Bev Desjarlais

[User Fees, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the new finance minister stated that he believes that users should pay for services. It sounds a lot like Alliance talk.

New Democrats do not believe that victims of crime should have to pay for the police because every Canadian benefits from safe streets. We do not believe air passengers should have to pay extra for security because everyone benefits from terror free skies and buildings. We do not believe Canadians should have to pay to use their roads. We also do not believe they should have to pay for health services because everyone has a right to quality health care.

Obviously the new minister plans to take more from the pockets of Canadians. Where else is the new minister imposing user fees: at ports for cruise ship passengers, to people accessing Parliament Hill?

Canadians will be better served by handling security, police, roads and health care through general revenue instead of the Liberal government nickel-and-diming ordinary Canadians while it plays patronage games with taxpayers' dollars.

[Airport Security, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on May 10 the U.S. congress rejected a plan to double the U.S. security fees at airports. On May 14 the European parliament passed legislation to have security costs come from general revenues and not from airports or air travellers.

Canada's air security tax is the highest in the world and threatens our $54 billion tourism industry. Summer tourists are crucial to that industry. Is the new minister accepting responsibility for the losses to tourism or will he end this harmful tax immediately?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that last statement pretty much sums up what a good number of us feel should be happening with the bill. It leaves no doubt as to what we think about it.

I am once again pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-55. I am not speaking on the amendment to Bill C-55 and this is what has been happening day after day. We are still on the original bill. The other amendment has not been put into place yet, so we will wait to see what happens. I too would like to see the amendment of my colleague from the Conservatives endorsed, because it would accomplish what we hope to do with the bill.

As many speakers have mentioned, the bill reflects a number of areas and as a result has created concern in that many prospective areas as well. I think it has also made it hard for the ordinary person to understand just what exactly the bill is intended to do. It would affect areas in: national defence, Canadian air transportation, marine safety, aeronautics, biohazards, hazardous products, the Food and Drugs Act, and exports and imports. It would affect numerous areas, but what still seems to be missing in the whole scheme of things is some real hardcore evidence that there would some real changes to security.

We have a situation whereby firefighters, for instance, attend most hazardous fires or explosions or different things that happen within our country and the government has done little or nothing to ensure that there is a program in place, that there is proper training, that there are emergency responses. Very little is happening in that regard. There certainly was an opportunity to have that addressed within the bill, but it was not done. Apart from the airport security agency itself, there are no real specifics as to how we will see changes in that security, apart from just collecting money to supposedly provide it but not really do that. There really has been nothing concrete to ensure the security of people in Canada.

One of the greatest areas of concern, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you are well aware of this because you have spent a number of weeks hearing comments about it, certainly is the military zones that are suggested, the issue of privacy and freedom and democracy for Canadians. Numerous speakers and numerous Canadians in general have mentioned that they do not want to see their lives affected in such a way that they become the criminals. They do not want their rights infringed to the point that they are suffering more than the terrorists are.

I know that the solicitor general feels that these broad, sweeping powers for CSIS and the police are somehow supposed to improve things as far as security goes. He has had his little back and forth discussions with the privacy commissioner on this issue, but the general consensus out there is that this new legislation would impose a stronger degree of penalty on ordinary, innocent people than it would on the criminals. Innocent people would suffer more from this than anyone else.

We have rules in place now respecting search and seizure and investigation. We have good rules in place right now. There is nothing to stop the RCMP or CSIS from doing this kind of investigation. It is beyond me why we have to somehow give these broad, sweeping powers so that they could literally investigate anyone at will.

I have been cutting out clippings over the last number of weeks and I have with me just a small portion of those clippings about the concerns that are being raised. I just want to read a couple of comments to the House, which state:

By such all-inclusive reasoning, the government could justify anything that might conceivably boost public safety, such as random searches of cars and people, the opening of personal mail and unlimited access to personal bank accounts and computer files.

While this sort of thing just might catch a criminal or non-custodial parent trying to abscond with a child, it would be much more likely to fill police files with information about thousands of law-abiding citizens instead. It would also increase the likelihood that honest people with the same name as a suspected criminal would be detained and questioned by police.

The solicitor general's response to the privacy commissioner was to suggest that the privacy commissioner was overreacting. I want to read a comment made by the privacy commissioner in response to the solicitor general's comments. He said that since some terrorists did not have a criminal record and could be travelling under an alias or using forged documents, authorities needed access to all available intelligence to identify people who could be potentially violent or could have ties to terrorist groups.

In his letter yesterday, Mr. Radwanski, the privacy commissioner, said that these histrionics were deeply misleading since the sort of warrants covered by the bill could apply to more than 150 criminal code offences, including many such decidedly non-violent as fraudulently altering brands on cattle, taking possession of drift timber, unauthorized use of a computer, et cetera. He went on to say, more seriously, that he was not aware of any significant number of instances, if any at all, where wanted murderers, kidnappers or armed robbers had taken actions on board aircraft that posed a threat to security.

