Roy Cullen

[Canada Student Loans, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak for seven minutes on the motion before the House moved by the hon. member for Vancouver East regarding the Canada student loans program.

I am confused by the wording of the privatizing of Canada student loans. In my riding I receive calls from students on numerous occasions with questions or comments about the Canada student loans program. I am not quite sure what the member means about privatizing the Canada student loans program.

The wording of this motion really seems to be calling for action by the Government of Canada to assist in the financing of post-secondary education for Canadian young people.

What the motion ignores is that the Government of Canada has undertaken extensive consultations with all stakeholders with an interest in this subject, including the provinces and the territories.

The government has implemented many of the recommendations of the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We have already taken measures to ensure Canadians have access to post-secondary education.

In his February 1998 budget speech the finance minister said: “Canadians do not need to be told that student debt has become a major problem. Students know it. Their families worry about it. Graduates must deal with it”.

In 1990 the average student debtload of a graduate completing four years of post-secondary education was $13,000. It is now almost double that, $25,000. In 1990 less than 8% of borrowers had debts larger than $15,000. Now nearly 40% do.

For the purposes of the Canadian opportunities strategy, the February budget proposed various improvements that reflect our approach regarding financial assistance to students, the new situation of today's students and current economic and demographic changes. The new measures are designed to help those most in need in the current economic context.

The budgetary measures include tax relief for interest on all student loans, interest relief for more graduates, extended repayment periods for those who need them, extended interest relief periods for those who remain in financial difficulty and reductions in loan principal for those who still face financial difficulty.

For the first time all students get tax relief for interest payments on their student loans. Each claimant will be allowed a 17% federal tax credit on the interest portion of payments of federal and provincial student loans. The income threshold for interest relief has been raised by 9%. This means a person can now earn more and still be eligible for interest relief.

The interest relief plan is designed so that the Government of Canada pays the interest on the loan for students facing financial difficulty in repaying their loans. Beginning next year partial interest relief will be available further up the income scale for graduates facing financial difficulties.

For borrowers who have exhausted 30 months of interest relief they can now ask their lending institutions to extend the loan repayment to 15 years. At current rates of interest this could lower monthly payments by close to 25%.

Now debt reduction can be provided for some graduates who still remain in financial difficulty after exhausting free interest relief measures. In these cases the loan principal may be reduced if annual payments exceed 15% of the borrower's income.

Other initiatives taken under the Canadian opportunities strategy also seek to improve Canadians' knowledge and skills to prepare them for a knowledge-based society.

First, the millennium scholarships will facilitate access to post-secondary education for over 100,000 students every year. These scholarships will be offered to both full time and part time students.

Second, Canada student grants of up to $3,000 a year will help more than 25,000 students with children or other dependants. These are grants, not loans, and they do not have to be repaid. Students with a permanent disability such as deafness, blindness or other physical or learning disability may be eligible for a Canada student grant of up $5,000 a year to cover exceptional education related costs. This is a $2,000 increase from what was provided in the previous special opportunity grant for students with disabilities. Part time students with demonstrated financial need may qualify for a grant of up to $1,200.

Finally, certain female doctoral students pursuing full time studies may qualify for a Canada study grant of up to $3,000 a year. This will help to increase the participation of women in certain fields of study. Engineering and applied sciences, agriculture and biological sciences, mathematics and physics, arts and social sciences are examples.

Taken together the measures I have described account for some $230 million of new expenditures by the Government of Canada on post-secondary financial assistance to Canada's students.

This is a remarkable commitment to promote the well-being of our students and to help them complete their education, at a time when higher levels of knowledge and skills are becoming necessary to allow us to remain competitive in the global economy.

In fact, overall, the federal government's initiatives will meet a large number of the requests made in the motion before us today.

In consultation with other players in the field of post-secondary education and the students themselves, the Government of Canada has devised a system that promotes accessibility for all Canadians. It is a system that works for today's economy.

In conclusion, while we can all appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Vancouver East for Canada's students, the actions already taken by the Government of Canada render the motion redundant.

[Division No. 247, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-43.

As with any new government undertaking, the cost aspect must always be considered. In the case of the proposed Canada customs and revenue agency, start up costs are minimal. Only the direct costs associated with the board of management and its secretariat will be new. In both cases, they will be minimal.

Other costs will arise in the normal course of events for the management of human resources and other administrative skills, in order to maximize the new agency's operating flexibility.

All these costs will be offset over time by the savings resulting from streamlined and more efficient internal procedure.

