Debates of March 11th, 1994

Customs Tariff

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chairman, in any instance where there is a serious breach of human rights where Canada could take the lead, certainly the GPT would be part of the initiatives. It is not just those initiatives. One would want to do a whole lot of things and that is the question.

The GPT itself is not significant in the total sphere of items that one would use in foreign policy. That is clearly a foreign policy question. Canada would have to be taking a lead through the foreign policy sector through our Minister of Foreign Affairs and through a whole host of organizations like the Commonwealth, the Organization of American States or the United Nations to bring pressures on the country.

The GPT would be part of that and could very easily be part of a major change like that. Therefore I would think the hon. member is quite correct. It could be part of it but it would be a minor part of a major foreign policy initiative if that were needed in any particular case.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I can see a dilemma there. I understand that it might happen that the volume of trade with these countries be relatively small. The minister seems to

indicate that since it only represents a minor part of international trade, one does not feel the need to intervene.

But on the other hand, it could be the opposite, as we saw in Mexico, this past winter. There were serious violations of natives'rights in Chiapas, and the Mexican army itself moved to crush their rebellion. If I am not mistaken, Canada and Mexico are trading partners, and the volume of their trade is bound to increase. And yet, Canada did not take any drastic stand, no more that it had in the other cases. Its action was limited to a few questions asked of the ambassador, which brings me to conclude that when it is not important, we do not intervene. But when trade is important, we do not intervene either.

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I would remind the hon. member that Mexico is now a NAFTA country and does not come under the GPT. It is under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Again let me stress that the GPT is only a minor part of our trade relationships. It is a minor part of our total foreign relationship with any country. Our foreign relationships with the developing countries are important through our CIDA grants, through our foreign missions and various groups. It is much more important to have close foreign relationships pursued there rather than through a GPT.

Only after all those other things have been done would the GPT be included with a major change. It could very easily be included. The legislation allows the changes to be made very quickly. It would not be effective to make a GPT change alone and say that is all we are going to do. We would want to do a lot of other things with it and there would be a lot of other questions.

I would suggest to the hon. member that the GPT at this level is low on our list of things in our total foreign relationships with any of the developing countries.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Chairman, a while ago the minister hinted that the Canadian business community had asked to be consulted on the question of the General Preferential Tariff. We are pleased to hear this and we can understand its position. The minister indicated that he was willing to go along with the request and that he would consult with the Canadian business community.

My question is the same: Does the government plan to consult with members of Parliament or will the minister, as he has been hinting since the beginning of these proceedings, let individual members of Parliament or the committee take the initiative of asking the government to consult with them? With respect to the General Preferential Tariff, does the government intend to pursue the same policies that it has been pursuing since the start of this session? In other words, does it plan to consult, or at least make some show of consulting with, members of Parliament on this issue?

The minister also implied that, all things being equal, the General Preferential Tariff was only a very minor aspect of our foreign policy. This may be true as far as we are concerned, but it is certainly not the case for developing countries seeking at all costs markets for their products.

I would invite the minister to reflect upon this point, and I would also ask him to be sensitive to the fact that-and this has been clear from the beginning of this debate-the General Preferential Tariff can have a major influence on our international relations. That is why we are asking the government today to consult members of Parliament on this issue.

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I am at a loss to see what further consultation we could have. If any standing committee would like to consider this, it could do so. It is perfectly natural for a standing committee to call it. It could call this question up and consider the GPT.

As far as consulting with the business community, yes indeed we have consulted widely and continue to consult on every issue that comes up with the business community that is affected. Any member of Parliament who hears from a businessman is quite free to bring that to our attention. I hope they will. They have done so in the past.

As a minister I cannot refer it to a committee. The committee has to ask the question and any committee may do so.

(Clause agreed to.)

(Title agreed to.)

(Bill reported.)

[Doug Peters, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Doug Peters, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5, an act to extend the general preferential tariff for another 10 years, received broad support during second reading.

This reflects, I think, a consensus within this House that Canada as a member of the international community of nations must continue to take an active role in advancing international economic development efforts.

I thank all hon. members for their informed commentary on this bill. As mentioned by an hon. member during second reading, although only one line in length, Bill C-5 has considerable impact through what it actually does.

To summarize, this bill will extend the tariff scheme that provides over 180 developing countries and territories with preferential access to the Canadian market. This is of direct benefit to the people of the developing world whose livelihoods are partly dependent on the performance of the often limited export sectors of their economy. Bill C-5, together with the related consultations on the structure and scope of the GPT program that this government will be undertaking over the coming months, reaffirms our commitment to encourage economic growth in the developing world.

