Chris Axworthy

[Insurance Industry, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. It arises from the proposed merger of two of Canada's largest insurance companies.

Bearing in mind that these mergers always end up with Canadians losing their jobs, they end up in reduced competition and we do not get better services and better prices as a result, would the minister not consider the advice his government gives to youngsters? We tell them to say no to drugs because they are bad for them. Will the minister say no to these big mergers because they are bad for Canadians too?

[Broadcasting Act, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-288, moved by my hon. friend, the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

I want to begin by congratulating him for all the work he has done on this issue on behalf of the millions of Canadian consumers of cable television.

He is of course quite right to point out the source of the desire to essentially outlaw negative billing, which came from the reaction of what I think might be properly called a consumer revolt against cable companies in January 1995 as they responded to negative billing by their cable companies.

The vast majority of us, certainly those of us living in urban areas and even in smaller communities, receive our television service through cable companies. Of course because of the monopoly situation those cable companies are in we are faced with difficult questions when presented with a practice such as negative billing. It is only to be expected that consumers would respond in this way.

Were it the case that this practice and this general approach to customers by cable companies was over, perhaps we would not need to pursue the matter so vigorously. However, there are consumers not only in Quebec but in other provinces who are being faced with this particular practice and the problem continues.

I think, on the whole, Canadian consumers have lined up in favour of the legislation. They are in favour of protecting consumers and putting consumers first.

As well, a number of organizations which are generally supportive of consumers' interests are in favour of the legislation, such as the Consumers Association of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

I would also point out that the vast majority of members of this House are supportive of this measure. Indeed, when the House was last faced with responding to this question, when the member for Sarnia—Lambton moved this piece of legislation in the last Parliament, I think that the vote was 84 to 68 in favour of the legislation. Had there not been an election called last year this legislation would have been passed into law and Canadian consumers would indeed be protected.

We heard the Bloc Quebecois speak today against the interests of Canadian consumers. Rather than leave the matter to consumers in Quebec and outside Quebec to make decisions as to what services might be provided, the Bloc is opposing this legislation which would be in the interests of the vast majority of Canadian consumers of cable television.

We have had what at best could be described as a luke warm response from the Liberal government. We certainly saw the Minister for Canadian Heritage dragged screaming and kicking in support of this legislation and, as has been indicated, not standing up for Canadian consumers on this point.

We have the CRTC, as the member for Sarnia—Lambton indicated, which is also not performing its role on behalf of Canadian consumers. As well, there are a number of cable companies which would like to continue this practice in the face of all the opposition which has been voiced.

It is rather odd, in that context, with the overwhelming support of Canadians for this bill which would essentially outlaw negative billing, that the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would not recognize that overwhelming support and deem this bill votable.

There are a number of forces lodged against the interests of consumers with regard to banning negative billing.

It is a nefarious practice because, as I mentioned, Canadians have no choice, if they are to receive cable services, but to respond to the terms of payment offered by their cable companies. I think it is only right, in the context of that monopoly situation, that this House respond appropriately to resolve the question in the interests of Canadian consumers.

Whatever difficulties there may be—and I would not want to underestimate them—with the delivery of services in French, we should not respond to this legislation in a way which is contrary to the interests of millions and millions of other Canadians. We must therefore respond to those concerns in a different way and seek other approaches to the problem without undermining the interests of all other Canadian consumers.

I would end on one final point with regard to whether or not this House is going to have the opportunity to vote on this piece of legislation again at some stage. As I mentioned, had there not been an election called last year this would now be in effect and Canadian consumers would be protected. I think that is fairly clear.

If we continue to deny members of this House the opportunity to have this bill voted on, then it challenges the government's commitment to addressing this particular concern. If indeed the members from the Bloc continue to refuse unanimous consent for this bill to be votable, then the matter falls fairly squarely on the Minister of Canadian Heritage and we can then watch as she decides what she will do; whether she will respond on behalf of Canadian consumers or whether she will respond on behalf of the number of cable companies that are supportive of this practice which is contrary to the interests of Canadians.

On that note, I would ask that this House grant unanimous consent for this bill to be deemed votable.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I fail to see the concern the member voices with the barley plebiscite and with the studies done by renowned, reputed economists that support the wheat board.

Agricultural economists looked at the issue from the perspective of their disciplines. They concluded in peer evaluated reviews and studies time after time that the wheat board was good for farmers. Why does the member not accept that?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, farmers in the west will know full well the position of the member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I should indicate that the NDP has consistently opposed measures introduced by the Liberal government that it deems undesirable to Canadians. There has been no hesitation on our part in criticizing this government on a whole range of questions. An example is the MAI. We remain the only party in this House that is concerned about the MAI.

