Reed Elley

[The Budget, March 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents in Nanaimo—Cowichan and join the debate on the Liberal government's latest budget.

I want to inform the Speaker that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster.

At a time when the country wants to see its federal government addressing the many serious issues that are facing us as a nation, it is my own personal belief that the budget is very inadequate. I could speak about the poor response to health care and the almost non-existent response to our military and to aboriginals, but I will move on to the other things which are particularly in my critic area.

In regard to post-secondary education, the budget has very little that is new. I believe that our greatest natural resource truly is our youth. They are our hope for the future. When the government mortgages their future without taking into account what that price will be, the government wilfully and deliberately sets roadblocks in the next generation's path.

It seems like stating the obvious, but when many low income families are struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table, the idea of encouraging additional savings without giving them a means to accomplish that goal is ludicrous. Yes, the $2,000 learning bond seems wonderful, but at most post-secondary institutions, this will not even pay the expenses for one semester.

Furthermore, changing the family threshold to allow more students access to Canada student loans as well as increasing the amount of the loans will likely result in more students carrying a greater debt by the time that they graduate.

As a graduate, starting one's adult life with a $20,000 to $50,000 debt is an awful millstone hanging around one's neck. The government has done nothing to really address the serious problem of repayment. Many graduates, if they are fortunate enough to even get a job when they graduate, start at very low wages and it makes it very difficult to start to repay those loans.

The question that needs to be asked is how we ever reached this point. The answer is very clear. The answer may be found in the current Prime Minister's 1995 budget. In 1995 the current Prime Minister slashed the CHST payments that accounted for the federal transfers to the provinces for both health and post-secondary education. The government forced the provinces to make up for their own selfish actions and ultimately forced post-secondary institutions to increase their tuition fees.

They may call themselves fiscally prudent, but the Liberal government and the Prime Minister have actually increased the federal debt by $23.1 billion since he first became finance minister, for an estimated fiscal year end total of $510.6 billion, over half a trillion dollars. The Liberals have done this by increasing federal spending of taxpayers' dollars with not an iota of taxpayer relief in the budget.

With regard to the budget and its effect on disabled Canadians, the proposal of tax credits for supplies and equipment necessary for post-secondary education is a good gesture. Unfortunately, most disabled Canadians cannot afford to enrol in education programs. They are not able to take advantage of skills upgrading, because they often live so far below the poverty line that the thought of going to school is outside their realm of possibility. It is unfortunate but true.

I am retiring after the next election and this could very well be the last time I speak in the House. I would like to close the speech with some personal observations, if I may be allowed.

Being an opposition member of Parliament certainly has its own built in frustrations, because many of the concerns that we bring to Ottawa are never addressed. After seven years of my being in the House, we still have very few really free votes in the House of Commons. There is undue party discipline, particularly on government MPs. There is no reform of the Senate. Elections are held at the whim of the Prime Minister when it is politically opportune.

We still have a criminal justice system that pays lip service to the protection of our children, has shown little concern for the victims of violent crime, and continues to allow early parole, leading in many cases to criminals reoffending.

I have also observed some very sad occasions in the House, as when the government denied compensation to the innocent victims of hepatitis C through the tainted blood scandal who were outside the 1986 to 1990 window.

Of huge concern to me also is the way in which Parliament, in its voting records in the last little while, is in my opinion leading a movement away from traditional moral values in the country. The sad flip-flop of 100-plus members of Parliament who in 1999 supported the traditional definition of marriage of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others is a serious case in point.

It is my view that no government can eventually avoid the moral issues and indeed, to say that moral and faith values should not play a part in the decisions that we make is just not borne out in reality. Every decision we make as humans, every action that we take comes out of a personal framework of faith and morality. What we really have in the House and in the country is a clash of viewpoints. What is so sad to me is that the call to political correctness, as exhibited by many members of the House, along with a media that very often is not objective nor intolerant of some points of view, has led to the views of millions of Canadians being simply ignored. I believe that this is a tragic flaw in our democracy.

What has been personally disconcerting for me also is to see a very few members of the House from time to time do their best to discredit the viewpoints of others and to go out of their way to see that their voices are silenced and indeed in some instances, their careers ruined. Surely truth can stand all tests if it is allowed to be heard at all.

The Liberal government, I believe, has lost credibility to govern the country. This inept government feeds tax dollars to willing Liberal friendly companies and agencies and then wonders why fewer and fewer Canadians even bother to show up at the polling booth. This poor excuse for a government stymies honest Canadians' efforts to get ahead and squanders their tax dollars and then wonders why politicians are treated with contempt. This sometimes dictator-like government lives life itself to the fullest while many Canadians have their hard-earned dollars taxed at one of the highest rates in the world. Then it has the nerve to ask for even more.