Again I thank all hon. members for their support of this legislation.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to confirm, as we did at second reading, the support of the Bloc Quebecois and Official Opposition for this bill that we consider extremely important, as it provides indirectly for development assistance and is therefore, in our opinion, a bill with a most commendable and honourable purpose.

At committee stage, the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette expressed a number of concerns about the protection of Canadian industries, producers and businesses with regard to the application of the general preferential tariff. I think that my colleague's concerns and questions were well answered by the minister who pointed out to the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette the benefits that can accrue to Canadian business from the general preferential tariff.

We must also bear in mind that we all stand to benefit collectively-the international community as well as Canada-from the development of developing countries and that there are only winners, no losers, with something like the general preferential tariff.

We did express a number of concerns at second reading and again in committee.

We understand that the government is about to undertake consultations with the Canadian private sector, and we could not agree more. We encourage the government to consult Canadian businesses on the issue of the general preferential tariff. Our collective well-being is at stake, as well as that of Canadian producers and industries.

However, we consider that any change to the tariff itself or to the list of countries benefitting from this tariff would have political implications and must therefore be debated in Parliament.

We raised two glaring examples of cases where we, the Official Opposition, believe that parliamentarians should be consulted. We pointed out the case of newly industrialized countries and gave the example of Singapore and South Korea, which now benefit from the general preferential tariff. What we should be asking is whether Canada should continue to extend its general preferential tariff to those countries.

The minister made the pertinent comment that the United States has stopped extending its general preferential tariff to such countries, while Japan and Europe have not done so yet. He went on to say that the government is not really looking at this issue for the time being but that it would reconsider if Japan and Europe decided to move in that direction. This is quite surprising from a government claiming to be in favour of implementing a more independent policy.

We also looked at the case of the People's Republic of China, which is the main beneficiary of Canada's general preferential tariff, to the tune of about 40 per cent. As we know full well, China is guilty of human rights violations and we asked the following question: Should countries such as that one with very little respect for human rights continue to benefit from Canada's general preferential tariff?

The minister was a little evasive in answering these questions and we asked him to consult parliamentarians. We do not want him to wait for us to express our interest in the general preferential tariff through a parliamentary committee or through individual initiatives. We would have expected the government to take the initiative, as it has done since this session started, to consult parliamentarians on this issue with a great impact on our foreign policy.

Having said that, I reiterate our full support for this bill whose goals, as we said earlier, are quite honourable and commendable.

I thank the government for bringing this issue to the attention of the House at the very beginning of the session. I also thank the minister for answering the questions we asked him in committee of the whole. I thank all hon. members who took part in the debate; it was very interesting. As far as the committee of the whole is concerned, I must point out the work done by the interpreters, who had a difficult job to do during this rather fast-paced exchange.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the support staff on both sides of the House, who assisted us in our research. As the minister underlined, the research was well documented and, in this regard, I must say how much we in the Official Opposition appreciate the work done by our researcher, Hugo Séguin.

I reiterate our support for this bill and urge once again the minister to reconsider his decision not to consult parliamentarians as a matter of course and to decide instead to consult us and

bring to our attention any change to the tariff or to the list of beneficiary countries.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a good experience for me to be involved with this bill, a new experience for a farmer who just knows how to turn tractor wheels instead of turning politicians.

It has been really gratifying to see this bill go through the House in a smooth order. We have had some very good debate. We have looked at some issues. I have expressed, as my colleagues have, that there are some concerns. We believe fully that the hon. minister will take these concerns to heart and be vigilant about them.

I have followed the career of the hon. minister somewhat in his previous business experience and I always appreciated his comments. I know that he always stressed that we had to have black at the bottom instead of red. If he watches this bill as intently as he did at that time for his profession and makes sure that the majority of times the Canadian government will be in the black with these trading relationships it will be a benefit for the country.

I have faith in this hon. minister that he will do that because he is a Canadian, as we Reformers are. We have very strongly made the comments in this House that we are for free trade but that we also believe in fair trade. That is one of the stipulations that the hon. minister has to accept. We will be critical when it is not fair trade but we will support him very strongly in freer trade with these underdeveloped countries.

I really enjoyed the debate in this House. Where I have made a few mistakes I hope hon. members will forgive me and bear with me so that in the future we can operate this House and continue to make decisions that are positive for this nation as a whole because that is what we are here for.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before going on I would like to take the occasion, following the remarks from the hon. member for Verchères in reference to the committee of the whole, which is a very important and interesting part of our legislative process, to thank the minister and all members for their co-operation.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

Canada Oil And Gas Operations Act

[Doug Peters, Liberal, for the Minister of Natural Resources]

moved that Bill C-6, an act to amend the Canada Oil

and Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and the National Energy Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, hon. members, I am pleased to speak before this House today during the debate on the second reading of Bill C-6, to amend the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and the National Energy Board Act.

