Brent St. Denis

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join my colleagues in a few words about Bill C-31 and the related issues of the March 6 budget.

The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca made much about his party's commitment to a zero deficit in three years, the so-called zero in three program. We heard a lot about that when the Reform Party introduced it. However, this year as preparations were being made for the federal budget the promised Reform Party alternative budget never materialized. We really have to ask ourselves whether zero in three has gone by the boards. The program should be renamed zero in one. If the Reform Party continues to behave as it has recently, in one year there will be zero members of the Reform Party in the House.

We are here to work together for all Canadians. We understand the cut and thrust of Parliament and the need to criticize, but that criticism must be fair. It must not be designed to confuse people so they do not know where a party is going.

Good government can be best exemplified by the historical expertise this party has brought to government in Canada. We have the best country in the world. The Prime Minister has said that many times. I have said that many times. My constituents know we have the best country in the world.

In December I spent a few days in Russia observing the parliamentary elections to the duma. I can confirm that even though that great superpower has an important political place in the world, few of us would choose to live there or in many other countries. Canada is a beautiful country, built on the honest effort of people around the world who believe that working together and co-operating is the only way to build a country. I dare say to my colleagues across the way that we have the best country in the world because we have had good government for most of the past century. For that I think we should thank the Liberal Party of Canada and the excellent leadership it has provided.

Good government is not perfect government. During the next election campaign I will be questioned on certain matters but I know I will be able to stand proud in front of my constituents and say that we did a good job in this last term. We did not do a perfect job but I suggest that nobody could do a perfect job. Anybody who said they could do a perfect job would be attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of voters. We have done a very, very good job.

Our approach to the problem of getting Canada's deficit in hand has been very responsible and reasonable. We have not done it on the backs of middle and low income Canadians. We have not done it on the backs of those who can least afford it. We have provided a transitional means of cutting back on federal expenditures. It is our commitment to have the federal deficit down to 2 per cent of GDP by the end of fiscal year 1997-98 which literally is just around the corner. We will have achieved that without putting the country in a state of confusion and uproar.

The Minister of Finance reminded us in his budget speech that we went into our mandate with four very key principles or areas of concern.

The first is to secure our financial future which means that we provide stability for those in the business sector who must plan for the future. We provide stability for Canadians who unfortunately find themselves out of work, who must themselves plan for the future. In so doing we have introduced the employment insurance legislation. As they study it more and more, Canadians will find it is the right answer to the dilemma this country is facing as far as balancing the need to protect those who are unemployed against those who are able to work but who must be more able to respond to the changing workplace.

The second major principle we must pursue is to secure our social programs, and Canadians agree with us on this point. Another signal or sign of a good government is one that does not sacrifice in this process those least able to take care of themselves: the handicapped, single parent families, those who find themselves at the lower end of the economic scale, those who are disadvantaged for one reason or another. These people will not be forgotten under a Liberal government. Other parties might not be able to accomplish what we have been able to accomplish thus far in this regard.

The third key area the finance minister outlined in his budget is investment in the future. This is where we recognize the importance of high technology for the future of this country and for the future of the world. We must not only engage business and all

Canadians in general, but more specifically our young people who find themselves facing a workplace that has changed drastically. It changes dramatically year by year.

When I graduated from engineering school more than a few years ago there were jobs for all the graduates. The world of work was more stable, more predictable. One could expect to be with a company for their full career. It is the nature of the world that this has changed. With the flow of information, the vast improvement in the availability of high technology and the fact that these things change almost every week, it is true that graduates now must be flexible, adaptable and prepared for a workplace that will require them to learn throughout the rest of their lives. Our young people are prepared for that and it is our job to assist them in their preparation.

The fourth significant area, which is the subject of Bill C-31 which we are debating today, is getting government right. I remind my hon. colleagues across the way that my constituents, and I am sure Canadians from coast to coast, in expecting good government do not expect perfect government.

As the Prime Minister outlined the other day, we have already completed three-quarters of our campaign commitments. I would expect that by the next election call we will have nearly completed the balance of those commitments.

