Lynn Myers

[Red Cross, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that Saturday, May 8 is World Red Cross-Red Crescent Day. This day celebrates the humanitarian work of millions of Red Cross-Red Crescent staff and volunteers worldwide.

Among the countless number of victims of conflict and disaster worldwide helped by the Red Cross were the people in Central America devastated by hurricane Mitch and now the refugees from Kosovo.

In honour of the millennium, the international family of the Red Cross is celebrating the theme “Power of Humanity”, the guiding principle for all the Red Cross' work: “The rehabilitation of people suffering the consequences of war, violence, natural disaster and malnutrition”.

I would ask all members to please join me in recognizing the Canadian Red Cross for its great work and in wishing them a very successful World Red Cross-Red Crescent Day.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite for St. John's East. He made a very compelling speech.

I think he was very sincere when he spoke of poverty and single moms and children in terms of the Canadian experience. As he was speaking I was thinking that some of that sincerity is a little diluted when we start to think about the hon. member's party and former leader Mr. Mulroney and the kinds of things they did during their tenure in power.

For example, I think of the high employment insurance premiums. I think of the very high unemployment rate. I think of the kinds of things that were put in place that exacerbated the problem and the $42 billion deficit. This was the legacy that the Tory party left to us to clean up. The hon. member with some sincerity is trying to make his points but that sincerity is somewhat diluted.

We on the government side have been very consistent in trying to do the right thing in this all important area. We have worked very hard on this to ensure that we do the right thing for young people and for poor people wherever they may live in Canada. We have worked very hard. For example, there is the child tax credit and other income tax measures that we put in place to ensure that lower income people no longer have to pay taxes. Those are but just a few tangible examples of what the government has done in this very important area.

I used to be the chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police. When it comes to issues like poverty there are measures that communities, educational systems and groups throughout various parts of Canada need to do and pull together. There are justice and economic issues. Measures need to be put in place in a co-operative way.

It was my experience in my former role as chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police that if we spend a dollar now we will save $7 later. If we bring those kinds of measures into focus it will especially assist our young people who need that very important first start in life in terms of where they go and how they extend through their lifetime the kinds of things that are important to them and their families.

Would the hon. member for St. John's East agree with me that an investment of a dollar now for our young people is important? As an investment it will ensure that we save $7 dollars later.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

What about Brazil? Maybe we want to go to the Brazil system next.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we on the government side and in the Liberal Party always respect the membership. We advance accordingly, knowing full well that they have a tremendous contribution to make. Certainly that has been the way we have traditionally operated and it will be the way we continue to operate.

Having said that, I want to say how gratified I was to hear the hon. member opposite say that he agreed with my speech about the need for Canada to export. I think he understands, or understands hopefully, that we on the government side are somewhat on the right track in this matter. That is very important to note.

In 1997 the member for Fundy—Royal had private member's motion No. 214. I will read from that motion:

—the government should actively develop an innovative national shipbuilding policy which focuses on making shipyards internationally competitive by providing tax incentives and construction financing comparable to what is being provided elsewhere in the world and which ensures reasonable access to foreign markets, particularly the United States of America—

The hon. member for Fundy—Royal was really saying that he has concern over the Jones act, the 1920 piece of legislation. I find that very interesting coming from the very party that allowed that to go forward under the free trade agreement. It is outrageous, quite frankly, that they would have let that proceed in the manner they did and now we are stuck with that kind of nonsense.

For the hon. member to talk out of one side of his mouth on a motion back in 1997 and quite differently now is quite interesting.

During that same debate the member for Saint John went on to suggest improvements to export financing and loan guarantees. She talked about the exclusion of newly Canadian constructed ships from the present Revenue Canada leasing regulations. “For the life of me,” she said, “I cannot understand why the government would not look favourably on that. It is done for rail cars, vans, trucks and computers”.

Let me point out that by any other name is a subsidy. If it quacks like a duck, I can guarantee it is a duck. That is a subsidy, something that those people opposite say they are not in favour of yet that is exactly what it is.

The implication of that would be enormous. The domino effect it would have on all other industries would be outrageous. I say to them their unfairness will not work and it is simply something we in the government will not buy.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the member would want on the record my comments about attending Liberal Party conventions. Let me say categorically through you, Mr. Speaker, that I am very proud to have attended all of them that I can remember since 1965.

