yet in every request she makes she proposes
nothing other than a thinly disguised subsidy program.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
tell the minister and everyone in the House that we are not
asking for subsidies.
What they are asking for is the same tax incentives used in
other industries such as the high tech and research and
development sectors.
Thousands of Canadians could go back to work if the shipbuilding
industry were treated with fairness. Will the minister do the
right thing and treat this industry with the same respect his
department treats other industries?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Yes, Mr.
Speaker, and in fact we already do. She is unaware of some of
the things that have changed.
Let me speak on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for
International Trade, whose organization, the Export Development
Corporation, has improved the assistance it provides with a ship
repair financing vehicle.
1430
What does Peter Cairns, president of the Shipbuilding
Association of Canada say? He says it is a really good
initiative, beneficial to the whole industry nationwide. He said
it was a significant step in the right direction in an area where
Canada has a lot of expertise.
Mr. Speaker, they do not even know what we are doing.
* * *
TAXATION
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, someone over there should start to listen to Canadians.
They are being taxed to death and they do not want to hear these
statistics carefully crafted to whitewash the situation. They
have just filled out their tax forms. They know what is
happening and they know there is no real tax relief in sight.
When will the government get realistic and give a solid plan for
real tax relief for Canadians?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would only
look back to the last couple of budgets, we have delivered $16.5
billion in tax reductions for Canadians. We have always said
that is the least we can do and we will continue on that track.
Let us not forget that when we took office we inherited a $42
billion deficit. We balanced the books. Tax reduction was the
second thing we did. The first thing was reinvestment in health
care and that reflects Canadian priorities. That is what the
government will continue to do.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is right. The government did the least possible to
give Canadians tax relief after it spent billions and billions of
dollars on things that are not necessary, having slashed health
care and education funding.
Again Canadians are asking, when will the billions of dollars in
surplus and misspent funds be returned to their pockets so they
can look after the needs of their families?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the $16.5 billion is what
we have delivered and we will do more.
Let me just reflect for a moment on what the hon. member for
Okanagan—Coquihalla said recently when he talked about the last
budget. He said the government increased spending and added
$12.5 billion to program spending that was questionable in the
first place. Well, the true colours of the Reform Party come
out. It thinks that an $11.5 billion increase in health care is
questionable.
The only thing that is questionable is how the Reform Party will
ever think it will get to this side of the House. Absolutely
that is questionable. It will never happen.
* * *
[Translation]
ORPHAN CLAUSES
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we know,
young people face a difficult situation on the job market. Not
only are they excluded from the employment insurance program,
but collective agreements have gradually been including so-called
“orphan clauses” giving special status to young people, but in a
negative sense.
Does the Prime Minister recognize the importance of eliminating
these orphan clauses for young people and, to that end, will he
support the bill that I tabled in this House and that
specifically seeks to abolish such clauses?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not
aware of the meaning of the term orphan clauses in the EI act.
All we know is that our EI reform is working. It is
accomplishing the goals we set out for it.
The unemployment rate for youth last year hit an eight year low.
We are happy with that.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member read the wrong page from her briefing book.
If the Prime Minister is serious about resolving the orphan
clause issue, will he agree to have the government direct the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development to review this
issue, particularly as it applies to Canada Post and the CBC?
Perhaps this will be an opportunity for the parliamentary
secretary to inform herself.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that,
under Standing Order 108(2), the committee is its own master.
Therefore, the committee may decide to examine this issue or any
other issue.
* * *
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Chernomyrdin mission is focusing efforts on Belgrade and the most
prominent members of NATO. Canada is not a member of that
contact group but of course will be the first to send troops if a
peace is negotiated.
Does it not bother the Prime Minister that we have so little
input into policies that directly affect Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are completely involved. The decision of moving
forward was a collective decision of the 19 countries of NATO. We
have been consulted about all the elements of that.
We were as active as anybody else on the diplomatic front. The
solution belongs to Milosevic to decide to withdraw his troops
and permit the Kosovars to go back home in peace and security.
1435
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Britain,
France, Italy, Germany, the United States and Russia are the
members of the contact group. Canada is not part of that group.
Is it this government's policy to simply say “your wishes are
our command” whenever we are asked to send troops into the
field?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are a member of a collective group. This contact
group has existed for a long time. It was mainly made up of
people from Europe. We cannot have a contact group of 19. We
are kept informed of every element of the proceedings. We play
the role that Canada is able to play.
The member said we would be the first to send troops if we had
peace. We would be happy to send troops along with the others if
we are at peace. Canada is always there when it is the time to
maintain peace.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
recently the European Union discussed the possibility of
freezing the foreign assets of the members of the Milosevic
regime in order to put maximum pressure on the Serb government.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether international measures
intended to freeze the assets of the collaborators of the
Milosevic regime are being planned at the moment?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am not aware of such a measure being decided on collectively by
the 19 countries. I will note the suggestion of the hon. member
and see what we can do on the subject.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, has
Canada taken stock of the assets the Milosevic regime
collaborators might have in Canada and does it plan to seize or
freeze such assets?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon.
member that Canada has taken unilateral action in terms of the
embargo against the Yugoslav republic. Now all shipments have to
be approved by permit. Oil and military equipment are forbidden
in any respect. The member can be reassured that Canada has
already made a move in that direction.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general is handcuffing the RCMP with lack of
resources. There are many RCMP officers burning out and leaving
the force. As a matter of fact, there are 400 vacancies in B.C.
alone. The attorney general of the province of B.C. says that
there must be an emergency injection of cash in order to ensure
public security.
Why is the minister sacrificing the safety and security of
Canadians with his underfunding?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can inform my hon. colleague that the
RCMP's budget is $1.2 billion a year. It received a $37 million
increase in the last budget. It received a 9.5% pay increase
over three years in 1998.
This government will give the RCMP and other police forces
across the country the tools they need to fight organized crime.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the question is when?
The reality is that under advisement they are looking at taking
people from federal projects on things that relate to organized
crime, drugs, automobile smuggling, credit cards, money
laundering and all of those things, and putting them back into
uniform to fill these vacant positions.
When is it going to happen? When is he going to stop
sacrificing Canadians' security and safety with his underfunding?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has passed a number of
initiatives, such as the DNA legislation and the proceeds of
crime legislation.
Just a week ago I was pleased to announce a $115 million
injection into the CPIC in order to upgrade it to bring it into
top shape so that all police forces across the country will have
the equipment to fight organized crime.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a letter to
the Prime Minister of Canada, the three party leaders in the
Quebec National Assembly ask the federal government to appoint a
government negotiator not associated with the millennium
scholarship fund to unlock the impasse this matter has reached.
As the Minister of Human Resources Development refused to answer
our questions last week, could the Prime Minister tell us when
he plans to answer the letter and when he will appoint the
negotiator?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first allow
me to restate that the interests of all Canadian students are
paramount with this government.
As for last week's proposal from Quebec, we are pleased to see
that the Government of Quebec has restated its commitment to the
three principles of the Gautrin motion. This is much more
promising than the opting out with compensation that Minister
Legault has been talking about.
However last week the minister did raise some concerns about the
proposal in the letter because under the law, the foundation has
the funds, it is responsible for the funds and has the
responsibility to administer them.
* * *
TOBACCO
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
number of other members and I have been receiving similar letters
from tobacco retailers complaining about government interference
in how cigarettes are sold.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health tell
the House about these new regulations, or is this just one more
case of government interference in legitimate commerce?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
I restate that the government and the Minister of Health are
very concerned about the rate of youth smoking in the country.
The facts are that in January, Health Canada put out an options
paper of proposed regulations. We are receiving consultations.
The consultation process has just begun. No decisions have been
made.
I would suggest that the contents of the letter the member
referred to were not accurate. I would encourage all of those
who share our concerns about youth smoking to participate in this
important consultation process and help draft the kind of
regulations that will tackle high youth—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
* * *
DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week we talked about two prisoners receiving bus passes to
go from one prison to another unescorted. Both of them were
identified as dangerous criminals by the police. One was even up
for murder three years ago. Both of these people got off their
respective buses somewhere along the road.
I would like to ask the solicitor general how he feels about the
innocent people on those buses not knowing that criminals are
getting on the buses. Does he feel safe enough to put his own
family on these public buses today?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us get the facts straight.
These offenders are on conditional release. But public safety
is the number one priority for this government. That is why I
have asked Correctional Service Canada to conduct a full review
of this procedure.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, actually the minister is going to need a lot of reviews
because I have many more cases like this. I will give one more.
Curtis Rabochenko left a medium security prison in Abbotsford,
British Columbia and was encouraged to go all the way to the
Vernon institution. Of course, he was a no-show.
This is what the solicitor general said Friday about such a
prisoner at large: “As a few do, he did not do what he was
supposed to do under the Conditional Release Act”.
I ask the solicitor general, do the bus companies know about
this? What is the liability of—
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, these
individuals are on conditional release. They are going from a
penal institution to a halfway house in order to be integrated
back into society.
* * *
1445
HEALTH
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know
that scientists from the health department gave testimony this
morning before the Senate agricultural committee.
These scientists spoke about pressures being placed on them to
approve a drug. They spoke about gag orders, files being stolen
and intimidation. Most importantly, they talked about their
inability to perform the moral and ethical duties of their jobs
as scientists.
Rather than silencing them, why is the Prime Minister not
commending these scientists for their brave actions in the public
interest and why will he not allow them to speak out on important
health issues?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact it was the Minister of
Health who encouraged the scientists to appear before the Senate
committee to testify openly. He assured them that it was
their duty and their responsibility. The member has it all
wrong.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear from the response that the government will continue to
silence these scientists, even though there is an ongoing and
unresolved international debate on the safety of the bovine
growth hormone for human health. Health Canada scientists have
expressed fears that this growth hormone may be linked to
different forms of cancer.
Why is the minister not allowing Canadians to be informed about
potential health risks? Why is he allowing Canadians to eat
potentially carcinogenic meat?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to say that it is a very funny form of muzzling
to invite them to appear before a committee and to speak up. If
that is the kind of muzzling we are having in Canada, it is
pretty good.
I hope that scientists will still be invited to appear before
the committee and to speak up, and the NDP will talk about
muzzling.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, in a
February 24 Ottawa Citizen article the Minister of Industry
said that by the end of April he would be presenting to cabinet
various options that would help keep NHL franchises here in
Canada.
Now the minister is saying that he wants to have a hockey summit
to further discuss the issue.
After two months of study, does the industry minister actually
have some concrete suggestions to make to cabinet, or is this
hockey summit just a delaying tactic, some way to buy time
because the industry minister does not really know what to do to
keep the hockey franchises here in Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have agreed to be part of a process.
There are a lot of stakeholders involved in this issue, a lot of
Canadians. Virtually every Canadian has a view on it one way or
another. I think it is appropriate that we hear from the
stakeholders as to what solutions they might want to propose.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
not just hockey teams that need help. It is not just hockey
teams that we are potentially losing from Canada.
Nortel is losing 500 engineers per year to U.S. competitors.
The fact is that last week Nortel's CEO, John Roth, said that
Canada has a problem, that we are driving our talent away.
The industry minister has said what I have been saying for a
long time, that we have to lower taxes. Specifically, what taxes
should we lower? What taxes does the minister want to lower to
keep Nortel here in Canada along with the other high tech
industries that we have?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to answer that question, the taxes we need to lower are
the ones that we have to pay to pay down the debt that the hon.
member's party ran up during its years in office. It left us
with a $42 billion a year deficit. That is the problem we face.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
business community just celebrated the fifth anniversary of the
NAFTA.
Can the Minister for International Trade tell Canadians about
the status of negotiations concerning a free trade agreement in
the Americas?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me thank my hon. friend for his interest in the
free trade initiative of the Americas.
Under Canada's able chairmanship, I am happy to say that
progress with those 34 countries is going well.
The ultimate aim is to create the largest free trade area in the
world, which will be comprised of 34 nations, 800 million people
and over $10 trillion.
As a result, we believe that Canada is strategically well
placed, not only to participate, but to offer leadership to the
free trade initiative.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, those
questions should be saved for a senator.
A month ago we learned that the United Nations condemned this
Liberal government for its treatment of aboriginal grassroots
natives.
Then we learned that the RCMP became proactive by producing a
manual to deal with fiscal mismanagement on Indian reserves. Now
we have the auditor general saying that the department is
woefully inadequate when it comes to accountability and that
essentially it is failing grassroots natives.
1450
If the minister will not listen to the grassroots people, will
she listen to these experts?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The United
Nations congratulated the government for introducing “Gathering
Strength” and recognizing the partnership role that we have to
play in improving the lives of aboriginal people in Canada.
I might point out that the auditor general last week attended a
symposium sponsored by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians
which focused specifically on accountability.
That is the view we take: we have to do this in partnership. I
would ask the hon. member to join us in that regard.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the motion being debated today calling upon the federal
government to develop a proper shipbuilding policy is a
repetition, word for word, of a motion passed by the Liberal
Party faithful in 1998.
How can the Minister of Industry explain to his own party
faithful that he is thumbing his nose at their motion and valid
concerns relating to the future of shipbuilding in Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like
his colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party, this
hon. member lacks information.
With the Canadian export development program, the assistance
available to shipyards has been enhanced. There is also the tax
shelter program for purchasers of Canadian ships, as well as
tariffs to protect shipbuilding in Canada.
Canada does, therefore, have a policy on shipbuilding.
* * *
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
despite what the solicitor general says about funding for the
RCMP, the fact remains that there are more than 400 vacancies in
the RCMP in B.C. The solicitor general knows full well that lack
of federal funding is to blame. Now there are new studies which
show how poorly paid RCMP officers are.
What will the solicitor general do to rectify the situation, or
do we tell the people of B.C. that this is just one more example
of a fine Liberal performance to let people down?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, the RCMP
budget is $1.2 billion. They had an increase of $37 million. We
also found $10 million a few months ago to assist the RCMP in
British Columbia. In 1998 the RCMP received a 9.5% increase over
three years. Also we asked the RCMP counsel to review their
compensation package and compare it to other police forces across
the country. I expect to receive that report shortly.
* * *
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. There are a number of
individuals other than those in the opposition parties who are
not happy with the government's treatment of the shipbuilding
industry. All 10 premiers are not on side, labour is not on
side, the shipbuilders association is not on side and the
shipowners association is not on side.
When asked which minister is responsible for the file, the
Minister of National Revenue said “Not mine”, the Minister for
International Trade said “Not mine”, the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions said “Not mine” and the
Minister of Industry said “I do not want it”. When will the
Prime Minister act to get these ministers together so they can
sort it out and get it right?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have already indicated that his party does not seem
to really understand what the aspects of the shipbuilding policy
are and is not even aware of the recent changes that, as I noted
earlier, have been praised by Peter Cairns, the President of the
Shipbuilders Association of Canada.
R and D tax credits are available to the shipbuilding industry.
Technology Partnerships Canada is available to the shipbuilding
industry. Support from the Export Development Corporation is
available to the shipbuilding industry. These are the aspects of
programming that are available to any industry in Canada and they
apply to that industry as well.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during last
year's ice storm, we had an opportunity to see Emergency
Preparedness Canada in action and to appreciate how hardworking
and effective it is.
1455
Could the Minister of Defence describe some of the events that
are planned to mark National Emergency Preparedness Week?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, there
are many disasters that affect Canadians, whether they be ice
storms, forest fires or floods. We are very fortunate to have
good professional people who work with strong local emergency
measures organizations to assist our communities right across the
country.
Canadians can play an important role by becoming more aware of
what they need to do to be prepared in the case of an emergency.
For that reason, this week has been declared National Emergency
Preparedness Week in Canada. I invite all hon. members of the
House to be more aware of emergency preparedness.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while
the minister is talking to the elite leaders and the well to do
people on reserves, I am talking to the poor grassroots people
who are living in poverty and squalor.
Last week the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations talked
about the need for an Indian auditor general who would help
improve their accountability. The First Nations Accountability
Coalition has asked for a first nations ombudsman. The calls for
accountability are coming from all over.
When will the minister take her head out of the sand, bring some
real accountability to the department and stop hiding from the
problem?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would
take the time to read Gathering Strength and take the time to
understand the position this government has taken in working in
partnership with first nations in the area of accountability, he
would know that we are supporting the creation of aboriginal
institutions such as an auditor general and an ombudsman. We
will do it in partnership, not by going into communities to
divide and conquer.
* * *
[Translation]
PRODUCTIVITY
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Industry seems to think that the problem of productivity in
Canada is not obvious proof of the failure of his policies. On
the weekend, in the National Post, he blamed it primarily on
excessive taxes.
Is the minister, who failed to resolve the problem of
productivity with a 12% cut to funding for science and
technology, trying to say that he would make a much better
Minister of Finance?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure the member will applaud and accept the fact that we have,
since the latest budget, increased our investment in innovation,
especially with funding to the National Research Council and
with the funds available to our students to complete their
education.
The fact that she understands that tax levels are not the only
factor, but that the investment we must make in innovation
contributes to good productivity, shows she is well informed.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH SUMMER EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the last two and a half weeks tens of
thousands of young Canadians have left colleges, universities,
technical schools and other institutions across the country
looking for summer work. A lot of them depend on the federally
sponsored summer study work projects. However, one problem is
that the moneys have not been allocated. Many of the programs
are supposed to start today and many started last week, but no
funds have been allocated, at least in the western part of
Canada.
Could the parliamentary secretary explain why these funds are so
late in coming? When will the funds be allocated?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to
hear that the member opposite is as anxious and as happy as we
are to have the summer career placement program. We are aware of
the situation that the member raises. Our regional offices are
being given tentative budget allocations to proceed with the
programs. Final allocations will be given shortly.
* * *
INDUSTRY
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
ask the Prime Minister once again: If the shipbuilding policies
that the government currently has in place are so good, why has
the employment level in coastal communities where there are
shipyards plummeted to barely one-third of what it was
previously?
The Prime Minister was once a member of parliament for an
Atlantic province. When will he convene the Secretary of State
for International Financial Institutions, the Minister for
International Trade, the Minister of National Revenue and the
Minister of Industry so that a statement can be made that
something has to be done regarding the shipbuilding industry in
Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know how many times we can go through this.
