Rose-Marie Ur

[National Volunteer Week, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, April 21 to 28 was National Volunteer Week in Canada. This week provided an opportunity to acknowledge and celebrate the contributions made by volunteers in every community across the country.

There are estimated to be over 10 million volunteers in Canada. They donated more than one billion hours of service each year at an economic value of $16 billion.

Volunteers work for many causes including literacy, the environment, community safety, health promotion, elderly outreach and children's welfare. All volunteers make a difference, a huge difference to our communities and our society.

Volunteer centres spearheaded a wide variety of events in many communities. I took part in a tree planting ceremony with the Lambton Elderly Outreach and visited mall displays in Strathroy.

I congratulate the many volunteers in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex who donate so many valuable hours and talents to make it a better community to live in, as do the millions of volunteers throughout Canada.

[Parkinson's Disease, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, April is Parkinson's Awareness Month as proclaimed by the Parkinson Foundation of Canada.

Since its formation in 1965 the foundation has been devoted to the support of research into the cause, treatment and cure of Parkinson's disease, a chronic brain disorder suffered by approximately 100,000 Canadians.

Through the various chapters of the Parkinson Foundation of Canada, a number of fundraising events are being planned across Canada to raise money for research, to promote public education and to develop patient and family support services.

Each April the beautiful red and white Dr. James Parkinson tulip, the official symbol of Parkinson's, is sold to the general public and businesses. One of the selling days coincides with Secretary's Day on April 24. Other fundraising events include a national cut-a-thon on the last Sunday in April in which hair salons across Canada offer their time and talent for a small donation.

I encourage all Canadians to do their part in contributing to the search for a cure for Parkinson's disease.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. This is certainly a concern that was expressed to me in my riding while we were home for the Easter break.

The government is proposing to meet with all concerned parties. We have to understand that these hopper cars were bought by taxpayers' money Canada-wide. It is very important how the consultation process goes with the producers as well as with the Minister of Finance, with the minister of agriculture. It is not just the west but it is the east as well that has to share in the burden of this.

I have seen allocations that perhaps the cars are worth $300,000 or $400,000. In due time when these people sit down and negotiate terms of where the hopper cars are going to be sold, it will solve itself.

It is all well and good for farmers or commodity groups to bid on these. We have to work collectively on this. There is not much point in owning hopper cars if we are not compatible with the railway system.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North.

I am pleased to take part in the debate on the government's third budget, one which gives credence to the three main goals of the agenda since it was elected: job creation, economic growth and deficit reduction.

First, I would like to commend the Minister of Finance for respecting the will of the voters which was clearly expressed regarding taxation. Canadians did not want a tax hike because they believe they are already paying their fair share of taxes.

Given the delicate state of the Canadian economy at the present time, the federal government could have opted for harsher measures. In fact, some provincial governments such as the present Ontario government have chosen this path which I believe does nothing but increase the economic problems we face.

The Liberal government rejects any solutions based on narrow minded ideologies. Instead, the guiding principle to making the changes that have to be made are based on pragmatism and fairness to all levels of society. As an example, the Canadian health and social transfer will be characterized by secure and stable funding over the next five years.

It is important to remember that the government will legislate a floor to provide a sound guarantee that cash transfers will never fall below the $11 billion mark at any time during the five-year period. This guarantee demonstrates the Liberal government's strong commitment to secure Canada's health system, social safety net and to build a renewed social and economic union.

The government recognizes that Canada is a rich country, rich in natural resources and its people. It also recognizes that it is the government's responsibility to create opportunities for present and future Canadians and that is what it has done. The challenges that face our youth are clear. The youth unemployment rate is roughly double the national average. Approximately 45 per cent of the new jobs created between the years 1990 and the year 2000 will require more than 16 years of training and education.

This budget provides an additional $165 million over three years to help students and their families deal with the increased costs of education. This will be done through increased education tax credits and an increased limit on parents' contributions through their children's registered education savings plan. Eligibility for the child care expense allowance has been broadened to help more parents undertake education or retraining.

Funding for summer student jobs has been doubled. An additional $315 million over three years will be provided in addition to the

existing fund to create new youth employment opportunities. We are committed to a new domestic Team Canada style partnership between businesses and governments to create entry level jobs for Canada's youth.