I look forward to standing in front of my constituents during the next election campaign at various all-candidates meetings and saying that we accomplished the vast majority of our campaign commitments and the only reason we did not complete the others was that the opposition parties would not allow us to do so or the province of Ontario would not allow us to do so. I will be able to say that the Reform Party was full square behind the idea of harmonizing the GST and the provincial sales tax but it made so much to do about the issue it made it more difficult for us to get the agreements with the provinces. It gave Canadians the wrong impression about where we were going.

This is a good government for Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

We only have to look at the minority report to confirm that fact

I will deal specifically with the member's points in the latter part of his presentation and why the province of Quebec should not now receive some payment for having harmonized some years ago. We appreciate that Quebec had the foresight to harmonize. It was the right thing to do and obviously the government of the day thought so. It is still a good plan. No doubt there are some improvements that can be made and as a government we look forward to working with Quebec on that.

However, statistics will show Quebec actually gained from the harmonization. In the maritimes because of the tax base and the desire to lower the provincial rate of tax, a 5 per cent threshold was decided on. For any province which harmonized above a 5 per cent cap, compensation would be provided for loses above 5 per cent. As we calculate it there would be no loss for Ontario. As we see it

there was no loss for Quebec. Some other provinces might experience a loss.

As a government we are being responsible and we are prepared to provide some limited degree of compensation. This is not a political decision. This is a country that is not built on cheque book federalism, it is a country built on partnerships among all the regions of this great nation. Every area is treated equally but we cannot treat every area the same.

Did Quebec gain when it harmonized its provincial tax with the GST?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend and colleague. He is an eloquent speaker, but as is all too often the case, only part of the picture is presented and is not one we on this side of the House agree with.

The member questions the finance minister and the government's making an arrangement with the three Atlantic provinces because they saw it was fit, fair and just to provide a degree of compensation to assist with the transition. This is especially the case because of the lowered provincial rate portion of the harmonized tax.

I am a member of the House of Commons finance committee, as is my colleague. I went through the extensive consultations in the spring of 1994 which covered a wide range of witnesses across the country and a wide range of issues. We looked at about 20 options for replacing the GST. There was no doubt the best replacement for the GST was a harmonized system involving provincial taxes and the federal GST.

We had the concurrence of the Reform Party on this suggestion.

[Canadian Mining Hall Of Fame, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform my colleagues that Elliot Lake, Ontario in my riding of Algoma is now the home of the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame.

Recently eight more Canadians were inducted into the Hall of Fame: Edmund Horne, Noah Timmins, William Wright, Donald Hogarth, Lloyd Pigeon, Joseph Hirshhorn, Paul Penna and Robert Haullbauer. They were selected for their accomplishments in exploration, mine development, technology or management and for their contributions to mining and to Canada.

They span the history of the mining industry in our country which started in Bruce Mines, also in my riding, and which continued throughout Canada, including in Elliot Lake, once known as the world's uranium capital.

We can all take pride in the accomplishments of these eight people and other pioneers that paved the way for the development and economic success of many Canadian mining communities. They remind us that mining is important to our past and deserves our support in the future.

A special thanks to the Mining Association of Canada, to Fred Mann and to the city of Elliot Lake for their efforts in bringing the Hall of Fame to northern Ontario.

[Customs Act, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly enjoyed the member's speech. Based on her experience in the private sector, she is extremely qualified to talk about matters that affect small and medium sized business in this country. This also eminently qualifies her to be a member of the finance committee of the House of Commons.

She made reference to the red book. I prefer to call it the well-read book, because so many Canadians have had a chance to be exposed to its contents, to be exposed to the commitments this government made during the 1993 campaign, which, when implemented, will do the kinds of things this country needs to take its proper place in the world as a trading nation that can, being strong economically, provide jobs for its citizens, especially our young people.

She mentioned her experiences in business with the biotechnology firm in the maritimes. No doubt she has many personal experiences with the red tape that faced her and her colleagues in that business. I wonder if she could share with us from her personal

experience the loss of productivity, the loss of human resources, the wasted time that attends the paperwork burden imposed on business in this country. She might say how it will be a liberating thing for business not to have this load weighing down on them.