Unfortunately, at the end of my time in the House, little has changed in seven years. However, I will continue as an ordinary Canadian to work to see true democracy returned to this nation that I love.

As for the budget, I believe it is a poor reflection of Canadian values across the country, and I for one will not be voting for it.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I touched on that issue in my speech, but I simply want to reiterate that I do see some parallels here. I am afraid that it is a pattern of governing that has infected the Liberal Party and its approach to government. I am sure that Canadians are getting tired of this. They want a government that has a vision. They want a government that can enunciate that vision to the country. Canadians want a government that will be proactive in terms of meeting the real challenges of the 21st century. After all, we are in the 21st century. We in Canada need to do a lot of things to bring our country into the 21st century, most of all in the way we govern ourselves and in the institutions of Parliament.

I have been here for seven years. Over those seven years I have heard people say that this place needs to be modernized, that government needs to meet the needs of the people, and that people ought to have a direct say in government.

Those people on the opposite side of the House, members of the governing Liberal Party, have been making promises for years and now we have a Prime Minister who is suddenly awake to the democratic deficit as if it was never here during the last 15 years he has been here. I think that he and the government have set a terrible example for the country. They have known about these problems all along and have not done anything about them.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments and his questions. I would agree that one of the effects of globalization is that in the initial stages of helping undeveloped countries develop their own economies and infrastructures, unfortunately this kind of thing happens. It is a fact of life and there are enough unscrupulous people around that they will take advantage sometimes of situations like that.

Of course, in some ways the market does solve the problem itself in terms of the economy growing and people's standard of living starting to be raised, and we move out of that kind of circle of perhaps abuse.

One of the other things that has to be done too is that Canadians--we all invest in companies and mutual funds--need to put pressure on companies to be ethical and just in their treatment of people around the world.

I want to reflect briefly on the little incident that occurred just after question period. I, too, found it reprehensible that a member, even though we may not agree with his particular point of view in many cases, would be treated with such contempt particularly by people who have the name democratic in their party. I just cannot understand that. In this country, the race toward political correctness has very often shut off legitimate debate on serious issues that Canadians are really concerned about.

If we were to have that viewpoint dominant in the House in the years to come, it would bode ill for our country and our democracy. I hope that our Speaker and others who are in authority will continue to keep us on the right track on those issues.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, one of the dangers of speaking just prior to question period is that with the passing of an hour one sometimes forgets one's train of thought. If the rest of my colleagues and perhaps those who are viewing at home will humour me, I may repeat myself a bit. I am sure everyone will agree that it does bear repeating.

Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Tariff, has provoked an interesting debate in the House on a number of issues that surround the issue of trade itself. Being a member of Parliament from the west coast of Canada, in fact one of the most westerly ridings in Canada, there is no question that the economy of my riding depends very much on the imposition of a good rules-based trading system.

Most of the people in my riding, even though they have concerns about globalization and its effect upon particularly underdeveloped countries around the world, realize that they gain their bread and butter from having an effective rules-based trading regime in place.

We do not always like what we see happening under NAFTA or under the WTO. However, we are glad that there are rules and procedures that we can follow in terms of dispute resolution to take care of some of the problems that we see in trade today.

I stated before question period that I had travelled in the Orient a number of times. I am pleased to see that there is a rise in the standard of living in countries such as China, where indeed more jobs have been created by the entrance of foreign capital and corporations which are beginning to increase their production in these countries.

However, even though we realize the importance of Bill C-21--and indeed there is an absolute necessity that this legislation be passed in the House because the old legislation indicated that it would expire on June 30 of this year--we have some concerns about the way in which the Liberal government introduces legislation itself.

Why bring it in now? There is the possibility of an election being called in a week, two weeks or a month, who knows? Is it the government's desire to then rush through these kinds of bills in a short period of time, perhaps not giving the bills adequate debate, not giving members of Parliament the opportunity to really take a look at all of the issues surrounding the bill, and to simply move it forward by haste to reach this deadline?

I want to suggest that over my seven years in the House this is simply a brand of the way the Liberals do business. It is a Liberal tactic. It is the indication of a government that has been far more reactive to situations than proactive. That is one of the sad things that I have experienced in the House from the government. Instead of giving Canadians a vision of hope for the future, a five year plan or a 10 year plan in any area of government that would tell us where it is taking the country down the road, it reacts to crisis rather than be proactive to produce a plan that will work for Canadians.

