David Iftody

[Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-285 on behalf of the people of the Whiteshell facility in my riding of Provencher and to say that this bill would in effect eliminate Canada's nuclear industry.

The government believes that to do so would be fundamentally wrong. Not only has the nuclear industry provided a good return for investment to Canadians, and I will get into that later, it has achieved international acclaim. That recognition includes the recent Nobel prize to Dr. Bert Brockhouse for pioneering scientific work carried out at the Chalk River laboratories of AECL.

I would like to look at the myths and also address the facts of the Canadian nuclear industry. Nuclear energy supplies 15 per cent of Canada's nuclear electricity with a value of close to $4 billion.

The hon. member for Kamloops stated earlier that the nuclear industry provides 4 per cent of Ontario's power. That is not true. The fact is the 22 reactors in Ontario provide 66 per cent of that power.

Direct employment in the nuclear sector is estimated at 30,000 jobs and at least 10,000 jobs in other sectors depend directly on the nuclear industry. Many of these jobs are highly skilled and knowledge based, the kind of jobs that are consistent and compatible with the new economy. They are the kind of jobs that we are trying to develop and encourage in Canada. Indeed in the last year we have created 437,000 of those kinds of jobs.

More than 150 companies across six provinces supply manufacturing and engineering products or services. In addition to those that we directly subcontract to, there are another 400 or 500 companies beyond that who subcontract to those 150 companies.

The recent sale of three Candus to Korea has generated more than $1 billion in Canadian content, providing some 25,000 person-years of work over six years. The Korean Candu sale in 1992 was Canada's largest export order. It is well known to most Canadians and certainly to all those interested in the nuclear industry of the Prime Minister's most successful and recent trip to China where letters of undertaking were signed with the Chinese for two more reactors, estimated to bring back a total of $4 billion worth of investment in Canada.

In 1991 the industry had a trade surplus of approximately $500 million and that trend continues. Ontario Hydro estimates that from 1965 to 1989 the nuclear industry saved the Canadian economy $17 billion in foreign exchange. Were we to have imported oil and coal, it would have cost the Canadian taxpayers another $17 billion, to say nothing about the points addressed by my hon. colleague from Renfrew about the acid rain emissions and other kinds of global warming effects that would inevitably occur from burning these other kinds of fuels. For each year of the 1990s foreign exchange savings will amount to about $1 billion.

The federal government has supported the development of Canada's nuclear energy capability. In the period between 1952 and 1994 the nuclear industry contributed at least $23 billion to the gross domestic product. The federal government received $700 million annually from the nuclear industry in the form of income and sales taxes.

I can tell you of a similar study to the one that Ernst & Whinney completed for the Government of Canada done in Manitoba which demonstrates clearly that the investment that the government makes in the facility close to where I live generates $30 million of tax a year in the Manitoba economy alone.

The private sector also benefits. In the four years between 1988 and 1992 private sector companies that provide nuclear products and services had sales of almost $10 billion. The performance of the research reactors has been the envy of the world. The performance of the Candu reactor is second to none.

Out of the 369 power reactors which provide significant amounts of electricity in 29 countries throughout the world there are four Candus in the top 10 in lifetime performance. As was pointed out earlier, the reactor at Point Lepreau, New Brunswick is number one. That is a formidable record.

With the kind of high-tech job-creation initiative that is inherent in the nuclear industry why the member for Kamloops would want to oppose that kind of job creation and that kind of record for Canadians and Canadian researchers.

Nuclear energy's contribution to electricity supply is not its only benefit to humankind. It also contributes to the quality of life. Its spinoff benefits to the environment and to medicine are equally significant. I refer to clause 5 of this bill where the member for Kamloops wants to keep isotope production but toss out everything else.

Let me make a couple of other points about some of the more recent research and possibilities.