[Customs Act, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary in being succinct as usual has been accurate in his reflection of the facts as he was referring to me. I did not want to be self-effusive. His comments about me were what I was talking about.

There were a number of issues raised in committee. I spoke about valuation. I would like to spend another moment speaking on that because it was certainly the most contentious issue. In fairness, other matters were raised, of which the parliamentary secretary spoke, which were resolved during the meeting. As a member of the finance committee I was very impressed with the willingness of witnesses and officials to actually work out solutions to problems that needed to be addressed immediately.

On the issue of valuation, witnesses might have gone away from the meeting not feeling totally satisfied that we were able to accommodate them. The issue really boiled down to whether the proposals in Bill C-102 were in line with the actions and policies of our U.S. trading partner and the European communities. We were not persuaded that there was that much difference.

The WTO panel will look at Bill C-102, once enacted, and will let us know whether it is consistent with our obligations to our trading partners around the world.

[Customs Act, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has always expressed the concerns of his constituents and small businesses across the country very well.

Whatever we can do to lift the burden from small business, be it at the border, in sales tax, at the level of corporate reporting, whatever kind of red tape we can lift from the backs of small business is something we can do to improve productivity, improve the bottom line and improve therefore the ability to create and maintain jobs.

The fact that we can plan through Bill C-102 to move trucks through the border more quickly and efficiently means less time for that load between point A and point B and therefore less cost in terms of wasted fuel, manpower, et cetera. This fact alone may only mean pennies on a item in a load, but multiply that millions and

millions of times; take two pennies on something worth a dollar and that is 2 per cent.

If we do that over and over, day in and day out, the accumulation of benefits to the small businesses trucking goods to consumers, to workers, will accumulate indefinitely. The present value of those would virtually be immeasurable.

When coupled with commitments the government has made to deal through regulatory reform with the issue of red tape in all areas, we are as partners to small business. I know some members of the third party say we should be out of business all together. I am not in favour of government's being overly involved in business but it has a role to play in assisting businesses to trade in the world, to take their proper place in the community, but not to be there as a burden. Government can work with businesses to ensure that even though they have to pay taxes those taxes are used wisely and are as low as possible.

If there is one thing the government can do to assist our economic growth and renewal it is to reduce and eliminate where possible the red tape burden that now hangs over too many small businesses.

[Customs Act, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-102, an act to amend the Customs Act. I am especially pleased to do it today, the morning following a major decision in Quebec to keep Quebec in a strong Canada.

I made mention of that because Bill C-102 is all about keeping our country strong. Keeping our country strong has been one of its elements and trade is very important to ensuring that our nation remains strong and continues to grow and prosper for the benefit of ourselves, our neighbours, our children and our grandchildren. We

can now look forward to getting on with other agenda items for the country. We can focus on some very important matters.

While Bill C-102 contains numerous items that on the face of them appear to be relatively minor, people involved in importing and exporting know they are very important.

I will talk about trade in the larger context. Most Canadians, my constituents included, will read in the newspapers from time to time Canada's trade balance compared with the rest of the world or that it has x billions of dollars in surplus with our trading neighbours, particularly our American neighbours to the south. This is an important number but it does not give the whole picture about what trade does for our nation, our citizens, our businesses and the world.

Trade opens and keeps open lines of communication. When the Prime Minister led a delegation dubbed Team Canada to China not long ago, in some quarters he was criticized because there were deemed to be certain problems in China over the issue of human rights. The message was made very clear by the Prime Minister of Canada. We have concerns about what happens in terms of human rights in China, but the way to improve human rights there and elsewhere in the world is principally through trade. Through trade is communication. Through trade is learning. Through trade is job creation and growing and strengthening economies. Trade is the best way to improve our understanding of each other around the world. As is so often the case dollars talk. Free enterprise and capitalism when properly undertaken can in themselves drive the entire world toward higher standards of living and better relations among all people.

The bill is part of the big picture. It is part of what Canada needs to do to ensure that all our small, medium and large businesses compete in the world and at the same time contribute to the world. It is very much a give and take situation.

