37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 102
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 25, 2001
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Government Response to
Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Air Canada Public Participation
Act |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Interparliamentary
Delegations |
|
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga
Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Post Act |
|
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ)
|
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Corrections and Conditional Release
Act |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
VIA Rail |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
[------] |
|
|
Kidney Disease |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order
Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
Canadian Alliance, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
Canadian Alliance, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
Canadian Alliance, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
Canadian Alliance, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
|
|
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Small Business Week |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic,
Lib.) |
|
|
Poppy Campaign |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention
Month |
|
|
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
James Gladstone |
|
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut,
Lib.) |
|
|
Medical Radiation Technology
Week |
|
|
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Literacy Action Day |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton
(Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Marc Alexandre
Chartrand |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East,
Lib.) |
|
|
Block Parents |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Literacy Action Day |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South
Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Literacy |
|
|
Mme Raymonde Folco (Laval-Ouest,
Lib.) |
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
2006 Gay Games |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ) |
|
|
Harbours |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Liberal Government |
|
|
Hon. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Chalk River
Laboratories |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
(Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Patent Legislation |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Customs and Excise |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Air Canada |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Trade |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Afghanistan |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Charitable
Organizations |
|
|
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
APEC |
|
|
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St.
James—Assiniboia, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State
(Asia-Pacific), Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Housing |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Pay Equity |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois
(Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of
the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
(Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Firearms Act--Speaker's
Ruling |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Royal Assent
|
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
Private Members’ Business
|
|
|
National Rivers Day |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North,
Lib.) |
|
|
Royal Assent
|
|
|
[------] |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Private Members’ Business
|
|
|
National Rivers Day |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott
(Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, October 25, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1005)
[English]
Government Response to
Petitions
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to
four petitions.
* * *
Air Canada Public Participation
Act
Hon. Don Boudria (for the
Minister of Transport)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-38, an
act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
[Translation]
Interparliamentary
Delegations
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the delegation
of the Interparliamentary Union, which represented Canada at the 105th
interparliamentary conference held at Havana, Cuba, March 28 to April 7,
2001.
[English]
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga
Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the
Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the meeting
of the subcommittee on future security and defence capabilities of the NATO
Parliamentary Assembly held in Germany from June 25 to 29, 2001.
Also pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour
to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Canadian NATO
Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the meeting of the
committee of economics and security of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly held in
Washington and Boston, U.S.A. from June 11 to 15, 2001.
* * *
[Translation]
Canada Post Act
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-404, an
act to amend the Canada Post Act (mail contractors).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce
an amendment to the Canada Post Act, which would enable all the little rural
mail contractors to be exempted from section 13.5 of the Canada Post Act in
order to have the ability to negotiate under the Canada Labour Code.
It is unacceptable that after 20 years of existence,
Canada Post, which now has earnings in the millions and pays out some very
substantial dividends to the government, would have a legislative provision
allowing it to snub the demands of some 6,000 workers in Canada, people who in
many cases are earning less than minimum wage.
This is unjust, when their employer is likely going to
provide its sole shareholder, the federal government, with $200 million in
dividends this year.
The bill is being introduced on behalf of these
workers.
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
[English]
Corrections and Conditional Release
Act
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian
Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-405, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act (parole hearings).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to introduce my private member's bill entitled, an act to amend the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, specifically with respect to parole
hearings.
The bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act to permit a victim of an offence to read at a parole hearing a
statement describing the harm done to or the loss suffered by the victim
arising from the commission of an offence.
The bill is a logical extension to the changes made to
the criminal code in Bill C-79, the victim's rights act, adopted by the House
in the 36th parliament.
Bill C-79 contained a provision granting victims the
right to provide an oral or written statement at the time of
sentencing.
It is my understanding that departmental policy does
exist allowing victims of crime to present oral statements at parole hearings,
however there is nothing expressly provided in statute governing the practice
and policy can be changed at any time, as we know.
My private member's bill would guarantee victims the
right to make an oral statement if they so choose. I look forward to debating
the bill further in the House and I sincerely hope it gains the opportunity to
be made votable.
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
(1010)
Petitions
VIA Rail
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition
from the citizens of the Peterborough area who would like to see VIA service
restored between Toronto and Peterborough.