In the biotech area, for example, in terms of a radiation facility we can design new kinds of drugs. A nuclear capacity allows us to investigate small, molecular membrane interactions which will help in terms of the health care, the medical field and the life chances of Canadians who are unfortunate enough to have trouble with cancer or other kinds of illnesses. This is a record breaking and ground breaking kind of technology that is important to us all.

The boron neutron capture therapy is another example. It is a new mode of radio therapy that combines tumour seeking components to destroy cancer cells and tumours. Is that wrong? Is that bad? Is that not a worthy undertaking for the Canadian economy? Is that not a legitimate expense for the Government of Canada?

It was mentioned earlier by one of my colleagues that we have built in AECL through one of its spin-off companies over 1,300 of the world's cobalt therapy machines. Each year 500 million people are treated for cancer through those 1,300 machines. Is that not a wonderful contribution and worth the effort of the Government of Canada to participate with our world neighbours in cancer treatment research? I think so.

The nuclear industry is an important factor in the sustainable development equation. Nuclear electricity generation is clean, burning an abundant fuel and has no other practical uses. It does not emit the acid gases, as I referred to earlier, carbon dioxides and particulates associated with fossil fuels.

Nuclear energy has been and continues to be a good investment for Canadians and for Canada. It plays an important role not only in providing clean electricity, but in the creation of jobs, revenues and in spin-off benefits that have improved the quality of life of Canadians and the people in other nations.

We talked earlier about some of the financial aspects in the Ernst & Whinney study which I think was important and timely in terms of allowing Parliament to tell Canadians what this kind of investment has meant over the past 30 years.

As my hon. colleague from Renfrew pointed out earlier, surely I could go to any Canadian taxpayer or the the Canadian business person and say: "For every dollar you give me, I promise you a 400 or 500 per cent return, a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio". Surely that is a wise investment of Canadian tax dollars to bring those revenues back to the Government of Canada, to create jobs in Canada and to continue to place Canada and Canadians at the front of the Canadian nuclear industry.

[United States Entrance Fee, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today President Clinton introduced a budget measure that would in effect charge each and every Canadian $1.50 U.S. or $3.00 per car to enter the U.S.

The U.S. administration will seize Canadian dollars and use them to beef up security at the U.S.-Mexico border. Essentially, it looks to me as though the U.S. government wants to tax Canadians to solve its security problems at the Mexico border.

These measures are a violation of our agreements which allow the free movement of goods and people across our borders. This is an illegitimate tax grab by the U.S. government and an insult to Canadians who respect reciprocal cross-border freedom for Canadians and our American neighbours.

This is a further irritant to the already strained Canada-U.S. relations. It should therefore be struck down by Congress and taken off the U.S. budgetary table.

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate and discuss the report of the Standing Committee on Industry on small business, taking care of business.

All members on that committee worked very hard to produce what has been called by the Financial Post a mini task force report because of its depth. Considerable thought was given to the precise nature of the recommendations. It is heartening to hear helpful suggestions from members on the other side of the House with respect to the contents of the report.

I would like to mention a couple of things with respect to what is happening in this country in terms of job growth and economic growth, let us say since January. We can use that as a timeframe. There were 327,000 new jobs created, most of those in the manufacturing sector which, as the House will know, are long term jobs. Only 11,000 of those are considered part time jobs.

I would like to share with members on the other side of the House that the most recent economic indicators on a number of different fronts suggest that business confidence is at a record high, profits are up, expectations for hiring are also on the rise. The retail industry in this country is expecting the greatest volume of retail sales this Christmas. The reason is that consumers are now buying cars, microwaves and refrigerators and so on, what are considered the soft market items or the confidence items in the economy.

This government has set a framework to give confidence to small businesses that are now producing the jobs, a confidence that we need in this country.