Canada, with its vast human resources, natural resources and technical know-how, has been able to maintain a relationship with the rest of the world that has been very much to our advantage. We have seen the maintenance of hundreds of thousands of jobs in many sectors of the economy. My riding of Algoma is a riding in northern Ontario which one might not think is dependent on trade. It includes part of Sault Ste. Marie, a border community. I will talk a bit later about what it means to be a border community. We also depend on tourism which is very much a trade item. We also depend on forestry and mining.

I had the chance recently to meet a delegation representing the mining sector during their visit to Parliament Hill on a lobby day. It is easier to appreciate that even mining involves trade, the trade of minerals, the trade of natural resources and also the trade of people.

There is no question that without trade we cannot as a nation make the advances necessary to continually improve the lot of our citizens and the citizens of other countries.

I would like to pick out a few of the items in this bill for special mention. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister have capably outlined some of those provisions. I would like to relate some of those provisions to experiences I have had in years past in my own work life, for example measures to deal with duty deferral and the tremendous red tape that is involved in importing an item which will be further processed and perhaps become part of another item which will then be exported.

In the seventies I was the manager of a small electronics manufacturing company in my riding. We were producing an electronic product. It was necessary to import a couple of components which simply were not available in Canada. The red tape we had to go through to import those items which would be included in a final product which would then be exported caused more headaches than I could possibly describe in the short time I have today. The lost manpower, the loss of time and resources were incredible.

If there is one commitment this government will keep to business, particularly small and medium sized business, it is the reduction of red tape. Bill C-102 is going to combine the drawback provisions, the numerous provisions that are presently required of small business. Inward processing and bonded warehousing are other examples of red tape now facing importers who require products from outside the country for inclusion in a product which is made here and then exported.

If there is anything we can do for small and medium sized businesses it is to reduce the red tape. From my experience I can say that this is certainly a most welcome addition to the streamlining this government is committed to making.

Numerous small companies in my riding export. In Elliot Lake, ELMAR Co. manufactures products for the mining sector. More recently it has diversified to include consumer products such as special clothing for handicapped children and other products. It has faced numerous difficulties with the very issue I raised a moment ago, that being the importation of a good for inclusion in the final product which is to be exported.

The fact that Bill C-102 will also streamline and reduce tariffs is a very welcome measure for this company and others involved in export. The books which contain the tariff codes are huge, about two feet thick. We should do whatever we can to simplify and reduce the requirement that small businesses need to call their broker or a government office to find out about a particular product and its code standing. Whatever we can do to eliminate the

necessity of businesses to do that, we are adding that much more to the productivity of that business. Red tape never actually adds profits to the bottom line.

I think business accepts that there needs to be a certain amount of involvement with provincial and federal governments when it comes to paperwork, but there is far too much of it. We made a commitment in the campaign to reduce the amount of unproductive work required by businesses in this regard.

Mention has been made about streamlining border crossings for travellers, tourists and truckers. As I mentioned a moment ago, part of Sault Ste. Marie is in my riding. The border crossing at Sault, Michigan and Sault, Ontario is popular. Some years ago there was a tremendous problem with cross border shopping at a time when our exchange rate was not such as it is today.

Happily, I can report that is not a major problem right now but line-ups are a problem. Line-ups are created because even though 99.9 per cent of travellers are honest citizens and would tell customs or immigration agents the truth when asked, a tremendous bureaucracy has been created to catch the less than 1 per cent of people who are dishonest and might be trying to hide something.

I see in Bill C-102 a recognition that most people are honest. Let us find ways to zip them through the border crossing and instead focus our energies on those who would try to avoid duties or would try to smuggle something into the country.

We have the modern technology and we have seen some pilot projects in B.C. and elsewhere that will lead us to fulfilling the commitment made between President Clinton and our Prime Minister during the president's visit to this country some months ago. That commitment was that the border between our two friendly nations be made more open. We have seen it with open skies in the airline industry. We are also seeing a push toward opening the border, being respectful of the need to manage our different citizenship and our different cultures, but at the same time recognizing that this border, the longest, friendliest border in the world as I understand it, needs to be managed in a way which recognizes that most people crossing the border are honest citizens with nothing to hide.

