Walt Lastewka

[Wine Industry, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. A recent vintners enterprise study out of Niagara says the wine industry in Canada is waiting for federal recognition of the VQA standard for wine.

Canadian access to European markets is hampered because we do not have this national standard. What is the minister doing to ensure that Canadians wines are recognized and when will he bring in a national VQA standard?

[International Trade, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

I raised the issue of trade inequities in international wine markets on previous occasions. In 1996 Canada imported more than $330 million worth of wine from the European Union while Canadian exports to the EU were limited to only $1 million. In 1999 the gap grew.

Why is there this huge imbalance? When will the minister correct the problem?

[Petitions, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition that draws the attention of the House to the fact that Canada has the second highest incident rate of breast cancer in the world, second only to the United States, and the fact that the United States has had a mandatory mammography quality assurance standard since October 1994.

Therefore the petitioners request and call upon parliament to establish legislation and an independent governing body to develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.

[International Trade, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned over the inability of Canadian winemakers to export to some parts of United States.

Despite the free trade deal with the United States, Canadian wines do not have access to American markets.

Could the Minister for International Trade tell us why Canadian worldclass wines do not have access to these markets? What is being done to rectify these conditions?

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I came here in 1993. It was my first time as a member of parliament. The one thing I did over the first couple of years was to understand and respect the clerk, the table officers, the legal counsel and the Speaker of the House to do the right things for this institution and for Canadians across the country who we represent. Mr. Speaker, I maintain that full confidence in all of you.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question and his remarks.

I am not a lawyer. I am a team player. I know that the table, the legislative officers and the legal counsels all have to work together for the good of the hon. member, for me and for every member in this House. I believe, from the discussions we have had today and from the input that our table officers, our legal counsel and our legislators have received, that we will be stronger for that. I believe they have to work together to make this happen for us.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with some pride and some disappointment. I am sure there are members who realize that I have known you for many years, probably longer than anyone in the House. I have known you since you were an educator and an administrator. I have known you through many elections, including the first time you were elected as Speaker of this great House, which was repeated four years later.

Mr. Speaker, I know the task that you have, to look after almost 1,400 employees, a large budget and to administer the House. Part of it includes our table officers and the people who serve to make sure that the House operates in an orderly fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that many times you have asked for order in the House, not for your benefit but for the benefit of members. Many times you have to bring to our attention the fact that we need to get down to the orders of the day.

I know that you as an individual like to give as much freedom as possible to members and people in the House, and that sometimes we end up taking advantage of that, to our detriment.

I am sorry the member for Edmonton North is not here, but the member for Saint John mentioned earlier that you very strongly practise democracy and freedom. You support, probably more than anyone else, the underdog, the minority, the parties with one or two members. You give them a chance to speak, to debate and to be part of this institution. You do it not looking at numbers, but looking at the individuals who represent the people of this country. I thank the member for Saint John for her remarks.

You also tried, for many years, to improve the decorum of the House, working with members of all parties to focus on the reason we are here, which is to serve the people of Canada.

While you were a member you were the chairman of many committees, no matter which party was in power, because your abilities were respected and you were known to deal fairly with the mandate of a committee.

As Speaker you are not here to favour one party over another; you are here to encourage debate. I know that you defend outright that the attacks in the House should not be personal, but to the issues of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I know you have a lot of respect for this institution called the House of Commons. I know you believe very strongly in the importance of proper debate and teamwork of one party, another party, the table officers and the requirement for many people to work together to make sure the House of Commons functions properly. I know you review the precedents of the House many times and use it as your guide. You also protect this fine institution not just for today but for tomorrow and many years to come and to protect our country, Canada.

Mr. Speaker, members have mentioned today that you have ruled in favour of the Reform Party and you have ruled not in favour of the Reform Party. I know you have ruled in favour of the Bloc Party and not in favour of the Bloc Party. You have done the same thing for the other parties, as the member for Saint John said. You have ruled in favour and you have ruled not in favour. You have ruled in favour of the government and you have ruled not in favour of the government. I believe that is why you are there as the Speaker.

To me, this is an example of your impartiality and respect for the House and the House rules that we approve for you to carry out. Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason that I find this accusation of non-confidence totally outrageous and very disappointing. Although people have said it is not a personal attack on your integrity, I am afraid it is. That is very disappointing to me.

I know of your patience and your fairness, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, and will probably want to apologize, that the opposition has taken this opportunity to discredit you because they are trying to get at the government for no valid reason at all.

Before I conclude, I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg South.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I have full confidence in your ability to fulfil the office of Speaker of the House so we, as Canadians, can represent the 301 ridings. We are representing Canadians and we will do it to the best of our ability, as best possible as human-beings, for the good of our country called Canada.

[Niagara Regional Police Service, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Niagara Regional Police Service for its recent receipt of accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.

The commission is an independent, non-profit organization founded by law enforcement membership associations. The commission maintains a body of professional law enforcement standards and administers a voluntary process for participation.

The Niagara Regional Police Service entered this voluntary program to demonstrate its professionalism and pride in delivering quality law enforcement service to Niagara.

The awarding of this accredited status makes the Niagara force and its officers part of an elite group of law enforcement agencies in the United States, Canada and Barbados that have received this prestigious international recognition.

Congratulations to Chief Grant Waddell and to all the members of the Niagara Regional Police Service.

[Craig Swayze, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, may I pay tribute to a respected member of the St. Catharines sports community and the world of rowing, Mr. Craig Swayze.

Mr. Swayze's rowing credentials were many. He was president of the St. Catharines Rowing Club, the Canadian Henley Rowing Corporation and Rowing Canada. He was regatta chairman for the 1970 World Rowing Championships, a Canadian Olympic Association member and a special adviser to the 1999 World Rowing Championships.