I would like to speak briefly about my riding in Manitoba, the rural riding of Provencher, and the importance of small business to rural Manitobans and to rural people across Canada. Because of the farming communities I represent which provide the lifeblood of small business and economic activity in rural areas, a number of small businesses have sprung up around those. One of the larger communities I represent, Steinbach, has done tremendous things working closely with the farm community and has developed a number of leading Canadian companies, taking off from basic family businesses. Small business is an important element in rural Canada and something we ought to continue to support.

Earlier a member from the Reform Party mentioned his concerns about the use by small business of the instrument called western economic development. I believe it was a member from Edmonton. I would remind him and the House about a number of projects that were funded in Alberta, almost 800 since 1988 until 1992 or thereabouts. In Alberta 800 projects in Alberta were funded under the western economic development program, a number of them in Edmonton.

I noticed one recently with great interest with the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce where it received about $17,500 under western economic diversification to undertake a symposium with business people in Alberta to seek ways it might access Asian Pacific markets and assist its small businesses. I do believe that we are making a contribution, a very valuable one, even in Alberta.

Let me speak briefly about one of the other questions that was raised here earlier with respect to women in small business. In my riding of Provencher I have had a great number of calls and interest by women starting small businesses. We have to give this idea considerable thought.

Between 1990 and 1994 during the recession the majority of companies that were created were what we call micro-businesses. In other words, they are not really small businesses defined as less than 50 employees but those creating two, three, or maybe five or six jobs in a small community. We found that women, working usually out of their homes, joining with some other partners, are starting these small cottage industries that are moving toward greater possibilities in terms of growth.

We have seen in the most difficult times the contribution that they have made to the Canadian economy. I was very pleased therefore when my colleague, the hon. Minister of Human Resources Development, announced through western diversification the women's business network instrument which we believe is going to be very helpful in terms of assisting women, and I hope rural women in western Canada, to access and network resources.

I say this because it comes back to one of the principal elements of this report. Canadians, small business people in particular and I believe even more so women, having faced these difficulties are having difficulty getting access to capital. We believe that through a number of these government programs, through the implementation of the recommendations in this report, we are going to be able to provide those kinds of financial tools to individuals and small business people so that they can get these companies up and running.

With respect to the banks I know it has been debated extensively here today. The media has given this topic a great deal of coverage over the last few months. This is not an exercise in bank bashing. I believe all members of Parliament who were sitting on the committee approached it with integrity and good faith and were honestly seeking solutions. We took it with great interest and respect when the banks said to us that they did not want to be regulated. They wanted competition and they were not afraid of competition.

I found it quite surprising that when we announced the suggestion of a schedule III bank to provide more competition outside of the larger cities in the rural areas the Canadian Banker's Association said that it would vigorously oppose these kinds of measures, and its concern about depositors' investments.

I hasten to remind those who perhaps do not know when we are talking about small businesses that they create 85 per cent or 90 per cent of the jobs in the country. If the banks are concerned about depositors' money, who is it on the 15th and 30th of every month who go to the bank with they pay cheques? Who are the depositors? It does not take a lot of thinking to quickly conclude that those depositors the banks are trying to protect are people working for small businesses in this country.

We have to have a closer look at that. We are willing to work with the banks in a very constructive way to address the needs of small business. It is very disconcerting to hear that they are criticizing some of the elements of the report.

One of the things that I wanted to mention in my final minute is the most recent deal in China with the CANDU reactors involving some $3.6 billion and the export of high tech and value added jobs in this country. I wish to advise the House that the majority of those contracts once successful are going to go to hundreds of high tech companies that will export in terms of services and direct sales their capabilities to this China deal.

I thank the government and the Prime Minister for taking leadership in that role, for undertaking those memorandums of understanding on those deals. I believe it is going to help small business all over Canada.

[The Economy, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

There are growing concerns among the Canadian small business community about the sustained growth of the economy and third quarter results.

The small business community in particular now is undertaking long term investment and hiring decisions on the prospect of sustained growth. What assurances can the Minister of Finance give this House that the recovery is secure and under way?