The petition has support in 10 federal ridings:
Haliburton--Victoria--Brock, Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, Scarborough--Rouge
River, Whitby--Ajax, Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington, Oshawa,
Markham, Durham, Northumberland as well as Peterborough.
People in all those ridings see the environmental
benefits, the road safety benefits and the benefits to the business environment
of the Greater Toronto area.
* * *
Kidney Disease
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which I would like
to present. This is from citizens of the Peterborough area who would like to
see the name of our national institute that is devoted to kidney research
changed.
At present the institute is called the Institute of
Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes. These citizens believe it would engage the
public more and be more effective if the word “kidney” were included in the
title.
The petitioners call upon parliament to encourage the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research to explicitly include kidney research as
one of the institutes of its system to be named the institute of kidney and
urinary tract diseases.
* * *
Questions on the Order
Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered
today: Nos. 68 and 70.
[Text]
Question No. 68--
Mr. Rick
Borotsik:
With regard to the communications branch of the
Department of Agriculture: (a) what is its total budget for the
2000-2001 fiscal year; and (b) what did the April 6, 2001, EKOS Inc.
research contract cost?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Communication branch budget for the fiscal year 2000-01
A-base budget was $5,260,000.
The cost of the April 6, 2001, Ekos Inc. research
contract cost $77,688.63 for 12 focus groups held across Canada.
Question No. 70--
Mr. Rick Borotsik:
What measures has the government taken to ensure that
cross-border trade of agriculture products with the United States is not being
disrupted following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
First, the government would like to express
appreciation for the patience, co-operation and flexibility shown by producers,
processors and distributors during this time of disruption following the
terrorist attacks. Canada’s overreaching priority must be the safety and
security of our borders and citizens. In view of the acts of terrorism, customs
authorities in both Canada and the U.S. are more vigilant at ports of
entry.
The government recognizes the importance of maintaining
trade, while at the same time mitigating the risks related to the health and
safety to the public. In the case of agricultural commodities, the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, works with customs officials by inspecting
products for health and safety requirements, which facilitates the movement of
all commodities, especially perishable shipments and live animals.
During the early days following September 11, when
large backlogs existed, initiatives such as expediting shipping lanes for the
above commodities were employed. Through the dedicated work and co-operation of
customs officials, CFIA and other departments, delays at the border have now
been largely eliminated and presently we are not experiencing undue delays.
CFIA continues to work closely with U.S. counterparts to focus resources on
high risk products and carriers as a first priority.
The CFIA’s web page http://www.inspection.gc.ca/ links
to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency’s web page, which provides an estimate of
border delays to assist exporters in planning their shipments.
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the
remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill
C-32, an act to implement the Free Trade
Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic
of Costa Rica, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of International
Trade) moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed
to)
Hon. Don Boudria
moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this
important bilateral free trade initiative between Canada and Costa Rica on
behalf of the Minister for International Trade.
I would like to offer our congratulations to several
people: to our colleague from Ottawa Centre, the chair of the trade
subcommittee, who held hearings on the bill; to our colleague, the member for
Etobicoke--Lakeshore, who is the chair of the sugar caucus as it is called and
who had some very important input, along with other colleagues, on the
legislation; and, indeed, to all members of SCFAIT, the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I, on behalf of the minister, would
like to thank both the opposition members and the government members for the
good and co-operative spirit in which they worked on the legislation. We were
able to move the legislation along at a very good pace. On behalf of the
Minister for International Trade, we offer our thanks and appreciation for the
work that was well done.
We are now in the final stage of debate on the
Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement implementation act. I welcome the
opportunity to address the House on this important matter.
However, before I get to the matter at hand, I would
first like to say a few words about the impact of the terrible events of
September 11.
Many Canadians find it difficult to believe there are
those who claim that our country can return to business as usual. Our economy
and the entire global economic system has been severely shaken by the
tremendous human and economic losses we experienced last month.
As members know, many sectors have felt an immediate
impact. The air transport, hospitality and communications industries, for
instance, have been hit by a dramatic and sudden reduction in consumer demand.
However, as you will no doubt recall, Mr. Speaker, in 1991 there was an
economic slowdown related to concerns about international political
instability. This was quickly followed by a decade of very strong
growth.
