Debates of May 3rd, 1999

Supply

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

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.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

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.

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.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

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.

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.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

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.

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.

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.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

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?

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

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”.

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.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

There is no reason.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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.

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.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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.

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.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

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?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

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?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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.

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.

Millbrook Agricultural Fair

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

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

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

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

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

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

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

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.

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

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

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.

Bob White

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

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?

Kosovo

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

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.