[Petitions, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on behalf of a church in Steinbach, a community I represent.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Petitions, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents in Provencher to present two petitions. The first is from the Ukrainian Catholic Women's League.

They respectfully pray that Parliament continue to reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in Canada and that the present provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada which forbids the counselling, procuring, aiding or abetting of a person to commit suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament consider expanding palliative care that would be accessible to all dying persons in Canada.

[Infrastructure Program, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister and my hon. colleagues, one year ago today we were elected to serve Canadians.

During this year the federal government has kept its promise of good government. One of the red book promises, the infrastructure program, has paved the way to considerable investment and job creation in my riding of Provencher.

This year I have been to Pine Falls, Steinbach, St. Agathe, St. Malo and Emerson in my riding, to name a few of the 40 communities I serve. Throughout this time the people of Provencher, even those people who did not support us, have had many good things to say about our government and our Prime Minister.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the good people of Provencher for their support. I look forward to seeing and serving them again in the upcoming year.

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, again, if there was a question of impropriety with respect to those responsible in either the handling of grain or trading in this commodity, I find these suggestions a bit surprising.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette that I am sure the crown and the minister represent the interests of farmers. If there is any impropriety or any evidence of it, if this member has received any facts or actual information to support that from this particular gentleman, I would be pleased to pass it on to the minister of agriculture and conduct an investigation.

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for those helpful comments.

I would like to respond as quickly as I can to the second one first. On his question of companies shortchanging producers, I do not have any facts to that effect. I have never seen any documents or heard any representations from farmers in Provencher in support of those rather surprising statements.

I refer the hon. member to a phone call I made this morning to the Manitoba Pool Elevator. I asked: "How many members do you have? What kind of support do you have in Manitoba?" They have 18,000 members. I assure the hon. member that I have faith in the good judgment of those members to make decisions and to keep an eye on those institutions which respect their best interests.

In terms of the service charges I would say the same. In terms of new service charges and outcomes from these policy changes which will be reviewed in two years, I believe the members will have that input. I assure the hon. member we will not allow grain companies to run away unchecked, at a complete arm's length from their producers.

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-51, a bill to amend the Canada Grain Act. The bill has many positive measures that will contribute to the prosperity and competitive advantage of farmers and indeed all Canadians.

The aspects of the bill I intend to address are the amendments that will remove the obligation of government to establish maximum tariffs for services performed by primary transfer and terminal elevator operators.

For the benefit of members who are unfamiliar with the grain industry, a tariff is a charge assessed by an elevator company for services such as handling, cleaning of grain, storage and drying of grain. As the Canada Grain Act is now written, the Canadian Grain Commission is required to establish by regulation the maximum allowable tariff for each elevator service. If an elevator company wishes to change its tariff, it must give the commission 14 days of notice. If it wishes to offer a new service it cannot provide it until the commission has established a maximum tariff for the new service.

These laws date from an era when farmers had few marketing choices and farmer organizations were relatively weak. In the early decades of this century these provisions made sense because elevator companies were not always as scrupulous as they should have been. Farmers were vulnerable so these changes were brought in at an appropriate time for protection. I know all members of the House continue to support them.

In the grain industry of the nineties however this kind of government intervention, as I know the Reform Party would agree, provides no measurable benefit for producers as it places unnecessary obstacles in the path of grain companies.

These are not merely my opinions. They reflect the advice the commission received from the grain industry and producer groups during the 1992 grains and oilseeds regulatory review. As the minister said this morning 57 groups were consulted. In addition we received written responses. The government shares the perspective of those representative groups.

If the key participants want this change who are we to deny them? We will go along with it. We have concluded that regulating elevator tariff maximums is not in the best interest of the grain industry. We believe that removing maximums will encourage increased urgently needed capital investment by elevator companies. We are therefore confident the measures we are proposing today would result in a flexible, more competitive elevator industry.