The agency will benefit from the greatly reduced time and energy spent on complex and unwieldy administrative procedures. For instance, under the present system, it can take up to one year to hire the large number of auditors required every year.

The reduction in hiring time and the elimination of numerous vacant positions will substantially lower staffing costs, as well as considerably improve service and the integrity of the overall tax system.

Besides these operating savings from productivity improvements, there are other potential savings from the new agency. The Public Policy Forum, an independent organization with extensive experience in public sector management, undertook a study to examine the cost of compliance with and administration of Canada's tax systems and the savings from a single administration.

The study concluded that there could be significant savings to Canadian businesses, particularly small businesses, from a single revenue administration. Savings were expected from such activities as single registration for taxpayers, common federal-provincial databases, the combination of certain forms, greater consistency in tax rulings and greater simplification of procedures.

It was estimated that the level of compliance savings to business each year would be between $116 million and $193 million dollars at a minimum. The study also examined the administrative costs to governments of tax collection and potential savings. It found that there was a high potential for savings in the areas of personal income tax, corporate income tax and payroll tax because of the similarities at the federal and provincial levels as well as in a common collection system.

Medium levels of savings were expected in the areas of audit and enforcement, client service possibly through a single point of contact, excise taxes and the assessment of returns. Other potential savings were seen to be possible through general reductions in administrative and technical support, such as a reduced requirement for management.

In total it was estimated that administrative costs to governments could be reduced by between $37 million and $62 million annually at a minimum. The critical point is that potential savings to individual Canadians, businesses and governments far outweigh the start up and new operating costs of the proposed agency.

Having 11 directors on the board of management nominated from the private sector by the provinces and territories will ensure that the agency continues to operate in a cost effective and responsive manner as would the other accountability mechanisms built into the legislation before this House.

When we have Canadian businesses focusing on marketing, developing products and developing business rather than filling in forms and dealing with administrative matters not only once but twice, then we have efficiencies in the economy. We have businesses out there doing what we want them to do, creating jobs for Canadians.

The Canada customs and revenue agency represents a very significant opportunity for the generation of benefits to the provinces and territories and to Canadian businesses and warrants speedy passage before this House.

I urge all members of this House to support this bill when it comes to a vote.

[Canada Savings Bonds, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, over the years millions of Canadians have used Canada Savings Bonds to build a more secure future for themselves and their families. Today marks the first day of sales for the new Canada Savings Bonds.

Many Canadians are currently filling out application forms to buy the new Canada Savings Bonds. In so doing, they are joining the more than 7 million Canadians who already own such bonds.

This year's Canada premium bond offers a higher interest rate compared to the original Canada Savings Bond.

For the first time in over 50 years, Canadians will be allowed to buy Canada Savings Bonds and Canada premium bonds over a six-month period, from October 5, 1998 to April 1, 1999.

I invite all members of this House to follow my example and take this opportunity to invest not only in their future, but also in the future of our great country.

[Forestry, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The forest industry in Ontario, B.C. and Alberta has expressed grave concern about the recent decision in the Sunpine case, a case involving access to timber resources. This decision could very negatively impact the forest industry. Will the minister be taking action on this very important matter?

[Competition Act, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was describing the large degree of concentration in the oil industry. In Toronto, for example, 75% to 85% of all retail gasoline sold is priced by the major oil companies through controlled operations.

The major oil companies say that at the retail level the competition is very fierce and intensive and the economics are very poor.

The independents are certainly struggling and fighting for market share against the majors. The independents do not have some of the opportunities which some of the major companies have. They are unable to develop the ancillary services that a lot of the major oil companies are doing today: car washes, convenience stores, et cetera. They cannot access the capital to do these types of things.

The banks will not touch the independent retailer of gasoline because they are concerned about how long they will be in business and what they call site remediation or environmental problems with sites. The small independents cannot get capital from the banks. The banks have said categorically that they will not look at them.

What about the majors? Are they making money at the retail level? They say they are not, but if we look at their annual statements we could not tell because that information is just not provided. Even if we could decipher that from their annual statements, the fact is that major oil companies price the product right through the whole chain. They are integrated oil companies so they explore, drill, extract, refine, market and retail. These are big oil companies such as ESSO and Shell. They control the price at the wholesale level which they call the rack price.

They say they have to charge the rack price at a certain level because they are concerned about product substitution from the United States. In other words, if they price their product too high, independent retailers and others would import gasoline from the United States.

In our consultations we discovered that in theory that is interesting but in actual fact there are the problems of importing gasoline, particularly in eastern Ontario and other parts of Ontario. They are faced with transportation costs, a lack of storage and terminal infrastructure, and a lot of red tape and bureaucracy. In my view one would need at least an 8 cent per litre spread to make it worth while to import gas from the United States. I think the argument of product substitution is a little weak.