Canadians know direct job creation must come from the private sector, but it is incumbent on the government to make sure the economic context is the best possible and favours the continuous economic growth necessary for job creation.

Deficit control requires, among other things, that inflation is kept low. This contributes to reducing pressures on interest rates and helps control the other costs of doing business. It makes Canada more competitive in foreign markets.

We can also see dividends from the ability to control the deficit and inflation. Short term interest rates have diminished by three percentage points since last year's budget. This means a saving of $2,400 a year on $100,000 mortgage. Increased competitiveness means a strong increase in exports with a record export surplus of $28 billion.

Canada's trade performance in recent years has been remarkable. Exports have soared. The Team Canada approach has proven to be a major success with $20 billion in new business deals resulting from three major trade missions led by the Prime Minister to Asia and Latin America. We all know exports are vital to job creation in Canada. Every billion dollars in exports sustains 11,000 to 12,000 new jobs. Continued progress begins with further fiscal improvement and the 1996 budget delivers.

The steps proposed in the March 6 budget consolidate and extend the first two budgets and further contribute to the economic and financial objectives. The government is maintaining its focus on reducing program spending because the debt is a problem created by government and the solution has to focus primarily in our own backyard. That is why of the fiscal actions taken from 1994-95 to 1998-99, a full 87 per cent have been through expenditure savings. Together the three budgets will contribute $26.1 billion in savings for 1997-98.

However, the 1996 budget goes beyond the bottom line calculations. As Liberals we know that financial reform must never be an end in itself. The steps taken to get our fiscal House in order are a means to an end. What is the end? It is lower interest rates, better job growth and the maintenance of cherished social programs. These steps are a means to ensure the Canada that all Canadians want can be preserved.

Many seniors have asked us to address their concerns about security for their grandchildren and security for themselves. I am pleased to see a new tax free benefit for seniors that will replace the old OAS and the GIS benefits and will ensure the long term stability and sustainability for seniors' pensions. These proposed improvements to seniors' benefits reflect what the great majority of my constituents in Lambton-Middlesex have been asking for, as indicated in a survey I conducted last November.

The seniors benefits will help those who need it most while streamlining the program. It will make the system fair. It will guarantee that all current seniors, in fact those who are 60 years of age now, and their spouses will receive no less than the current pension benefits. Most seniors will receive the same or more money under the proposed new system.

I am very pleased the Minister of Finance made a decision not to allow charter banks to sell insurance from branches. This issue was a major concern to my constituents. Keeping the status quo means that Canadians will continue to have many choices depending on where they live and what their particular needs are.

As the member for Lambton-Middlesex, I look forward to working with my colleagues to help implement the government's commitment to bettering the lives of rural Canadians, a commitment that was renewed in the February 27 throne speech. This year's budget will build on this foundation through a number of initiatives to provide for economic growth and new opportunities for the agri-food sector.

For example, the government will create a single food inspection agency to be responsible for all federally mandated quarantine and inspection services. This initiative will reduce overlap and duplication by consolidating resources now in the three federal departments of agriculture and agri-food, health and fisheries and oceans, and will lead to an annual savings of approximately $44 million starting in 1998-99.

While phasing out the remaining dairy subsidies starting August 1, 1997, the government has made a commitment to supply management as part of a long term dairy policy intended to maintain a strong and viable Canadian dairy industry. This will include a strong defence of Canada's position in the NAFTA dispute settlement process. We are also committed to finalizing arrangements with the provinces for cost shared safety nets, including a whole farm income stabilization program, currently NISA, crop insurance and province specific companion programs.

Another major announcement of the March 1996 budget was the decision by the government to sell its fleet of 13,000 grain hopper cars. It is extremely important that the terms and conditions of the sale are established for the maximum benefit of Canada's farming community. As stated in the budget, the federal government will consider all proposals put forward for the acquisition of the cars.

In a country as diverse as ours, it is a real privilege for all of us to be able to be part of a team that sets objectives and goals, and meets them. We do not just talk about them. We meet them. We have set the challenges for the years to come. Through the Minister of Finance and all who are involved in the process, we will continue to meet each and every one of these challenges.