1500
If the hon. member were willing to have even a sensible
discussion about this issue, he would acknowledge the fact that
the shipbuilding industry is in difficulty largely because of the
incredible capacity built up world wide. The OECD has forecast
that overcapacity could be as much as 40% by the year 2005.
The failure of that party to recognize that there are some
fundamental challenges faced by this industry is the reason that
it just simply keeps coming back with old time subsidy based
ideas to bail out an industry.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
TABER, ALBERTA
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today the people of Taber, Alberta, are mourning and the
people of Canada are mourning with them.
In the House, in homes and workplaces and in schools across
Canada the terrible events of last week have been in the minds
and hearts of millions of people: the loss of young Jason Lang,
the injury of another young student, the violation of the
sanctity of a school in a proud community, a place where young
lives should be developed, given hope and promise, not snuffed
out, not scared; a place to build dreams, not live nightmares.
We are not a violent people and yet our lives are too often
punctuated by such tragedies: the massacre at the École
Polytechnique a decade ago and now the tragedy in Taber.
[Translation]
The loss of a young life is never easy to understand or accept.
Such a senseless act can never truly be explained. And the loss
and emptiness it leaves behind can never be filled.
All we can do is show our support and our solidarity and share
the pain and the grieving.
To the family of Jason Lang, whose father over the past several
days has shown us the meaning of true bravery and generosity, to
all the families who have been touched by this tragedy, to the
people of Taber, the whole of Canada is with you. You are in
our thoughts and our prayers. Your loss is the loss of all of
us.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Taber
tragedy cuts very close to my constituency and to me personally.
I know a family whose daughter was just a few feet away from the
shooting. Her life has been changed permanently. She is a girl
who knew the disturbed boy who lashed out. She felt the fear and
she heard the shots. She went to school that day expecting
safety. She left the school in tears.
Her statement to other kids her age is revealing: “Maybe we
need to be nicer. Then this might not have to happen”. It is
wonderful to see how this tight knit community has banded
together without blame, recriminations or fault finding, and the
family of Jason Lang forgiving, even as it grieves.
From another friend who knew Jason well comes the following
quote: “Jason was such a nice boy. He believed in God and he
showed it. This was a young man who lived like a Christian”.
As Taber mourns, my friends who live there mourn. As Taber
mourns, I personally mourn. As Taber mourns, every Canadian
family mourns.
1505
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
were deeply saddened and troubled last week by the news of the
shooting in Taber, which left Jason Lang, a 17-year old student,
dead and another student of the same age seriously injured.
As we know by now, this tragic incident at W. R. Myers High
School was the work of a former student, barely 14 years old.
This only adds to the tragedy and our bewilderment.
It is always hard to understand the reasons for such actions. It
is just as painful, if not impossible, to know how to interpret
them.
The easy way out, of course, is to say that violence breeds
violence. Yet how can we explain that a small peaceful community
in southern Alberta would have to go through such a tragedy?
One should avoid drawing easy parallels with what happened in
Littleton, Colorado, a couple of weeks ago. Others go back 10
years to the tragic events at École Polytechnique, in Montreal,
although the social problems at the roots of that tragedy were
quite different. Nonetheless, the pain of the grieving families
in Alberta is just as real and deep.
The main lesson we must learn from such events is the need for
soul-searching as individuals and as a community. We must analyse
our collective and individual behaviour, and wonder what impact
it has on society in general and young people in particular.
We must therefore wonder about the roots of violence, about our
ability to deal with the distress of many young people and about
the role to which we confine them in our society. We must
reflect on the despair that afflicts too many young people and
on the inadequate answers provided by the governments.
Should we put the accent on rehabilitating young people or on
imposing coercive measures that only alienate them more? The
answer is obvious.
On this day of the memorial service for Jason Lang, I want to
offer to his family and friends, on behalf of all my colleagues
from the Bloc Quebecois, our sincere condolences in this most
difficult time. I also wish Shane Christmas a speedy and full
recovery.
Our thoughts are with you and with all the families in Taber and
Alberta.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the New Democratic Party we join with all members in a
profound expression of sympathy and grief to the community of
Taber at its loss, a loss that is shared across the country.
To the family of Jason Lang, we can only begin to understand the
horror and tragedy of the loss of a young and promising life. To
the family of Shane Christmas, we wish for hope and strength that
this young man will come through both physically and emotionally.
There are many questions and we in the NDP like all Canadians
want to find answers to prevent the senseless violence that
occurs.
As we grieve surely we must also struggle to find the means to
channel violence and social exclusion in our society into a
strengthening of our communities so that young people are not
marginalized and left feeling lost but are part of a genuine
human family that fosters respect, understanding and dignity for
all.
The people of Taber have bravely demonstrated to us all the
strength of their community to cope, to understand and to begin
to heal. Their loss can never be forgotten.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, less than
a week ago the nation was sent into a state of shock over hearing
about the random shooting at the W. R. Myers High School in
Taber. Sadly we also received word that one of the young men,
Jason Lang, had passed away.
Today, a family, a community and a country are burying one of
their own. On this sad day I would like to call on all Canadians
to look into their hearts and to say a prayer for the family that
is suffering. These families, especially the Lang family, will
live every day with the pain of this event. It will become an
ache that they will learn to deal with but know will never
subside. Through their daily lives they will carry the spirit of
Jason with them in all they do.
As Jason's father Reverend Lang stated a few days ago “it is
like a piece of your heart is gone and it will never come back”.
The Bible states blessed are those with a pure heart because
they will see God. Today Reverend Lang stated that Jason has
definitely seen God.
1510
The country has seen the strength and courage of one family
dealing with the utmost pain, and today we are witnesses to a
wounded community healing itself.
During the memorial service today Reverend Lang said “Jesus is
weeping with this community today”. Not only is he weeping.
Jesus is asking us to look at our lives and see what is really
important to us. We must open our hearts to one another and we
must learn to love. We must not hate and we must not allow hate
to take over our schools and make them a breeding ground for
other such incidents to happen.
The prayers of the country are with the Lang family and the
community of Taber, Alberta. I ask my colleagues today to stand
for a moment of silence and a wee prayer for all of them, the
families of Taber and the families of Colorado.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be
unanimous consent to return to tabling of documents.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.
* * *
TABLING OF TREATIES ACT
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-506, an act to provide for the tabling of
treaties in the House of Commons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill to
provide for the tabling of treaties in the House of Commons.
Pursuant to this bill, at least 21 sitting days before Canada
ratifies a treaty, the Minister of Foreign Affairs shall table
in the House of Commons the treaty, with an explanatory
memorandum on the content and the impact of the treaty.
Also, before Canada amends a treaty, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs shall table in the House of Commons, at least 21 sitting
days before approval of the amendment, the treaty itself, an
explanatory memorandum on the content and the impact of the
treaty and the amendment with a letter explaining the content
and the impact of the treaty.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1515
[English]
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present a petition signed by many of my
constituents asking that parliament understand the concept of
marriage as only a voluntary unit between single males and single
females.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on the subject matter of human
rights which is signed by a number of Canadians including from my
own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world
including countries such as Indonesia, and Kosovo. The
petitioners also acknowledge that Canada continues to be
recognized as the international champion of internationally
recognized human rights. Therefore they call upon the Government
of Canada to continue to speak out on behalf human rights and of
those whose human rights are abused and also that it seek to
bring to justice those responsible for such human rights abuses.
PENTICTON AIRPORT
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour and privilege today of presenting a petition with
308 signatures. These residents from the south Okanagan are
greatly concerned about the future of the Penticton airport. The
negotiations have been ongoing since 1994. Right now they are at
an impasse. My constituents are calling on the government to
appoint a mediator to assist in the transfer of the Penticton
airport.
There will be thousands more to come.
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present two petitions. The first one has over 50
signatures.
The petitioners are bringing to the attention of the House of
Commons their concerns regarding mandatory labelling and thorough
testing of all genetically engineered foods. They want to ensure
that there is clear labelling of all genetically engineered foods
and their byproducts available in Canada, and to have tests to
ensure the safety of these foods when consumed by humans.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition has 150 signatures on it.
The petitioners are drawing to the attention of the House the
following. The Canadian government has blindly followed a
careless and dangerous U.S.-NATO policy of bombing the sovereign
country of Yugoslavia and the Serbian people. Because of the
dangerous precedent set it could open the door to the bombing of
other countries, the interfering with the internal affairs of
nations and with other minorities.
The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada and
parliament to disengage from such policy and bring the troops
home.
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition from residents of Peterborough and the
surrounding area who are concerned about drinking and driving.
The petitioners point out that 4.5 Canadians are killed and 125
Canadians are seriously injured every day as a result of alcohol
related driving.
These petitioners pray that parliament immediately amend the
Criminal Code to streamline the judicial process and provide
sanctions that better reflect the seriousness of the crime by
introducing amendments to provide for tiered penalties for
driving with a blood alcohol count of more than .08% and to
introduce mandatory assessment and needed treatment of offenders
to sentences of impaired driving, and to authorize alcohol
interlock as a term of probation for drinking and driving
offenders.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition on behalf of the friends of Clayton
McGloan, a young person who died at the hands of young offenders
a while back.
The petition is signed by a number of people from my hometown of
Sundre, Alberta. They call upon the government to change
significantly the Young Offenders Act to the point that it makes
the protection of society the number one priority in its justice
system.
I am pleased to present the petition on behalf of the
petitioners today.
TRADE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Minister for
International Trade is here. He would be delighted that in spite
of what he had to say earlier, these constituents from Kamloops
do not agree with his assessment of the contribution that the
North American Free Trade Agreement has made to the Canadian
economy.
1520
MARRIAGE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have two petitions.
This petition asks that parliament enact legislation, such as
Bill C-225, so as to define in statute that a marriage can only
be entered into between a single male and a single female.
SUMAS COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL CENTRE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition calls upon parliament to enact
legislation to ensure that Sumas Community Correctional Centre
officials will have the right to refuse violent repeat and
dangerous offenders who could pose a danger to society, and that
habitual violent offenders and sexual perpetrators should not be
allowed to reside at Sumas Community Correctional Centre any
longer.
This makes for over 30,000 names. The petitioners are
asking for action from the government sooner and not later.
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise on behalf of residents of the beautiful constituency of
Elk Island. Some of the names on this petition I actually
recognize. They are people I know.
They are asking, as many Canadians are, that the tax code be
revised so that it be fair to those who choose to have one of the
children's own parents raise them at home instead of sending them
out to have that done by someone else.
YUGOSLAVIA
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to present a petition from Canadians of Serbian
origin who call upon parliament to amend the decision to
participate in NATO military action against Yugoslavia, to call
upon our allies in NATO to cease their participation in the
undeclared war against Yugoslavia, and to support a peaceful
solution to the crisis which is fair and acceptable to all sides.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 202 and 217.
.[Text]
Question No. 202—Mr. Daniel Turp:
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain why Canada, which
has been a member of the Organization of American States since
1990, has not yet ratified the American Convention on Human
Rights?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): A
key human rights instrument in the Organization of American
States (OAS) system is the American Convention on Human Rights
convention or ACHR.
Before Canada can ratify a human rights convention, we must
ensure that we are in a position to live up to the commitments we
would undertake by ratifying it. Since 1991, consultations have
been conducted with federal, provincial and territorial officials
to assess compliance of federal and provincial legislation with
the convention. The review process has been complicated by the
vague, imprecise and outdated language used in the convention.
Many provisions in the Convention are ambiguous or contain
concepts which are unknown or problematic in Canadian law. More
importantly, many provisions of the Convention are inconsistent
with other international human rights norms, making it difficult
for us to comply with both the ACHR and those norms.
By way of example, the ACHR would preclude prior censorship, and
therefore would conflict with Canada's international obligations
to suppress hate propaganda and child pornography. The ACHR
would preclude the extradition of nationals, and therefore would
conflict with Canada's extradition obligations and our
obligations to co-operate with international criminal tribunals
or the future international criminal court. Serious concerns
have been raised that the unusual wording of the ACHR provision
on the right to life may create a conflict with charter rights.
The ACHR contains a right of reply to innacurate or offensive
statements in the media, which is not known in our law and may
conflict with charter rights. The ACHR guarantees equality
before the law but does not contemplate affirmative action.
In order to ratify the ACHR at present, a very large number of
reservations and statements of understanding, SOUs, would be
required. However, Canada's position with respect to
reservations to human rights treaties is that reservations should
be few in number and limited in scope. We are concerned that
ratifying the ACHR with a large number of reservations and SOUs
would be contrary to this position and would undermine our
efforts to dissuade other states from ratifying human rights
treaties subject to sweeping reservations.
Until such time as the concerns with respect to reservations and
SOUs expressed by both levels of government have been
satisfactorily dealt with, Canada will not be in position to
ratify the ACHR.
Canadians are already entitled to bring petitions to the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights alleging human rights
violations. Therefore, even without ratification of the ACHR,
Canadians already benefit fully from the inter-American human
rights system.
Question No. 217—Mrs. Michelle Dockrill:
Which corporations, individuals, or consortiums have expressed
an interest in purchasing the Prince Mine owned by the Cape
Breton Development Corporation?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister
responsable for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): On March 29,
1999, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, DEVCO, advertised
nationally its requirement for financial advisory services in
respect to the sale of its assets. The closing date for
proposals was April 27, 1999. It is expected that Devco will
engage a financial advisor in early May. At that time, the
financial advisor will begin preparation of an information
package for prospective purchasers. Private sector interest in
Devco's assets will only be known after the information package
is available and bids have been received.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Questions Nos. 168, 191 and 192 could be made Orders for Return,
these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 168—Mr. Jean Dubé:
Can the Department of Human Resources Development provide the
following information, by region, by province and for the country
as a whole, for each of the past five years, regarding the
application and appeal process for disability pensions under the
Canada Pension Plan: (a) how many people made an initial
application for a disability pension and how many of these
applications were accepted/rejected; (b) following the initial
application, how long did clients have to wait for a response;
(c) how many clients requested a review and how many of these
requests were approved/rejected; (d) in how many cases did the
Department request a review and how many of its requests were
approved/rejected; (e) following a request for a review, how
long did clients have to wait for a response; (f) how many
clients appealed to the review tribunal, and how many of these
appeals were approved/rejected; (g) in how many cases did the
Department appeal to the review tribunal and how many of its
appeals were approved/rejected; (h) following appeals to the
review tribunal, how long did clients have to wait for a response
from the tribunal; (i) how many clients appealed to the Pension
Appeals Board and how many of these appeals were
approved/rejected; (j) in how many cases did the Department
appeal to the Pension Appeals Board and how many of its appeals
were approved/rejected; and (k) following an appeal to the
Pension Appeals Board, how long did clients have to wait for a
response from the Board?
Return tabled.
Question No. 191—Mr. Jim Jones:
For the 1997-98 fiscal year, what were
(i) the eligibility requirements, (ii) the average contribution made in the
ridings of Saint-Maurice, Markham, Saint John, Calgary Southwest, Halifax,
Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Ottawa South and Lasalle-Émard, (iii) the average
contribution made in the Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick, (iv) and the average contribution made nationwide, for
the following initiatives: (a) the Transitional Job Fund; (b)
the Labour Market Development partnerships; (c) the Youth
internships; (d) the Targeted wage subsidy program; and (e)
Summer career placements?
Return tabled.
Question No. 192—Mr. Jim Jones:
For the 1997-98 fiscal year, what were
(i) the eligibility requirements, (ii) the re-payment obligations, (iii)
the average contribution made in the ridings of Outremont,
Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Saint-Maurice and Lasalle-Émard, and (iv) the average
contribution made in the Province of Quebec for each of the following
Canada Economic Development for the Quebec Regions initiatives: (a)
innovation, research and development, design; (b) market development
and exports; and (c) entrepreneurship and business development?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to know the whereabouts of Question No. 189. More
than 45 days have elapsed since the question was asked and it is
about time for an answer.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have made note of
Question No. 189. As the House knows, we are running at well
over 90% in our response rate to 2,500 petitions and have similar
rates for other documents we table, but I will seek the hon.
member's response to Question No. 189.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I wish to inform the
House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders
will be extended by 10 minutes.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—SHIPBUILDING
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to begin by paying tribute to the hon. member for
Saint John whose motion we are debating today. She is
undoubtedly very committed to supporting an industry which is of
importance to her community. I want to say to her that
although I cannot accept her motion, I share her desire to see
this industry, like others, flourish.
I also want to acknowledge the work of my parliamentary
secretary, the hon. member for St. Catharines, who has this
industry in his riding in Ontario. He has worked closely with
me to gain an understanding of the challenges facing shipbuilding
in Canada today.
The shipbuilding industry which is a small but important
component of Canada's overall marine industry has a long, rich
tradition in this country, not only in the Atlantic provinces
but also in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. In 1997 the
shipbuilding industry in Canada employed roughly 5,400 people and
had total revenues around $625 million.
1525
Canada's current strength is in building high quality relatively
small vessels such as ferries, icebreakers, tugboats, fishing
vessels, excursion craft and so on.
Activity on the east coast has recently centred on the
construction of two container ships, two offshore vessels and
tugs, the refit of one oil rig, the manufacture of oil rig
components and various commercial repair work. The industry in
Quebec has been involved in upgrading one oil rig, constructing
tugs and doing ship overhauls and commercial repairs. The Ontario
industry is currently active in the reconstruction of three bulk
carriers, the conversion of two ships into one self-unloading
ship and commercial repairs. The primary construction activity in
British Columbia has been the three high speed ferries, but the
industry is also active in the construction of smaller ferries
and in commercial and government ship repairs.
In terms of the domestic market, one of the main opportunities
for Canadian shipyards particularly in Ontario and Quebec has
been the need to replace the Great Lakes fleet. These ships are
now at an average age of 30 years or three-quarters of their
estimated lifespan.
Canadian companies currently have foreign contracts to upgrade
one drilling rig, refit another, manufacture oil rig components
and perform commercial ship overhauls. Canadian shipbuilders are
also attempting to penetrate the international supply boat
market. Exporting is a sign of health.
I recognize that the international playing field has
restructured recently and that in many ways it is not level.
Foreign governments provide subsidies to their shipbuilding
industries; Canada does not. I understand that when some of the
unions met recently with my colleagues in the Liberal Atlantic
caucus, they provided a table which shows that it costs less to
finance a ship if subsidies are provided. I cannot argue with
that, but they did not show the full picture.