We saw this taking place in a number of areas. I have seen it personally in the way it handled the Iraq war. My personal preference was that we not enter the Iraq war with the United States; however, what happened in that situation was that the government put off enunciating Canada's position until the very last moment. It opened up all kinds of misunderstandings and misinterpretations of where Canadians really stood on this issue.

We saw it happen of course with the softwood lumber agreement which greatly affects my riding. I indicated this before question period, how the softwood lumber concern, a trade issue, has affected so many jobs in my riding.

Simply put, here was an agreement that the government knew expired in the year 2001, and instead of being proactive and ensuring that we could move into something that could take its place at the expiration of the negotiated treaty, we simply moved into this protracted period of almost three years now where we have no agreement with the Americans over softwood lumber. It has deeply hurt the industry across Canada, particularly in British Columbia.

This again is an indication of a government that does not prepare. It simply reacts to crisis and once again we see that in the way it treats legislation. It puts it off and then when it is somewhat politically opportune, it brings it in, deals with it by rushing it through Parliament. We do not have the kind of time and attention paid to legislation that we should in this place.

We see the same sort of thing in reference to the same sex marriage question where it wants to put it off to the courts rather than to allow members of the Parliament of Canada, who speak for the people of the nation, to represent their concerns in the House on such a huge issue. The government puts it off. It tries to put it out of its particular purview and make someone else responsible for it.

That is irresponsible and it is in the same kind of vein in terms of the legislation before the House. It brings in legislation at the very last moment when it is politically opportune to get it out of the way. It is almost like a work filler for us to have something to do before the election comes along. I suggest that is not the way it should be.

Even though we have these concerns about the bill, and its timing, we do agree with the bill and we will be supporting it when it comes to a vote in the House.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents in Nanaimo--Cowichan and to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Tariff.

On the face of it, the bill seems to be a fairly innocuous type of legislation. It is fairly mundane and routine, but it is interesting that this particular bill has provoked what I think is a fair amount of good discussion in the House today. There are times when I sit in this place on my House duty day and say to myself, “Is there really much point?” But we have had a good debate today and I think the bill, even though it seems to be fairly mundane, has been able to spark some interest in a number of ways as we have discussed it.

For the benefit of those who perhaps may be watching the debate on television, which might be an act of masochism, I am not sure, Bill C-21 amends two sections of the customs tariff. Specifically, the general preferential tariff and the least developed country tariff are extended for another 10 years until June 30, 2014. Of course one of the reasons the bill has to be put through the House in this manner as speedily as possible is that the current legislation expires on June 30 of this year, so there is some urgency to do this, particularly if there is an election coming.

The customs tariff is organized into several major components: the most favoured nations tariff, generally called the MFNT; the general preferential tariff, the GPT; and the least developed country tariff, the LDCT. These are nations that we have direct trade agreements with or nations that are subject to the general tariff rate.

The first three categories apply to our trading partners in the World Trade Organization with which we do not have separate trade agreements. Countries such as the United States, Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica, Israel and others belong to the fourth category, as tariff rates have been negotiated bilaterally, and trilaterally, of course, in the case of NAFTA, which encompasses the countries of Canada, the United States and Mexico. Four other nations, such as North Korea, do not belong to any category and are subject to the higher general tariff rate of 35%.

The vast majority of the countries in the world with which we have trading relations fall into the categories of the GPT or the LDCT. Examples of members in the GPT include China, Brazil, Kuwait and most other developed countries with which we trade. The LDCT list includes nations such as the Congo, Somalia, Haiti and other underdeveloped nations.

Both the GPT and the LDCT provide very low to non-existent tariff rates for nations in those categories. The reason behind putting these countries in these categories is that hopefully it will encourage the growth of those economies and trade relations with Canada. Most of these countries are developing nations that need to have some kind of free trade or rules based trading agreements with other countries to stimulate their economies. Of course, the problem exists that if these tariff rates were to expire these nations would be treated as MFN partners, most favoured nations partners, and then would be subject to that higher MFN tariff rate.

One of the interesting things that has happened in this debate today is that it has provoked an interesting debate on the whole question of globalization. Globalization is a huge topic in my riding. I hear about it very frequently from constituents, some of whom have very great concerns about globalization. I must say that there are times when I agree with their concerns.