Today there are also reasons to have faith in the
future. Governments of the free world, including our government, are taking
unprecedented steps to combat global terrorism and improve security within
their own borders. Economically, we know that our markets are resilient and
that difficulties such as those experienced at the Canada-U.S. border crossing
are starting to ease.
Together we can overcome the inertia of fear or worry
and establish a new standard of normalcy now strengthened with a renewed sense
of purpose.
While it may not be business as usual, we are certainly
taking care of the usual business for the good of all Canadians. The free trade
agreement we are discussing today is certainly an integral part of our efforts
in that direction.
I would like to turn now to the benefits of the
Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement.
The agreement in question would give Canadian
businesses barrier free access to the small but dynamic Costa Rican market. We
will see the immediate elimination of tariffs on most industrial products upon
implementation. This includes some key Canadian export sectors, including
automotive goods, environmental goods, prefabricated buildings and some
construction products, such as steel products. The advantages do not stop
there. In fact people right across the country will benefit from the
agreement.
Some 94% of Canada's current agriculture and agrifood
exports to Costa Rica would realize market access benefits. Significant gains
would be realized for products such as french fries, peas, beans, lentils and
other pulses, greens, fresh fruits and vegetables and processed food
products.
While on the subject of agriculture and agrifood, it is
worth noting that supply managed dairy, poultry and egg products are exempted
from tariff reductions.
Tariffs on the remainder of goods would be gradually
phased out over a period of either 7 or 14 years, depending on the type of
product.
(1015)
As a result Canadian exporters will gain an important
advantage over their principal competitors in the Costa Rican market, including
the United States, European and Asian suppliers. At the same time Canada will
achieve a level playing field with Costa Rica's other preferential trade
partners such as Mexico and Chile.
This really represents a win-win scenario in the best
sense of the word. Of course Costa Rica also stands to gain under this
agreement. One of the most important benefits for this small country is the
asymmetrical treatment that the Canada-Costa Rican free trade agreement
provides for.
As members know, this means that to take into account
the difference in the levels of development and the size of the two economies,
Canada will liberalize its market more quickly than Costa Rica. We sincerely
believe that the government will demonstrate conclusively that free trade
agreements can be negotiated between larger and smaller economies.
Clearly this will also serve to advance the debate
taking place in the FTAA and how the interests of larger and smaller economies
in the region can best be reconciled. As a result, the asymmetrical aspect of
the agreement serves the broader interest of our country.
This is an important point because Canada's continued
engagement within regional free trade agreements, such as the FTAA and the
NAFTA, is critical to our collective economic prosperity and social well-being.
After all, with a population of 800 million, the Americas is one of the fastest
growing markets in the world in terms of consumers and growth in per capita
income. Latin America and the Caribbean collectively boast a total population
of nearly 500 million people and the region produces a GDP of approximately $3
trillion.
The FTAA will create the conditions for greater
prosperity for all participants. This widespread prosperity will in turn
provide the poorer countries of the hemisphere with the resources to address
such problems as poverty, crime, environmental degradation, threats to
democracy and human rights.
In the end our efforts to liberalize trade on a
multilateral, regional and, as in the case of Costa Rica, bilateral level all
lead to the same goal: a more open rules based trading system. It is absolutely
fundamental to the success of our economy that with a relatively small
population in terms of our trading partners we have an open rules based trading
system. This helps to promote such a system.
While the elimination of tariffs is at the heart of any
free trade deal, the agreement between Canada and Costa Rica goes further in a
number of key areas. For example, the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is
the first bilateral free trade agreement including innovative stand alone
procedures on trade facilitation which will reduce costs and red tape for
Canadian businesses at the border.
This has special significance far beyond this
particular agreement. Within the World Trade Organization, Canada has long been
a leading proponent for binding rules and disciplines on trade facilitation.
This agreement also includes a precedent setting framework for competition
policy which could serve as a model for the region in the context of the free
trade area of the Americas.
In fact, as a country that draws great benefit from
foreign trade, Canada is working very hard to strengthen the rules based
international trading system. That is why we strongly support the launch of a
new WTO negotiation round. We are working closely with our trading partners,
including the United States, the EU, Japan and key developing countries, to
build support for new negotiations.