[Science And Technology, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, excellence in the areas of science, technology and mathematics is essential to building and sustaining a more innovative Canadian economy. Canada's future depends on our ability to show innovative technology leadership.

Both the speech from the throne and the March 6 budget highlighted the importance of establishing guiding principles to improve the effectiveness and focus of the federal science and technology effort.

I believe Canada will guarantee its success in these areas if we ensure that our children are taught the skills they will need to meet the challenges.

Last month the Prime Minister announced the winners of the 1995 Prime Minister's Awards for Teaching Excellence in Science, Technology and Mathematics. The awards recognize elementary and secondary school teachers who have had a major impact on their students in these areas.

I take this opportunity to salute one of the winners from my riding of Lambton-Middlesex, Ms. Carol Browne, a grade 1 teacher at Metcalfe Central School.

[Competition Act, March 20th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-221, an act to amend the Competition Act (illegal trade practices), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to lead off the debate on my private member's Bill C-221, an act to amend the Competition Act.

The bill would amend the Competition Act by making it an offence for manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles and farm equipment to engage in certain marketing practices with their dealers. In the great majority of cases in Canada franchise agreements provide that a dealer shall not carry any other line, or dual, without the written permission of the manufacturer. In practice permission is rarely forthcoming.

There are generally two sets of consequences arising from this restrictive arrangement. In the first, the dealer's investment in one line of motor vehicles or farm equipment very often substantially exceeds the investment actually required to efficiently supply the sales and servicing demands faced by a particular a dealer in his or her market. In the second, a dealer may be forced to own several facilities selling different lines and may desire to amalgamate those brand lines under the same roof, thereby saving overhead and more efficiently utilizing his or her resources.

Because of the current prohibitions on dualling found in Canadian dealership agreements in neither of these cases can the dealer take the sensible course of action he desires to take. Further, if the dealer proceeds to attempt to dual his facilities without manufacturer approval, which is rarely granted, his action would constitute cause for immediate termination by the manufacturer of his dealership rights.

I believe all Canadian vehicle and farm equipment dealers aspire to having available to them the option of dualling, which their counterparts in so many U.S. states enjoy. Roughly 50 per cent of American automobile dealers operate their dealerships as duals, in some cases with more than two lines. Why should anti-dualling provisions which prevent that right in Canada be lawful?

By compelling manufacturers and distributors to allow their dealers the choice to offer one or more new lines of motor vehicles or farm equipment I believe two positive results would follow. First, the investment of the dealer would be utilized more efficiently and effectively. Second, the public in the dealer's market would be better served through a wider array of products and services.

As it stands now, in virtually 100 per cent of motor vehicle and farm equipment franchise contracts in Canada the manufacturer has the authority to terminate the contract if the dealer does not abide by the manufacturer's rules of dealer purity. This whole issue was brought to my attention shortly after the last election.

A constituent of mine who is a dealer in new and used farm equipment, and who has contracted with the Ford-New Holland company, wrote to me:

While it is true we have all signed agreements alluding to the sale of competitive products, it should be noted that for many of us we had no option but to sign this agreement, for our ability to stay in business hinged on the exclusive availability of the Ford-New Holland line. If I chose not to sign, I would have lost the business my father and I worked 40 years to build. It is true that Ford-New Holland is not restricting the number of agencies we represent as long as they are housed in separate facilities.

However, most of the lines Ford-New Holland deems competitive do not represent enough volume to operate as a stand alone dealership. Therefore the demand for exclusivity leads to lessening and even elimination of competition. This policy has far reaching consequences to our customers as well. By reducing the number of agencies willing to handle a line, you also reduce availability of service and repair parts. Our farmers today do not need a further erosion of service.

Why should rural dealers and farmers be denied reasonable access to all lines of agricultural equipment? As far as I am concerned, it is essential that dealers be given the freedom to carry more than one line of equipment to be of service to their farming customers.

All major farm equipment associations across Canada have been lobbying the federal government for years to have this onerous restriction on their livelihoods loosened.

The same is true of motor vehicle dealers. A 1993 survey of Canadian car dealers showed that about 50 per cent of the dealers would try to add another line if wide open dualling were permitted.