Reform Party members are a bunch of applauders to the Liberal Party's decision to drive another stake in the heart of Canadian jobs and the Canadian economy.

The NDP position on Bill C-4 is quite clear, as my position is quite clear. I am opposed to the bill introduced by the Liberal government for the reasons I gave in my speech and for the reasons in the speeches of other members from my party. One thing that distinguishes my position from the position of the member for Yorkton—Melville is that I support the Canadian Wheat Board. He does not.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that some Reformer are listening. It is too bad that they do not change their minds on any of these things. As I said, common sense is not in great currency over there on the Reform Party benches.

The opponents will also talk about dual marketing as if this is not the end of single desk selling and the end of the wheat board. Not only Judge Muldoon but many others and all those who look at this matter sensibly can see that this is the beginning of the end for the board.

This is another tactic by the Reform Party. It has nothing to do with wanting dual marketing. It is just a step along the way. It wants to get rid of the wheat board and will do anything it possibly can to ensure that. I note the Liberals cannot be trusted on the wheat board either. There has been very little in the last while to suggest this government would stand up for farmers in a pinch.

Word was mentioned of grain days. There was a grain day hearing in Rosetown in my riding. From past experience many might feel there would not be support for the wheat board although they voted overwhelmingly in favour of the barley plebiscite. It was a surprise to the local community that during that day not one person spoke out against the wheat board.

There are problems with Bill C-4 but there are greater problems with the approaches of the Reform Party and the Conservative Party which would get rid of the wheat board altogether. We need to look carefully and long and hard at the amendments that have been made. We need to do what we can to make sure the wheat board is there to support farmers into the future.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand again and discuss Bill C-4, the wheat board bill. As members will know, the New Democratic Party remains the only party in this House to stand four square behind the board and behind farmers who support the board, which is the vast majority of farmers, in total contradiction to what the Reform Party tries to say.

We know from the barley plebiscite that 63 per cent of farmers supported the board there. We know that whenever asked, farmers will support the Canadian Wheat Board. That is because they are rational economic actors. They support the wheat board because the wheat board is being good to them. The wheat board has paid them a premium year over year. As a consequence, because they have benefited from the wheat board, farmers support the board.

There are those, of course, who will put common sense aside and will argue they want to use the open market where they will make less money than they would under the board. We should, of course, not pay too much attention to those who are not acting rationally in this regard. The Reform Party would rather pay considerable attention to those few farmers who ignore common sense, ignore reality, ignore the fact that the wheat board has been of significant benefit to farmers. They want to destroy something which has been critical to agriculture in Saskatchewan and the rest of the prairies and remains critically important to farming, to farmers and to farm families across the west.

As is clear, over and over the Reform Party chooses ideology over common sense, ideology over what is good for farmers, but farmers will not listen to that argument. Farmers across the prairies, as we know, contrary to everything that the Reform Party would want and contrary to what it says, support the board whenever they are given the opportunity to be asked on that.

When farmers were asked about barley and the board, fully 63 per cent supported the board. That is not a number that the Reform Party likes and it is not a number it wants to accept, but the truth of the matter is on that plebiscite farmers supported the board because the board makes sense. The board makes sense over and over again to farmers every time they are asked.

We know it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year that the wheat board makes for farmers. Significant studies by the very best agriculture economists here and in the United States point out that farmers make around $265 million a year more by selling wheat through the wheat board than they would by selling through the private grain trade.

Why would the Reform Party be opposed to farmers making $265 million a year more than they would by using the private grain trade? The Reform Party, being ideologues, being neo-conservatives, wants to make sure the private grain traders who support it so well and support it financially and support it in its arguments with regard to the wheat board make more money, rather than the farmers. We know that the wheat board ships that profit that it makes back to the farmers.

It is not just wheat, it is in barley too. Studies show that $72 million a year extra goes to barley farmers than would otherwise be the case. Again, the Reform Party because of its ideology, because of its distaste for any good government program, any program that works, opposes barley farmers' getting that extra $72 million a year.

When ideology does not work it should be discarded. This ideology of the Reform Party should be discarded too.

There are problems with Bill C-4. We know that. We know and farmers know that the Liberal government cannot be trusted with the wheat board either. There are significant problems in Bill C-4 which point that out. They support that rightful concern by farmers.