Subsidies are not the only factor that gives world leaders their
competitive edge. There are other contributing factors such as
labour costs, aggressive pricing practices, shipbuilder national
loyalty and the development of large integrated companies that
build ships for their own use, to name a few such factors. They
also did not accurately portray what Canada does do for the
shipbuilding industry.
In the context of federal policies in support of shipbuilding,
let us start with what we know. For Canada to remain in the
shipbuilding industry, we must export. This is an industry for
Canadians in which they must succeed in global markets because
our domestic market is not big enough. International
competitiveness is the key. It is a competitiveness moreover
that must come at a time when there is a substantial overcapacity
in shipbuilding around the world. The OECD predicts that by 2005
the overcapacity could reach 40%.
The current federal shipbuilding policy is consistent with our
approach to other industrial sectors. It is also one of only a
few industries to benefit from specific comprehensive government
initiatives. Essentially there are three elements to this
policy.
First, we have made a commitment to use Canadian shipbuilders
for the renewal, repair and overhaul of government fleets. We
will continue our policy of domestic procurement for all federal
ships and repairs where it is possible to do so.
Second, we have a 25% tariff on all NAFTA foreign built ships
over 100 tonnes entering Canadian waters, with the exception of
fishing vessels over 100 feet.
Third, between 1986 and 1993 we spent $198 million on an
industry led rationalization process, money given directly to the
industry. The industry itself decided it was necessary to reduce
its capacity so the remaining shipyards could survive and remain
competitive. The structure of the Canadian shipbuilding industry
has changed dramatically due to this rationalization.
In addition, the Government of Canada has several other key
initiatives to support this sector. There are tax measures
available to shipowners in the form of an accelerated capital
cost allowance on new ships built in Canada. Purchasers can
write off the entire cost of a ship 100% over four years.
Bearing in mind that the average life of a ship is somewhere in
the order of 40 years, this is a very accelerated rate of
depreciation and it gives rise to a deferred tax item on balance
sheets of companies. This exceeds the 15% declining balance rate
afforded foreign built vessels.
1530
Shipbuilders are also encouraged to keep pace with new
technology through the research and development tax credit
system. This system provides over $1.3 billion in annual
assistance to research and development performing companies in
Canada.
Through government institutions, there is financing availability
to this sector, like any sector, for commercially viable
projects.
For example, as I have already mentioned, the Export Development
Corporation can provide financing for export sales of Canadian
products, including ships. In 1998, the EDC improved its
financing terms and conditions for shipbuilding. The financing
term increased from eight to twelve years and the interest rate
now matches the commercial rate.
I mentioned earlier today in question period, the EDC ship
repair financing vehicle, a further change to the EDC offering
for ships, and I quoted Peter Cairns, president of the
Shipbuilding Association of Canada, who said “It is a really
good initiative, beneficial to the whole industry nationwide”.
He goes on to say that it was a “significant step in the right
direction in an area where Canada has a lot of expertise”. He
says “The tool could be a key factor for attracting shipowners
who do not necessarily repair in Canada”.
The shipbuilding industry may also apply under the enabling
technologies element of the technology partnerships Canada
program.
I believe that the role of the federal government is not to
reinstate a tool of the past and in the process get into a
subsidy war with other countries. Like many other OECD
countries, Canada is out of the subsidy business. Rather, our
role is to level the field by continuing our efforts to eliminate
foreign subsidies and to remove market barriers.
[Translation]
Yet the question that comes up regularly here is whether Canada
should pay the same subsidies as these countries. My response
is a categorical no. I will give five reasons.
First, these subsidies would be very costly, and it is not up to
Canadian taxpayers to foot this bill. Second, if we were to
start subsidizing shipbuilding, there would soon be calls to
subsidize other Canadian industries. Third, there is no
guarantee that these subsidies would make Canadian-built ships
more attractive to foreign buyers.
I remind the House that most ship buyers prefer to buy domestic.
Price is only one consideration.
Fourth, such subsidies are contrary to current international
trade trends. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development, the World Trade Organization, and several other
international organizations are calling for an end to subsidies
for shipbuilders. The European Union is trying to eliminate
subsidies among member countries.
Fifth, Canada has strongly urged the elimination of such
subsidies.
We cannot call for the end of shipbuilding subsidies for our
trade partners and use these subsidies to prop up our own
industry.
[English]
The fact that the shipbuilding industry in Canada does not
receive subsidies does not make it unique. No other industry
receives support in the form of direct subsidy programs. It
follows, therefore, that if the shipbuilding industry were to
receive subsidies, other industries would want to receive the
same types of benefits.
1535
Topping-up would be at a considerable cost to Canadian taxpayers
and would not eliminate the substantial overcapacity that
currently exists in the shipbuilding industry.
Negotiating down is a complex and difficult issue that cannot be
solved in the short term. However, to defend our domestic
industry, we will continue to try wherever possible, such as
through the OECD and the World Trade Organization negotiations.
We will also continue our efforts to encourage the United States
to update the 77 year old Jones Act in line with NAFTA and WTO
principles.
I have described the role of the federal government to ensure
that the shipbuilding industry can compete globally; its policy
and its continuing efforts to reduce market distortions. However,
as in other sectors, economic development in shipbuilding is a
shared responsibility among various players.
There is a role to be played by the provinces. The regional
development agencies provide general economic development support
programs which provinces complement with targeted measures.
Provinces can set up various programs and policies to supplement
the federal package and to customize solutions to their own
needs. Nova Scotia and Quebec have already done this. Nova
Scotia has a shipbuilding loan guarantee program similar to the
U.S. title XI program, and Quebec has a subsidy program. If
shipbuilding is a priority for them, other provinces can follow
this example.
More importantly, the shipbuilding industry also has a role to
play. For example, it can be more responsive to the market by
going after new market opportunities, aggressively upgrading and
retooling its technology and diversifying into related markets.
It can improve productivity through training. It can also
explore synergies between shipbuilders and shipbuyers.
The federal government is clearly not the only player.
In conclusion, I believe in dialogue with all industries. My
parliamentary secretary, members of my staff, my officials and I
have met and listened to representatives of the shipbuilding
industry.
Sometimes members of the opposition like to exaggerate for
effect, but I know they would never want to mislead. Contrary to
press reports, I want to say categorically that I have not
declined a meeting with any stakeholder in this industry.
The federal government has a shipbuilding policy and recognizes
as well that Canadian taxpayers want to stop business subsidies.
I have encouraged the industry to work with the Departments of
International Trade and Finance within the context of that
policy.
The federal government will fulfill its role by continuing its
efforts to eliminate foreign subsidies and to remove market
barriers. However, the provinces and the industry also have
roles to play. Provinces can supplement the federal support
measures with their own programs. Shipbuilders can adjust to
market conditions and find the best market.
Some progress has already been made. It should be built on in
order to ensure the continuing viability of this rich and
historic industry.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows that the shipbuilding industry and its
representatives have been to see us as they have been to see him.
One of the things they want us to ask the minister to do is to
give new construction ships built in Canadian shipyards exclusion
from the present Revenue Canada leasing regulations. They wanted
four things, but felt that if only that one thing could take
place it may put them in a position to compete. My shipyard in
Saint John has bid on over 50 contracts but cannot compete in any
way, shape or form as it is today. They are saying that if they
got just that one thing maybe they could compete and put their
people back to work.
1540
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, in this case I am really
speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State for Financial
Institutions who has charge of this. The issue with respect to
leasing rules really compares the leasing rate with the rate at
which depreciation is permitted. Currently, Canadian built ships
are entitled to be written off very rapidly over four years for
100% of the cost.
If one looks at the leasing of assets, generally speaking, the
rate of write-off is much slower than that. The comparison to
railway cars is often used as an example. It has a 10% declining
balance. In other words, one never actually writes the whole
thing off. It goes down very gradually over a long period of
time.
To combine those two benefits of being able to write off
everything over four years, not being willing to move from that
formula, and to put on top of it the ability to lease the asset
thereby essentially transferring the rapid write-off to another
taxpayer, is something that would cause a precedent that other
industries would be very interested in. It would be very
expensive. I think to date the industry has not made a
persuasive case as to why those two tax advantages should be
combined uniquely for this industry.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Industry said he met with members of the
shipbuilding association, to which the management of Canada's
nine largest shipyards belong. Their brief, which dates back to
1996—and they still stand by it—mentions a number of
considerations the minister or the parliamentary secretary
talked about.
There are four points on which they insist, and the minister did
not respond, in particular with regard to the implementation of
an improved export funding program.
Yes, some assistance is available through the Export Development
Corporation, but the minister said himself that Nova Scotia felt
the need to implement such a program, and it is nothing new
since the minister knows about Title XI in the United States.
Everyone here agrees. We do not have to talk about subsidies.
Nobody is asking for that. We want tax measures and loan
guarantees just like those available in the United States. We
are not talking here about the Jones act. We are talking about
Title XI, a program that provides guaranteed loans at lower
rates, just like in the aerospace industry.
I will give the minister the opportunity to respond to that.
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, it is not true because there are
no loans for domestic sales in the aerospace industry. The EDC
supports export sales. That is exactly what it is there for. It
is called the Export Development Corporation. There is no
program that supports domestic sales in any industry in Canada.
I am sure that several industries would like to have a program
that supports domestic sales, but such a program does not exist
at the moment. In Nova Scotia and in Quebec, the provincial
governments decided to provide that kind of support, but there
is no such program at the federal level, and I think it could
create a precedent that would be quite costly.
The United States have Title XI, which subsidizes domestic sales
as well as export sales.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would hope that the minister would go along with the idea that
Canadian jobs are at stake when we are talking about
shipbuilding.
We have an opportunity in Port Alberni where a small builder,
Kamma and Blake, have designed and built a 47-foot aluminum motor
lifeboat that has caught on with the military around the world.
1545
The technology has been paid for by Canadian taxpayers. The
difficulty is that the Australians are now coming to Canada to
basically get the design, take it back to Australia and build it.
The Department of National Defence is giving away that design.
The people in my riding feel this is a Canadian designed boat.
It is a good boat. Why are we not building it in Canada? Why
would we export our technology and give it to somebody else when
we can build it in Canada? We are exporting Canadian jobs.
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer
to that question. I certainly would share the member's concern
if the design is Canadian, if it is a product that we could be
making and exporting. I would like to get some of the details
and I certainly will look into it.
I can assure the member that various agencies, including EDC and
our trade representatives abroad, are very keen to support
manufacturers of Canadian boats so that they have the same
success in foreign markets as other manufacturers. I look
forward to receiving information.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I know
the minister is concerned about not getting into the subsidy war.
That is not where the world economies are actually headed. I
concur with him on that particular point.
There are initiatives we can take that are clearly not from a
subsidy driven perspective. I will point out a couple of them.
One is that he could talk to his colleague in international trade
and commission a very small team of maybe two or three persons to
actually work on establishing some form of a bilateral accord
with the Americans with respect to penetration into the U.S.
marketplace on certain types of ships.
It could be on the Gulf of Mexico where there are some troubles
in terms of drilling rig apparatus or shipshape hauls that we
have developed for the Terra Nova project. There is something we
could do from a very task oriented perspective and leave it
there, let it work and let it hammer it out. That is one
initiative I would point out.
Second, he made a comment that Revenue Canada leasing
regulations combined with accelerated depreciation could be a
very expensive initiative. Given that there are no ships made
today whatsoever using this formula, creating some economic
activity and some tax revenue is certainly better than no tax
revenue. I argue that we cannot afford not to do it. If we
combine that with the fact there are social costs to the
individuals who will be without work and whom we may actually
have to support in a different initiative.
The wording we chose today is the exact wording tabled under the
Liberal Party of Canada's policy initiative. I would be very
surprised if there were not members on those backbenches and even
in cabinet who supported that initiative. Why would the minister
not support this initiative today?
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, the member misses the
point that it would be expensive in that it creates a precedent
for other sectors. In other words, if there is to be both
leasing and rapid write-offs provided for ships, why would it not
also be provided for rail cars, for example?
Once we go down that path we effectively opt into a regime of
assigning depreciation to other taxpayers on other kinds of
assets. Maybe there is an argument to be made for that. Perhaps
there could be. I am sure the secretary of state would be willing
to hear it, but the member has to appreciate that this is not
something we can necessarily isolate to ships. If we are to do
that, we had better be prepared to entertain proposals in other
sectors as well.
With respect to trying to find with the Americans some narrower
exemptions from the Jones act, I can presume to speak on behalf
of my colleague in saying that we are quite prepared to work with
the industry if we can target areas where we might be able to
make progress.
1550
As a member of the PC Party the hon. member will know that the
transportation section was originally covered by the FTA and then
was pulled out at the last minute by the Americans, thereby
ensuring that the Jones act was protected.
If I am not mistaken, there was a time when I was in opposition
that I raised a question with the then minister of international
trade when NAFTA was being negotiated on this very topic. Indeed
it was a part of the negotiating objectives of the Government of
Canada at the time that NAFTA was being negotiated. It was not
successful in penetrating the Jones act then.
Maybe we could make some additional headway now perhaps in a
targeted way. I think the government would be willing to pursue
that possibility, if indeed it is one that would be fruitful.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent of the House
to extend the question period by another five minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Halifax West has asked for unanimous consent of the House to
extend the period for questions and comments by five minutes. Is
there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this debate is very interesting from the point of view of the
motion that was tabled. I want to read the motion and try to get
some understanding and appreciation of what the Tories are
looking for. The motion reads:
That this House calls on the government to develop a new national
shipbuilding policy to support the revitalization of the Canadian
shipbuilding industry by maintaining and advancing the degree of
excellence and the technologies for which Canada is historically
renowned, given that Canada has the longest coastline of any
nation in the world and that historically Canadians are among the
finest shipbuilders in the world.
Whilst we were debating that I tried to understand exactly what
it was that the Tories were looking for. I go back to asking
what is the Tory policy. Since they were in government for 10
years they must have an articulated position on this issue but I
cannot find it for the life of me.
At this point in time I doubt very much if members of the unions
involved, in particular the Marine Workers Federation of Atlantic
Canada, would be all that pleased to be looking for policy at
this point. I think the marine workers are looking for action.
After all, we have lost a fair number of workers from that
industry in the last number of years. Over the 1990 to 1996
period total employment within Canada's shipbuilding and repair
industry has declined from 11,984 to 5,566 workers.
I can hardly believe we are in the House of Commons today, with
that kind of record in the shipbuilding industry, looking for
more policy. What we should be looking for, and what the Tories
should have been going after, is some things that will increase
productivity. I will talk about those in a moment. From my
perspective they would have been better off providing the House
with a better motion, something that would create some action.
I heard the Minister of Industry talk about some of the things
that were going on. I agree with him that the international
playing field has been restructured. We acknowledge that the
playing field is not equal due to the subsidies in other
countries.
The Liberals talk about federal policies: that we must export
more, that international competition is stiff and that there is
overcapacity in shipbuilding. While that may be the case there
are still some answers and some resolutions that can be made. By
the way, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Edmonton East.
We talk about the accelerated CCA, the capital cost allowance
write-off over four years. The minister is correct in saying
that is not only an accelerated write-off but in fact a very fast
write-off.
Most assets today are either depreciated on the basis of the life
expectancy of the asset or on the basis of a certain percentage.
This particular write-off of four years is a benefit to the
industry.
1555
There are research and development tax credits in the system. As
the minister said before, the Export Development Corporation has
loans that are very close to commercial rates. All these things
are in place and should be encouraging growth in the shipbuilding
industry.
Once again we ask ourselves, if these things are in place and
all of these things have occurred, why the industry is not
expanding but actually contracting. A broad based tax relief for
all Canadians and Canadian industry is one of the major
impediments to the expansion of the shipbuilding industry. Most
Canadians are coming to the conclusion that we do not have a
revenue problem in the country. It is an expenditure problem. It
is the spending of our money in the wrong places.
The Tories say we need some relief, some loan guarantees and
more taxpayers dollars in the system. I just do not think they
are accurate. Accelerated capital allowance, the research and
development tax credits and the Export Development Corporation
loans at lower rates are what we need and on the right track.
The Tory motion actually speaks to what the party is looking at.
First, it does not seem to have a policy. Second, it is counting
on the government to look at policy when it is not policy that is
needed. It is tax relief. Third, without that party over there
talking about tax relief we will pick up the charge on that
issue.
If we look at what is necessary, loan guarantees force the
taxpayers to take on a financial liability that banks and venture
capitalists consider too risky. That is true. We need to get
back to the point where industry is confident about expansion. I
know it is a change of thought and a change of process, but the
only real way that can be accomplished is for the government to
seriously consider broad based tax relief. Without that, I am
afraid the answer to this problem will not be in the House of
Commons.
As the minister also said, there are more players in this
exercise than just the federal government. There are the
provincial governments. The Government of Nova Scotia has a
shipbuilding guarantee program. There are other players and the
shipbuilders can look at how to be more competitive.
Meanwhile, while all this discussion is going on, marine workers
are asking why the Tories are talking about more policy and why
the government is saying that what it is doing is great and
things are coming along. That is not the case. We should be
saying to marine workers and to shipbuilders that effectively now
we will take the surplus funds we know are in the federal
government and do constructive things like tax reduction. That
is what is required. That will help to move this industry along
as well as many other industries.
I cannot say it any better than that. That is what the bulk of
Canadian citizens are looking for today. They do not want any
more subsidies. Loan guarantees mainly put the liability back on
the federal government. It is time to look at the tax relief
Canadians need not only as an industry but as individuals.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I listened very carefully to what the Reform member just said.
1600
I believe his comments reflect what ever member in the House has
been saying, that subsidies are out of the question. Everyone
agrees on that.
He mentioned tax breaks. This is what people want also. Usually
the Reform Party refers to tax breaks as incentives. However a
refundable—I stress refundable—tax credit, which is one of the
measures Canadian shipyard owners are asking for, is important
because it is an incentive that kicks in after the work has been
completed.
Therefore, it makes it possible to build something that
otherwise would not have been built. It brings in tax revenues
as well as creating jobs.
I would like to know whether the Reform member agrees with this
kind of measure.
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, it could be a measure that
is looked at, but the member will have to convince me that there
is a big difference between that and accelerated capital cost
allowances which in effect serve the same purpose. If one works
better than the other, I am certainly not opposed to it.