Presently the Competition Act provides that exclusive dealing can be prohibited by the competition tribunal in very limited circumstances. Subsection 77(1) of the act defines exclusive dealings as any practice whereby a supplier of a product, as a condition of supplying the product to a customer, requires or induces a customer to deal only or primarily in products designated or supplied by the supplier, or requires or induces the

customer not to deal in a specified products except as supplied by the supplier.

Under subsection 77(2) of the act, the director of investigation and research can apply to the tribunal for an order to prohibit a supplier from continuing to engage in exclusive dealing only if three conditions are met: first, if the supplier is a major supplier or if the practice is widespread in the market; second, if the practice of exclusive dealing is likely to impede entry into or expansion of a firm in a market, or to impede the introduction of a product into or expansion of a product's sale in the market; third, if as a result of exclusive dealing competition is or is likely to be lessened substantially, that is, in a major way.

In my opinion current anti-dualling provisions in Canada do fulfil elements one and two. However, element three, the substantial lessening of competition test imposed by the act for the director to be able to move against restrictions on competition occasioned by anti-dualling provisions, is unlikely to be clearly presented in the case of most vehicle and farm equipment dealerships in Canada.

To be really affective and fair, an amendment to the act should not only allow for enforcement action against anti-dualling provisions in franchise agreements but should also be framed in such a way that a dealer or a member of the public injured by the existence or the enforcement of such a provision will have the right to take private action against the restrictive provision.

Bill C-221 would effectively solve the problems created for dealers and the public through a simple prohibition of anti-dualling provisions in the franchise agreements. I also believe the bill has the benefit of brevity and clarity while identifying the restrictive conduct in those provisions as against the interests of the Canadian public.

By utilizing a prohibition to deal with the anti-dualling provisions, Parliament would be enabling dealers and members of the public who suffer loss or damage to take legal action for recourse independent of any action which the Bureau of Competition Policy may or may not be able to undertake.

Bill C-221's proposed prohibition of anti-dualling provisions will permit the crown to choose to proceed against an accused manufacturer by way of a summary conviction or by way of indictment. Typically the crown would proceed with a summary offence in less offensive cases and in the case of a first offender while reserving the potential for harsher penalties for cases of outlandish breaches and repeated violations by a manufacturer which has shown contempt for the law. This dual approach is seen in the act's treatment of misleading representation and has proved to work well.

In the process which led to the drafting of this bill, some have questioned whether it is not unusual to be proposing legislation amending the Competition Act that would only apply to just one segment of the economy. Not at all. There are a number of industry specific provisions in the act. For example, section 5 deals with the exemption from the conspiracy provision of the act for security underwriters. Section 6 deals with amateur sport in relation to the act. Section 48 deals with conspiracies in professional sport. There is even a subsection which deals exclusively with soft drink franchisers.

I suggest that the restrictions faced by dealers in motor vehicles and farm equipment are unique and particular to these types of dealerships.

We do not see the same restrictions applied to dealers in electrical appliances or musical instruments. Though each may specialize in one particular brand, each is free to carry other brand names as he or she may sees fit.

I am of the opinion that in the great majority of cases, when business is left alone, it tends to thrive when it is allowed to find its own solutions to problems that confront it. In that respect, I agree with the viewpoint that the role of government is to construct a framework that allows businesses to operate with the least amount of constraint.

However, there are instances when government is called on to correct an inequity which threatens the livelihood of certain sectors of the economy. Over the past two years I have become convinced that the constraints faced by dealers in automobiles and farm equipment must be properly addressed.

I feel it is very important that we give the small business community a break. The Prime Minister said a few days ago that it is time corporate Canada released its iron grip and did its part in allowing small businesses to expand and provide employment opportunities for Canadians.

I believe my bill echoes that sentiment and I ask for support from all members.

[Supply, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on February 29 I asked the Minister for International Trade why Canada chose to conclude an agreement in principle with the United States on matters relating to softwood lumber rather than take this dispute to a NAFTA dispute resolution panel.

This is the process we chose in 1994 after the U.S. imposed a duty on imported Canadian lumber. The duty was overturned by a bilateral panel which ruled that Canada stumpage fees do not constitute an unfair subsidy as was claimed by a U.S. lumber lobby. The U.S. appealed the decision to an extraordinary challenge committee which again ruled in Canada's favour.