In this respect I have to note that when I represented
our colleague, the Minister for International Trade, in Shanghai last June, I
saw how highly respected he is personally by the trading partners in APEC in
the leadership that he has shown. That leadership deserves to be recognized
here today.
WTO members have many difficult issues left to resolve
before the meeting scheduled to take place in Doha, but I believe that with
political will on all sides we can make good progress in bridging the
differences among members. A key to success in this area is to demonstrate to
smaller countries that they stand to benefit from liberalized trade. Agreements
like the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement do just that.
(1020)
To digress from my text for a moment, I know that in
discussion with many groups in my own riding and in other parts of Canada, the
support for free trade in this country is quite strong. It is in the order of
some 70% to 75%. Much of it is based on the fact that Canadians expect that
there will not be losers in free trade. The basic fairness of Canadians comes
into play here when they say that they are for free trade. Most, with their
eyes open, understand how it has benefited our economy. However, they expect
that it will also benefit the economies of the developing countries of the
world. I think that is the Canadian basic sense of fair play. Much of their
support is contingent on us doing everything possible to ensure that, and that
is exactly what we are working toward as a country.
If I could turn now to the somewhat contentious issue
of side agreements in the areas of environment and labour. Until now I have
only addressed some of the many economic benefits of this free trade agreement.
While they are of course central, they are not the only advantages that flow
from this agreement. After all, while pursuing the goal of liberalized trade,
we owe it to future generations to ensure that this increased economic activity
is also sustainable.
At the same time, as a progressive and democratic
society we have a special responsibility to foster improved environment and
labour standards in those countries where we do business. I am pleased to note
that parallel agreements in both these key areas were also
negotiated.
In light of the growing economic, environmental and
social links between our two countries, both agreed that a commitment to
environmental and labour co-operation, along with the effective enforcement of
domestic laws, should go hand in hand with free trade. These parallel
agreements will ensure that we not only reap economic benefits but important
social benefits as well.
In fact, Mr. Juan Somaria, the director general of the
International Labour Organization, recently stated in Ottawa that he supported
side agreements and that Canada had been very creative in using these side
agreements.
At a meeting of the trade subcommittee, I personally
had an opportunity to explore this with the director general of the ILO. Some
of our colleagues, specifically those in the New Democratic Party, are saying
that we must have these environmental and labour agreements right in the text
of our trade deals. Therefore, I put the question to the director of the ILO as
to whether he supported that. Quite frankly, he said no. He said he supported
and congratulated Canada very effusively for its creative use of side
agreements. He said that we take what tools we have and make progress that way.
I think it came as a bit of an eye-opener for the NDP members at that
particular meeting.
On this same issue, I had an opportunity to attend a
conference representing my colleague the Minister for International Trade where
we talked about trade and the benefits to less developed countries.
Again, there are colleagues in this House who talk
about EU and cite it as a very advanced organization in its trade and other
practices. EU ministers are adamant that we not litter up trade deals by trying
to include environmental and labour standards in those trade deals. It is best
done in side agreements.
That is the view I believe of all parties in this
House, save and except for the NDP. It is certainly the view of this
government. It is the view expressed earlier this week by the director general
of the ILO. It is important that his support and congratulation for Canada be
noted.
For example, the Canada-Costa Rica environmental
co-operation agreement includes obligations which provide for high levels of
environmental quality and effective enforcement of environmental laws which
promote open, transparent and equitable, judicial and administrative
procedures. It provides for public accountability for those commitments to
effectively enforce environmental laws. It will also seek to involve the
public, as appropriate, in all aspects of the implementation of the
agreement.
On the labour front, the two countries have signed the
Canada-Costa Rica agreement on labour co-operation.
(1025)
The main elements of this agreement include: coverage
of industrial relations; employment standards and occupational safety and
health; a mechanism allowing the public to raise concerns about the application
of labour law in the other country; and development assistance to help the
Costa Rican department of labour and social welfare improve its institutional
capacity.
Unfortunately, time does not allow me to catalogue all
the benefits of our free trade agreement. However I believe it is clear from
the examples I have outlined today, as well as from the comments from many
other members who took part in this debate on both sides of the House, that the
Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is another step in the right direction
for Canada. Like other free trade agreements that came before, this one will
contribute to Canada's long term prosperity as well as help us achieve our
broader goal for international trade liberalization.