Unlike the approach of the Bloc members opposite, we on this side of the House no matter where we live or which ridings we represent in Canada, speak as a government on behalf of all Canadians. While the Bloc members have a parochial view of the country and while they want to divide as opposed to unite, we on this side of the House pull together in a way that is meaningful for Canadians no matter where they live in this great country.

I can tell the Bloc that we over time, not only in the past, will continue to support this very important sector of the economy. Shipbuilding is absolutely crucial to Canada. It is fundamental to out very values not only going back through history but also projecting into the future.

We as a government will continue to maintain that kind of approach in the best interests of this very important sector and in the best interests of Canadians wherever they may live.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that this is a very important debate. I have listened very closely to all hon. members today talk about this very important industry. It is important that Canadians have the opportunity to hear the points of view of members of the House because, indeed, this is important and something which all Canadians should, and in fact do, take very seriously.

In her motion the hon. member for Saint John refers to Canada's coastline as being the longest in the world, and I think she is correct. I would also add that we have the largest bodies of inland water in the world and, by these measures, we are certainly a maritime nation. I do not think anyone disputes that.

However, it is fair to point out that the hon. member should not equate this geography with a high domestic demand for shipbuilding. It is simply not there. This is a reality for Canada and it is something that we must face. Therefore, for Canada to remain in the shipbuilding industry, we must export. That is the reality of the world in which we live today.

This is an industry for Canadians in which we must succeed in global markets because our domestic market is simply not big enough. International competitiveness is the key to all of this; competitiveness, moreover, that must come at a time when there is substantial overcapacity in shipbuilding around the world. The OECD, for example, predicts that by the year 2005 the overcapacity will reach 40%.

To respond to overcapacity in this country the Canadian shipbuilding sector has already gone through a voluntary industry-led rationalization process. That is important to note because it underscores its commitment to this very important rationalization.

The Government of Canada has contributed $198 million to this process. Through the reorganization and streamlining of its operations over the past decade the Canadian industry has been able to improve its productivity levels. That is something we can all be very proud of.

However, it still faces very tough competition from international markets. That is the kind of world in which we live in the late 1990s, into the year 2000 and beyond. The way to meet that competition is not to go to the government to ask for money from the taxpayers. I think those days are over, as the opposition parties are proposing. Rather, the solution lies in building competitiveness through innovation by offering generous research and development tax credits, for example, and by promoting enabling industries which give Canada-built ships the technological edge. That is where the world of tomorrow is at.

The solution, I would also submit, lies in providing support for export financing through the Export Development Corporation. As we know, the EDC has improved the financing packages available to shipbuilders. The terms of repayment, as has been noted in the House, have been increased from eight to twelve years and interest rates now match the commercial rates that we know.

Finally, I think the solution lies in convincing other countries to stop their wasteful and burdensome subsidies so that all nations can compete on a level playing field. I think that is important too as we move into the 21st century.

We should then negotiate down rather than subsidize up. That is where the world lies.

The Government of Canada is doing this. We should be continuing to do so through the OECD and the World Trade Organization negotiations on shipbuilding. That we will and must continue to do.

I also want to point out that some provincial governments in Canada have taken a different approach. For example, the province of Quebec announced four incentives for shipbuilding in its 1996-97 budget. I will elaborate on those four points. The first is the marine construction loan guarantee program which was included in that budget. The second is an income tax holiday for Quebec sailors assigned to international freighters. The third is a refundable tax credit for shipbuilders. The final incentive is a capital tax reduction for taxpayers who acquire Quebec built ships. Those are significant changes and certainly we note them in parliament.

Some members of the Bloc have argued that the federal tax system undermines some of these measures. That is simply not the case. The record needs to be set straight. The operation of the federal tax system does not cancel or eliminate the benefits of provincial programs which are designed to support particular industries. In general, the federal tax system provides for tax deductions and credits based on the actual amount of costs incurred, net of any provincial assistance. To do otherwise would provide tax deductions or tax credits for costs that a taxpayer has not incurred. We need to note that and we need to understand it fully so that all Canadians know exactly what the case is in this matter.

I would emphasize that the federal government has also supported the shipbuilding industry in Quebec. Between 1986 and 1993, for example, the federal government invested almost $1.6 billion in Davie Industries in the form of contracts, contributions and loan guarantees. As hon. members are aware, Davie Industries is now under the protection of the Bankruptcy Act following the bankruptcy of its owner, Dominion Bridge Corporation. Davie Industries will receive all of the benefits to which it is entitled under the act. Meanwhile, Davie Industries has a contract to modify the Spirit of Columbus oil platform for Brazil. The Export Development Corporation is studying a proposal to supply export financing to support this project.