Two things are required to help this industry today: tax relief
and the expansion of the Atlantic rim trade. If both of these
issues were looked at carefully and quickly by the federal
government, we could see some changes in the industry. As
mentioned in the motion put forward by the Tories to develop a
new national shipbuilding policy, I think we are beyond that
request and well beyond that as a solution. It is not policy we
need. We need broad based tax relief in some form or another.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I found my colleague's remarks very interesting in light
of the need to have some defined policy on this important issue
particularly for the Atlantic provinces.
I know that my colleague was born and raised in the Atlantic
provinces and has roots there and visits there regularly. Would
the member expand on what he sees the need would be for
government policy and public policy that would assist the
industries in Atlantic Canada in growing and in providing the
jobs and income that are needed in that part of the country?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, policies are necessary to
expand Atlantic Canada. The shipbuilding industry is only one
part. One of the policies is to keep government out of it. I
have seen nothing but interference in many areas in Atlantic
Canada. We could talk about the gas exploration industry,
mining, and the oil industry. Most industries in Atlantic Canada
have been funded to the point where many of them were economic
loss leaders. The best thing we could ever do in developing a
policy for Atlantic Canada is to get government out of it and get
industry into it.
We see problems now with Devco. Problems are already starting
with Voisey's Bay. There are difficulties with the gas industry
and the interference by the federal government re-routing the
pipeline. Every time those folks touch something in Atlantic
Canada it goes wrong and ends up being a serious problem.
My solution is to get government out of it. Let Atlantic Canada
grow. It has more resources and more potential than many other
parts of the country. Atlantic Canada's biggest detriment to
expansion and progression is government. That is where the
answer lies.
1605
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to the motion proposed by the hon. member for
Saint John. This is a votable motion as should be the case in
most activities in this House whether initiated by the government
or as is the case here, by an individual member.
I will be supporting this motion. My comments will serve to
demonstrate how two parties with supposedly different political
outlooks can arrive at an agreement as to an outcome. Where we
have disagreements is with respect to the specific processes by
which mutually agreed upon outcomes can be arrived at.
By this motion the hon. member seeks the approval of this House
to call upon the government to develop a new national
shipbuilding policy to support the revitalization of the Canadian
shipbuilding industry. The member asserts in her motion that
historically Canadians have been viewed as among the finest
shipbuilders in the world.
The motion addressed here today involves an assumption that our
current shipbuilding industry is in a somewhat spent state and
hence requires revitalization. This would rank well in the annals
of understatements. There is also in the hon. member's motion an
implicit view that the shipbuilding excellence and related
technological advancements associated with Canadian shipbuilding
are both in peril. I am in agreement with these views as well.
I have been able to develop a degree of familiarity with
Canada's wartime marine history. I, along with the member for
Saint John, have been a staunch advocate of the position of our
merchant marine veterans who seek equivalent recognition,
benefits and compensation for denial of equality relative to
their wartime service in defence of Canada. Twelve thousand men
and women served. Over 70 ships were sunk out from under them.
If we think of the history of Canada, the history of its ships
comes easily to mind, the Bluenose being the most famous of
Canadian ships. In my own family history, at the turn of the
century Captain Richard Goldring sailed a commercial schooner
aptly named the Maple Leaf from Port Whitby, Ontario.
However, in speaking of the nature of shipbuilding in modern day
commerce we are talking about ocean-going supertankers and mega
passenger vessels of such size they cannot be accommodated by
even the Panama Canal. Some are specifically intended for one
ocean travel only. Vessels of this magnitude need to be
developed and constructed by world class companies.
World class companies become so by building on their
experiences. Such experience exists in the Canadian shipbuilding
industry. We must develop an approach to build on such experience
and to assist in the creation of world class shipbuilders that
are properly reflective of our history and expertise.
We were the leaders in the construction of wooden ships. Tall
ships were the daily occurrence in Quebec City and Montreal with
the St. Lawrence River being the portal of entry, a route of
imports and exports, both cargo and human. Immigration to Canada
was the result of our shipbuilding skills. The face of our
nation is very much due to our shipbuilding efforts. Most
immigrants came to Canada in Canadian built ships.
What happened to cause a decline in the shipbuilding industry to
its current state? I suggest that the shipbuilding industry has
been lost twice in Canadian history and in both cases the loss
has been primarily due to research and development deficiencies.
The first decline occurred in the transition from wooden to
steel ships at the turn of the century. At the time, Canadian
shipyards in Quebec and the maritimes built most ships of
commerce used by England and many other countries. Then we
lagged behind Britain where the steel industry was already well
integrated with the shipbuilding industry.
At the time, our history was that of exporting our natural
resources to be manufactured elsewhere. The one notable
exception, being of course wooden shipbuilding, was where Canada
excelled. The interrelationship between the steel industry and
the shipbuilding industry in Canada did not occur readily. The
technological transfer from wood to steel simply did not happen.
1610
I have said that we lost our shipbuilding industry twice. The
second occasion was after the second world war. During the war
our shipbuilding expertise was as renowned as the member's motion
would have us believe. After the war however, it seemed that
once again the tendency toward looking inward and to not exploit
competitive advantages took hold yet once again.
We know for example that many of the difficulties of our
merchant navy veterans had to do with the fact that after the war
it was assumed our shipping industry would continue to be robust
and that the merchant navy veterans would have no job worries. We
know that within five short years after World War II many of our
merchant mariners were unemployed. Shipping interests had
focused on other parts of the world, taking much of their
shipbuilding needs with them.
Once again the technological transfer from war purpose vessels
to commerce efficient vessels did not take place. Canada's
shipyards went into decline. Canada was once a major player in
the global shipbuilding industry. Over the decades the history
of Canadian shipbuilding has had its ups and downs, the highest
demand coming during the war years.
For every one direct job lost in the shipbuilding industry,
there are two or more jobs lost in the local economy. What was
once an important employer in Canada has withered to the point
where we cannot even meet our own modest shipbuilding needs let
alone become a player in the global market.
In my view, I would suggest in the experience of most Canadians,
economies do not gain any sustaining strength through government
subsidies. Government subsidies do not in the long term make any
industry strong. Instead, industry must gain its strength
through trading internationally in the global peacetime economy.
What is the incentive for long term research and development if
the government is there to pick up, or contract, or otherwise
bail you out? It should be noted that the shipbuilding industry
itself contributes little to its own research and development by
world standards.
I will briefly mention taxation. It would appear to be
self-evident that if income taxes are higher, wage demands will
be higher. We see this in the auto industry and other industries
which are attempting to compete globally. What people look to is
what they are netting after taxes. Gross salary is largely
irrelevant other than as some misguided notion of status or
position.
Without getting into great detail, I would suggest that any
thought of revitalization of the shipbuilding industry has to be
based on a mix of lower taxes and enhanced freedom with respect
to international trade. The answer to our problems is not to be
found in further government subsidies, but to level the playing
field for international trade.
Our country has the raw materials. It has the ports and it has
the shipyards. It has the willing capable workers. Canada even
has a 75 cent dollar selling price compared to the American
dollar. Why are there no sales of Canadian made ships? High
taxes and trade barriers. That is why.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak after my colleague
and I am happy to see he supports the motion. His position is
not unanimously shared by members of his party. I hope he will
be able to bring them around.
Last Saturday, as I was driving through Gaspé, on top of a hill,
I came upon the village of Les Méchins, where Denise Verreault
continues to run the small family shipyard. As a businesswoman
in a maritime area, she decided to take matters into her own
hands and develop this sector.
She has now decided to set out on a cross-Canada tour to
encourage all the appropriate federal and provincial ministers
to develop a genuine shipbuilding policy.
I think Mrs. Verrault would be quite proud of the motion before
us. Her idea, for which she had a degree of support, has finally
been taken up by others. Here is my question to my colleague.
The hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has been actively
supporting the shipbuilding industry. He has helped to get
things moving and has made public opinion aware of this issue.
1615
When we ask for regional economic diversification measures for
regions like the Gaspé Peninsula, Les Méchins or all other
Canadian regions that have what is needed for a shipbuilding
industry, would the hon. member agree that the best thing we can
do is to pass Bill C-493, which was introduced by the hon. member
for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière?
It would not provide subsidies, but tax measures to make
Canadian shipbuilders more competitive internationally, a loans
program with guarantees of up to 87%, just like in the United
States, an Income Tax Act amendment to bring leasing rules more
in line with those in the rail industry, and a refundable tax
credit similar to the one in Quebec.
In this context, would these measures be in tune with his
vision, because he is not looking for subsidies, but government
assistance programs? That would help us to diversify our
regional economies. Quebec and Canada could also regain their
position on the world shipbuilding market.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I believe the true way
to develop and encourage the industry is to approach the
problems. This would not necessarily be through straight
subsidies.
The problems seem to be apparent. I think we could relate back
to possibly the 1960s when I first was an adult and the first
time I voted. It was noticeable to me at that time that the
Canadian dollar was $1.10 to the American dollar and the taxation
level was far lower than it is today. Yet somehow there was some
help to our shipbuilding industry at that time.
These are the things that we should be addressing as well as the
very significant problems of levelling the international trade
situation by possibly approaching a repeal of the Jones act. It
seems to give unfair discrimination against Canada to its
shipbuilding industry. These are the areas we should be
approaching to resolve the taxation system and levelling the
playing field on international trade.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Americans are fond of recalling their first dollar. I
can recall my first dime. It was a very small shiny thing. I
remember on the one side of that small shiny coin there was the
head of a man. It did not interest me much and I do not think
the head on that side of the coin interests me much any more, or
still, I should say. Of course that was King George VI.
On the other side of the coin, on the dime, there was a picture
of a ship. It was a ship in full sail coming right out of that
coin. I thought that was one of the prettiest things that I had
ever seen as a very small child. This is a memory that certainly
predates school age. I should also tell hon. members that dime
at the time bought one Coca-Cola, but that is not the reason why
I remember it so well.
That little ship is still sailing on that dime, only now it is
on nickel alloy instead of a sea of silver. That ship connects
this debate to ourselves as Canadians.
Later, when I got a little older, I started collecting stamps.
Anyone who is listening who was ever a stamp collector will
remember that the 50¢ Bluenose is without any question the most
beautiful stamp that Canada has ever produced. It is a classic
stamp. Of course the Bluenose is that famous vessel that
was built in Nova Scotia during the 19th century that won all the
races and yet was a fishing vessel at the same time.
Indeed, much, much later in life I had occasion to visit a
replica of the Bluenose in Toronto harbour. It was a
wonderful ship. It reflects the heritage of Nova Scotia and the
maritimes, because of course in the 19th century the shipbuilding
industry in the maritimes, and particularly Nova Scotia, was
world class. Nova Scotia was famous for its wooden ships and the
Bluenose was the most classic ship ever built in Canada,
for that matter.
There are other connections of the shipbuilding industry to
Canada's past. I was listening to my Bloc colleagues who have
taken a very active interest in this debate and I congratulate
them for it because I come from a riding that is in central
Ontario, just west of Hamilton, and one would think there would
be no real connection with the shipbuilding industry there.
1620
In the 17th century a very famous French explorer visited my
region at the head of the lake, at Burlington Bay, and his name
was La Salle. He was the explorer who actually founded
Louisiana. La Salle in the 1670s explored down the Ohio River
and Mississippi right down to Louisiana, to the mouth of the
Mississippi, and claimed it for France.
In the 17th century the French in New France were probably the
world's greatest entrepreneurs because for La Salle it was not
just exploration. It was the development of the fur trade. La
Salle built the very first ship on the upper Great Lakes. He
built the Griffon in 1678. He built it not very far from
where I live at Niagara Falls, above the falls.
That ship set sail. It was 45 tonnes, built from white pine in
the area by hand. It set sail on Lake Erie and went up to
Michilimackinac. In 1680 it picked up a cargo of furs to return
to the port at Niagara and disappeared. It is one of the great
mysteries of Canadian history, what ever happened to the
Griffon. In the cold waters of Lake Ontario, Lake Michigan
or Lake Huron, for that matter, there is a very good chance that
the Griffon will still be on the bottom and in perfect
condition.
We know this because during the war of 1812 there was a
businessman in my area who built a trading ship. The area was
still forest and hardly developed. It was seized by the
Americans. It was armed in the war of 1812 and sank off St.
Catharines during a storm. Not many years ago they discovered
that ship at the bottom in perfect condition.
The history of shipbuilding in this country transcends this
country. It is all across this country. In that sense I think
the introduction of the motion in the House is a very appropriate
thing to do because it does touch on our history.
I do have quarrel with the motion in this sense. The motion
suggests that the federal government needs to develop a
shipbuilding policy, as though there was not a policy at all to
date, and that it should revitalize the Canadian shipbuilding
industry by maintaining and advancing a degree of excellence and
the technologies that Canada is famous for.
Those are very noble sounding words. I appreciate they come
from a resolution that was passed at a Liberal convention in
1998. I point out that a resolution that is passed at a
convention is not the same thing as bringing something before the
House. If I find fault with the motion, I find fault with it
because it does not suggest a significant way of addressing the
problem of Canada's shipbuilding industry. I suggest the reason
is because it does not deal with the terrible problems that
Canada's shipbuilding industry is facing.
The member for Saint John was the lead off speaker for the
Conservatives, and this is a Conservative motion. She proposed
that what the government should be doing is it should be
sweetening the loan support for people who are buying ships or it
should change the tax laws slightly with respect to leasing and
little fixes like that. That does not address the problem of 40%
overcapacity in the shipbuilding industry around the world. That
does not address the fact that South Korea alone has $10 billion
worth of orders for 1997.
Canada is not alone with respect to a problem with its
shipbuilding industry. All we have to do is search across the
world wide web and what we will find is that the European Union
is desperately worried about the fact that its shipyards are
beginning to perish because it cannot compete on the open market
with particularly South Korea and also Japan.
We are faced with an overcapacity in the shipbuilding industry,
and we are faced with the Asian flu for example which has lowered
the currency in South Korea enormously. They have cheap labour,
cheap currency, and they have a huge shipbuilding infrastructure.
1625
The OECD has had meetings just in the last few months in which
it has tried to come to grips with this problem in the
shipbuilding industry because it affects almost every country.
Brazil, Romania and Russia are complaining. Both communist
China and Taiwan have very active shipbuilding industries, but no
one seems to be able to compete with the South Koreans. Indeed,
if we follow the Internet, there are even some complaints or some
suggestions that the South Koreans are using IMF dollars to
unfairly buoy up their industry. There is a problem there. When
put in that context, a few tax fixes is not going to correct, not
going to help, not even going to address the desperate problem
that faces Canada's shipbuilding industry.
Then there is the other aspect. The other problem is that
during the North American Free Trade Agreement the Tories, the
former government of the party that has advanced this motion, had
an opportunity to give shipbuilding the protection of the North
American Free Trade Agreement, particularly by doing something
about the Jones law. The Jones law is a law that forbids
carriers from American ports to other American ports to use
anything other than American made ships.
There is a huge amount of traffic in coastal vessels that runs
up and down the American eastern seaboard. If we had managed to
get only one-tenth or maybe only 1% of the shipbuilding market of
that traffic, we would not be having this debate today. It was a
huge failure of the free trade agreement not to include
shipbuilding.
We have this dilemma. It is not a simple matter of a couple of
minuscule tax fixes. That will not do any good at all. We could
try it but it is not going to do any good. What the minister has
said is closer to what we must do. He said that we have to put
pressure on the OECD to come to terms with the unfair advantages
that South Korea and Japan have been enjoying in the shipbuilding
industry. We have to bring it into the international forum and
make it into an even playing field.
I point out that the minister and the member opposite from the
Reform Party in his last remarks during questions and comments
said that maybe we have to go back to the United States and do
something about the Jones law. I would say he is precisely
right. We have to go back to the United States and offer it
something to allow us to take part in that industry in the United
States. Just a small percentage and we would be doing just fine.
We have to do that. These are things perhaps that are almost
wishful thinking.
As I mentioned, the minister in his remarks said that Canada is
proceeding on these two avenues right now. There is no question
that the federal government does have a policy, but if I may add
my dime's worth to this debate I think we need to think of novel
approaches as well.
I hate to bring up the Government of British Columbia but I am
going to do it. The Government of British Columbia has
undertaken a very controversial, if not notorious, ferry building
project. In order to buoy up the industry in B.C. the Government
of British Columbia undertook a project to build three fast
ferries out of aluminum hulls, the idea being that hopefully they
would develop new technology, create competitive vessels and
develop expertise. Unfortunately there have been major cost
overruns. It projected $70 million for each vessel and now the
overrun is running at approximately $400 million.
That is not the kind of thing we want to see in this climate of
fiscal prudence, but there is something very strong to be said
for the federal government investing not only in the shipyards to
produce the ships it needs but also through various technological
enhancement programs or infrastructure programs. There is a lot
to be said. If the industry rationalizes itself so that it comes
to the federal government in a coherent fashion, perhaps we can
work with the provinces and set shipbuilding along a course where
we build specialized high tech ships which we can sell abroad.
1630
Right now I do not think there is much more that we can do other
than what the minister is already doing, which is pressuring the
OECD to come to terms with the unfair competition that is
occurring in shipbuilding across the world. We can also do
something about the unfair competition in South Korea and talk
again to the Americans. That is a policy. That is what we
should be doing and that is what we are doing.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I get
the feeling that my colleagues on the government side are going
to vote against our motion.
What I would like to see is them voting for our motion and then
taking the steps stated by the hon. member: to sit down with the
World Trade Organization and talk over with the OECD how exactly
we can change these thing. That can come from this new
shipbuilding policy which we are talking about.
I want to clarify something for the member. When we talk about
the new construction ships built in Canadian shipyards being
excluded from the present Revenue Canada leasing regulations,
what we are saying is that under the current rules, the company
pays more taxes in the first several years which runs counter to
the actual economies of owning and operating a ship to the useful
life of the ship.
Under the proposed change that we have mentioned, the company
would pay most of the taxes toward the end of the useful life of
the ship. We are saying that it would get it all, but this is
what the industry is saying to us.
I am asking members to assist and help us. Let us all work
together to come up with a national shipbuilding policy that will
help all of our people throughout Canada. I ask my colleague to
look at that in a positive way.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the matter of
tax fixes is not what this is all about.