Since 1991 many independents have unfortunately left the Ontario market. There could be a short term benefit for Ontario consumers because of the kind of pricing that goes on in the marketplace. What about the medium and long term? We have some evidence to show what happens in cases like that.

In New Brunswick and Newfoundland where there are very few independents the prices at the pump are among the highest in Canada. What my colleague's bill addresses is referred to as predatory pricing, in other words pricing designed to put others out of business.

There are industry experts who believe that major oil companies are trying to squeeze out the independents. I would just like to cite a study by Bloomberg's which reads:

—major oil companies were going to use price wars, new credit terms, and the strategic closure of service stations and refineries to squeeze independent gasoline retailers out of the market in central Canada.

Another study by ScotiaMcLeod suggested:

To set the stage for a better downstream environment beginning in 1993, it is our opinion that Imperial Oil Ltd. has put a strategy in place in 1992 to discipline the retail markets, with the aim directed at the independents.

Likewise Wood Gundy stated:

Imperial, Shell Canada Ltd. and Petro-Canada Inc. have targeted the country's independent marketers as being their most effective competition and with the current wave of rationalization, are trying to get their cost structure down to the same level as independents, who enjoy a two to four cent per litre advantage over the majors.

That is because of their lower cost structure. They do not have all the overheads to support. I think my colleague's bill addresses very well the question of predatory pricing.

I would now like to talk very briefly about the Competition Act and the competition bureau. Many Canadians have complained to the bureau and the bureau because of the legislation conducts its investigations by seeking meetings among the majors, and even at the local level, where they sit around at Tim Horton's and set prices. That does not have to happen because there are few at that level. They are price leaders and price followers. They do not have to sit around and discuss and decide on prices.

We need some beefing up of the Competition Act and to change the criminal burden to more of a civil burden.

In conclusion I sum up by saying Bill C-235 if passed would protect the independents we need to ensure a competitive marketplace. By ensuring that the integrated oil companies priced their product to independents at the same price they charge their own dealers we would ensure good prices for gasoline in Canada and for Canadians.

[Competition Act, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-235, a bill that would mandate that major oil companies selling gasoline to independents would have to sell it to independents at the same price that they sell it to their own branded dealers.

I have had the good pleasure of working with the member of parliament for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge on this initiative and I would like to commend him for his leadership on gasoline pricing and for chairing a task force that he put together. I was fortunate enough to work with him on that initiative.

Some might ask “What is the concern? If independents are charged for gasoline at a different price they can go to someone else. Instead of buying from Esso they could go to Shell or Petro-Canada”. The problem is that the wholesale market is very much a homogeneous market. It is controlled by three or four major companies: Petro-Canada, Shell, Esso and Ultramar. There is really one wholesale price that is driven by what they call the rack price. I will touch on that briefly later.

There really are not many choices, so it is imperative that the independents are charged the same price as the branded dealers.

When we set up this task force we met with Canadians all across Canada. In my own riding of Etobicoke North we had a meeting on January 23. There were representatives from the Etobicoke Chamber of Commerce, the gas dealers, trucking companies and others.

What we consistently heard across Canada is that Canadians want fair gasoline pricing. They are concerned also about the long weekend pricing and the volatility of pricing, but they really want a competitive and open market for gasoline pricing to ensure that prices are fair.

In fact, looking at gasoline prices right now, they really are not that bad. But the problem is that if the independent gasoline dealer is eliminated in Canada, then prices in the short run might be low but we will be burdened later with higher prices through this sort of oligopolistic market.

To achieve the goal of allowing independents the room to operate, to make a fair profit and to survive in a very competitive industry is a very challenging and daunting task. The independent gasoline dealers are really squeezed by the major oil companies.

In the oil industry there is a high level of concentration. There are now only 18 refineries in Canada, down from about 44 in 1960.

[R-2000 Program, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, an hon. member stood in the House last week and blamed the federal government's National Building Code and its R-2000 program for the so-called leaky condo crisis in British Columbia.

The R-2000 program is not to blame. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the use of air vapour barriers is a problem in the lower mainland or elsewhere in Canada. There have been no wall failures reported in R-2000 certified buildings in British Columbia.

The R-2000 program provides a basis for the design and construction of new homes which are more energy efficient. All R-2000 homes must comply with local and provincial building codes. CMHC, NRC, key stakeholders and the B.C. community are working together to come up with appropriate technical solutions that can be applied to repairs of affected buildings.