The Government of Canada has a generous package of measures which, in conjunction with provincial policies and sound industrial practice, benefits shipbuilders. In addition to EDC financing, for example, this package includes an accelerated capital cost allowance and very generous R and D tax credits. It includes a duty on ship imports and domestic procurement for all government shipbuilding and ship repair needs.

I want to emphasize once again, and I know we have heard it throughout the course of this debate, that the government is now and always has been supportive of the shipbuilding industry and will continue to encourage its development. That is, after all, what Canadians want.

The federal government already provides strong support in this area to the industry. It is important to note these points. There is in the form of support an accelerated capital cost allowance of 33.3% for Canadian built ships. There is a 25% tariff on most non-NAFTA ship imports. There is domestic procurement by the federal government for all government shipbuilding and ship repair needs. There is the Export Development Corporation financing for commercially viable transactions. There is a very favourable research and development tax credit system. All of these things underscore our commitment in this very important area.

The shipbuilding industry also has access to the enabling element of technology partnerships Canada. That program supports the private sector through investments sharing both risk and reward.

Our objective as a government in this very important sector is to make sure it is competitive and therefore able to win in international markets without subsidies. That is what all Canadians want. As a result, our policies and programs are working. The Canadian shipbuilding sector is now more streamlined and viable as a result, which is something we can all be proud of.

The global shipbuilding marketplace is restructured. We see that and we know that is happening throughout the world. Labour costs, aggressive pricing practices and shipowner national loyalty are having an impact in this important area, as is the growth of large integrated companies which build ships for their own use.

Government subsidies could be one way to respond to these changes but it would not be a good way. Instead, Canada should be enabling its shipbuilding industry to focus on high productivity, research and development that provides value added components, modernization and innovative marketing. These are important things that we as a government are aggressively pursuing, and rightfully so, on behalf of this important sector.

That is the route we as the government are taking. I hope other members in the House will support that approach by voting down the hon. member's motion. This is the way we need to proceed, the way we need to move into the 21st century. This is the approach that will be in the best interests of Canada and all Canadians wherever they may live in this great country of ours.

[Royal Canadian Legion, May 3rd, 1999]

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.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is incumbent upon us always to look at various conventions and other articles of law in the context of world peace. What we are doing in that part of the world is effective and it is important that we carry on in a manner consistent with the values of Canadians and our NATO allies. That is the right course. Canadians expect us to do that and that is precisely what we are doing.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the points she raised. We need to work together effectively to bring about the kind of solution that is important for this part of the world.

It is indeed a problem area and we need to stay the course in this very important effort. It is incumbent upon the Canadian government to do so and I know that the Canadian people are very much with us in this matter, knowing full well that we are doing the right thing and doing it in a manner consistent with the values that unite us as a nation and define us as a people.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with a colleague.

Over the past few months we have witnessed the greatest humanitarian disaster in Europe since World War II. In the heart of Europe and on NATO's doorstep the people of Kosovo have been forced to abandon their homeland and have suffered unimaginable atrocities, not because of anything they have done, but simply because of who they are. We hear reports of men being taken outside their homes to be shot, women being raped in front of their families and children being orphaned.

The motion before the House calls for a diplomatic solution. This has always been the preferred course and NATO's political objectives still include a diplomatic settlement. This motion not only ignores this fact, it also ignores the situation which confronts us.

After long and hard months of political and diplomatic activity, Canada and its allies have chosen to taken military action. The resort to military force in Yugoslavia was a decision reluctantly taken, but Mr. Milosevic left us no choice. He consistently has refused to live up to agreements he has made. At the 11th hour at Rambouillet the Yugoslavs turned their backs on diplomacy. Taking military action was, and still is, the right decision.

The alternative, to do nothing and allow Mr. Milosevic to pursue his deliberate policy of repression and ethnic violence, was simply unacceptable to Canada, the NATO alliance and, indeed, the international community. By responding as we did, Canada and its allies have taken a strong step toward a goal that has always been in our national interest, a peaceful and democratic Europe.

Our military objective is clear and our will to see it met is unshakeable. The NATO campaign is aimed at diminishing and degrading the tools the Milosevic regime has been using against helpless civilians in Kosovo since last year: the Yugoslav military, the police and paramilitary forces.