I point out that during the debate the member for
Edmonton—Strathcona felt that the motion did not have any real
substance. He said that the Reform Party would support it anyway
because it was inoffensive.
I suggest that we in the House are not in the business of
debating ideas that do not have substance because they raise
false hopes. If there had been a real idea or something
significant in the motion I would have supported it. As it
stands, I do not expect to be able to do so.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the very articulate member is used to these kinds of
debates, I want to ask him some specific questions.
If he remembers attending the last Liberal convention, he must
remember that the Liberal Party resolution was approved by a
high percentage of supporters. Did he vote in favour of the
resolution at the last Liberal convention in 1998?
As a matter of principle, does the hon. member think that it is
normal that, six years later, we are still waiting for the
summit his party promised, in 1993, to hold within a year? Does
he think it is normal for everyone, except the Minister of
Industry, to agree that things are not as they should be in the
shipbuilding industry, which is only operating at 40% of its
capacity? Does he think it is normal to be able to do nothing
and to bow down before the American giant, saying nothing can be
done? Does he think it is normal?
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my
speech, the minister gave the policy and we delivered. A policy
is in place and it is the best policy we can have under the
circumstances. This a global problem. We have delivered a
policy.
If any of the members of the opposition had a new idea to add to
that policy I have not so far heard it.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have just two quick points.
The hon. member keeps talking, as do others on that side, about
the policy, about having a policy and about the minister giving
the policy. I have yet to see this policy in writing and to see
exactly what it entails.
He mentioned in his speech that we should go to the Americans to
see what we can give them in order to get a small piece of this
business. I guess I take some offence to this idea of us always
going with hat in hand to the Americans.
It seems to me this is what we are doing all the time. We did it
on the ethanol case. We did it when they would not allow us to
launch our satellite. Bill C-55 was another example. We could
go on and on with the examples of how we are constantly going
with our hat in hand to the Americans.
1635
Why can we not stand up as Canadians, develop a policy for
ourselves and put something on the table with strong force rather
than going to see what we can give in order that they allow us to
have a part of this business?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, this is a crisis of
international sales, of shipbuilding. We cannot get into the
American market and we cannot do it alone in Canada. There are
no markets in Canada that will sustain our shipbuilding industry.
The American market is protected because that other party over
there, in that direction generally, failed to get it into the
free trade agreement.
It is not a question of going hat in hand. We are now at a
major disadvantage and people are suffering. We are losing one
of our heritage industries because the Conservative Party or the
Conservative government never took the proper steps when it
arranged the free trade deal with the Americans.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the government had indicated earlier that one of the
factors in the shipbuilding industry is high labour cost.
The hon. member across the way mentioned earlier the low cost of
Korean labour. Could he comment on whether it is really a
multiple factor on labour where we have higher income taxes, a
lower productivity level or a varying productivity level that
would be a factor?
The factor here of wages does not necessarily come into this
discussion at all. After all, we are also competing on the world
market in shipbuilding with England and Germany whose wage levels
are relatively high. Could the hon. member comment on the
taxation portion and productivity portion, and whether it is the
actual root wage itself?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, in his speech, this very
member recalled when the Canadian dollar was worth $1.10 to the
American dollar. He thought that was a happy time. Precisely
the problem now is that the Korean currency is so low. It is
below the Canadian dollar and below everything. It means that
Korean labour, relative to North American labour, relative to
Canadian labour, is very underpriced. The problem is to
understand not just labour costs, but to understand the
difference between the values of international currency.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I listened
quite intently to my hon. colleague from across the way. Yes,
Nova Scotia was a fine place where ships were built, especially
in the years past, but it is still a very good and strong
shipbuilding place.
My concern, however, is that there is too much partisanship in
this debate. This issue is something that affects Canada from
coast to coast to coast. I would like to see the members across
the way forget all the partisanship and work on the issue that is
so very important here. A vital part of our Canadian economy is
being fluffed off as something that is not important. They say
that our motion does not have substance. They are the
government; they should put the substance in it.
Would my hon. colleague stand up in the House and say he will
work with his colleagues to get rid of the Jones Act and other
items that would benefit us as Canadians?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is what I
have said. It seems the opposition cannot come up with a better
expression of a direction to take the government, the economy,
the people of the maritimes and the shipbuilding industry into
than a motion that has no original idea to it, and in fact was
borrowed from the Liberals. When is the opposition going to come
up with its own ideas?
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Halifax West, Kosovo; the hon. member for
Mississauga South, Kosovo.
1640
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I want to tell you at the outset that I will be sharing my
time with my hon. colleague for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
I am very pleased to take part in this very important debate,
even if it is quite technical. It is very important for the
development of economically significant regions of Canada, like
the maritimes and the coast of British Columbia and particularly
Quebec.
I am very pleased to participate in this debate as member of
Trois-Rivières, which is a maritime city, and also as labour
critic, since it has an effect on the institutionalized disorder
that we see in that industry. I believe there is too much
reference to labour. As coast guard critic, I know that some
people of the coast guard are also closely involved with the
issues related to shipyards.
I will read, for the purpose of the debate, the motion
introduced by the member for Saint John.
That this House calls the government to develop a new national
shipbuilding policy to support the revitalisation of the
Canadian shipbuilding industry by maintaining and advancing the
degree of excellence and the technologies for which Canada is
historically renowned, given that Canada has the longest coast
line of any nation in the world and that historically Canadians
are among the finest shipbuilders in the world.
I would now like to pay a very special tribute to my colleague
and friend, the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière,
who has done not only a remarkable job on this issue but a task
that could be termed as colossal.
Indeed, for more than a year, the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has travelled all across Canada
and has met all stakeholders, builders, all shipyard operators
that are members of the shipbuilders association, despite
the fact that he is not all that fluent in English.
Nevertheless, he managed to deal with the situation and he
established excellent contacts with employers as well as with
unions in the shipbuilding industry.
Through his efforts, he succeeded in bringing together, on
Parliament Hill, on December 8, 1998, representatives of a large
Quebec shipbuilding firm and almost all Canadian unions involved
in the shipbuilding industry. According to a union
representative, this was a first in Canadian history.
He managed to bring together, to discuss the problems faced by
shipyards, many stakeholders as closely connected to the
industry as these people were. He pulled a major coup by
bringing to the same table representatives from the four
opposition parties, including three out of the four leaders, to
make the necessary representations and put pressure on the
government which, in this issue as in others, has proven to be
inept. The purpose was to try to improve the way this very
important industry has been treated.
This resulted in representations to the Standing Committee on
Industry with a view to putting forward, through this committee,
recommendations reflecting the comments or the vision of the
labour representatives as expressed at this meeting.
Unfortunately, in this issue as in others, the government lent a
deaf ear and eventually only very reluctantly agreed to conduct
a broad study, reportedly too wide focussed, on the productivity
of shipyards. The timetable and specific goals of the study are
said to be unclear.
This cannot be stressed often enough: it is totally nonsensical,
ludicrous, and deplorable to be debating this issue today when
we know how critical this industry is to Canada's economy.
Canada boasts the world's longest shoreline, three oceans—the
Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic—and, as long as we are still
part of it, the most important water route in the world, the
Saint Lawrence River. In spite of all these very positive
factors, shipbuilding in Canada is in a deplorable state,
reportedly operating at merely 40% of its capacity.
1645
Yet it is a high tech industry, because building ships is a
complex operation. It is a category of industry that has to
apply the most stringent of quality standards. It is a member
of the ISO 9001, ISO 9002 club. ISO 9001 is for the
aeronautical industry. This industry is governed by very
demanding quality standards and the shipbuilding industry in
Canada and in Quebec can hold its own with any other in the
world.
This government, true to form, has been negligent. It is all
very well to speak today of shipbuilding, but we know that this
government has been negligent with the air transportation
industry, with the rail industry, with the shipping industry, not
just with shipbuilding.
Quebec has paid for that negligence. We have seen shipyards
close down in Gaspé and Sorel, a small-scale one in Lévis, and
Vickers in Montreal, all in the past 15 years.
I would like to return to the manpower issue. I am concerned,
as I have already said, as the labour critic, by the references
to labour costs.
This does not hold up to analysis, according to the figures
available to us. According to the 1994 figures provided to us
by the shipbuilders, via the union of the marine workers
federation, the CAW, shipyard labour costs $15 U.S. in Canada,
while only 2 countries out of the 12 analyzed pay less than
Canada: Taiwan and Greece. All the others pay more.
For example, while it costs $15 U.S. an hour in Canada, it costs
$18 in Italy, $19 in France and the U.S., $24 in Norway, $27 in
Japan, and $30 in Germany. These are the 1994 figures.
Thus, the argument that the industry is not competitive with
other countries because labour costs are too high does not hold
up to analysis.
But the best explanation for the disarray in the industry is to
be found in the government's negligence. The Minister of
Industry, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport and
the Minister for International Trade keep passing the buck to
one another on this. Even the Prime Minister did not answer the
letter my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière sent him
several months ago. The Prime Minister did not even bother to
answer the letter.
In 1993, in the red book, the Liberals, and in particular the
Liberal candidates from the Quebec City area, made a firm
commitment to do a serious study of the issue.
In March 1998, grassroots Liberals raised the issue again and
asked the government to take a firm stand and take action on
shipbuilding, but it has not yet done so.
Hopefully, today's debate will make the government think and
take the measures needed to improve the situation of this
valuable industry. The government—and I am just talking common
sense here—should act to make Canada and Quebec world leaders
in shipbuilding. The government should stop dragging its feet
and do what needs to be done to make Quebec and Canada the world
leaders they should be.
1650
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for transport, I am pleased
to speak to the motion by the Progressive Conservatives.
It was my intent to speak much more gently about the
Conservatives because I thought their motion a good one. It is,
in short, a general motion. I do not think anyone opposes
virtue. On the contrary, we support saintliness, without
necessarily expecting to be canonized.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the motion, but it is clear from the
statement by the Progressive Conservative member for Chicoutimi
before oral question period, which literally incensed the
Liberal government, that this member is an expert in the art of
joining with the Liberals against Quebec and the Government of
Quebec.
So, given the attitude of the member for Chicoutimi, and when I
read the articles in the Chicoutimi daily—because the hon. member
has a real in with the daily and the chief editorial writer in
particular, we learned recently—I will start by saying to those
watching that, in 1993 and 1997, the Bloc Quebecois has made it
known that the Liberals and the Conservatives are the flip sides
of the same coin.
Why am I saying they are the same? For one very simple and good
reason. The entire problem in shipbuilding in Quebec started
with the Conservatives. When they were in power—between 1984 and
1993—they said “The shipyards must be streamlined. Not everyone
can compete. Everyone is going to have to close”. The only
province to streamline its shipyards was Quebec.
The Canadian Vickers shipyard in Montreal was really
flourishing. There was Marine Industries in Sorel. These two
major shipyards—not to mention the little yards that closed—which
employed hundreds and hundreds, indeed thousands, of workers had
to close their doors because the ministers of the Conservative
government said “You must streamline”. So that the only
shipyard left was MIL Davie in Lauzon.
Like my parents, I have an excellent memory. On Monday, October
11, 1993, on the night of Thanksgiving Day, and a few weeks
before the election, I had the honour, the pleasure and the
privilege of representing my party during a public debate that
was carried by Radio-Canada in the Quebec region from Portneuf to
the Magdalen Islands, including Gaspé, Sept-Îles and the greater
Quebec City region.
I was representing the Bloc Quebecois, and I was facing the
Liberal candidate in the riding of Quebec, Jean Pelletier, who
lost to my colleague for Quebec, and is presently the chief of
staff of the Prime Minister of Canada. The Conservatives were
represented by good old Pierre Blais, who was the Minister of
Justice and the member for Bellechasse. He lost to my colleague
François Langlois.
Speaking for the Conservative government, the hon. member for
Bellechasse told us “We have given money to MIL Davie”. I asked
him how much, and he said “$1.2 billion”.
I then told Pierre Blais “During that same period when you gave
$1.2 billion to MIL Davie, you handed out $11 billion to the
maritimes”. During the nine years the Conservatives were in
power, shipyards kept popping up from nowhere in the maritimes.
During the 1993 election campaign, the Liberal Party, with Jean
Pelletier, the present chief of staff of the Prime Minister of
Canada and a Liberal candidate in the riding of Quebec, was
claiming that it would invest $125 million in the Quebec City
port.
1655
He went and made speeches to workers coming out of the MIL Davie
shipyard. We remember that. The Liberals promised the world and
a marine policy. This government has been in office since 1993.
What has it done? Absolutely nothing. I have here the
resolutions adopted during the convention of the Liberal Party
of Canada, including one by the New Brunswick Liberal
Association, which is similar—I read it earlier—in almost every
respect to what the Progressive Conservative Party is proposing
today.
One conclusion provides that the Liberal Party of Canada should
urge the Canadian government to immediately develop a national
shipbuilding policy to help that industry and thus maintain and
strengthen the degree of excellence and the technologies that
helped build a solid reputation which we are in danger of
losing. This is a resolution from the New Brunswick Liberal
Association to its own party, which is the ruling party. What
are the Liberals doing? Nothing. The resolutions arising from
Liberal Party conventions are not worth the paper they are
written on. If I were a Liberal militant I would be distressed
to see that my government ignores the recommendations of its own
militants. This is unbelievable.
I want to mention something else before my time is up. When Bloc
Quebecois members speak in the House, it is often said that
their input is useless because they are sovereignists.
The Quebec government is useless because it is a sovereignist
government. Nothing good can come from Quebec City. The Minister
of Human Resources Development will not let the millennium
scholarships be discussed between elected people, instead of
asking the president of Bell Canada to negotiate with the
Minister of Education, who was democratically elected.
So, our friends opposite would have us believe that nothing
worthwhile is accomplished in Quebec. I am sorry, but the
government should take note of the fact that, for several years
now, and particularly since 1994, when the Parti Quebecois came
back in office, tax incentives have been put in place for the
shipbuilding industry, and not regressive measures that will
kill what is left of that industry in Quebec. On the contrary,
these measures were taken to promote the development of that
industry.
As for expertise, there are the folks at MIL Davie and in Les
Méchins, at the the shipyard run by Mrs. Verreault, a competent
businesswoman able to compete internationally. So Quebec has
expertise, but tax incentives are needed to help it develop and
prosper.
In 1997, the Government of Quebec announced tax incentives to
stimulate the shipping industry. Among other things, it raised
the refundable tax credit for shipbuilding, around since 1996,
from 40% to 50%. Second, it introduced a tax credit for the
conversion or major refitting of ships, and extended this
measure to oil rigs.
Finally, it made some adjustments the measure to reduce capital
taxes.
The problem is that the Government of Canada is taxing the
benefits of Quebec's tax advantages, thus cancelling out part of
the positive impact of these measures.
I think the federal Minister of Finance would do better to take
a look at what Minister Landry is doing in Quebec, on behalf of
the Government of Quebec, not just in Mr. Landry's own personal
interest, although I have great respect for the man. The
Government of Quebec has shown political will.
So the Minister of Finance would do better to look at what is
going on, because there is a problem. Each time we want to
speak to the federal Minister of Finance about shipbuilding or
the shipping industry, he has to watch what he says. Everyone
knows he is a major shipowner, being the owner of Canada
Steamship Lines.
Our party was the first to point out that four of the ships
owned by Canada Steamship Lines are registered to the Bahamas,
with foreign crews, and do not pay taxes here. The Minister of
Finance is not setting a good example.
In conclusion, our party will be supporting this good motion,
although I must say it is somewhat general.
1700
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, first of all I
would like to thank my colleague from
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans for supporting our
motion that he describes as general. It is nevertheless an
essential one.
I feel compelled to speak up because of his introduction and of
the fact that he comes from Chicoutimi. I was brought up to
think that credit had to be given where credit is due. It was
therefore a pleasure for me to pay tribute at noon today to the
secretary of state who has made the aluminum industry, and
particularly the processing of aluminum, a priority for this
government.
I can tell you that in my area it is an issue that is followed
quite closely.
After having seen 8,000 jobs lost in the primary aluminium
sector, it is good news when we hear a person in power say “We
are going to help you do the processing”. Currently, about
600,000 tonnes are processed outside of the country and the
Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean is paying for that. I am sure that the
member from Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans
misspoke himself and I forgive him.
I would like him to tell us what he thinks of a political party
which sought the approval of its members at a convention for a
resolution that an opposition party copied word for word to help
it out.
We thought that we would do everything in our power to help the
government to support readily, in good faith and free of
partisanship an initiative that could restart a major industry
that has an impact on thousands of sectors, one where our
technological sophistication can be of benefit to every country
in the world.
The only thing we want is a fiscal policy that will be fair
compared to what is done elsewhere.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to enter into a
lengthy debate with the member for Chicoutimi because I see him
often in the lobby and I am sure that, in the next election
campaign, I will have the opportunity to visit his riding a lot
more often. Therefore, I want to save my words and my energy for
the next campaign, two years from now.
When I said that the principle and the wording of this motion
were general, I did not mean it in a derogatory way. On the
contrary, this motion is general enough to attract broader
support. I find it interesting that the researchers for the
Progressive Conservative Party drew this from the resolutions
adopted by the Liberal convention.
This does indeed put the Liberal Party in a very bad spot.
In any case, nothing should surprise us with this government. I
am certain that the left hand does not even know what the right
hand is doing and that the government will reject our motion, as
it usually does. According to the government, nothing that comes
from the opposition can be worthwhile. So we will see what comes
of this later today or next week.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, many many
years ago, I got my first job after studying engineering at
Laval University.
It was at the Lauzon shipyard, which was called at the time
Davie Shipbuilding. I worked there for several months as an
electrical draughtsman. At the time, more than 1,000 people
worked in the shipyard. There were ships everywhere. Some were
in dry docks—there was the small dry dock and the big dry dock—and
some were on slipways. Shipbuilding at the time was a
flourishing business.
1705
Vickers in Montreal, another shipyard in Sorel and Davie in
Lauzon all had a lot of work, building lakers for private
companies and ships for the military.
How did the government reduce such a flourishing industry to
what it is today, absolutely nothing? What went wrong?
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, if foreign companies used to
come and still come now to MIL Davie to have their ships built
or repaired, it is not just to please us. They are not
charitable organizations. They do business with our shipyards
because of the quality of their work, their efficiency and their
productivity.