However, the reality of globalization is that it is something that cannot be stopped. It is going to take place. In the kind of world in which we live today, where technology has created such a small world for us, where we can travel to other countries in such a timely and efficient manner, and where we can have interaction with developing nations at world forums and in other ways, this is something that just simply is not going to stop. What we need to see is that within the spread of globalization there is maintained for these less developed countries an opportunity to develop with justice and equality and fairness for all the people who exist in these nations.

Of course a lot of people are concerned about what could be classified as sweatshop operations in some of the developing nations, where charges have been levelled against large multinational companies that go in and seemingly take advantage of low wages and exploit the population. Sometimes it has been proven, of course, that they have done this with very small children. Those are concerns that we would have and I do not think anybody in the House, whether they favour open free trade or otherwise, would not be concerned about conditions like these.

However, I think we need to look at the positive aspects of globalization. Of course, this bill is really a housekeeping bill that puts some parameters around the effects of globalization. China is a very good example. I have had the opportunity to do a fair bit of travelling in southeast Asia in the last few years. I have visited Thailand, Taiwan, China and some other countries in that area such as Hong Kong. I think China is a good example of an emerging nation that has reaped the rewards of globalization in a very positive way.

What has happened in China, of course, is that it has opened its doors to increased foreign investment. That has been a particularly hard thing for it to do, coming out of its communist ideology, in being able to somehow conform to the rules and the practices of the World Trade Organization.

Those who go to Shanghai now will see simply acres and acres of brand new factories that have been developed over the last 10 years or so and are now providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of people who had no real jobs before. They are people who perhaps never in their lives made more than 10¢ a day in our money. Now they are making $1 a day. Maybe they are making $10 a day. In our terms as we look at that we say to ourselves that this is not much of a wage, but we have to remember that the buying power of $10 in China is a whole lot more than the buying power of $10 in this country.

Along with the increase in their wages, there is indeed an increase in the standard of living in that country. One cannot help but see this as one travels the country. They are certainly better off, or at least those folks now getting involved in the new industry are far better off than they were 20 years ago. Those people who walked to work or rode a bicycle before this can now afford a motorcycle. The people who could not afford to live in anything but a one room shack are now living in new four room houses. Again, that is not up to our standards. I am in the process of building a new house and in comparison to what I saw in China, it is a mansion. It is not a mansion for me, but it would be for them. However, they are certainly better off than they were and it is a result of globalization.

On the other side of globalization and free trade, and opening up economic borders, we have the problem of protectionism. We have seen protectionism rear its ugly head in the United States recently. The softwood lumber problem is a result of a protectionist policy. Even though we have had a rules-based agreement with the United States over softwood lumber, it has not worked because one of the trading partners has refused to open up its borders to free trade.

In my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan that breakdown in free trade and that breakdown in the good effects of globalization has caused a huge problem. Hundreds of jobs have been lost because of the softwood lumber problem. If we did not have the arbitration policies that are in effect through NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, we would never see an end to this resolution.

Protectionism is not just an American problem. It is also a problem for our government. It knew for five years that the softwood lumber agreement would expire. It sat by on the sidelines and did nothing to allow us to move into another rules-based trade agreement with the United States on softwood lumber. When one expired, we simply moved into something else. That is one of the problems with globalization. That is one of the problems when governments do not take the opportunity to use the rules properly to create good economic conditions in this country.

We in the Conservative Party agree with Bill C-21. We see some of the problems it highlights in terms of the extension of tariffs. We will be supporting the bill when it comes to the House for a vote.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my colleague for sharing his thoughts and concerns about Bill C-21. I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on this government's practice, it seems, of bringing in this kind of legislation at such a late date, with an impending election looming on the horizon. Would he give us the benefit of his thoughts in terms of why the government continues to do this sort of thing?

[Petitions, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present two petitions to the House today with some 800 names of people right across this country who urge the government not to change the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one women to the exclusion of all others.

It is my pleasure to present this on behalf of these Canadians who are asking the government to keep the traditional values in the country.

[Petitions, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of hundreds of people across the country, 600 from the province of Quebec, almost 400 from the rest of Canada. They join the thousands and thousands of people across the country who implore Parliament as the elected representatives of the people to enact legislation that would enshrine in legislation the traditional definition of marriage, the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Petitions, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition contains over 4,500 signatures from people in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. They are asking that the Canada library book rate not be increased. In the negotiations between the Ministry of Canadian Heritage and Canada Post they ask that the library rate not be increased because of the undue hardship it would place upon rural people and others who count on the library book rate to be lowered to receive these kinds of materials through the mail.

[Petitions, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions containing hundreds of names asking that the government retain the definition of marriage as the traditional definition of the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.