This will not be a short mission. It is difficult to be patient amidst such a humanitarian tragedy, but we should not waver from our chosen course. All NATO allies understood from the beginning that the struggle was not going to be easy. Military operations as large as this rarely are easy, if ever, and we need to provide the desired results as soon as we can, but it will take time.

The air campaign is having an effect on the Yugoslav military and police forces. The first phase of the air campaign struck at the nervous system of the Yugoslav military machine, its air defence and command and control networks. The second phase is designed to degrade the overall strategic capability of the Milosevic regime. This includes strikes against Yugoslav forces operating in and outside Kosovo, at military infrastructure and at other assets which allow the Yugoslav forces to operate.

Past experience shows that Mr. Milosevic does not respond without pressure. NATO operations are making him pay a price for his actions. In the space of a few weeks NATO attacks have destroyed more than 50% of Yugoslavia's fuel reserves and significantly reduced the capacity to refine the remaining oil. Sixteen of Yugoslavia's early warning radar sites have also been severely damaged or destroyed, and 35 ground attack aircraft and half of Serbia's MiG-29 Fulcrum fleet are gone. Airfields and aircraft support facilities have been severely damaged and key routes which Yugoslav forces used to move supplies to and from Kosovo and other parts of the country have been degraded.

It is important for everyone to recognize that these strikes are having a real impact on the situation on the ground. Yugoslav forces are running into problems with fuel, with munitions and they are having trouble supplying their planes and tanks. NATO has steadily intensified its air campaign by increasing the scope and tempo of operations and will continue to do so until Mr. Milosevic accepts the legitimate demands set out by the international community.

Over the course of the last three weeks Canada and other NATO allies have increased their contribution of aircraft to the campaign. The Canadian forces are playing a significant role in this operation and we are all very proud of their efforts in that regard. Our initial contribution of six CF-18 fighter aircraft was increased to twelve in response to a NATO request for additional combat power. In response to NATO's most recent request for additional aircraft, Canada announced on April 17 that another six CF-18s would be deployed, bringing the total Canadian contribution of CF-18s to eighteen.

Canadian forces members are also playing an important role by flying in the NATO airborne warning and control aircraft. These planes not only help direct our planes to their targets, they also provide warning information about hostile aircraft.

NATO is prepared to introduce ground forces in Yugoslavia to monitor and enforce a peace agreement along the lines set out by the Rambouillet talks in February. That is important to note. This is a clear demonstration that although we are currently engaged in military operations, NATO wants and is desperately looking for a diplomatic solution, and is actively preparing for the time when such a solution is reached. I believe that is important.

If Mr. Milosevic chooses peace and meets the demands of the international community—and we hope he does—a peace monitoring and implementation force will be established. As the government announced during the House debate on this subject, Canada is prepared to contribute between 500 and 800 personnel to this end.

This past weekend in Washington NATO marked its 50th anniversary. There was a clear message of unity and determination among alliance members to end the violence in Kosovo. The crisis represents a fundamental challenge to the values for which NATO has stood for half a century: democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Canada and its allies seek a diplomatic solution, but we are being realistic about how this can be brought about. Words alone will not bring Mr. Milosevic to his senses, and that is unfortunate. We tried for months and it produced nothing. NATO wants a diplomatic solution, but we have to make Mr. Milosevic want one as well. To do this, more than words are required.

Intensified military operations are designed to put more pressure on Belgrade. Reducing this pressure would do nothing to bring about a solution at this time. I want to emphasize that diplomacy has not been forgotten.

In Washington NATO allies recognize the role that Russia can play in trying to find a diplomatic solution based on the conditions set out by NATO and the international community. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to Moscow to hold discussions with the Russians regarding this matter. The diplomatic route can be retaken at any time, but that decision lies with Mr. Milosevic.

Today the European continent is confronting a serious crisis. Kosovo is a very small place on a very large fault line, an historic crossroads of religion and ethnicity that has often bred hatred and violence. It is in the national interest of Canada and its allies to prevent this region from once again sparking wider instability, just as we have a moral imperative to not simply watch from the sidelines as hundreds and thousands of people are brutalized and forced from their homes.

For these reasons we must stay the course and end the violence in Kosovo. Peace will not be achieved if we are weak willed and lose the courage of our convictions. We must continue to hold the tools of diplomacy in one hand and military means in the other. The dark forces at work in Kosovo will not be turned back in any other way, and that is important to note.