Finally, it represents a symbol of our faith in the
future. The Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is a definitive response to
those who seek to sever the lines of communication between nations and retreat
into a medieval isolation. Canada will never find itself among those timid
souls. Free trade is as much about ideas and values as it is about goods and
services. Let us increase such exchanges.
It has been an honour for me to speak on the debate
today and to congratulate and thank those who participated on both sides of the
House on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for International Trade. I
welcome the support of all members of the House who surely must see the
undeniable benefits of the agreement.
(1030)
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk to Bill C-32, an act
to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Costa
Rica.
The purpose of the bill is to implement the free trade
agreement with Costa Rica, the objective of which is to establish free trade
between the two countries by gradually eliminating barriers to trade in goods
and services.
I will put a summary at the front end, which is that
this is not a controversial bill, with one singular exception. I believe, as
the parliamentary secretary made reference to, that we have dealt with that
quite adequately at committee. We tried very hard to make that a co-operative
arrangement with the government. The compromise we came to hopefully will stand
the test of time. This will be seen as time marches on. I will certainly be
getting into that in some detail during my presentation.
The bill follows the free trade agreement with Chile in
1997 and NAFTA in 1994. One of the major stated purposes is to promote regional
integration through an instrument that contributes to the establishment of the
free trade area of the Americas, the so-called and so-named FTAA negotiations.
This could be the first of several of these agreements with other countries in
South and Central America.
Eighty per cent of what Costa Rica exports to Canada,
primarily fruit, vegetables, coffee and coal, already enters Canada duty free.
Canada was looking to expand its market for some specific things.
Interestingly, french fries, metal structures, fish, paper products, auto
parts, plastics, wood and agricultural products were among that mix. These
products had very high tariff rates applied to them. One interesting example is
french fries. Even though Costa Rica does not grow potatoes, it has a 41%
tariff on imported french fries. This shows the need for tariff reductions on
all kinds of fronts. That was very much a focus of these
negotiations.
In 2000, Canada's total exports to Costa Rica were
about $86 million. In the same year we imported $183 million worth of products
from Costa Rica. These are Government of Canada statistics and I do recognize
that there is some difficulty in identifying exactly what are the imports and
exports because some of them flow through the United States and are attributed
in that fashion.
The Canadian Alliance promotes free trade and the joint
elimination of tariffs with our trading partners. We support securing access to
international markets through the negotiation of trade agreements. We will
vigorously pursue reduction of international trade barriers, tariffs and
subsidies. Additionally, we will ensure that Canadians' concerns about labour
practices, environmental protection and human rights are reflected in these
agreements.
I did mention that there was one aspect of the bill
that was contentious. I will spend some time making reference to it. It is an
industry that is important to us. I am talking about the domestic sugar
industry. Historically we have grown sugar beets in Canada in many provinces,
and now, based on a closure of export opportunities with our trading partners,
sugar is one of the most protected markets in the world. Canada has the most
open market in the world for sugar.
(1035)
What has transpired is that we have one sugar beet
producing province left, which is Alberta. We have gone from seven sugar
refineries not very many years ago to three. Those refineries have made major
capital expenditures to ensure that they operate with world class
efficiency.
We basically are supplying our own domestic industry
with our own refined sugar. We are importing a lot of raw cane sugar. We
produce beet sugar and have almost no export opportunity. For example our total
export opportunity to the United States at this time is, I believe, 10,000
tonnes, which works out to one tenth of 1% of its total consumption. We are
facing tariffs on exports to other countries in the Americas of anywhere
between 50% and 160%. Our only protection for our domestic industry is an 8%
tariff or about $30 a tonne. It is a very small tariff and we do not subsidize
our sugar industry in any other way.
As an example, Costa Rican sugar prices are about $650
a tonne higher than world prices. What that really means is that Costa Rica can
cross-subsidize any exports of its sugar anywhere in the world, including
Canada. What this has done of course is create a lopsided agreement on sugar.
In a sense we have sacrificed our sugar industry in many agreements. That is
why our place in the sugar world has shrunk.
