Roger Gallaway

[Cable Rates, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as consumers many Canadians believe that their home cable rates are set by the CRTC.

Due to the complexities of the cable companies' sales vocabulary, the truth is that basic cable rates are controlled but that extended cable rates float at whatever the local supplier demands. Certainly I am not opposed to open market pricing if the market is truly open.

Let me invite all present or who are watching today to call their local cable companies to request the basic cable service as defined by the CRTC and not extended cable service as defined by their local cable companies. Next, try to find another cable carrier in your neighbourhood to give a competing bid.

After you have realized that the marketplace limits that type of competition, get out your chequebook because you are about to pay for six new channels that have been authorized by the CRTC. This is an open market with no choice. Pay up or look for the rabbit ears.

[St. Lawrence Seaway, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a recent subcommittee report highlighted our under usage of the St. Lawrence seaway system.

It is my hope the justice department will approve the proposal submitted to it by interested operators to allow cruise ships to sail the lakes. With 14 million Americans within a one-hour

drive of my riding I would welcome approval to allow them to enter Canada to enjoy the pleasure of sailing the lakes.

This is an opportunity for the federal government to see a tidal wave of American tourist dollars enter Canada, with a resulting spin-off being increased employment in our hospitality industries.

Skagway, Alaska with a population of 700 people welcomes 300,000 people each summer from cruise ships. Ports of all sizes along the Great Lakes would welcome the same level of prosperity if timely approval is given.

The Great Lakes Conference of Mayors recognized the potential of this industry more than a year ago. I urge the departments of justice and finance to move this concept to the approval stage quickly before our American neighbours control this industry.

[Translation]

[Student Loans, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to join in the debate this morning on the important subject of Canada's post-secondary education system. I commend the leader of the Reform Party for having taken the initiative to place the issue of federal support for our colleges and universities on the parliamentary agenda, as he did last spring, and for his suggestions regarding the concept of income contingent repayment or ICR of student loans.

I believe this debate is helping members of the House gain insights into the importance of higher education to our country's future and how the federal government can work with the provinces to assist our colleges and universities. Since this motion was introduced last spring, however, there have been several important developments.

First, the government moved the new Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, which is known as Bill C-28, through Parliament to receive royal assent. The new legislation, which provides the framework for reforming the Canada student loans program, will be proclaimed in 1995. The new act provides the flexibility to implement the ICR pilot projects with interested provinces. This possibility is being pursued as a means of learning more about how an ICR scheme might be designed to meet Canadian conditions.

The government has moved quickly to implement its students' assistance reforms by increasing assistance for those students who need it the most. In August of this year the full time Canada student loan limit was increased from $105 per week to $165 per week and the limit on part time loans was raised from $2,500 to $4,000.

Over the next five years the changes already announced to our existing student assistance program will provide $6 billion in loans, which is over $2 billion more than during the last five years. The reforms include not only higher loan limits but special grants for students with disabilities, part time students and women in certain fields of study at the PhD level.

In addition to the reforms already under way in the area of student assistance, the government has demonstrated its keen interest in the future of post-secondary education by informing Canadians about federal assistance to the post-secondary system and putting forward an innovative approach for discussion.

The social security green paper provides two options for the future of established programs financing arrangements for post-secondary education. Under the first, total transfers would be frozen at the 1993-94 level starting in 1996-97. The result would be that as the tax portion of the transfer grows with the economy, the cash transfers will decline correspondingly, disappearing altogether within about ten years' time.

On the other hand, if we have an opportunity, we could transfer the declining cash into a sustainable system of loans and grants. These new loans could be based on the concept of income contingent repayment. For those who enjoy relatively high income after their studies, the rate of repayment would be rapid. Those who experience periods of low income would repay only when they were in a position to do so. The repayment would adjust automatically to income, thus reflecting the ability to pay rather than the amount borrowed. Those of us in riding offices know a lot about that.

We are discussing this concept with interest groups and provinces, examining how such a system might work in Canada. The government is guided by the principle of equality and at the same time the belief that those who benefit from post-secondary education have a responsibility to pay a fair share of the costs of their education.