When I see the provisions of Bill C-102 that are moving us toward that goal, I am very pleased for my constituents of Algoma riding in northern Ontario who are not very far from the U.S. at Sault Ste. Marie.

I do not think we know for certain how this will all work out, what regimes will be put in place to simplify the crossing for visitors and truckers, but if there is a will, there is a way.

I mentioned truckers. What a waste of time for a trucker with a load to deliver to have to wait at the border for some official to go through endless paperwork and examination before allowing him to cross the border. Like our visitors, I am sure 99 per cent of our truckers are carrying legitimate loads to legitimate destinations. Whatever we can do to speed things up, we will be adding to that company's productivity. We will be able to help companies reduce their transportation billings to their customers. Down the line it will mean less expensive products at the consumer level. We are doing everyone a favour when we streamline our border crossings.

Also in relation to borders, there have been attempts by the Manitoulin Economic Development Association to establish a ferry service between South Baymouth on Manitoulin Island and Alpena, Michigan. Sadly, that project has been put on hold for a while because of cutbacks by the Ontario government and because the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission has had to cut back.

As part of the project, I had made a commitment to work with the Minister of National Revenue and his officials to find a way to establish an international ferry between Canada and the U.S. on Lake Huron. Tourists would benefit from a streamlining of the relationship between our two nations.

Even though this project has been put on hold for the time being, it is very important that we push ahead with initiatives right along the border between Canada and the U.S., be they land or marine borders and that the ability for travellers to enter each country be made as easy as possible. This is in recognition of the fact that most people are honest and do not want to deliberately deprive the province or the federal government of their small share of taxes or duties.

There is an issue which arose in committee and which the parliamentary secretary referred to dealing with the valuation for purposes of calculating duty. In simple terms, the confusion arose over the value placed on an imported good if it was shipped from the manufacturer, but the order was placed by a third party who charged a mark-up for the good. The debate was, should the value be the price from the manufacturer or the price the third party actually charged the final user in Canada? Very good arguments were made by a number of excellent witnesses, who said that the price should be from the manufacturer level.

The committee was not convinced that the proposal in Bill C-102 was different from similar practices in the U.S. or Europe, although good arguments were made that we were undertaking a practice that was different from either the U.S. or Europe.

In moving ahead with Bill C-102 and with the valuation provision, we have made a commitment that, as for all trade related legislation, this legislation will be sent to an international panel for review to make sure it fits within the terms of our international trade agreements. A WTO panel will look at the trade provisions of Bill C-102 to ensure that it is consistent with our commitments to our trading partners around the world.

I am sure that if a problem is found, being a responsible government we will look at any comments or suggestions which come back from the WTO panel. The majority of committee members were convinced that the provisions of Bill C-102 with respect to valuation were consistent with our European and American trading partners in particular.

In my concluding moments, I would like to go back to the general theme of Canada as a trading nation. It is important that we maintain our integrity as a good and honest trading partner to the world.

We are a trading partner that can be relied on to deliver product on time because our small, medium and large businesses are strong and able to produce and deliver on time. This requires that we not stand in the way of business to produce quality products, that we do not stand in its way to be profitable and that we ensure our education system, our manpower training system, is always there ready and able to provide qualified workers who know how to produce excellent products, who know how to do the research required to enable Canada to maintain its proper place as a leading trading nation.

We look forward to seeing Bill C-102 implemented.

[Petitions, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from dozens of citizens in the metro Toronto area and small communities around Toronto expressing their support for the mining industry in Canada. Mining employs tens of thousands of Canadians and is an important part of the economic strength of the country.

[Franco-Ontarians, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to attend the annual convention of the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario (Rive-nord) and the 20th anniversary of "L'étoile d'or" seniors' club in Elliott Lake.

As always, the members, volunteers and directors did a good job of representing the Franco-Ontarians in our region. As always, they have shown that the French fact is still very strong throughout Northern Ontario because the francophones in our region have great love and esteem for the distinctive features and wealth of their culture and heritage.

There is no need for Quebec to leave Canada in order to preserve the French culture. To the contrary, we believe that the French culture will have a better chance of surviving in a united Canada, as my friends from the ACFO and the seniors' club have demonstrated.