According to the minister, the U.S. congress looked on these defeats and simply changed the laws. Rather than go through the uncertainty involved in another NAFTA panel process, the Government of Canada, several provinces and the lumber industry chose to make a deal with the Americans.

The crux of the matter is that NAFTA does not prevent United States' industries from using protectionist countervailing duties to harass Canadian exporters. It only provides that a binational panel can review U.S. governmental determinations to see if U.S. law has been applied correctly.

Obviously this is a serious flaw within the NAFTA. There are no clear cut rules on subsidies, nor are there any real definitions of what constitutes a subsidy. These are shortcomings that must be remedied as soon as possible.

In the meantime in appears we are engaged in a war of attrition with American protectionist forces, which is only intensified during an election year in the United States. The minister knows the Americans have applied to set up a NAFTA panel to rule on the legality of Canada's set of tariffs on supply managed commodities, which were negotiated during the last round of GATT. The United States is also signatory to this agreement. According to its reading of events Washington now claims that NAFTA takes precedence over the GATT agreement and that Canada's tariffs must be eliminated.

I am confident that Canada will emerge victorious from this most recent NAFTA panel decision. The fact remains there is nothing to stop the United States from launching an extraordinary challenge or from changing its laws again. What does Canada do then? Do we continue to stand by the principles of NAFTA, flawed as they may be, or do we simply throw in the towel on our dairy, egg and poultry producers? I am sure the Minister for International Trade will agree with me that this case is shaping up as the largest trade dispute ever between Canada and the United States.

However, even if Canada wins the case, and I am sure we will, under the current atmosphere of rising American protectionism this battle could drag on for several more years for the reasons I have just alluded to.

Let us be clear what is at stake here. According to a study conducted by economic forecasters, if the United States succeeds in knocking down the tariff wall that covers Canada's dairy, egg and poultry producers, by the year 2000 the opening border will wipe out 28,000 Canadian farms, farming and food processing jobs. This would result in $3.4 billion in lost sales and would cost the government $2.7 billion in lost taxes.

Obviously if the upcoming NAFTA panel decision on the legality of Canada's tariff levels were to go against Canada we would have a very serious problem on our hands. What I would like to know, and perhaps the Minister for International Trade can tell me, is in the event of a Canadian victory what steps will he take to ensure these GATT negotiated tariffs are not simply bargained away through a special deal with the protectionist minded Americans? Will the minister go to the wall for Canada's dairy, egg and poultry producers?

[National Farm Safety Week, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Farm Safety Week is being observed Canada wide from March 7 to 13. The 1996 theme is child safety.

The Farm Safety Association has announced that farm related fatalities were down by 21 per cent in 1995. Still, 19 people were killed on Ontario farms during the course of farm work. Of the 19 individuals killed, two were children under the age of 15.

A safety project last year promoted safety among rural children and their families. Parents were reminded that agriculture is the only industry where the home is also an industrial work site, thus placing farm children at an increased risk of injury. I have always lived on a farm and as the member representing the largely agricultural riding of Lambton-Middlesex I know how vitally important farm safety is.

My congratulations to the Farm Safety Association and the 100 agricultural commodity groups and others who have become partners in this very successful project.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question to my hon. colleague who spoke most eloquently. It is with respect to the youth and seniors in his rural riding.

In the budget last night there was the community access component of the SchoolNet. He and I both share a rural riding so I know how important the low cost initiative aimed at helping 1,000 rural communities to participate in this knowledge based economy is to my hon. colleague. I would like my hon. colleague to explain to us how this will affect his riding and how beneficial it will be to youth.

[Petitions, March 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I table a petition signed by constituents in the riding of Lambton-Middlesex initiated by George Skinner on behalf of neighbours in Strathroy, Mount Brydges and Komoka, duly certified by the clerk of petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petitioners state that whereas the Young Offenders Act fails to act as a deterrent, is abused by young people predisposed to committing crime and encourages them the manipulation of children who are too young to be subject to the act, that Parliament undertake a complete and thorough review of existing legislation and amend the Young Offenders Act to reflect the concerns of this petition.