We believe that every Canadian has the right to an equal opportunity in the workplace and in the classroom, consistent with the ability to do the job or handle the course work. At the same time, government resources are very limited and must be directed to those who need help to help themselves. It is true that students are often needy while they are in post-secondary

education, but thereafter their employment prospects and incomes usually improve dramatically. On average, post-secondary graduates earn 40 per cent more than the general workforce over their careers.

Once graduates begin to reap the benefits of higher education it seems reasonable that they should pay back part of the costs which society has invested in them. We are proposing that students take on a greater share of the costs of their education. We are asking them to invest in themselves. This is the option we want to discuss with Canadians.

The potential advantages of income contingent repayment or ICR have been widely discussed in recent years and several countries, including Australia and New Zealand, have moved to introduce ICR schemes. Clearly, in making his original motion, the hon. member concluded that ICR could be an important tool in assisting students in financing their education.

An ICR loan program would be fairer and less risky for students. Payments would be geared to income. If a year's earnings fell below a certain level, repayment of the loan could be suspended.

ICR has the potential of making loans available to all students without the means testing used in current student loans programs. If the government was not paying the interest on the loans while the students were still in school, there would be no need to limit eligibility.

The ICR concept, as it could apply, is currently being explored. The specific design would have to be tailored to reflect the Canadian environment. The government is undertaking work in this area in consultation with various student and other interest groups and will involve the provinces fully in such consultations.

We believe that ICR loans have a role to play in helping to maintain a high quality system of post-secondary education through the provision of a sustainable source of funding.

As I have indicated, the discussion paper on social security reform suggests a new approach to how the federal government might transform its decline in cash transfers into a sustainable system of income contingent loans and grants. This represents an innovative approach to dealing with the challenges ahead. The idea is receiving considerable support and the option deserves consideration.

To successfully face the challenges of the future, Canada needs well-educated young people and citizens who will continue to learn throughout their lives. The government is seeking ways to help Canadians achieve their learning goals through improved access to higher education.

As part of our social security reforms, we must enable Canadians to develop the tools they need to become productive and self-sufficient members of society. Our objectives must remain consistent with the Canadian value of fairness and generosity to those in difficulty while recognizing that governments have limited resources. Quite simply, we must help people to help themselves.

The government is listening to Canadians. We have put post-secondary education high on our list of priorities through reforms to the existing student assistance program and proposals in the social security reform paper.

The standing committee has already started its consultations from coast to coast and many members are conducting forums on social security reform in their own constituencies.

We look forward to hearing from Canadians in all walks of life.

[Standing Committee On Canadian Heritage, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, many will recall Marlon Brando as the godfather when he muttered: "A favour is a favour".

Yesterday Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage collectively played the role of godperson to the hon. member for Calgary Southeast. Hon. members should know the hon. member for Calgary Southeast refused to propose or even vote on a motion authorizing funding for witnesses from western Canada to appear before the committee, the very witnesses the hon. member had previously insisted must appear.

Lack of funding would have killed the agreement the member had vehemently insisted upon. Certainly, in the vernacular, all members have bad hair days but perhaps the hon. member would like to manger ses mots.

We must restore trust in politicians. Trust only begins when we live up to the spirit and intent of agreements made in this our parliamentary home. In her own words I would like to say again: "Anything less would be absolutely outrageous".

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt that we are able to graduate the kind of talent necessary to operate. As I have mentioned, we have led the way in many respects in terms of gas technology and other facets of the refining industry which is part and parcel related to the petrochemical industry. We have led the way in that in terms of technology and in terms of costs of unit production.

We are having problems with an aging workforce. The technology has changed so rapidly that it is sometimes difficult for that workforce to appreciate or to have a full understanding of what the science applied is at that particular given point.

That is an industry-wide problem. It does not apply just to Canada. It is happening in the United States, especially in the gulf coast region where the industry must constantly upgrade its workforce, not because it is a poorly trained workforce but because the science and technology is changing to the point that these people cannot appreciate the complexities of the theoretical level of what is happening.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, what so often happens with members opposite is they give true meaning to the Latin term non sequitur. In any event, I would have to confirm first what he has had to say before I could really offer any comment.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-57. I am not going to discuss agricultural issues today. I want to discuss the implications of this bill with respect to a major segment of Canadian industry, the petrochemical industry.