A very significant concern came forward from the
refiners and the growers as represented by the Canadian Sugar Institute. They
felt that although the bill would not be in itself a major problem because
Costa Rica has no refining capacity, if the market provisions of this agreement
were to be built into the ongoing negotiations with central American countries
such as Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and so on, or with the free trade area
of the Americas, we basically could write off our sugar industry. We would be
doing that in a non-free trade environment because no one else is practising
free trade. We believe in free trade but it has to be fair trade.
(1040)
I will move on to some of the important parts of the
agreement. We as a nation of 31 million people have entered into an agreement
with Costa Rica, which has a population of less than 4 million, no military and
longstanding democratic traditions and institutions. This is an important
agreement because Costa Rica is very much viewed as a stable, democratic entity
in that part of the world and one that we should be doing our utmost to do
business with and to practise the purest of free trade with if we
can.
Canadians have a lot of investments in Costa Rica. The
Bank of Nova Scotia has 12 branches. Hollinger owns the newspaper La
República. Canada has major solid waste treatment facilities, hotels and
tourism oriented enterprises and Hydro-Québec is involved in a large hydro
generating station in Costa Rica. Our total capital investment is running at
about $500 million. I think investors have had generally pleasant
experiences.
That gives a good summary of where we are. I will move
now into the area of some of the things that would be exempt from tariff
reductions under this agreement. Canada has a long tradition, under the Liberal
government, of exempting some things from tariff reductions. They are simply
not on the table. There is no change from that in this agreement. Exempted from
tariff reductions from our perspective are beef, culture and our supply managed
industries such as dairy, poultry and egg products.
The basic message is that when government negotiators
negotiate a free trade agreement or any kind of international trade agreement,
they do have to make choices. I believe, and I know others believe, that
historically we have tended to sell out our sugar industry. This agreement is
viewed as being no exception.
Our single protection for the sugar industry is an 8%
tariff. As I mentioned, the lowest in the Americas is 50%, up to 160%, for all
of our competitors. Canada is basically excluded from any ability to export
beyond our boundaries for any significant amount of sugar. Nothing would change
under this agreement. It is a very lopsided agreement in regard to our access
to their sugar market. In the words of the industry, it is token
access.
I would like to quote from the website of the Canadian
Sugar Institute, which states:
(1045)
The recently announced Canada-Costa
agreement is a case in point. Costa Rica has a 50% tariff compared to Canada's
8% tariff, and supports its sugar production through high prices that are far
above the Canadian and even the supported US price. Yet, Costa Rica is
demanding approximately six times more duty free access than it is willing to
give Canada during a transition period. Further, it will only grant access for
a token amount of Canadian refined cane sugar (which makes up 90% of Canada's
sugar production) and even that depends on Costa Rican sales to Canada. In
spite of objections from the industry that this is both a bad deal and would
set a dangerous precedent for the CA-4 talks (countries whose combined exports
are 1.5 times greater than Canada's total production) and the FTAA, the
government seems willing to accept these lop-sided terms. |
It is referring to the Canadian government. The CA-4
talks are to be held with the Central American countries I referred to earlier.
This is what they were saying prior to the bill getting
to committee. These are some of the other things and some of the background of
the Canadian producers. There is only one beet sugar factory remaining in
Canada. It is in Taber, Alberta. At one time beets were also grown and
processed in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
Canada has three refineries that process raw sugar.
They are in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. In the past 20 years four other
refineries have ceased operations. The total Canadian market for sugar is about
1.2 million tonnes. Beet sugar supplies about 10% of this amount. Of the
remaining 1.1 million tonnes a small but significant portion is imported into
Canada in a refined state.
Sugar is one of the world's most trade regulated
commodities. Most countries severely restrict imports through a system of
duties, quotas or other mechanisms. Canada is among the most liberal countries
in the world with an 8% duty on refined sugar and free import of raw
sugar.
Guatemala places a 160% duty on sugar imports. Canada
is allowed to export only about 12,000 tonnes of sugar to the U.S. due to its
quota system. This is sugar from beet sugar as restricted by country of origin
rules. No other viable export opportunities exist for the Canadian industry. In
other words we are locked into our domestic market.