I am pleased also to inform the House that, based on research done by NRCan scientists, new seismic hazard information will become part of the year 2000 national building code.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter the debate on the justice estimates. I find it strangely ironic that the member for York South—Weston, who is not in the House at the moment, would come into this House, someone who has championed, as he would put it, the rules and regulations of the House, to speak on a topic totally unrelated to the justice estimates. I will not do that. I will immediately proceed to the justice estimates because that is what we are here to debate.

I will get into two areas with respect to the justice estimates. One is gun control. The other is the question of drinking and driving that has come up in the House over the last little while.

The House should support the justice estimates. With the budget that the justice department will have, if it passes the House, it will be able to get on with implementing a number of very important initiatives. Gun control is but one of them.

We have seen that this is a very useful, efficient and effective program and it is supported by Canadians very broadly.

We can see the effects of it already. The police in my riding in Etobicoke are already reporting some of the very positive effects of some of the early measures that were implemented and I am confident that more will come. I am totally convinced of that. We register pets and we register bicycles. I do not know why in the heck we should not register guns. They are lethal weapons.

There are other very important initiatives like the changes we are making to the youth justice system that this budget will allow our government to implement. With the changes now before us, youth 14 years and older who are repeat and violent offenders, who are convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault will receive an adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise.

I know in my riding of Etobicoke North that people are concerned about repeat young offenders. I think the justice minister and the department have come forward with very pragmatic and excellent solutions to this very serious problem.

The changes will also permit the publication of the names upon conviction of all young offenders who qualify for an adult sentence. Publication of the names of 14 to 17 year olds who are given a youth sentence for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault or repeat violent offences could also be permitted.

I think these are very important measures and this House should support them.

I would like to turn briefly to the question of drinking and driving. It is a very topical subject and I am sure it will be before the justice committee in the not too distant future.

Everyone in this House I am sure is very concerned, very saddened and shocked when they see individuals who are injured or who die as a result of being hit by a car driven by a drunk driver. We should be concerned about that. It is a very serious issue.

In the ensuing months when we debate these changes, I think that we should avoid simplistic solutions. Moving the tolerance level from .08 to .05 or to zero does not really address the problem. The problem is the repeat offender, the chronic drinker, the drinker who drinks and drives repeatedly.

The drinker who drives and gets into serious accidents is sanctioned by society through either a criminal sentence, a serious fine, or through the repeal of their licence. Immediately they jump back into their car, go down to the local bar, gets drunk, go out and maybe injure or kill someone.

That is the problem. It is not the casual responsible drinker. If the level were dropped to .05 or to .00 it would mean that people could not even have a beer and get in their car. Why should we be designing laws in this country to deal with the 5% or the 3% of society who are irresponsible? Why do we not use tougher sanctions on them?

I am amazed when I see drivers who drink and who get into serious accidents. Their licence is revoked, but they are caught a few months later in a car without a valid licence. Why do we not put people like that into jail? To me that is the solution. Why do we have to penalize people for having one drink responsibly in an evening, getting in their car and driving home in a very safe and cautious manner?

We should be thinking about those kinds of solutions. If we went with no risk policies it would mean that people would always leave their cars at home. They would not get into an aircraft. They would not cross the street. We cannot design policies to deal with every single risk in life. I think we need to have pragmatic policies that deal with serious problems, but they have to deal with the offenders of the problems.

In my mind, the problem is not the responsible drinker, it is the repeat offender who just turns their nose up at the justice system. They have been convicted of an offence, they have had their licence revoked, and they get back into a car, go out and drink and drive, and behave irresponsibly.

I understand that a coalition has been formed which includes MADD, Mothers Against Drinking and Driving.

I am sure it will present to the justice committee. It is saying that moving tolerance to .05 will not work either.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure I grasp the relevancy of this debate to the justice estimates. I do not see the connection.

[National Mining Week, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is recognized as a global leader in the sustainable production of minerals and metals. It ranks among the world's top five producers for some 16 major mineral commodities.

This world class industry has led to a rise in the demand for workers and highly skilled professionals and created growth in the mining-related manufacturing sector, including the environmental technology and services area.

Mining related jobs are an important source of high paying employment for many rural and remote communities across Canada.

National Mining Week celebrates the great contribution mining makes to our country. It takes place from May 11 to May 17. The theme of the 1998 National Mining Week is “Mining makes it happen”.

I call on all members of the House to join with me in saluting the men and women who have helped to make the Canadian mining industry a world leader.