No one for a second has suggested that if we find a murderer or someone with a warrant out on them that they should not be arrested. However it is beyond comprehension to suggest that we should be able to check every public list of people to see if maybe there is a criminal among them. I mentioned this once before. Should the RCMP have access to the list of all hospital patients just in case they might find someone with an injury that they may be able to associate to something?

Those are the types of things that are at risk here. The freedom and democracy of all Canadians is what is at risk. Under no way, shape or form should innocent people be penalized more than the terrorists.

Numerous colleagues in the opposition have commented on the fact that we believe the situation on September 11 was handled with extreme professionalism and the areas of concern were addressed. It was not as if the ministers or the powers that be who were in place could not do what they needed to do after September 11. There was absolutely nothing to stop them. We have rules in place that give them the authority to check on criminals. We have rules in place to allow, on reasonable grounds, the issuance of warrants, searches or whatever needs to be done. No one would argue that.

What we have here before us is a bill that was intended quite frankly to pacify and somehow give a feeling that everything will be better, but it will not be better.

I am not convinced the legislation will do any good as far as security goes. Furthermore, as far as the sweeping powers that would be given to CSIS and the RCMP, the CSIS director himself has stated that he does not believe there would any more convictions under this legislation than there would have been otherwise.

Why on earth would we want to penalize innocent people and make them suffer, which would be the result if this legislation is passed, when ultimately we will not be able to convict the people we need to convict: the terrorists and the criminals? Under no circumstances should ordinary, innocent people be criminalized or put to any kind or harassment or intimidation as a result of the legislation.

All members of the House need to be greatly concerned about that. I am extremely pleased that a good number of opposition members have recognized that and have made a point of being here to speak to the issue.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, without question something preventive should have been done to put us in a position to fight the tariffs being put in place by the U.S. There is no question the government should have done a whole lot more and it failed to do so.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Of course we recognize that we do not have total control over markets and industries. If another country uses unfair practices and subsidizes its industries through unique measures that it does not call subsidies, in order to fight that we must do something as well to protect and sustain our industries. That is what this is about.

I do not for one second believe that other countries utilizing Canada's lumber industry will totally save it, but right now we need to put additional dollars into it to help it get through this rough time. That is the important thing we should be doing.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as insulting as that question is, I will get beyond it. Does the Liberal government not realize that if it does not support these industries we are not going to have them?

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question there is a major housing crisis in Canada, certainly in urban areas as well as in first nations communities. We as a party have long maintained that the federal government has absolved itself of any responsibility whatsoever for low income housing in Canada. As a result there is a major problem.

Studies indicate that $1 billion yearly over 10 years would address all the housing problems in Canada. That figure is probably higher now because the studies were done some time ago. Now more than ever we should be utilizing our dollars and assisting our industry. It is the time to address the housing crisis in Canada. Once again the government cannot see the answer which is sitting right in front of it. The government just will not do it.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, once again we see how distracted the government is in dealing with the corruption and political wrangling of its members and largely ignoring the pressing issues that are of concern to Canadians.

It has been nearly a month since the U.S. announced plans to impose 27% tariffs on Canadian softwood and nearly a week since the tariffs came into effect. In the past month the U.S. has greatly increased its subsidies to U.S. agriculture. In that time all we have received from the government is talk and promises without any substantive progress.

The government has wasted so many opportunities with the U.S. government by putting up meaningless resistance and simply giving in to all its demands. Now at a time when Canadians require strong action and a firm stand on the issues, the government is simply being ignored by the U.S.

The government has set the precedent and the U.S. is continuing along those lines. It is unfortunate but true to say that the U.S. has no reason to believe that the Canadian government and people are in strong opposition to the U.S. actions given the government's past weakness in response to similar actions.

Canada's lumber and agriculture industries need substantive action from the government. Unfortunately the government seems unable to provide that action, unable to protect Canadian industries from the protectionist U.S. actions and tariffs. Consequently it is sacrificing Canadian industries and Canadian workers in their time of need.

It is the government that brought us free trade and all the promises attached of Canadian goods trading and selling in the U.S. market. Now free trade and NAFTA are being exposed as a one way street with American goods flooding the Canadian market, while Canadian goods and industries run into a steel wall that extends across our shared border. While it is true that this border is undefended in military terms, this action brings home the reality that not only is this border defended but it is representative of an aggressive and dominating giant which has no interest in dealing fairly with Canada and Canadian companies.

Where are the great Canadian defenders of NAFTA now? Why do they remain silent when Canadian industries and workers suffer at the hands of American protectionist policies? It is time for the Government of Canada and the opposition to step forward with a single voice and declare that this is not free trade and it is not fair trade. It is a time for us all to stand resolute in support of Canadian industries, lumber and agriculture, workers and farmers and show them that the Canadian government is their government and will act in their best interests.