The CSN workers at MIL Davie have shown some backbone. They put
their collective agreement in order. They want to survive and
prosper, which is quite legitimate. The hon. member is right to
say that in Lauzon and elsewhere in Quebec—let us not forget the
shipyard in Les Méchins—we have experienced, competent and
motivated shipbuilding workers.
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to begin by indicating again that the government has a
shipbuilding policy. In fact the policy being pursued by the
government traces its origins to the days when the Progressive
Conservative Party formed the Government of Canada. I remind my
colleagues across the way of that.
Since then we have done a lot of good for the shipbuilding
industry in this country. Some of the good work lies in the
support provided by the Export Development Corporation. It is in
that area that I would like to address my remarks.
Let me begin by stating that the Export Development Corporation,
Canada's official export credit agency, provides Canadian
exporters in all sectors a wide range of innovative trade finance
services. Canadian exporters and investors look to the EDC to
provide creative and responsive financial solutions as they do
business in over 200 countries, including high risk and emerging
markets.
Founded in 1944 as a crown corporation, the EDC operates as a
commercial financial institution on a self-sustaining basis. As
the EDC carries out its mandate to be self-sustaining it applies
sound commercial principles to all of its transactions. Premiums
and fees are charged for insurance and all loans are fully
repayable with interest. The EDC reinvests to support future
growth in Canadian exports. As the EDC operates along commercial
lines, it does not provide subsidies.
As Canada's official export credit agency, with the government
of Canada as its stakeholder, the EDC is bound by certain
international trade obligations. This includes the OECD's
arrangement on guidelines for officially supported export
credits. This arrangement, also know as the consensus, has
provided disciplines for the orderly use of officially supported
export credits since 1979. The arrangement provides participants
clear limitations on key terms and conditions when official
support is provided, such as maximum repayment terms, minimum
interest rates and disciplines on trade related aid.
In certain key areas, such as aircraft and shipbuilding, the
consensus agreement has sector understandings in place to provide
disciplines that satisfy the special demands of these important
industrial sectors.
At present there is a sector understanding on shipbuilding which
dates from 1981. The OECD, recognizing the strategic importance
of the shipbuilding sector, concluded negotiations in 1994 on a
new agreement respecting normal competitive conditions in the
commercial shipbuilding and repair industry. As part of this new
agreement the sector understanding on export credits for ships
was revised to bring it more in line with current market
realities.
The revised 1994 sector understanding calls for maximum
repayment terms of 12 years for loans and interest rates which
reflect market conditions, the commercial interest reference rate
of the OECD, and a 20% down payment.
1710
Canada has stated that it will not sign the shipbuilding
agreement until such time as it is ratified by all signatories.
It will then be clear what final exemptions the U.S. and other
signatories will build into the agreement to protect their
individual national shipbuilding industries.
The existing OECD guidelines allow us to match foreign financing
terms when these are extended to more favourable terms and
conditions.
The Government of Canada fully supports efforts by the OECD to
move closer to an internationally accepted set of rules that will
eliminate unfair financing practices. The EDC will continue to
be guided by revised 1994 sector understandings when offering
support to Canadian yards for their foreign business
transactions.
Moving on to the specifics of EDC support in the shipbuilding
sector, I am very pleased to state that the EDC has been
providing a tremendous amount of support to the Canadian
shipbuilding industry. The EDC tells me that since 1996 it has
supported more than $110 million in Canadian trade vessels and in
ship repair services provided by Canadian yards. At this time
the EDC is developing another $733 million in potential
international business on behalf of Canadian yards.
The House should not take my word for it. In the April 26, 1999
edition of the Canadian Sailings magazine the president of
the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, Peter Cairns, said in
reference to the EDC that it was “a significant step in the
right direction in an area where Canada has a lot of expertise”.
There are other enthusiastic supporters of the initiative of the
EDC who have raised their comments in support, including Alan
Thoms, president of Canadian Shipbuilding & Engineering Ltd. and
John T. B. Chard, executive vice-president and chief operating
officer of Shipyards in North Vancouver for the Washington Marine
Group. These are people in the industry who support the very
important role which the EDC plays.
The EDC is organized along sectoral lines so that business teams
can provide Canadian exporters with financial services to meet
their specific and unique needs. Shipbuilding and repair
transactions are handled by the ground transportation and
shipping team. This team contains financial service
professionals who can structure financial support to meet the
complex demands of today's shipbuilding industry.
The EDC can support Canadian shipbuilders with a wide range of
financing, guarantees, insurance and bonding products. The EDC
actively considers support for Canadian shipbuilding using direct
loans, guarantees for debt participants in shipbuilding
transactions who are taking a risk with the EDC, bid and
performance bonding, specific transaction insurance and leading
and participating in structured financial transactions.
There is a market in financing where the EDC has not been able
to help Canadian yards. This is the case of a Canadian buyer
receiving offers from foreign yards to buy their vessels on terms
supported by their national export credit agencies. This has
happened on occasion in the past. Unfortunately, since these
would be domestic transactions, Canadian yards have not been able
to go to the EDC for competitive financing.
An outstanding example of the EDC sectoral approach to
supporting Canadian business is its ship repair financing
framework. The framework is ideally designed for ship repair
transactions which require swift credit decisions for amounts up
to $1.5 million U.S. and credit terms of up to 120 days. The EDC
purchases the promissory notes issued for the cost of the ship
repairs, allowing shipowners to receive financing for up to 80%
of the cost of ship repairs, with a fixed interest rate for up to
four months, with a straightforward documentation and
administration process.
The benefit to the Canadian shipyard is a cash sale upon receipt
of the promissory notes by the EDC.
1715
In order to be eligible for this financing, the proposed
transactions must involve a shipyard or shipyards operating in
Canada, benefits to Canada and the vessels involved must operate
on international routes. EDC is also very willing to discuss
financial solutions for complete ship overhauls and new
construction in Canada.
Before I conclude I would like to make a few comments on U.S.
programs that are of great interest to Canadian shipyards. The
new OECD shipbuilding agreement which was discussed earlier has
still not been ratified by the United States, which continues to
offer special longer repayment terms to buyers of U.S. vessels.
As an example, under the U.S. MarAd program title XI financing of
the U.S. sourced equipment and products, buyers can receive
financing support of up to 87.5% of the contract value and
repayment terms up to 25 years.
Furthermore, we have discussed in the House today a number of
maritime laws known collectively as the Jones act which also
impose a variety of limits on foreign participation in the U.S.
domestic maritime industry.
Under these laws the carriage of cargo or passengers between
points in the United States is restricted to U.S built and U.S.
documented vessels owned and operated by U.S. citizens. Similar
restrictions apply to dredging, salvage and other commercial
marine activities in U.S. waters.
In international shipping there are limitations on foreign
ownership of vessels eligible for documentation in the U.S. In
addition several subsidies and other support measures are
available to operators of U.S. vessels. Cargo preference laws
restrict the carriage of military cargo and limit the carriage of
government non-military cargo, aid cargo and certain agricultural
commodities to U.S. vessels. These and other restrictions
coupled with defence related prohibitions of the Byrnes-Tollefson
amendment limit Canadian participation in U.S. shipping
activities.
The Jones act does not entirely bar foreign shipyards from
participating in the U.S. shipbuilding market. For instance,
certain types of ships such as research vessels and other
offshore platforms may be procured from non-U.S. yards. Foreign
yards are allowed to do some repair and overhaul work.
As a result of a commitment made in NAFTA negotiations,
virtually its only undertaking in the maritime sector, the U.S.
has clarified that work involving the replacement of less than
7.5% of the hull and superstructure of a vessel can be done
without forfeiting its Jones act status. Work involved in the
replacement of more than 7.5% but less than 10% of the structure
of a vessel can be done without forfeiting the U.S. Jones act
status, but approval for such work must be obtained in advance.
Having fulfilled its NAFTA commitment to clarify the rebuilding
determination, there is no expectation at this time that this
allowance for repair and overhaul work will be liberalized.
Although Canada and other trading partners have sought to
enhance access to the American market in this sector through
trade negotiations, the United States has refused to negotiate
improvements. At this time there is no viable recourse available
to Canada against the Jones act. Legally the United States has
safeguarded the Jones act both in NAFTA and the WTO under the
present terms and conditions of these agreements. Therefore
future trade negotiations may provide an opportunity for change,
but even this will be difficult in light of the strong support
the Jones act continues to enjoy in the United States.
In the NAFTA and the WTO Canada protected its ability to utilize
similar measures with respect to imports from the United States.
An initial assessment of the imports of a Jones act type
restriction in Canada indicates that such action is likely to
impose significant costs on the Canadian economy while at the
same time being unlikely to achieve any success in reducing the
Jones act restrictions.
Overall I am convinced that EDC financing support has been
competitive.
1720
We have studied the issue and where international transactions
have been lost other issues have been found to be at play. I am
very impressed with the progress that has been made in
productivity and modernization improvements in Canada's yards.
However, when other countries choose to subsidize their cost of
production, we cannot fault our suppliers for failing to submit a
competitive bid. We cannot expect EDC financing to compensate in
these situations since we do not have deep enough pockets to
fight on those terms.
I conclude my remarks by once again noting the high level of EDC
support to the shipbuilding industry. The good news is that the
EDC is currently developing $733 million in potential
international business on behalf of Canadian shipyards. Members
will understand that I cannot go into specifics because of the
commercially confidential nature. However, since our industry
has made enormous strides in recent years and is competitive
internationally, I expect that much of this business pipeline
will become firm contracts.
While the EDC is committed to abiding by our international trade
obligations, it will continue to aggressively monitor and pursue
deviations by other export credit agencies under OECD guidelines.
EDC will continue to be an important partner for the Canadian
shipbuilding industry in a highly competitive international
market.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have a
couple of questions on the OECD and the agreement in 1981. I
have been led to understand that the only country abiding by the
OECD agreement of 1981 is Canada. None of the other countries
are abiding by those rules and regulations.
The member said that there was a new agreement in 1994, but it
has not been signed by the U.S. We have not signed it either
because the U.S. has not signed it. The 1981 agreement still
applies. I wonder why the WTO is not dealing with this issue.
All the other countries have opted away from that agreement and
are doing their own thing. I ask my hon. colleague to address
that point.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect my
colleague's comments. It is my understanding that in the next
round this issue will be dealt with. It is obviously of concern
to us and is something that will be dealt with in the next round.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: When? Do you have a time?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not have
a time at this point.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I got to know my colleague across the way better during a trip
to Taiwan, where our group visited the giant Kao-hsiung
shipyards. We could see that they too were experiencing certain
difficulties, which leads me to make a point.
We often compare our shipbuilding facilities to those in Asia,
but the ones in Canada, in Saint John, Lévis or elsewhere, have
developed different areas of expertise than those of Asia, which
were designed mainly for building ships in excess of 300,000
tonnes.
We have to take away some of the mystery. Most ships built in
Canada have to use the Panama canal, so our dry docks are made
for tonnages of 90,000 or less.
Each of Canada's shipyards has an area of specialization, for
instance, aluminum ferries in B.C., military vessels in Halifax.
Each, therefore, including St. Catharines and Port Weller, has
highly specialized and highly advanced equipment. This is not,
therefore, where the problem lies.
The problem is raised by the hon. member for Saint John. In my
opinion, Canada's attitude can be considered naïve.
1725
On the one hand, we depend on the OECD treaties, while the
European countries, seeing that the Americans are not signing
them, are adopting interim measures. These include subsidies.
The hon. member also refers to the EDC. That is all very well,
but allow me to cite an example. Just recently, a few weeks
ago, two years after the arrival of the Spirit of Columbus
platform and after Davie Shipbuilding was at risk of closure
because of the lack of funding guarantees, the EDC finally came
through. The funding guarantees should have been available
right from the start.
There are, therefore, certain possibilities, but the mechanisms
for evaluation operate far too slowly.
I would like to have the hon. member's reaction to this.
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties
is that unfortunately, and I pointed it out in my comments, it is
not a level playing field. We know subsidies are being provided
by other countries. That explains in part to my colleague across
the way why some of the things he pointed out exist. I concur
with him.
We saw that, as he mentioned, in Kao-hsiung, Taiwan, where China
shipyards clearly have that advantage from the government. We
are working as a government with our partners around the world,
particularly in the next round, to push for liberalization in the
market and to make sure about these types of subsidies.
In December 1997 the OECD reported internationally that there
was a substantial overcapacity in terms of shipbuilding, which is
estimated will be about 40% by the year 2005. We have to work
together. We have to stop the kind of things that put us at a
disadvantage.
In this country the EDC is working very hard with our
shipbuilding industry to make sure we are very competitive where
we can be for contracts in the international field.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
a couple of comments and questions for my hon. colleague. I am
left somewhat confused by his position with respect to
shipbuilding. Maybe he can help me work it out.
He is saying that the EDC is actually supplying sufficient
support to the shipbuilding industry and that the federal
government is essentially doing the best it possibly can with
respect to the industry.
Why would a candidate who actually ran in the riding of Lévis in
the last election in 1997—I was a candidate and I know, Mr.
Speaker, you were a candidate in that same election—make as one
of his fundamental planks that we needed to have a new
revitalized shipbuilding policy if everything was fine the way it
was?
I am even more confused about a particular initiative. I know
most Liberals sometimes get things a little mixed up or confused.
The enter convention hall of the Liberal Party of Canada
indicated as one of its policy initiatives that it was imperative
the federal government take progressive steps to establish a new,
revitalized shipbuilding policy for the country. They voted on
that. The actual wording of the amendment we put forward today
is very constructive. The entire Liberal Party of Canada
actually voted at its congress to go ahead and do this.
If the candidate, the Liberal Party of Canada membership, the
premiers, the shipbuilders association and the shipowners
association all say that something has to be done, and labour is
on side as well, I would say the member might want to take a look
at it again and say that not everybody is happy with the
so-called shipbuilding policy he put forward.
1730
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the
member that we have a motion before us which the Liberal Party of
Canada voted on at its convention. I am sure motions often get
put forward at Conservative Party conventions.
The purpose of this debate is to inform both the opposition and
the country as a whole what the government has been doing. I
have been pointing out a number of things which the government
has been doing in response to that resolution, whether it is the
accelerated capital cost allowance of 33.3% on Canadian built
ships or the 25% tariff on most non-NAFTA ship imports. The
Export Development Corporation plays a major role. I am sure my
hon. colleague was listening when I said that it cannot help a
Canadian buyer receiving offers from foreign yards to buy their
vessels on terms supported by their national export credit
agency.
Let us look at the record. We have a very favourable research
and development tax credit system and domestic procurement by the
federal government for all government shipbuilding and ship
repair needs. The EDC is currently assessing an unprecedented
number of shipbuilding proposals which I mentioned in my comments
earlier. Obviously, if provinces in this country want to pursue
these initiatives they are free to do so.
I pointed out to my colleague earlier the fact that we are
building on a policy which has been working well. We did not say
it was perfect, but we did say that we are doing something. I
want you to keep that in mind.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member was
addressing his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, some days this place reminds me of Yuk
Yuk's, the stand-up comedy headquarters. We listen to speaker
after speaker and sometimes we just have to shake our heads.
When the Liberal Party of Canada votes at its national
convention that we have a serious problem with our shipbuilding
policy; when we have workers from coast to coast to coast, who
know the industry, saying that we have a serious problem with our
shipbuilding industry; when the owners and the administrators of
the various shipyards are saying that we have a problem and when
every expert in the country on shipbuilding is saying we have a
problem, we probably have a problem.
People have been standing in the House saying that we do not
have a problem because a policy is in place. I would like to
issue a challenge to all my friends sitting across the way on the
Liberal benches. I would like them to jot down on a piece of
paper what they think Canada's shipbuilding policy is. Can
anyone imagine the kind of hodgepodge we would come up with?
We would have a few people saying that our R and D credit is one
of the best in the world. That is fair enough. Some people would
say that some EDC programs are concerned about funding some of
our exports. Yes, that is good. Some members would mention the
people who are doing very well in a particular yard or agency.
However, what is our strategy? What is our policy? What is it
that we are trying to accomplish as a country?
Let is look at the records of the other countries that are
involved. Let us look at the United States of America which has
a policy and articulates clearly what that policy is. All
members of the congress, if asked, would indicate what they
understand their national shipbuilding policy to be. They would
not be 100% correct, but they would at least be in the ballpark.
I again challenge my friends opposite to articulate today what
our shipbuilding policy is? The answer would be an embarrassing
no. That is nothing new.
We are the second largest country in the world but do we have a
transportation policy? No. We are the second largest country in
the world with water from coast to coast to coast. We have one
of the major reservoirs of freshwater in the world but do we have
a water policy? No. We are one of the major trading nations in
the world and, historically, always have been. One would think
that if there was a single country that had a shipbuilding
strategy it would be Canada. Do we have a shipbuilding strategy?
No. The answer is no, no, no.
We do not have strategies. We do not have policies. We do not
have programs and plans because we believe in the liberalization
of the marketplace. That is our plan. It is called free trade.
We are the free traders of the world. We do not like government
encumbrances. We do not like tariffs. We do not like things
that are limiting. We do not like the Jones Act in Canada. We
are a free trader. We are the global marketplace. We are the
free marketplace and that is our mantra. If we do not believe in
the free market then we cannot believe in plans. We cannot have
strategies. The market is the strategy.
1735
No one else believes that stuff. If there has ever been a
collection of boy scouts, we have to be it. Probably, if we
looked back at the backgrounds of all of the men and women of the
House of Commons, we must have been girl guides and boy scouts at
one time because that is how we act. We are really nice people
who like to help people around the world. We will just abandon
all of our tariffs and everything, but nobody else will. We will
just abandon any strategy we have or any support program from the
government, but nobody else will.
I give my Liberal friend who just spoke a great deal of credit.
He talked about Taiwan. If there is supposed to be a free
trading nation it is Taiwan, but it is not a free trading nation.
It has huge subsidies in its shipbuilding sector. It has huge
infrastructure subsidies. It probably has subsidies in every
single sector there is.
The banks and the governments are all involved. One of the
reasons Taiwan has done so well compared to other countries is
that it actually has a strategy. The banks know what the
strategy is, the investors know what the strategy is, the unions
know what the strategy is and the managers know what the strategy
is. Everybody knows what the strategy is, but not so in Canada.
