Roy Cullen

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question.

I did not have a chance to deal at any length on cogeneration. In my view, it is an opportunity that we should look at, particularly right now in the context of Ontario where we have some nuclear capacity that is not in use and there are questions around reinvesting in that nuclear capacity.

I know from my experience in the natural resource sector that there are huge opportunities to use cogeneration as a competitive tool to be more competitive with the United States and other jurisdictions. It also has a huge environmental impact.

In the forest industry, for example, you are using biomass, wood waste. If you set up an electrical generating plant, you can fuel your own plant through wood waste biomass which really does not create very much of a problem in terms of greenhouse gases. Usually they build a capacity so there is some excess electricity. You sell that to the grid, Ontario Hydro. You are selling electricity at the margin.

The problem with electrical generation capacity and nuclear capacity is the huge capital cost of those plants and that translates, of course, into the cost of energy or electricity. I think there is a unique opportunity in Ontario right now, instead of ramping up this nuclear capacity, to look at cogeneration as a reasonable alternative.

As more cogeneration comes onstream, you are avoiding some of those huge capital investments. You are getting electricity at a marginal cost and cheaper electricity for the plants that are producing it. You are creating some competitive advantage for some of the companies that exist in Ontario now.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. With emissions trading, the experience we have as I mentioned is quite limited. When they get to the micro, micro level of individuals, clearly it is not workable, no.

I think it has some potential if you are looking at a transition phase where you have different regions or different contributors to greenhouse gases. What it does is it puts a market price on the result of not meeting certain targets. If those permits become concentrated in the hands of a few and the price goes up, the entity that is producing the greenhouse gas emissions faces a higher cost. The economics start to move more toward taking the measures that will be necessary to meet their own target.

The market pressures are reasonable. It has some practical challenges to fully implement, certainly on a global basis, and even implementing it here in Canada, but it would provide some transitional relief and it is something we should try.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak on Bill C-203, a bill to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.

I would like to congratulate the member for Lakeland for this initiative. I would like to congratulate our government as well for making some early moves in the right direction. As the parliamentary secretary indicated, more needs to be done, but I am very happy that we have started the process.

If we look at it from the point of view of economic efficiency, it does seem somewhat ironic that as we are breaking down barriers to trade internationally, we still do have some barriers to trade within our own country.

Within that context I wonder if we could talk briefly about the brewing industry. The brewing industry and the location of brewing plants in Canada has been one of those issues within the context of the internal trade agreement that has received some profile and some attention.

In my riding of Etobicoke North I have two very large breweries, a big Molson brewery and a big Labatt brewery. I have many dealings as a result of that with the brewing industry. When I speak with them we often discuss how the brewing industry in the United States has evolved. There are typically very large brewing plants in the United States in one location or two locations and they serve the domestic U.S.A. market and perhaps the market internationally. They tend to have huge plants and they capitalize on some tremendous economies of scale.

In Canada the brewing industry has developed somewhat differently. We have a number of smaller plants which are relatively large in size but compared to the megaplants in the United States, they tend to be smaller and they tend to be spread out across Canada. As I understand it, the reason that has evolved is that many provinces—including I suspect the province of Alberta, but I do not know that for certain—but various provinces have insisted that for the national breweries to do business in their province, they have restricted transport movements of beer. It really has meant that the brewing industry has been required to set up brewing plants in very many of the provinces. Presumably some of the major breweries have established plants in Alberta. Again, I do not have those facts in front of me.

If the barriers to internal trade are removed for the brewing industry, it would undoubtedly mean that some of the smaller plants across the prairies, in British Columbia, in the maritime provinces and in Ontario would shut down and a lot of the production would be consolidated into megaplants. I wonder if the hon. member for Lakeland would see that as a positive step and whether he would support it.

[Committees Of The House, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport, on Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act.

[Technologies Partnerships Canada, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Technologies Partnerships Canada or TPC is a vehicle for our government to invest in Canada's high technology industries.

Firms in my riding have praised TPC and have urged me to support additional funding for this program.

Can the Minister of Industry please explain to this House how TPC benefits Canada or is it just another handout to business?

[Small Business, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, across Canada small and medium size businesses are helping to power Canada's economic renewal. Their ability to innovate and to respond quickly to changing markets is enabling smaller businesses to create jobs for Canadians in increasing numbers.

It is small business week and I would ask the House to join with me in paying tribute to the achievements of this vital sector of our economy.

I also take this opportunity to salute a company in my riding which exemplifies a very successful small business. Alumicor Limited, located in Rexdale, is a company that manufactures, among other things, architectural aluminium storefronts. Founded in 1959, Alumicor Limited is a great Canadian success story. Currently the company has grown to employ 200 people. It has four offices across the country and generates sales in the $20 million range.

During this small business week Canadian entrepreneurs can celebrate the contribution they make to the Canadian economy and to all Canadians.

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, having been elected in 1996 I was only a member of the last Parliament for a very short period but I certainly would not use that as a cop-out.

I see it the opposite way. Perhaps this is what differentiates Reform members from Liberal members. I see the glass as half full not half empty. I see some courage in members of our caucus saying that we have to make changes so that we can move forward to the benefit of all Canadians.

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I must thank my Bloc Quebecois colleague for his comment.

This tax treaty and the amendments to the tax treaty really deal very specifically with the concern many members in this House have had, including members from parties opposite. It will allow Canadians a withholding tax of 25.5% on their social security benefits because they had lived and worked in the United States but who are now retired in Canada. Perhaps they are from the member's riding of Bellechasse or from places close to the U.S. border in the province of Quebec. I am sure people there are affected as well.

This will be extremely beneficial. I would not want to leave the impression that other members opposite did not have similar concerns. It is one advantage in being the government of the day. If people elect members who are part of the government, they have a chance to speak very directly to members of our own caucus. In that sense, I suppose all members had a role to play but I think the Minister of Finance is to be commended on a very progressive move.

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question.

The 50% inclusion rate is an issue that has been raised a number of times in this House. What we need to look at in tax policy are movements that result in the greatest tax equity. We cannot have everybody coming out in a net-net-plus position.

The difficulty with this change is that if we had not made these changes in concert with the changes in the tax treaty, some people would have received a huge windfall gain. That would not have been equitable to those Canadians who are not subject to the same rules who are receiving Canada pension funds. We would have created an uneven playing field so we had to make the adjustment at the same time.

I am pleased to say that this tax treaty and the moves that are made within it will benefit the vast majority of Canadians. In particular, low income seniors will benefit.

While I agree with the member's comment that we need to provide some kind of stability in terms of tax planning, unfortunately the world is not perfect and we have to deal with the world as it is. The minister has made some very positive changes here that we should all be thankful for.

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for two out of three of his comments and for his remarks.

The Minister of Finance is like any other individual or government and from time to time it takes some courage for a person to say that maybe we need to move in a slightly different direction. Rather than being an indictment of the Minister of Finance, I think this is a clear statement that our Minister of Finance in fairness listens not only to members of his caucus but to members opposite. I am sure he received a number of representations from members opposite.

As a result of some work within our own caucus and other representations, the minister has made some adjustments. As the member noted, they will be very beneficial to the vast majority of Canadians who are in this position, particularly low income Canadians. I see it as a very positive step where we can move forward. I applaud the Minister of Finance for having the courage to move in this direction.