The government has shown its willingness to relent to the desires and interests of the United States and in doing so has sacrificed Canadian industries and workers. It is safe to say that Canada is hemorrhaging jobs and industry to the United States and Mexico as a direct result of NAFTA. The best remedy the government has been able to offer is bandages. Bandages will not stop the bleeding from a wound such as this. It is time for the government to take strong and decisive measures to save Canadian industries and workers and to preserve the standard of living that Canadians enjoy and deserve.

I believe the situation with these tariffs and subsidies demonstrates clearly just how serious a failure the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA have been and the great cost they have had and continue to have on Canadian industries. These are not the first instances of Canadian industries being punished for the failure of U.S. equivalents. We all know of the problems that Canada's steel industry has had gaining access for its products in the U.S. market. It is the same for Canadian lumber and agriculture. When the United States is not able to compete, it simply chooses to ignore NAFTA and other agreements and acts to protect its industries. We see the same attitude in the continued American overfishing of depleted fish stocks. All too often the government is slow to react.

Canada and Canadian industries have been dealt a double blow. The government is again slow to react and is impotent in its dealings with the United States. It is strange to see that the United States, a party to NAFTA and a great beneficiary of it, so freely ignores it when it suits its purposes to do so while Canada continues to work to resolve trade disputes with the United States through NAFTA and is subsequently ignored by the U.S.

If the United States chooses to ignore and reject NAFTA, it is clear that Canada should do so as well. Why do we continue to handicap ourselves while the U.S. abuses us and our goodwill? The government and opposition must make a unified call for fair and open access to U.S. markets with a level playing field for all Canadian industries and producers. They must work to protect Canadian jobs and end the flow of jobs from Canada to the U.S. and Mexico.

Part of this would mean increasing the restrictions on raw log exports to the United States; keeping manufacturing and production jobs here where skilled workers await the opportunity to demonstrate their craft and skill; revitalizing our own lumber usage within Canada and increasing our focus on overseas markets in Europe and Asia, making us less dependent on the United States; and addressing the urban and first nations housing crisis by activating CMHC and increasing its role in providing low income housing.

The government must also act to prevent Canadian lumber companies from going out of business while this dispute drags on. This can be achieved through increasing the investment in the non-profit housing sector; stimulating domestic demand for softwood lumber; and modifying the qualification criteria for the Export Development Corporation's bond program to enable more lumber companies to qualify.

We must also voice our concerns that the rights of corporations are being allowed to take precedence over the rights of citizens and local, provincial, first nations and federal governments. We must encourage and support programs aimed at employment retraining and continuing education.

The sad truth is that this instance of tariffs on Canadian lumber did not arise overnight. Many of us saw it coming years ago when the softwood lumber dispute began. At that time we called on the Prime Minister and the government to develop an assistance package for laid off lumber industry workers. The response was always the same: wait until we resolve the dispute.

Now the dispute lies unresolved, having led to the imposition of U.S. trade tariffs, many more lumber industry workers being laid off and no assistance package. These workers and their families now struggle, having been insultingly ignored by the government which has once again waited to react instead of being proactive. As these tariffs come into full effect and take hold, more mills will close. Literally tens of thousands more people will lose their jobs and their families will struggle because the government did not react to assist them.

The drastic cuts to the employment insurance program since 1993 have made EI of little help to anyone who loses his or her job, including Canada's lumber industry workers, especially if as predicted the dispute takes a year or more to resolve. Shame on the government if it now claims that this was unforeseeable, that there was nothing it could do to predict or prepare for these circumstances.

The New Democratic Party fully supports the government's decision to appeal the U.S. tariffs to the World Trade Organization and to the North American Free Trade Agreement panel. We also stress the need for Canada not to back down to these United States actions. We call on the government to act to limit the ramifications of the tariffs and agriculture subsidies on the Canadian lumber and agriculture industries.

Without an aid package from the government to support laid off workers and struggling companies and to assist Canadian farmers, we will find that by the time the dispute is resolved through NAFTA and the WTO the costs will be so great as to outweigh the benefits. It is vital that Canada not back down. We must maintain a unified front with the provinces and assert our interests in these international forums.

There are indications that the goal of the United States government is to protract this dispute for as long as possible to devastate our lumber industry, eliminating the competition to the faltering U.S. lumber industry, making it competitive again in the North American market. This is not the way free trade by any definition is meant to work. The government's inaction could prove as devastating as the American government's actions.

The position of the New Democratic Party is that the government's actions and its inaction are significant factors in the United States trade action against Canadian agriculture and softwood lumber. Its actions sent the United States government the message that trade action against Canada would receive no substantive action on Canada's part. Now our farmers and lumber industry workers struggle with no assistance package from the government. The government's reaction to the U.S. tariffs and subsidies has indeed proven to lack substance.