Canadians were quite hopeful a few years ago, particularly those
who were knowledgeable of the shipbuilding sector, because they
received a letter from the Prime Minister. It said, “It is
safe to say that most people recognize that something has to be
done to create a much more competitive shipbuilding industry”.
The government should now, as it should have long ago, and indeed
as it promised to do, take steps to alleviate the problem.
The people working in a shipyard and receiving a letter like
that from the Prime Minister would probably think that once the
Prime Minister got into office and got a nice majority government
behind him, they would actually see some significant changes such
as employment in the shipbuilding sector going up and some long
term strategies coming into place. This would be a natural
assumption for a voter to assume.
Here we are now, some eight years later, is there a strategy?
No.
I always listen to what my Liberal colleague has to say because
he actually has some very useful observations. He said there is
no level playing field when it comes to the shipbuilding
industry. So here we are, the level playing field enthusiasts,
playing the game with no other level playing field enthusiast to
play with, but we went out there and levelled it all off to the
point where we now do not have much of a shipbuilding industry.
This is a very frustrating debate. I want to congratulate my
hon. friend from the Progressive Conservative Party for at least
bringing the issue forward. I know we have all been listening to
the various groups that have come from the various shipbuilding
sectors explaining what they felt ought to be done, that we ought
to have a clear strategy in place. They do not necessarily want
subsidies, but they do want a plan.
What would that plan look like? Most of the shipbuilding
initiatives we take, we take either because we are embarrassed
into something or it becomes so acute we have to sort of say that
we will need to have a fleet of ferries, or we will need to build
a whole number of frigates, or we will need to do this or that.
It is sort of a last gasp decision.
It would be nice to have a plan in place where we could say to
the various shipyards on the coast that we will start building
this number of ships over the next 10 years, these kinds of ships
over the next 15 years and these kinds of ships over the next 5
years. Every shipyard could then plan and know that some of the
government programs would be coming.
Mr. Peter Adams: Is that a five year plan?
Mr. Nelson Riis: I am not talking about a five year plan,
I am talking about any kind of plan. I would be happy to have
some kind of commitment, some kind of plan so that those
shipyards would know they are guaranteed this, this and this
order in perpetuity and we could then build on top of that with
some other supports in place.
If we look at what other countries do, they offer loan
guarantees, long term amortization and so on.
In other words, there are actual things that we could do to make
these shipyards economically and financially viable into the
future. That is what we are calling on the government to do, or
at least to consider and be open to this.
1740
We have the Jones Act in the United States. I suspect the Jones
Act contravenes every free trade concept that exists. If one
wants to move material from port to port in the United States,
one has to have a ship that is built in the United States with
employees from the United States. We understand why it does
that. It is good economic policy from the American's point of
view. It is certainly not part of any free trade, free market
mentality. It is good regional politics and good national
economic development. We do not do that. Again, we are the boy
scouts of the world. We let the Americans get away with it.
I suspect that most of us have at one time or another toured a
shipyard on the coast or in other areas, large and small. I
think it is fair to say that Canadian shipbuilders are probably
the most creative, productive and efficient in the world. We do
not take a second place to anyone. We can compete with anyone as
long as we have a level playing field in which to compete. I
think the point being made today is that we do not have that. If
we had that, we would do exceptionally well. We need a level
playing field for our shipbuilding sector.
Recognizing that employment in this industry has plummeted from
12,000 employees in 1990 to less than 5,000 last year represents
where the issue is. It is very clearly a declining industry at a
time when international trade is expanding, where the need for
ships is increasing and where a whole variety of new technology
in shipping is becoming more relevant by the day.
Canada and Canadians should be playing a role in the development
of this technology and playing a significant leadership role in
the development of these new shipping opportunities, but we do
not. One of the reasons we do not is because the government of
the day, for some mysterious reason that escapes me, is simply
unprepared to sit down and draft a long term strategy, a long
term plan for this sector.
I know this may sound boring. I have said long term plan about
20 times in my short speech. However, can we have a successful
life if we do not plan it? Can we run a successful organization
if we do not have any plan? Can we run a successful business if
we do not have a business plan? The answer is always no.
However, for some reason we believe that we can have a
shipbuilding industry without any national plan to it. It is some
sort of magic that we just play by ear day each day. Obviously
that will not work.
I could say a great deal more about this, but I will simply
compliment a number of the comments made by others earlier.
People have laid out the case that we need to have a strategy.
It makes sense for a trading nation like Canada to have one.
I say, with some regret, that when we look for leadership on the
government benches and to the Minister of Finance, who is
certainly well known in the shipping business where he does his
shipbuilding and where he gets crews for his ships and so on,
they do not really provide the kind of leadership that is
encouraging to the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
I will conclude my remarks by simply saying that I hope today's
debate at least advances the issue and takes it forward another
step. Maybe one day soon we will hear an announcement by the
Minister of Industry saying that the government plans to bring
the stakeholders together to develop, once and for all, a
comprehensive, dynamic, national strategy for Canada's
shipbuilding sector.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the remarks by my NDP colleague lead me to say the following.
He is supporting a motion by the member for Saint John, who is a
Progressive Conservative and does not usually think like a
member of the NDP and vice versa. On this subject, however, be
they from the west, British Columbia, the maritimes or Quebec,
the members of the opposition parties are in agreement.
1745
It is a rare thing to have a consensus among all the unions of
the various regions of Canada and the members of the Canadian
shipbuilders association, which represents the nine biggest
shipyards in Canada.
As the NDP often takes stands on the number of jobs or employee
rights, I have a question for my colleague. Did he notice, as I
did, in thoroughly examining the shipyards issue, that none of
the unions involved in shipbuilding, for the past four or five
years, can be claimed to be protecting its collective agreements
at all cost? Did he see the same thing?
The collective agreements are now very flexible. Workers have
agreed to make considerable sacrifices, for example the ones in
Lévis and the other shipyards I have visited. Studies show that
members of the United Auto Workers, who are in the eastern
shipyards especially, have pointed out—and the member for
Trois-Rivières did too—that salaries and collective agreements
are not the issue. In this case, the workers cannot be blamed
for the situation.
I want to know whether the member shares this position, whether
he has seen what I have in terms of the effort put out by the
workers in Canada's shipyards.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, first, my hon. friend notes
that the New Democrats are agreeing with the Progressive
Conservatives on this motion. I suspect that probably everybody
in the House basically agrees with the motion. However, because
of the nature of our parliamentary system, the government has to
be somewhat more hesitant to agree and opposition parties more
enthusiastic, but that does not occur on all motions.
I also think it is fair to say that as a classic Progressive
Conservative and as a classic social democratic we probably find
more in common than we find in difference, unlike our Liberal
friends across the way. Quite frankly, I do not know what a
Liberal is, but I will simply say that it is not a Conservative
or a social democratic and whatever is left over can be Liberal,
depending on the nature of the times.
Yes, I agree with my friends. I would challenge my Liberal
colleagues opposite to identify anybody who would suggest we
should not have a shipbuilding strategy for our country.
Mr. Stan Keyes: We have one, but not to your liking.
Mr. Nelson Riis: My friend says that we have one. We
have strategies on everything. However, I do not think anybody
knows what this one is. That is the problem. I do not think we
could articulate it. I do not think we could sit down and say
“This is what our strategy is”.
Let me rephrase that. I do not think we would find a single
Canadian who is concerned about the Canadian shipbuilding
industry, or certainly knowledgeable about that sector, who would
say that we should not at this point bring together the
appropriate stakeholders to develop a national strategy which is
flexible and includes all of the players, including, as my friend
suggested, the various unions. They have indicated a willingness
to be flexible even beyond where they have already gone and to do
it just seems natural.
I would ask my Liberal friends opposite: Would anybody suggest
that we should not do that? I do not think anybody at this time
would say that everything is okay. In fact I have not heard
people identify many groups in the country which would suggest
that we have a shipbuilding policy in place, and certainly one
that makes sense.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank my colleague from the NDP for his presentation and his
full support.
What is most disturbing to me, and I am probably the
most non-political person who sits in the House of Commons, are
the letters which the Minister of Industry wrote when he was the
industry critic, replying to people who were working in the
shipyards. They got in touch with him when he was in opposition
and his reply was “Please be assured that the
shipbuilding industry is a priority for me as it is for my caucus
colleagues”, and he said that they would be doing something about
the situation.
1750
A lot of families are breaking up. There were 200 people in my
riding who were asked to go to Louisiana, U.S.A., to work. They
were told they were the best shipbuilders who had been
interviewed from around the world. I am really concerned about
what is happening.
I know that our boys back home have sat down with the owners of
our shipyard. They have made concessions. They will do whatever
is necessary to bring work into the shipyard.
Does my colleague think that we could honestly, all of us
collectively, convince our colleagues on the government side that
they should agree with and adopt the motion? Then they could
come to us and say that they agree there has to be a new
shipbuilding policy. They could say that they will take steps to
bring intergovernmental affairs, finance and industry together to
see what could be worked out. They could take the credit for
that. All we want to do is put our people back to work and give
them their dignity.
Does my hon. colleague think we could convince them today to do
this?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think we could convince
our colleagues across the way to do this today. It seems to me
to be a very thoughtful proposal.
Perhaps another avenue would be to strike a special task force
of members of parliament from the various political parties and
bring in the various standing committees on industry, finance and
others, as she suggested, to work among ourselves toward the
development of a program.
Yes, I think that is possible. I hope as this debate concludes
that we all agree to make this a votable motion so that we can
support it 100%.
My hon. friend mentioned the letters the Minister of Industry
wrote to various people in the shipbuilding industry, saying that
if he became minister or the Liberals formed the government they
would do something about the shipbuilding industry. People
misunderstood that to mean that something would be done to
improve it, as opposed to something which would make it more
difficult to survive. Perhaps we need to read those letters a
bit more carefully and recognize that the minister was saying
they did not plan to do much.
The time is right. We all agree that it is time to move
forward. I suspect that my hon. friends opposite will be anxious
to make this motion votable so that we can do something positive
for the country.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I first want to say that this is a very important debate. I have
listened very closely to all hon. members today talk about this
very important industry. It is important that Canadians have the
opportunity to hear the points of view of members of the House
because, indeed, this is important and something which all
Canadians should, and in fact do, take very seriously.
In her motion the hon. member for Saint John refers to Canada's
coastline as being the longest in the world, and I think she is
correct. I would also add that we have the largest bodies of
inland water in the world and, by these measures, we are
certainly a maritime nation. I do not think anyone disputes
that.
However, it is fair to point out that the hon. member should not
equate this geography with a high domestic demand for
shipbuilding. It is simply not there. This is a reality for
Canada and it is something that we must face. Therefore, for
Canada to remain in the shipbuilding industry, we must export.
That is the reality of the world in which we live today.
This is an industry for Canadians in which we must succeed in
global markets because our domestic market is simply not big
enough. International competitiveness is the key to all of this;
competitiveness, moreover, that must come at a time when there is
substantial overcapacity in shipbuilding around the world. The
OECD, for example, predicts that by the year 2005 the
overcapacity will reach 40%.
To respond to overcapacity in this country the Canadian
shipbuilding sector has already gone through a voluntary
industry-led rationalization process. That is important to note
because it underscores its commitment to this very important
rationalization.
The Government of Canada has contributed $198 million to this
process. Through the reorganization and streamlining of its
operations over the past decade the Canadian industry has been
able to improve its productivity levels.
That is something we can all be very proud of.
1755
However, it still faces very tough competition from
international markets. That is the kind of world in which we
live in the late 1990s, into the year 2000 and beyond. The way
to meet that competition is not to go to the government to ask
for money from the taxpayers. I think those days are over, as
the opposition parties are proposing. Rather, the solution lies
in building competitiveness through innovation by offering
generous research and development tax credits, for example, and
by promoting enabling industries which give Canada-built ships
the technological edge. That is where the world of tomorrow is
at.
The solution, I would also submit, lies in providing support for
export financing through the Export Development Corporation. As
we know, the EDC has improved the financing packages available to
shipbuilders. The terms of repayment, as has been noted in the
House, have been increased from eight to twelve years and
interest rates now match the commercial rates that we know.
Finally, I think the solution lies in convincing other countries
to stop their wasteful and burdensome subsidies so that all
nations can compete on a level playing field. I think that is
important too as we move into the 21st century.
We should then negotiate down rather than subsidize up. That is
where the world lies.
The Government of Canada is doing this. We should be continuing
to do so through the OECD and the World Trade Organization
negotiations on shipbuilding. That we will and must continue to
do.
I also want to point out that some provincial governments in
Canada have taken a different approach. For example, the
province of Quebec announced four incentives for shipbuilding in
its 1996-97 budget. I will elaborate on those four points. The
first is the marine construction loan guarantee program which was
included in that budget. The second is an income tax holiday for
Quebec sailors assigned to international freighters. The third
is a refundable tax credit for shipbuilders. The final incentive
is a capital tax reduction for taxpayers who acquire Quebec built
ships. Those are significant changes and certainly we note them
in parliament.
Some members of the Bloc have argued that the federal tax system
undermines some of these measures. That is simply not the case.
The record needs to be set straight. The operation of the
federal tax system does not cancel or eliminate the benefits of
provincial programs which are designed to support particular
industries. In general, the federal tax system provides for tax
deductions and credits based on the actual amount of costs
incurred, net of any provincial assistance. To do otherwise
would provide tax deductions or tax credits for costs that a
taxpayer has not incurred. We need to note that and we need to
understand it fully so that all Canadians know exactly what the
case is in this matter.
I would emphasize that the federal government has also supported
the shipbuilding industry in Quebec. Between 1986 and 1993, for
example, the federal government invested almost $1.6 billion in
Davie Industries in the form of contracts, contributions and loan
guarantees. As hon. members are aware, Davie Industries is now
under the protection of the Bankruptcy Act following the
bankruptcy of its owner, Dominion Bridge Corporation. Davie
Industries will receive all of the benefits to which it is
entitled under the act. Meanwhile, Davie Industries has a
contract to modify the Spirit of Columbus oil platform for
Brazil. The Export Development Corporation is studying a
proposal to supply export financing to support this project.
The Government of Canada has a generous package of measures
which, in conjunction with provincial policies and sound
industrial practice, benefits shipbuilders. In addition to EDC
financing, for example, this package includes an accelerated
capital cost allowance and very generous R and D tax credits. It
includes a duty on ship imports and domestic procurement for all
government shipbuilding and ship repair needs.
I want to emphasize once again, and I know we have heard it
throughout the course of this debate, that the government is now
and always has been supportive of the shipbuilding industry and
will continue to encourage its development. That is, after all,
what Canadians want.
The federal government already provides strong support in this
area to the industry.
It is important to note these points. There is in the form of
support an accelerated capital cost allowance of 33.3% for
Canadian built ships. There is a 25% tariff on most non-NAFTA
ship imports. There is domestic procurement by the federal
government for all government shipbuilding and ship repair needs.
There is the Export Development Corporation financing for
commercially viable transactions. There is a very favourable
research and development tax credit system. All of these things
underscore our commitment in this very important area.
1800
The shipbuilding industry also has access to the enabling
element of technology partnerships Canada. That program supports
the private sector through investments sharing both risk and
reward.
Our objective as a government in this very important sector is
to make sure it is competitive and therefore able to win in
international markets without subsidies. That is what all
Canadians want. As a result, our policies and programs are
working. The Canadian shipbuilding sector is now more
streamlined and viable as a result, which is something we can all
be proud of.
The global shipbuilding marketplace is restructured. We see
that and we know that is happening throughout the world. Labour
costs, aggressive pricing practices and shipowner national
loyalty are having an impact in this important area, as is the
growth of large integrated companies which build ships for their
own use.
Government subsidies could be one way to respond to these
changes but it would not be a good way. Instead, Canada should
be enabling its shipbuilding industry to focus on high
productivity, research and development that provides value added
components, modernization and innovative marketing. These are
important things that we as a government are aggressively
pursuing, and rightfully so, on behalf of this important sector.
That is the route we as the government are taking. I hope other
members in the House will support that approach by voting down
the hon. member's motion. This is the way we need to proceed,
the way we need to move into the 21st century. This is the
approach that will be in the best interests of Canada and all
Canadians wherever they may live in this great country of ours.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before I ask the member for Waterloo—Wellington my question, I
would like to make the following comment.
I have been here since the beginning of this debate on the
motion by the member for Saint John. The motion repeats word
for word a resolution adopted at the federal Liberal Party
convention in 1998. I am astonished that, so far, Ontario MPs
are the ones speaking on behalf of the Liberal government.
There have been no representatives of the maritimes, Quebec or
the west coast. Yet they are the ones with shipyards in their
ridings.
Another thing perhaps worth pointing out is that all the members
with shipyards in their ridings are opposition members. In my
riding, I defended the Lévis shipyard with everything I had.
I looked at the electoral map and saw that it was not very hard
to find a Liberal in Ontario. With one exception, all the
members from Ontario are Liberal. Contrary to the promise it
made in 1993, this government did not hold a summit on the
future of Canada's shipyards in the year following its election
to office. After failing to keep their promise, some well
meaning members probably want to do well by the Prime Minister
and they are all singing from the same song sheet.
1805
I ask the member for Waterloo—Wellington whether he attended the
last convention of the federal Liberal Party, whether he recalls
the resolution put forward by the New Brunswick Liberal
Association, and whether he voted for or against it. And if he
voted in favour, will he show some consistency and vote in
favour of the motion by the member for Saint John when it is put
to a vote?
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that
the member would want on the record my comments about attending
Liberal Party conventions. Let me say categorically through you,
Mr. Speaker, that I am very proud to have attended all of them
that I can remember since 1965.
Unlike the approach of the Bloc members opposite, we on this
side of the House no matter where we live or which ridings we
represent in Canada, speak as a government on behalf of all
Canadians. While the Bloc members have a parochial view of the
country and while they want to divide as opposed to unite, we on
this side of the House pull together in a way that is meaningful
for Canadians no matter where they live in this great country.
I can tell the Bloc that we over time, not only in the past,
will continue to support this very important sector of the
economy. Shipbuilding is absolutely crucial to Canada. It is
fundamental to out very values not only going back through
history but also projecting into the future.
We as a government will continue to maintain that kind of
approach in the best interests of this very important sector and
in the best interests of Canadians wherever they may live.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to pick up on some of the comments made by my hon. friend
and colleague from Lévis.
