John Manley

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[Lévis Shipyard, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Davie Industries is now under the protection of the Bankruptcy Act. They have just got more time, until September 15 of this year, to make a proposal to their creditors.

I believe two firms, one American and one European, have indicated an interest. I also believe that, because of the fierce competition among shipbuilders, the Asian crisis and the low price of oil, the time is perhaps not the best. However, we will continue to work with them through this difficult period.

[Statistics Canada, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada has in no way delayed the release of its report on labour productivity.

In fact, in 1998, its provisional estimates were released on July 21. In 1997, they were released on June 5. This year, plans are to release them in June, which is perfectly normal.

[The Economy, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that was pretty convoluted. There may be a question in there somewhere, but in essence these people in the Conservative Party want to talk about tax cuts.

Let us do a rough calculation of the interest we pay every year on the debt that the Conservatives accumulated during their nine years in office. That in itself would finance a 25% tax cut across the board. That is the essence of the problem. If he thinks productivity has to do with anything other than quality of life and standards of living, then he fundamentally misunderstands the debate. The reason we want to talk about health care is because it is part of our standard of living.

[The Economy, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, the previous government knew very little about productivity and laid the basis for this country's problems in productivity by running up a debt and a deficit of $42 billion a year.

That is the essence of a number of the problems we face. It is the essence of the reason we have had to take our tax cuts as we have been able to afford them. It is the essence of the problem we have had in making large enough investments in science, research and development, in the National Research Council and in the granting councils. This is the source of a complex problem that we all have a stake in resolving, but they—

[Premier Of Ontario, May 4th, 1999]

Perhaps not, Mr. Speaker, but I am delighted to have an opportunity to respond to that question. After all, after the nine years of deficits piled up by the party that member represents, we brought them to zero. It enabled us to make tax cuts. That is the difference between us.

What is happening in Ontario? Mike Harris promises tax cuts. Where does he get the money? He borrows it.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member misses the point that it would be expensive in that it creates a precedent for other sectors. In other words, if there is to be both leasing and rapid write-offs provided for ships, why would it not also be provided for rail cars, for example?

Once we go down that path we effectively opt into a regime of assigning depreciation to other taxpayers on other kinds of assets. Maybe there is an argument to be made for that. Perhaps there could be. I am sure the secretary of state would be willing to hear it, but the member has to appreciate that this is not something we can necessarily isolate to ships. If we are to do that, we had better be prepared to entertain proposals in other sectors as well.

With respect to trying to find with the Americans some narrower exemptions from the Jones act, I can presume to speak on behalf of my colleague in saying that we are quite prepared to work with the industry if we can target areas where we might be able to make progress.

As a member of the PC Party the hon. member will know that the transportation section was originally covered by the FTA and then was pulled out at the last minute by the Americans, thereby ensuring that the Jones act was protected.

If I am not mistaken, there was a time when I was in opposition that I raised a question with the then minister of international trade when NAFTA was being negotiated on this very topic. Indeed it was a part of the negotiating objectives of the Government of Canada at the time that NAFTA was being negotiated. It was not successful in penetrating the Jones act then.

Maybe we could make some additional headway now perhaps in a targeted way. I think the government would be willing to pursue that possibility, if indeed it is one that would be fruitful.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that question. I certainly would share the member's concern if the design is Canadian, if it is a product that we could be making and exporting. I would like to get some of the details and I certainly will look into it.

I can assure the member that various agencies, including EDC and our trade representatives abroad, are very keen to support manufacturers of Canadian boats so that they have the same success in foreign markets as other manufacturers. I look forward to receiving information.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is not true because there are no loans for domestic sales in the aerospace industry. The EDC supports export sales. That is exactly what it is there for. It is called the Export Development Corporation. There is no program that supports domestic sales in any industry in Canada.

I am sure that several industries would like to have a program that supports domestic sales, but such a program does not exist at the moment. In Nova Scotia and in Quebec, the provincial governments decided to provide that kind of support, but there is no such program at the federal level, and I think it could create a precedent that would be quite costly.

The United States have Title XI, which subsidizes domestic sales as well as export sales.