I am speaking in one sense out of self-interest because the petrochemical industry happens to be the largest industry in my riding. It came about as a result of chance when oil was first discovered about 20 miles outside the city of Sarnia in the mid-1850s. Oil was brought into the city by truck and train and later by pipeline to the point that Sarnia became an oil town. Out of that evolved the petrochemical industry which now plays a major role in the economy.

The demand for oil and oil related products particularly following the second world war led to an expansion of petrochemical companies throughout Canada but in particular in my riding.

We saw during the post-war period, after the second world war through to the eighties, massive expansion, massive demand for petrochemical related products. We saw that the income of those who worked in this particular segment of the economy was probably the highest per capita income of Canadians.

However, in the eighties, in the downturn, the petrochemical industry suffered a number of economic set backs. There has been a decrease in demand since 1988 due to the recession. There has been an increase in competition in particular in the Asian rim. Changes in government regulations have had a negative impact on an industry that remains very vital to our Canadian economy.

I would point out that in the province of Ontario the provincial government has imposed a number of environmental regulations which are driving business out of this part of the economy. In my riding alone there have been more than 5,000 jobs lost since 1988. Still, it is a vital part of the economy employing something like 17,000 people.

There are 17 petrochemical facilities in my riding. There are the Imperial Oils, the Shell Oils, the Duponts, the list goes on and on. There are 10,000 people directly employed in it and another 7,000 people working in related fields. It is interesting to note that employees in the petrochemical industry earn two and one-half times the annual salary of the average Canadian worker.

We realize that trade liberalization is a key to continued development in this industry. That is why passage of Bill C-57 is essential for the economic well-being of a large number of my constituents. To understand why that is the case, we only need to consider the chemical industry or the petrochemical industry in Canada.

Canada's chemical manufacturing sector has annual sales of over $10 billion and employs some 30,000 Canadians. It provides the basis for a broader chemical and chemical product sector which employs another 90,000 Canadians. This industry is Canada's third largest manufacturing sector and is also third in terms of value added. The chemical industry depends on international markets for its survival. Exports account for well over 50 per cent of annual production in Canada. In some facilities, especially in southern Ontario in my riding, it is well over 80 per cent that is exported.

That is why the normalization of tariffs achieved by the WTO is so important. If we consider for one moment the size of world trade in this industry, we will know that in 1993 total exports of chemicals worldwide were some $313 billion U.S., or 9.2 per cent of total world exports. For the same year total world production was over $1.25 trillion in U.S. funds.

Bill C-57 represents a significant step forward for the chemical manufacturing industry in my riding, throughout Canada and particularly in Alberta. By joining the World Trade Organization Canada and its major trading partners, including the European Union, Japan and the U.S. as well as other industrialized nations have agreed to harmonize a broad range of chemical tariffs at low rates of duty. Any Canadian tariff that is currently below the harmonization levels will remain unchanged.

Also included in the agreement are new global rules for the protection of intellectual property rights, including a set of standards in the area of copyrights and trademarks which commit each government to protect and enforce intellectual property rights. That is very important for Canadians where we have invented a number of procedures of a chemical nature that have been given protection as intellectual property.

This agreement will also result in several benefits for Canada in general. Once again I speak in favour of my riding which will benefit from it.

The reduction and harmonization of most favoured nation tariffs will improve market access for Canadian exports of chemicals and chemical products and plastics to niche markets. This improved access will be particularly beneficial for the export oriented petrochemical and synthetic resin industries located in Canada.

For Canada the strength of the World Trade Organization and the GATT lies in their broad country participation. The disciplines that will apply to developing countries will improve our access to these markets. By providing more open international markets the World Trade Organization agreement will assist the Canadian industry to become better oriented to global markets.

The traditional Canadian branch plant structure is giving way to one that is increasingly world competitive. International manufacturing mandates and research development mandates for Canada will be facilitated by this agreement. The World Trade Organization will also provide an improved dispute settlement regime for a more effective alternative to trade wars.

I would like to talk briefly about the future. Market access for petrochemical products is essential to the continued growth of the industry. It is vital for economic renewal, notwithstanding in whose riding it may be. To be globally competitive means to have real access to global markets. In ratifying this agreement we as a country are taking an important first step. We must continue our efforts if we are to ensure continued growth in this very vital sector of our economy.