I emphasize that in 1998 Canada and U.S. pasta producers argued that Italy was unfairly dumping cheap pasta into the local markets. The U.S. government agreed and began collecting punitive damages. What did Canada do? Nothing. Now the U.S. government has taken the $20 million from those punitive damages and given it back to the industry. What has the Canadian government done? Nothing. That is the problem. The U.S. government is standing up for U.S. companies. The Canadian government is doing nothing.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if it is the usual practice to draw attention to members not attending committee meetings, or to days such as today, with hardly any Liberal members in the House.

[Tax Credit, May 21st, 2002]

Yes, I am reminded that the government is now collecting literally billions in airport security taxes and is taking in a pile of money from Canadians but not giving back the services it should be providing. It does not give back the transfer dollars to the provinces so that they can provide some of those services as well.

The irresponsible actions of the government are unconscionable. It has failed to accept responsibility to provide the funding for some of those services while it takes a good amount of dollars from Canadians. As a result we have situations where more and more students go into debt but do their darndest to pay it off. The figures are very high as to the percentage of students who will work and work to ensure that they pay off their student loans.

Certainly they pay off their student loans a whole lot better than corporations in Canada pay off what they owe for loans or grants or whatever they may get to say nothing of the money they get purely as a freebie or in tax deferrals. Students have been far more responsible and more active in giving back to Canada in the amount of their student loans but also in providing their different services.

It is unconscionable that for a number of years the Liberal government has continually reduced those dollars and as a result students are in a tougher position. My colleague suggests a tax credit to a maximum of 10% of the principal, per year, for the first 10 years after graduation. Frankly, it is such a minimal amount it would seem that it should be the thing to do. It is worth supporting because it is a step in the right direction.

Ideally what we should have in place is a situation where students are able to access grants for their education. Then for a number of years we know they will be in the country working, paying income tax and paying taxes for everything else. They will give back by providing the services we need.

I think of the number of health care professionals we need. We actually do not need any more lawyers in Canada even though if somebody needs to go into law, so be it. However, we need people in a number of areas such as teaching, health care professionals and different technicians. There is a need for people within the computer industry, computer scientists and researchers.

If dollars were available to provide those students with the education they need, we would be opening up that many more jobs to students going through our school system.

I sit on the industry committee and we are dealing with dollars that go into different foundations and research. We recognize that all those dollars are needed. The fact that they do not seem to be going to where they should be is another issue, but they are dollars that are needed. However, what is also needed is an investment in the young people of our country who want to continue their education and give back to the nation.

I listened to numerous witnesses in committee talk about how talented our students are. The key is to be able to get them into the universities. The ones who are there are extremely talented. We would have that many more who would have the opportunity to continue their education by bringing their knowledge and ingenuity. That is equally as important as all those research chairs that we have and the different dollars that go into foundations and research. What is equally important is having the persons there who will expand on what they know and further their education so they can continue on.

It is credible that we have this type of motion but it will not nearly address the needs that are out there for students wanting to continue in post-secondary education.

I want to comment on the student loan program. I represent a riding where most students must travel outside the community to continue their education. We do have some distance education and college programs but there are a number of students who must travel outside the riding to continue their education. There is no way they have the same opportunity to attain that education at the same type of cost as others who live closer to the university areas. There is the increased cost for their residence and for their food. There is no way that is reflected in the dollars they would receive from student loans.

Added to that is a situation where it is almost as if we set up the rules to knock off as many students as we can from being able to access student loans. There could be a family with two or three kids who might be in a situation where they would be attending university around the same time. They might have worked. I have had students who worked for a few years. They make a point of saving and buying their own computer, or they make a point to buy their own vehicle because they would have to travel back and forth 500 to 600 miles to university and then travel around the city to get to their school.

They must have those things. However, if they have spent their summers working away to buy their computer or to buy their car, if they have those things on hand, that is considered against them when they apply for a student loan because they have something of value. It is a detriment. Meanwhile they have worked away at it, trying to provide for themselves.

We have to shake our heads and ask why on earth that would even be considered a part of it. Why would it not be recognized that if students want to attend university in this day and age they should have a computer. It is not easy to access computers in a public library when there are that many students. There are computers at the university but we all recognize more and more that students need one right there with them, especially if they are in specific studies at university.

There are a number of problems out there for students wanting to attend post-secondary education and the Liberal government presents us with nothing. Actually I am wrong. We were presented with legislation that would not allow those students, just the few who cannot pay their debts, to claim bankruptcy for 10 years. That is longer than anyone else who might be in financial difficulties. There is really nothing from the government to help support students as they try to give back to their country. Most of them want to do that.

We will be supporting the motion and I encourage the government to do a whole lot more to support students.