What are the changes we are proposing? First, the obligation that the Canadian Grain Commission set maximum elevator tariffs will be eliminated. Elevator operators will be able to decide for themselves how much they will charge for their services. As well, while we will still require elevator companies to file their tariffs with the commission, the requirement to give 14 days notice of the change they wish to make in their tariffs will be removed. This will allow elevator companies the same freedom enjoyed by other businesses, other farm groups and

agri-groups, namely the freedom to adjust their prices quickly to respond to local market conditions.

We have discussed these notions with respect to the wheat board and other kinds of institutions in place for the Canadian grain farmers. This is the way to respond to those niche market needs. We have that in the particular bill. As well, operators will no longer be required to charge the same tariff at all of their elevators. This will allow them more flexibility in rate setting.

We will not be making these changes overnight. Again, on the advice of producers and acting with due prudence with the grain companies, we recognized the need for a transition period. For a two-year period, the Canadian Grain Commission will retain the power to set maximum tariffs by order, if situations arise where the tariff charged is excessive. Those checks and balances are there. Those protections are there for members of the House representing grain farmers in their areas who are concerned about drastic changes that may not have the policy outcomes we intend.

When the two-year transition period has concluded, the commission will still exercise its power to investigate complaints. It is hoped that problems which may arise after the two-year transition period has ended will be resolved through discussion and moral suasion. We want to bring the people back to the table again to discuss any concerns and glitches that may still be evident in the policy.

Nevertheless government will retain the power to intervene if intervention is required. The commission will continue to have the authority to reimpose maximum tariffs subject to the approval of the governor in council if circumstances so warrant.

Inevitably in a situation like this one the first question to be asked will be: How will the measure affect the producer? All of us in the House today engaging in this debate have those interests firsthand.

Protection of the interests of grain producers remains one of the most primary purposes of the act. The government has introduced numerous amendments to the act which will benefit producers. This particular amendment is no different.

How are producers protected in a deregulated tariff environment? First an important point I want to stress particularly for the members of the Reform Party, and I speak in terms of Manitoba. They have their own producer owned or controlled elevator companies to protect their own interests. I am referring to such companies as the United Grain Growers. Manitoba Pool Elevators with 18,000 members in that province own the elevators. The interests of elevator owners and the interests of farmers are one and the same. We are not going to have the kind of subjugations and conflicts of interest leading to taking advantage of producers bringing their products to the elevators if we have that kind of producer involvement at the elevator door.

It is the same for the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the Alberta Wheat Pool. We do not believe for one moment that farmers will allow-and I have full confidence they will not-their own companies to take advantage of them. Producer owned co-operatives are formidable players in the grain industry. At Thunder Bay, for example, 75 per cent of the terminal capacity is operated by producer owned or controlled companies.

As my hon. colleague from Saskatchewan had mentioned earlier, on the west coast producers own 54 per cent of that capacity, the majority holders. In the interests of their producer owners these companies will maintain downward pressure on tariffs, forcing privately owned companies to compete. Moreover most producers will have choices they did not have in 1912 when the Canada Grain Act was passed. If they did not like what one company was charging they would take their grain to another. Allowing opportunities is the secret to that competitive advantage and open market competition. Competition will keep the rates in line and in some cases, I am convinced, will reduce them.

If the grain producers' own companies in the competitive marketplace are not able to set fair prices, the Canadian Grain Commission is still there to investigate. The commission will be able to limit tariffs and will retain the right to set maximum tariffs by regulation. This right will only be exercised, however, in extreme situations.

Members can rest assured that even in a deregulated tariff environment the Canadian Grain Commission will have the legal tools to defend the interest of grain producers whether in Lisgar-Marquette, Provencher or Brandon-Souris, important Manitoba ridings with grain producers.

In conclusion, I encourage members to support the legislation and I thank those who support it. It offers significant opportunities for grain farmers to become more competitive. At the same time it retains appropriate means to protect the fair interests of grain producers should these interests be threatened.