This is a very serious issue. We need to ensure that we are
debating the merits of the initiatives which were put forth by
the member for Saint John and seconded by the member for
Burin—St. George's. All members from all parties spoke about
this issue. I do not think we need to overly attack the
intentions of different members. The member from Lévis has
worked very hard on advancing this particular file.
The member's comments during his speech were dead on in one
regard. The future success of the shipbuilding industry in
Canada is through the export sector in addition to domestic
repair and new ships which will be built to replace the aging
fleets in the Great Lakes. In order to do that, an export
financing regime is needed to be competitive.
The Americans have had a regime entitled title IX which they
extended in 1985. Previous to 1985 they were not a player in
exporting ships internationally. Almost overnight they started
to show up on the order book in the United States.
This is something we should be very embarrassed about, but a
company in Canada, Secunda Marine, had to make a financial
decision on where it could get the best ship at the best price.
All it came down to was the financing. The price was competitive
but in terms of having access to capital and lease financing that
was cost competitive, it made a choice to have a ship built in
the United States. Courtesy of what? Courtesy of title IX, the
same financial vehicle which we are asking the government to
address. That is my first issue. Why do we not actually look at
something that works and adopt it?
I have a second question for the hon. member. The membership of
the Liberal Party of Canada voted overwhelmingly to adopt the
very wording of today's motion. The previous Liberal member who
spoke said that there are lots of motions and things that they
vote on at conventions, inferring that it does not necessarily
mean something is going to happen to them.
I know the membership and the policy initiatives of the
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I believe Reform
speaks to this as well. The membership of the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada owns the principles and policies of
our party. It is incumbent on us to follow through with them, to
visit them and to bring them to the House of Commons. They are
not something out of a feel good group therapy session for our
party members. That is what the Liberal Party of Canada
obviously feels this to be if the Liberals are going to vote it
down.
1810
If I were a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, and thank
goodness I am not, I would have voted on issues and policy
directives and then have come to Ottawa and voted on a particular
initiative actually to find out that they cared less if it passed
or not. Are you going to actually respect the membership of your
own party?
And what is wrong with adopting a title XI regime?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I remind hon. members
to address each other through the Speaker.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, we on the government side
and in the Liberal Party always respect the membership. We
advance accordingly, knowing full well that they have a
tremendous contribution to make. Certainly that has been the way
we have traditionally operated and it will be the way we continue
to operate.
Having said that, I want to say how gratified I was to hear the
hon. member opposite say that he agreed with my speech about the
need for Canada to export. I think he understands, or
understands hopefully, that we on the government side are
somewhat on the right track in this matter. That is very
important to note.
In 1997 the member for Fundy—Royal had private member's motion
No. 214. I will read from that motion:
—the government should actively develop an innovative national
shipbuilding policy which focuses on making shipyards
internationally competitive by providing tax incentives and
construction financing comparable to what is being provided
elsewhere in the world and which ensures reasonable access to
foreign markets, particularly the United States of America—
The hon. member for Fundy—Royal was really saying that he has
concern over the Jones act, the 1920 piece of legislation. I
find that very interesting coming from the very party that
allowed that to go forward under the free trade agreement. It is
outrageous, quite frankly, that they would have let that proceed
in the manner they did and now we are stuck with that kind of
nonsense.
For the hon. member to talk out of one side of his mouth on a
motion back in 1997 and quite differently now is quite
interesting.
During that same debate the member for Saint John went on to
suggest improvements to export financing and loan guarantees.
She talked about the exclusion of newly Canadian constructed
ships from the present Revenue Canada leasing regulations. “For
the life of me,” she said, “I cannot understand why the
government would not look favourably on that. It is done for rail
cars, vans, trucks and computers”.
Let me point out that by any other name is a subsidy. If it
quacks like a duck, I can guarantee it is a duck. That is a
subsidy, something that those people opposite say they are not in
favour of yet that is exactly what it is.
The implication of that would be enormous. The domino effect it
would have on all other industries would be outrageous. I say to
them their unfairness will not work and it is simply something we
in the government will not buy.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Given the amount of respect I have for the House and this
institution, I want to make sure we have as co-operative a
relationship as we possibly can. Having said that, I would be
free to take a brief moment to tell the member the difference
between a subsidy and a tax incentive. I would be willing to
help him.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Nice try but it is
not a point of order.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to participate in this very important debate, particularly as I
said earlier because shipbuilding is such an important component
of the economy in my riding of West Nova.
Since the first European settlers arrived in West Nova, boat
building has played an integral role in our rural society. Moving
along the rich coastal waters of the Bay of Fundy, many of my
constituents are involved in the fishing industry and as such
depend on the expertise of our very experienced shipbuilding
industry.
1815
What scares me about the downturn and the lack of a shipbuilding
policy is the potential loss of expertise of our shipbuilders.
Not only are we losing the economic benefits of shipbuilding but
we might lose the expertise that they have. I would want that to
continue.
Shipbuilding in West Nova grew sharply during the second world
war as the allies worked feverishly to prepare our navy for the
daunting task that lay ahead, which culminated with our victory
in the Battle of the Atlantic. West Nova has some of the finest
shipbuilders in the world. They have developed their expertise
after decades of practising their trades for local fishers.
We have a federal government that is indifferent to the
shipbuilding industry. Throughout the world we can find examples
of countries that are supporting their own shipbuilding industry.
We need only look to the south of us to see the United States and
the Jones act which effectively prevents our Canadian shipyards
from competing with U.S. shipbuilding interests.
Our colleagues from across the way continue to refer to the past
when NAFTA and free trade were negotiated. It is incumbent upon
the government to look at the future. The Jones act has not been
working. It is something that really affects our ability to be
competitive in the shipbuilding industry. I would urge the
government to work with the U.S. to reduce or remove the effects
of the Jones act.
Obviously the U.S. has recognized the importance of shipbuilding
to its local economies. Our own Liberal government, despite
repeated promises to introduce a new shipbuilding policy both in
1993 and in 1997, has decided to turn its back on this vital
industry.
This industry could easily employ 10,000 employees instead of
the fewer than 4,000 who are presently employed. The Liberal
government suggests that politics have nothing to do with its
decision to turn its back on our shipbuilding industry. I
suppose this goes with what my colleague from Lévis said.
Those who are speaking to shipbuilding seem to be from the
opposition. I wonder if the government's lack of interest in a
shipbuilding policy for eastern Canada is due to the fact that
not many Liberals were elected there, especially in Nova Scotia
where none were elected. Perhaps that has an impact on the
Liberal lack of interest in shipbuilding policy.
Perhaps the government is turning its back on our fishing
industry and therefore does not see the necessity of having a
shipbuilding policy. Fishing is still a viable option in West
Nova, and for that matter in most of Atlantic Canada. We have
some of the richest grounds in the world just off the southern
tip of Nova Scotia. Our lobster industry is by far the most
lucrative.
There is still a need for shipbuilding services in our area.
However, if the government continues to ignore the plight of
those involved in the industry, our small family owned
shipbuilding operations will not be able to compete with foreign
competition.
Let us consider the family boat building operations in my riding
such as A. F. Theriault and Sons. on Meteghan River, Camille
D'eon's boat building in Middle West Pubnico and Doucette's boat
building in Cape Ste. Mary's. What about David LeBlanc in
Mavilette and Cape Ste. Mary's or Paul and Alain Pothier in St.
Martin? These are all small family run operations that have
survived over the years because they have mastered their craft to
a point where they have developed great reputations from within
the fishing industry.
The PC Party wants partisanship to be taken out of this
discussion so that all parties in the House can work toward
developing a policy for shipbuilding that will help promote and
put Canada on a level playing field so that we can compete with
other countries that build ships.
1820
The shipbuilding industry has proposed four measures which would
immediately stimulate the shipbuilding industry. They include
changes to leasing regulations, a refundable tax credit, and a
pro-Canada provision of levelling the playing field, as I said
earlier, without competitors.
With proper support from our federal government some of the
family operations could legitimately expand their operations,
creating countless numbers of new jobs for our struggling
economy.
I have referred a lot to my riding of West Nova but a new
shipbuilding policy is a pan-Canadian issue. Shipyards are
located across Canada in B.C., Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland.
Canadian shipyards have the capacity to directly employ over
10,000 Canadians. The economic benefits of $100 million worth of
new shipbuilding business will create over 1,500 jobs in
shipbuilding and allied businesses and generate over $23 million
of income for the federal treasury. It is for these reasons that
we believe there should be a comprehensive shipbuilding policy in
Canada.
The P.C. Party of Canada wants the government to work in a
non-partisan way with all parties of the House toward developing
a comprehensive shipbuilding policy which will help promote a
very important industry in our Canadian economy.
I encourage all members of the House to support this very
important endeavour.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since these are probably the last remarks in today's debate, I
must thank the member for Saint John and the Progressive
Conservative Party for raising this issue on opposition day.
The motion is broad, but at the same time very clever; it is
unifying in that it brings together all the opposition parties,
but also picks up the text of a resolution adopted by the
Liberal Party at its convention, and introduced by the Maritimes
Liberal Association. I find this very clever, because it forces
Liberal members to ask themselves a very serious question.
There seems to be two different concepts of democracy.
In a dictatorship, people are told “Do as you are told and keep
quiet. You do not have the right to speak up”. A modern version
of this, the Liberal version, highlights the role of the
grassroots members at a convention, but it means nothing because
their voice is ignored. Would the member agree?
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague touched on
something very important. Before I answer his question I would
like to say that I know all members of the opposition are in
support of the motion. It is really ironic when the motion word
for word is a motion that was drafted and supported by the
Liberal Party of Canada.
In reality, we do not need a vote because we already know that
it is unanimous unless the Liberals choose to make it otherwise.
If they do that then they are neglecting their responsibility
toward people in the fishing and the shipbuilding industries.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 6.25 p.m.
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. Pursuant to order
made earlier today, all questions on the motion are deemed put
and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until
Wednesday, May 5, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1825
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
KOSOVO
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
February 19, 1999, I expressed concern in the House that the
Minister of National Defence indicated during the previously held
take note debate on Kosovo that he did not know the details
concerning the involvement of Canadian troops in a peacekeeping
mission. The minister in fact said that these details would be
worked out after the signing of a peace agreement. Then a formal
request would be made by NATO, and Canada would have two weeks to
respond.
I asked the minister at that time if he would commit to bringing
the detailed request before parliament for a debate and a vote so
that he might respond to the request with the full and open
backing of Canadians through parliament.
The minister made it very clear in his answer, and the
government has made it very clear since then, that there will be
no vote on that issue. The minister indicated that the
government had had a debate and would make a final decision
expeditiously as matters unfolded. The minister said they would
do so and keep everybody fully informed.
That was the keynote of the day. There would be no vote but
everybody would be kept fully informed. We can see as matters
have evolved that there has been no vote and that about 800
troops have since been committed. They are on standby for
whatever NATO may deem to request of them.
The point is that with no vote Canada has joined the largest
allied military assault in Europe since World War II. The phrase
“sentence first and verdict afterwards” is from the twisted
world of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and it seems the
same twisted approach is being used by the government.
The government has seen fit to hold votes on many other pieces
of business, on legislation that it has introduced in parliament
updating terminology related to the Royal Canadian Mint,
Teleglobe Canada legislation, establishing parks, amending the
wheat board act, and even legislating workers back to work. Yet
the government does not think that Canadians deserve to have
their elected representatives vote on Canada's participation in
the bloody slaughter of innocents in Yugoslavia and Canada's
participation in the devastation of an economy and infrastructure
including water, sewage, roads and communications which will take
untold generations to rebuild.
The government places expediency before democracy. The Liberal
government has acted as if the Liberal Party is at war and not
the country of Canada, which is a very scary conclusion. The
government suggests that it is at war. We note that the term war
is quite often avoided and we talk about a conflict. In reality
we have to call it what it is. The government is at war for
democratic reasons, the government says, but it has overridden
democracy in favour of one party rule to pursue its goals.
Upon what moral authority does the government see fit to send
our country to war without a vote? The vote is the key issue. It
is very important. When the Prime Minister was in opposition he
demanded a vote on Canada's participation in the gulf war of
1991. Yet now he has chosen to hide from democracy in this
crisis.
When I was campaigning many people indicated their very serious
concerns about government. They were quite pessimistic about the
political process, to the point that many had given up their
right to vote. I encouraged people that the vote is the keystone
of our democracy. It is a key point in our democracy. We must
not at any cost give up the right to vote. I urge all members to
consider seriously that in this issue the vote is the important
issue.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I say to
the member in starting that the opposition parties have the
opportunity every time they have an opposition day to bring forth
a vote if that is what they are talking about.
There is no question that Canadian participation in NATO
operations is important, not simply because we are members of the
alliance but because of the moral issues at stake. Members of
the Canadians forces deserve our recognition and support for the
important task they have taken up on behalf of all Canadians.
Parliament has played an important role in our Kosovo
deliberations.
In making its decisions respecting Canada's involvement in
Kosovo, the government recognizes the importance of the views of
parliamentarians on this crucial issue.
1830
Parliament has debated the situation in Kosovo on four different
occasions: first on October 7, 1998, when all parties agreed
that Canada should join our NATO allies in air operations if they
proved necessary; second on February 17, 1999, when there was
hope that a peace agreement would be signed and our involvement
would consist of a peacekeeping force; third on April 12, 1999,
when the House once again discussed events in Kosovo and when all
parties supported Canada's decision to participate in NATO-led
air operations; and fourth on April 19, 1999, when the House
debated the opposition day motion calling for a debate and vote
on any deployment of ground troops for military or peacekeeping
operations in the Balkans. That motion was defeated.
Twice-weekly briefings on Kosovo are being given to joint
meetings of the Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade and National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
Moreover, ministers and officials have participated in daily
technical briefings which have been well attended by the public
and the press. Should the nature of our involvement in Kosovo
change, the government has made a firm commitment to consult
parliament.
As the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated, this thankfully
remains a hypothetical question. If the situation changes he
will address the question on votes at that time. However, for
the time being questions about voting on ground troops is
irrelevant. Our efforts should be directed toward resolving this
tragic dispute, not debating hypothetical questions.
KOSOVO
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think this is very relevant to the debate that has just taken
place and, therefore, I would like to review on the record some
comments that were made by President Václav Havel, the President
of the Czech Republic, on April 29.
He said that if it is possible to say about war that it is
ethical, or that it is fought for ethical reasons, it is true of
this war. He was referring to the Kosovo war. He said that
Kosovo has no oil fields whose output might perhaps attract
somebody's interest, no member country of the alliance has any
territorial claims there, and Milosevic is not threatening either
the territorial integrity or any other integrity of any NATO
member.
He went on to say that, nevertheless, the alliance is fighting.
It is fighting in the name of human interest for the fate of
other human beings. It is fighting because decent people cannot
sit back and watch the systematic, state directed massacre of
other people. Decent people simply cannot tolerate this and
cannot fail to come to the rescue, if a rescue action is within
their power.
He concluded by saying that this war gives human rights
precedence over the rights of states. The federal republic of
Yugoslavia has been attacked without a direct UN mandate for the
alliance's action, but the alliance has not acted out of licence,
aggressiveness or disrespect for international law. On the
contrary, it has acted out of respect for the law and that law
ranks higher than the protection of the sovereignty of states.
It has acted out of respect for the rights of humanity.
I think that is the answer to the member's question about
whether the vote is important or whether human rights are
important.
On April 27, two days earlier, I had the opportunity to ask the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question which was
prompted by the events that have transpired in Kosovo over all
these many weeks which had to do with refugees. I asked the
minister the question because as Canadians we collectively share
concern about the plight of the refugees in Kosovo and because
many members of parliament have been approached by constituents
who have family members in that area who are in harm's way. The
question to the minister was basically: What are the
government's efforts with regard to these refugees, particularly
those who have family members already living in Canada?
The minister responded by saying that there had already been, I
believe, 120 applications for sponsorship and that that they
covered as many as 700 people. She was also pleased to announce,
and I think the House was very delighted to hear, that as of
April 27 the first refugees were arriving in Canada, some in my
riding of Mississauga South.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration please update us on the rapidly evolving
developments with regard to refugees, those who are coming here
under sponsorship and those who we are bringing to Canada
possibly on a temporary basis as opposed to a long term basis? I
think Canadians would like to be updated on that matter.
1835
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me start
by saying to my friend that back in 1956 there was a similar
debate taking place and it was about Hungarian refugees. I was
one of the refugees who ended up coming to this country in 1957.
So it does have a great deal of personal resonance with me.
We are making every effort to facilitate family reunification in
the present situation. I am happy to be able to tell the hon.
member that 53 refugees from Kosovo have already arrived in
Canada to be reunited with their families. Others will be
arriving over the next few weeks.
To date, under a special system we have put in place to fast
track the processing of family reunification applications, we
have received 158 applications from Canadians or Canadian
residents with relatives over there. Those applications involve
974 people.
CIC has put the following system in place to handle the
applications to bring over Kosovar refugees who have relatives in
Canada.
The relative identification form, RIF, has been developed by
Citizenship and Immigration Canada to assist the department in
tracking and monitoring cases. It will also help to identify
relatives of Canadian residents who may be eligible for
resettlement in Canada.
For individuals living in Canada with relatives from Kosovo who
are in Macedonia or Albania, they must call the Kosovo hotline at
1-888-410-0009, toll free, to register their request. The
hotline will either complete the RIF on the caller's behalf or
provide the caller with the RIF to complete themselves and they
must then fax it to the hot fax at 1-877-883-8834.
Information gathered from the RIFs will be forwarded to various
organizations by CIC to assist in the processing.
We currently have five visa officers in Macedonia and four in
Albania. Once the refugees have been located, CIC visa officers
will interview them and if the refugees wish, they will be fast
tracked into Canada.
Our goal is to reunite these families within two weeks after the
family members have been located. This timeframe may vary
depending on various formalities and movement restrictions
imposed by local authorities.
Some of the refugees are in camps. Some are being temporarily
sheltered by host families, sometimes in very remote locations.
Some may even be in other countries. Locating these
individuals—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but I do
have to interrupt. As the hon. member knows, there are two
minutes provided for the response and we went over significantly
already. I do apologize but I did have to interrupt.
[Translation]
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)