The purpose of this bill is to give the National Energy Board the authority to regulate oil and gas activity in those frontier areas where there are no federal-provincial management agreements.

Specifically the National Energy Board will assume the technical regulatory functions associated with oil and gas drilling and production operations. This involves ensuring that the work is carried out in a way that maximizes resource conservation by ensuring good oilfield practices, protects worker safety and protects our fragile northern and coastal environments.

There are many good reasons behind the transfer of authority to the National Energy Board under this proposed legislation. Since its creation in 1981 the Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administration, or COGLA, administered and regulated activities on frontier lands on behalf of ministers.

Canada's frontier lands, which encompass land north of 60 and the offshore, fall under federal jurisdictions. The Minister of National Resources shares the responsibility for administering these lands with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

While COGLA served the government well, its role has changed and contracted over the years. Following the conclusion of the agreements with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland regulation of the east coast offshore was delegated to joint offshore boards. Further, it was anticipated that the federal role would continue to diminish with the signing of agreements which would transfer onshore oil and gas responsibilities to the territorial governments.

As a result COGLA was disbanded in 1991. COGLA's technical regulatory responsibilities and many of its staff were assigned to the National Energy Board in Calgary at that time. However, three years later decision making authority still rests with ministers in Ottawa who must approve even minor regulatory decisions. This is a time consuming, complicated and

ineffective process. It is time to act decisively to give the NEB the authority to make decisions to do its job.

Through this bill the Government of Canada proposes to consolidate frontier oil and gas regulation. This will streamline and simplify the approval process and operational responsibilities as well. These changes represent a small but important step.

We believe that it is crucial that in an increasingly competitive world we must provide Canadians and foreign investors with a clear regulatory framework in which to operate. The federal government must demonstrate a commitment to establish a regulatory environment that minimizes the burden on those who will ultimately create the opportunities and jobs to which this government is firmly committed.

[Translation]

These changes are reflective of another important Government of Canada priority-to ensure that government services are delivered in a cost effective manner. We recognize that reducing the deficit and restraining government expenditure is a priority for all Canadians.

In times of fiscal austerity such as these governments must make every effort to look for ways to give the taxpayers of this country the best value for their money. One way to do so is to ensure that the size and the structure of our institutions reflect the level of work required of them.

This bill represents another step in the ongoing process of effectively downsizing and reorganizing government responsibilities.

In addition to savings for taxpayers, this bill should result in cost savings for energy. Through streamlining operations we will save industry time and we recognize that for industry time is money. Just as important, however, we are maintaining the quality and integrity of the regulatory process of Canada's oil and gas sectors.

I see that it is eleven o'clock. With the Chair's permission I will stop here and perhaps the House can proceed with members' statements and question period.

[The Speaker]

I do thank the hon. member for being so understanding.

It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.

Women In Agriculture

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in commemoration of International Women's Week I would like to say a few words about the considerable contribution of Canadian women in the field of agriculture.

The shift in the role of rural women has been growing ever since grain and land prices collapsed in the early 1980s.

Between 1981 and 1986, while the total number of farm operators in Canada fell by 8 per cent, the number of female farm operators increased by 18 per cent.

Farm women are suddenly in startling numbers becoming co-managers with their husbands or becoming sole operators. They are proving to be very sharp in the business and marketing end of the industry, a crucial element of modern day agriculture.

I have co-managed our family farm with my husband and family for 25 years.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute the growing contributions of Canadian farm women who, in partnership or alone, have successfully adapted to the increasing complexities of the agriculture industry.

Government Spending

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the election of the Liberal government, we have kept hearing in this House and in committees that Quebecers and Canadians must tighten their belts, that governments can no longer provide families and seniors with the social security to which they are entitled.

In spite of all that, how can one explain that, since the start of the year, a worthy representative of Her Majesty used the Challenger jet twice for vacation trips to the South? How can one decently defend a bill of $160,000 or maybe even $700,000, as the newspapers report, to allow him and his wife to go and take a rest?

The answer is clear: it is an indefensible, immoral decision.

Parliamentary Publications

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, each day my office is inundated with paper, everything from copies of Hansard to various government publications. A large portion of this steady paper flow ends up as waste.

In 1992 the Hill produced 472 tonnes of paper waste. When I asked if there was a more efficient way of providing MPs with information, I learned that Parliamentary Publications is already working toward this goal.

It is developing a CD ROM computer system which will eventually allow MPs and their staff to access publications such as Hansard through their computers. This new system will not only be environmentally friendly but will also cut down on the government's printing budget. According to the House of Commons estimates for 1994-95, the new system will save the government between $200,000 and $300,000.