Craig Swayze passed away in St. Catharines on February 13. To his wife Lois and family I extend my condolences. Craig Swayze was more than a rowing icon. He was a wonderful husband, father and grandfather.

I am reminded of an interview Craig Swayze had with the St. Catharines Standard in 1996 where he had worked as a journalist for 40 years. He was being honoured by his rowing peers for his tremendous support, commitment and promotional expertise in rowing. In the interview, Mr. Swayze said “Winning races and competing is important, but it's the people who make it worthwhile”.

Craig Swayze was one of those people. He was a true friend. He will be missed.

[Shipbuilding Act, 1999, February 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to private member's Bill C-213, put forward by my hon. colleague, the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. This is essentially a money bill. We could even call it a subsidy bill. The first time this bill was debated at second reading the hon. member argued that one way to promote the Canadian shipbuilding industry would be to improve the loan guarantee program of the Export Development Corporation.

There is a myth that loan guarantee programs are free of cost. This is not true. In fact, in 1998 in the U.S. the costs to the government were roughly $3 billion for contingent liabilities and almost $2 billion on default payments. Based on the experience in the U.S. it would be very costly to set this up. I have talked about this many times before. Taxpayers have told us repeatedly that they do not want more programming. They want tax cuts.

The hon. member also contends that if ships built in Canadian shipyards were exempted from the regulations relating to lease financing, the existing depreciation rates for ships would apply without any restrictions. In consequence, according to him, the tax disadvantage that prevents ownership or lease financing of ships would be eliminated.

The fact is that the shipbuilding industry already has access to the accelerated capital cost allowances, known as CCA. These are more generous than for any other industry and even more generous than tax credits in the U.S.

Furthermore there cannot be both an accelerated CCA and an exemption from leasing regulations. If such a thing were permitted, the cost of a ship could be written off more than once and this would constitute a tax shelter. This is just the kind of situation the current leasing regulations help us to avoid. Moreover, lease financing is contrary to the specified leasing property rules in the Income Tax Act.

The third measure in Bill C-213 is another subsidy, just like the loan guarantees and the exemption from leasing regulations. It would amount to creating on a national basis the same type of program that Quebec set up in 1996-97. Quebec decided to complement the federal shipbuilding policy by creating its own program. I would strongly encourage the other provinces to follow Quebec's example.

These tools are not only subsidies. They are the tools of the past. As we enter the 21st century, the way to take charge of the future is not by returning to the past by way of government subsidies that have proven so disastrous to Canada by nurturing uncompetitive industries. Instead, it is by investing in innovation, by training smart workers and giving them upgraded equipment and production techniques to do the job right, and by forging alliances that will lead industries in the pursuit of excellence.

Canada's shipbuilding and repair industry is quite a small one by world standards accounting for only .04% of the global market share and not the .4% as stated by the hon. member for Fundy—Royal in yesterday's debate. If the industry says it needs to reach only 1% of the world market, this would mean that the industry would have to increase its current share by 25-fold.

The top three shipbuilding and repair nations in the world today are Korea, Japan and China. Together they account for more than 75% of the global market. I think members realize that even the most generous subsidies will not enable the Canadian shipbuilding and repair industry to be competitive in these conditions.

The government's shipbuilding policy does not rely on subsidies. Instead it concentrates on the areas that can make a real difference and that use taxpayers' money wisely.

The acquisition of ships, their repair and refit in Canada by the federal government is done on a competitive basis but is restricted to Canadian sources.

Tax measures such as the accelerated capital cost allowance on new ships built in Canada allow purchasers to write off 100% of the entire cost of the ship over a mere four years.

We have in place a 25% tariff on all non-NAFTA foreign built ships of more than 100 tonnes that enter Canadian waters with the exception of fishing vessels over 100 feet in length.

In response to the shipbuilding and repair industry's conditions, the government spent $198 million on an industry led rationalization process between 1986 and 1993. This money was given directly to the industry for upgrading facilities and assisting displaced workers adjustment programs because the industry itself decided it was necessary to reduce its capacity so that the remaining shipyards could survive and continue to be competitive.

At present, shipyards in Canada employ some 4,950 Canadians. Under the federal government's procurement policy, yards have received more than $8 billion in federal shipbuilding and repair national contracts tendered through the competitive bidding process in the last 10 years.

Canada's research and development tax credit system provides more than $1.3 billion a year to companies that carry out R and D. This source of financing is available to the shipbuilding and repair sector as it is to any other sector.

The federal Export Development Corporation promotes export sales of Canadian products, including ships. For ships alone, this assistance provided on commercial terms has grown from $3.5 million in 1996 to more than $130 million in 1999.

Yes we should be doing all we can in an intelligent way to foster shipbuilding and repair in Canada, but surely this is a shared responsibility. Provinces also have a role to play. Currently only two have set up programs to complement the federal package: Quebec and Nova Scotia. Others may want to follow suit. The members for Fundy—Royal and Saint John if they are serious may want to get their cousins in New Brunswick to follow the Quebec and Nova Scotia lead. Maybe they should put their money up first and complement the Canadian shipbuilding policy.

Just a few minutes ago the member for Fundy—Royal was taking all his credits. He also may want to take credit for when the government was negotiating those agreements and giving everything away, it also allowed the Jones Act to continue in the United States. Now he says it needs to be changed. In other words, after he has given everything away, he now wants to go and resolve it. He might want to take credit for that in all his future speeches.

Our shipbuilding policy is very clear. We have purchased in Canada. We have an accelerated capital cost allowance write-off. We have a 25% tariff on all non-NAFTA foreign built ships. The Export Development Corporation is working with the industry. The more co-operation we get from the shipbuilding provinces, the sweeter the package might be.