Canada's trade negotiations are, in my opinion, to be commended for their accomplishments during the Uruguay round. They were successful in getting the key target markets of Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong to agree to most of the tariff lines. These markets are of particular interest to the petrochemical sector in Canada.

However, other countries-there is no question this is something that must be worked on-must be encouraged to join in in harmonizing their chemical tariffs in the future. In particular I am thinking of China, because China has a chemical industry that is two and a half times the size of Canada's in terms of production. The Chinese industry is growing at the rate of 15 per cent a year and we must convince the Chinese to harmonize their chemical tariffs and discipline restrictive border measures for chemicals so that their borders are also open to our products.

Briefly in conclusion, we have to realize that we are living in a world in which economies of scale are the determining factors. At the present time in Ontario and most Canadian manufacturers of petrochemicals are sized for the national and regional markets but they are not of international scope in size. To be truly competitive these facilities must be world scale in size. To be world scale in size they must be able to freely enter world markets without barriers in place. The larger our market the more efficient and competitive Canadian industry can be. That is obviously a truism.

Our world scale plants in the manufacturing of petrochemicals such as ethylene located in Joffre, Alberta and in my riding of Sarnia, add substantially to our balance of trade with other countries, especially the United States.

As Pacific rim countries attempt to break into the marketplace we are still in a position of strength. Recent studies clearly show that the workforce required to operate these petrochemical facilities is the second most educated and trained workforce today in Canada, second only to the software industry but in many respects virtually identical.

To ensure that there is a place for our technical graduates we as a country must constantly strive to ensure open markets for our goods. Quite simply many of our Asian competitors do not have the skilled employees needed to operate such facilities effectively or efficiently.

We must also remember that the production of petrochemicals ranks highest in Canadian manufacturing in adding value to raw materials. We have the raw feed stock in abundance, one need only visit the gasfields of Alberta to realize the volume of the gas stocks have. We have gas stocks in Ontario also. We must now ensure that we pass this bill in order to ensure that we have

the markets to which we can ship Canadian products. We can use these raw stocks and we can add great value to them in the end.

Finally, without the passage of this bill we will slowly but surely strangle this important segment of our industry in our economy.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a hallmark of members opposite that they do not like to speak about the legislation before the House. They would rather speak about their grand scheme of Canada and their identification through their unique patented processes called townhall meetings.

As a result of all the townhall meetings they are apparently having in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and other provinces, why does the member opposite not tell us the results of what Canadians are telling them in terms of what the number one issues of the day are?

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the hon. member is on the cutting edge of consultation. Once again it would appear that members opposite are the only ones who in some way, as I stated earlier, are able to discern what the public wishes.

He stated that during recent townhall meetings in the west the number one issue was the debt and the deficit. At the same time

members opposite stated that during the election. This party on this side of the House dealt with that during the election and the finance minister is dealing with it now.

In terms of identifying issues I do not think members on that side of the House are in some way on the cutting edge of knowing what Canadians are thinking. I would agree to an extent that they may know what is going on in certain very limited regional areas of the west, but I do not think that in the mainstream of Canada they are able to discern what is on the minds of Canadians.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite interested that a member from the west of Canada would talk about whiskbrooms. I guess he knows more about farming.

I am also quite surprised with the observations made by the speaker in the sense that he feels that in some ways this is a trite and insignificant piece of legislation. I am surprised this would come from a member opposite who in the party sense is always suggesting they are the ones who can discern in their wisdom what people are thinking.

I can safely tell the member opposite that despite what he feels about the triteness of this if he would follow what happens in his constituency office he would find that this delivery of service is a major factor. It is of great concern to seniors. To suggest that in some way dealing with this problem is using a whiskbroom when he would use some other farm device I find quite surprising.

I would ask him to consult with the seniors with whom he deals. I would ask him perhaps to have one of these consultation processes with the seniors whom he serves. I think he would find they would welcome these changes.

In dealing with government bureaucracy, and we all acknowledge there is a certain element, a continuum of bureaucracy, I think he will find that his constituent base will welcome these types of changes. The seniors are going to welcome the streamlining and flattening of the process somewhat and empowering those who make the decisions and collapsing the vertical portion of the system.

We are talking about the delivery of service to primarily a senior base. In the past, the have found the operation of the system to be very frustrating.