Other areas of government are also moving in this modern, cost efficient direction; Revenue Canada, for example. I would urge not only the departments but the ministers of government to take leadership and implement this important stage for others.

Alberta

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Government of Alberta for its generous gesture to renegotiate its loan arrangements with the Government of Newfoundland in recognition of the tough times Newfoundland is experiencing as a result of the collapse of the cod fishery there.

This gesture demonstrates a generosity of spirit which has manifested the Canadian tradition of sharing, co-operating and assisting one another to make this country a better place.

That spirit has allowed us to make Canada one of the most desirable places in the world to live. This spirit of collective will and national goals is shared by Canadians in all provinces, including Quebecers, but regrettably it is not reflected in a major policy plank of the Official Opposition which pursues a policy of separation.

We should all be grateful that we have the privilege of considering that policy in a peaceful and democratic way in Ottawa, in Quebec City and in all provinces.

However, I want to suggest today that in many ways this commendable gesture by the province of Alberta is the antithesis of the separatist plank of the Official Opposition.

Education

[Ian Murray, Liberal, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, education is the cornerstone of economic development in modern societies.

To succeed in competitive world markets we must continue to invest in people. Canada spends some $55 billion per year on education and training. The level of our investment is world class but the relevance and equality of Canadian education are being questioned.

On February 28 the Minister of Human Resources Development met with provincial ministers. The federal government supported the national agenda announced last fall by the Council of Ministers of Education in its Victoria joint declaration.

This government is working closely with the council to address issues facing Canadian education. We look forward to the council's national consultation on education scheduled for May 26 to May 29 in Montreal in which over 300 participants will represent all partners in education.

Electoral Redistribution In Saskatchewan

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the question of electoral redistribution in Saskatchewan.

I understand redistribution is done as required by statute after each decennial census. In Saskatchewan we neither gain nor lose seats. In this time of fiscal restraint I find it difficult to understand why we need to spend millions of dollars to change ridings that are well represented by current members of Parliament.

Redistribution will not mean more effective representation in Saskatchewan.

Therefore I call upon the government to introduce legislation to forgo redistribution in Saskatchewan on this decennial census. This would save the Canadian taxpayers money and preserve the representation that they now enjoy.

Via Rail

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that the Minister of Transport intends to make major cuts in the subsidies to VIA Rail for the transportation of passengers. In light of the economic hardship experienced by this crown corporation, the government has decided to abandon public transportation instead of taking the necessary

measures to help VIA Rail, at a time when the corporation has already begun to reduce its operating costs.

Whether it is passenger or freight transportation, the Liberal government is promoting the slow death of railway transport, particularly in eastern Quebec. The government seems quite remote from the concern of Canadians who want a public transportation system which is fair and respectful of the environment. In this difficult economic context, when employment is scarce, the Liberal government is losing interest in VIA Rail, a crown corporation which generates more than 23,000 permanent jobs.

Forestry

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the United Kingdom, Scott Paper Limited has cancelled its pulp contract with MacMillan Bloedel. This contract was worth $5.4 million and represents a substantial loss of Canadian export business.

This cancellation is the result of threats; threats made by Greenpeace, threats based on misinformation about B.C. forest practices.

Now is the time for Canada to address the lies being spread in Europe and the U.K. We in this House must ensure that foreign companies are not blackmailed by misinformation campaigns and if we are to live up to the promise of jobs and sustainable development action must be taken to protect Canada's number one industry.

Les Braves Volleyball Team

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that a volleyball team from a high school in Hamilton has been selected to represent Canada at an international tournament, to be held next May, in Paris. Most of these young athletes are English speaking and come from various ethnic backgrounds. They attend the École Saint-Jean-de-Brébeuf, named after one the greatest heroes and martyrs of New France in the seventeenth century.

These young Ontarians will therefore be perfect ambassadors, since they embody the two cultures of Canada. Their team's name is "Les Braves". I invite the House to congratulate them by using a word which is the same in both languages, and that is "Bravo".

Terrorism

[David Berger, Liberal, Saint-Henri—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that as peace comes closer between Israel and the Palestinian people so does the prospect of terrorist action designed to hurt and outrage, to fuel distrust, fear and hatred.

When tragic and terrible violence occurs it is essential that we continue to support those engaged in the search for peace. I found encouraging the powerful statements by Prime Minister Rabin in the aftermath of the Hebron massacre and as well the forceful condemnation by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of the murderous attack on Jewish youth in New York.

It is important that members of all faiths and communities examine more carefully their own habits of thought and expression so that these cannot fuel the acts of extremists, so that they can never believe that they are merely zealots acting as true agents of God and their people.

It is such mistaken beliefs that lead to the most hateful acts.