Bill C-4 proposes cash buying. This is a significant problem and will undermine farmer confidence in the board. Regarding the contingency fund, why does the government want to take $575 million or thereabouts in check-offs from farmers?

It would not be necessary to take that money from farmers were the Liberal government to stand firmly behind the board in the way in which the board was designed to be protected by the federal government.

What about control? It is true that we will have farmers elected to the board. Still, the government will choose the chief executive officer, a critically important functionary, and thereby take away a chunk of the control that farmers would otherwise have.

I should point out, too, a point that I omitted with regard to the support for the wheat board. Not only when asked in plebiscites do farmers support the wheat board, but when asked to elect wheat board advisory members farmers overwhelmingly choose farmers who support the wheat board.

In other words, whenever asked, farmers have stood up for and supported the wheat board. The Reform Party is simply not supporting the views of its constituents when it wants to destroy the very thing that, in short, farmers make the extra profit with on a yearly basis.

What about the inclusion clause? The Reform Party goes on so much about democracy. What could be more democratic than asking farmers whether they would wish to add a grain, a commodity under the wheat board jurisdiction? What would it have to be afraid of if farmers make that decision on a free vote?

Why would it be opposed to that democratic decision making when it goes on so much about democracy with regard to the wheat board in general?

Let us look at who wants to get rid of the wheat board. It is not Canadian farmers, as I have said, because they have consistently supported the board. It is the kind of people, the kind of big business, the kind of anti-farmer interest that supports the Reform Party in all of its endeavours.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the commodity exchange in Winnipeg, Cargill, these kinds of corporations stand to gain by farmers' not having the wheat board on their side.

It is time the Reform Party put its ideology aside. It is time those agribusiness organizations put their self-interests aside and let farmers get a crack for once.

We have known all along that Reformers and Conservatives are fundamentally opposed to the wheat board and will do everything in their power to attack the wheat board and its credibility. They will do everything in their power to enhance the profit making abilities of the private grain trade and those who would oppose the interests of farmers.

We even know that they are prepared to say that farmers are opposed to the wheat board when they favour the wheat board. Nothing is left to chance by the Reform Party. Its members will say black is white in order to pursue their ideology.

[Auto Pact, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the 325,000 Canadians who work in the auto industry need a clearer answer than that.

The 2.5% tariff on car parts has already been eliminated with no reciprocal deal from our partners irrespective of the departmental review.

Why will the minister not stand up for these workers, for the car industry in Canada, and save further embarrassment on the part of his Liberal colleagues from Windsor, Oakville, Oshawa and throughout southern Ontario? Will he stand up for the auto pact and the tariff today? Why will he not tell us that it is here to stay?

[Auto Pact, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. He knows, as do Canadians, that the auto industry in Canada comprises 325,000 direct and indirect jobs.

Just before the last federal election the present Minister of National Defence, when he was Minister for International Trade, confirmed that the government had no plans to eliminate one of the linchpins of the auto pact, the 7.3% tariff on new non-auto pact cars coming into Canada.

Will the minister confirm that there has been no flip-flop on the 7.3% tariff and that he has no intention of gutting the auto pact by eliminating this tariff?

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his question and for all the work he does on the industry committee to ensure that we all have our say and that our points of view listened to. I appreciate that has not always been the case.

In response to the member's question there can be no doubt that we should not continue present programs or introduce new ones without a thorough review of their effectiveness. In particular when we are dealing with government intervention into the marketplace it is absolutely critical that intervention actually helps matters along rather than make them worse.

We have seen programs galore which actually make matters worse. We have to focus on the role government can play in the context of the economy as a whole to do things that other stakeholders cannot do.

In the context of this piece of legislation it is clear that financial institutions are not fulfilling their responsibility toward small business. It is therefore important for the Government of Canada and society as a whole to push the banks to fulfil that responsibility. After all, they make profits out of us. They should recommit those profits to the communities and to the people from which they make those profits. It is their responsibility to do that. It is their right to make a profit but they have a responsibility to contribute too.

In addition to forcing the issue and using all the good offices of the government to ensure that banks fulfil that responsibility, it is appropriate the government on behalf of all of us provide some small assistance to small businesses because of the critically important role they play in our economy as they struggle to obtain the capital investment they need.

It is critically important that we review all these things and that we do not, as the Reform Party would do, dismiss every government program as irrelevant, as a nuisance or as something that cannot help without actually reviewing it.

The Small Business Loans Act is plainly one of those pieces of legislation that actually helps. Surely we should not let ideology blind us to common sense programs which assist those in need.