I have covered the basics of the sugar situation fairly
well. It is worth adding that the Costa Rican market currently does not include
refined sugar. Only raw sugar is sold. The fact that we have gained entry into
the Costa Rican market is academic from the standpoint that there is no current
market. Its domestic prices are about $650 a tonne more than world prices.
This leads to cross-subsidization. It also leads us to
ask why would they import sugar if they have those kinds of domestic pricing
arrangements.
I will go into this a bit further. Guatemala is one of
the CA-4 countries. CA-4 will be the next set of negotiations on free trade
along with the free trade area of the Americas. Guatemala's current sugar
exports amount to about 1.2 million tonnes. That is virtually identical to the
entire Canadian market.
The CA-4 countries, the four major countries in Central
America, have current export surpluses in refined sugar of about 300,000
tonnes. That is without further investment in refining capacity or anything
else. That is immediately available capacity. This could totally displace the
entire western Canadian market, which is the most likely place for these
exports to arrive because their ports are on the Pacific coast.
(1050)
This is a major concern. One can understand why members
of parliament from every part of Canada are receiving a lot of solicitation
from sugar refiners, sugar growers and the Canadian Sugar Institute, and why
they are taking the Costa Rica agreement so seriously.
If it were to be a precedent for the next negotiations
we could see the sugar industry in Canada, a non-subsidized industry protected
by a tiny tariff, swallowed up with a loss of 1,500 refinery jobs and about 500
grower jobs. I am not sure anyone would consider this to be free trade in the
sense of unsubsidized industries competing with unsubsidized industries. It is
not.
In the House of Commons we have something called the
national sugar caucus to which the parliamentary secretary made reference. Some
of the hon. members on the sugar caucus were also on the committee which met
earlier this week and heard witnesses representing the Canadian Sugar
Institute, sugar refiners and beet growers.
At that meeting I tabled amendments to the preamble of
the bill, not to the treaty, to give clarity to the fact that the sugar
provisions should be seen as unique to the Costa Rica agreement and not as a
precedent for the upcoming CA-4 negotiations or the free trade area of the
Americas negotiations. What ended up deriving from discussions among all
parties at the meeting was that I would withdraw the amendment if we could
somehow build a similar thought process into the language of our report and a
subsequent letter to the minister.
That is where we are. I can quote from the third report
to the House of Commons which was tabled recently. I will outline the relevant
paragraph. The Sub-committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and
Investment, which is an offshoot of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade, is studying the bill. It stated:
The Sub-committee wishes to highlight
the specific concerns of Canada's sugar industry and asks that their interests
be taken into account in any future trade negotiations involving
Canada. |
That is what we did. I am hopeful the government and
government mandated negotiators will take heed that those are the sentiments
expressed by the all party subcommittee. It was done in the right spirit and
with good intentions on all sides. It is an eminently correct way to proceed in
our future negotiations.
(1055)
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois supported this bill at
second reading. I refer to the Canada-Costa Rica free trade implementation
act.
The member for Joliette, who is responsible for this
matter, moved some amendments in committee. However, even though at second
reading we supported the principle of the bill, we said we had serious
misgivings. None of these serious misgivings were settled during committee
deliberations so today we will vote against this bill at third
reading.
It is not that we do not support free trade, because I
think everyone knows we do. However we support it on the condition that free
trade does not lead to the stronger dominating the weaker. Free trade must
improve the economies and the rights of all countries.
We had and continue to have three major complaints. The
first is a matter of principle. Since the Bloc arrived in the House, it has
protested as each new international treaty, trade agreement or convention comes
to the attention of the House after the government had already reached its
decision. We find this a rather backward way for parliament to
operate.
The government cannot point to the British parliament
in defence of this approach, which is neither transparent or consultative,
either civil society or parliament, since, surprise, surprise, Great Britain
has itself changed its approach and consults its parliament.
We find ourselves in a situation where our debates on
the content take place after the treaty is signed. This is the case with the
implementation bill before us. In the course of the debate in principl, the
government side says “But you have the implementation act. You can vote on an
implementation act”. Yes, but the problem is that although we can vote on it
and against it we can do nothing to change it.
What is the point of a parliament that can only express
views and not change anything? That is the situation in which the Parliament of
Canada finds itself and this must change.
My former colleague, the member for
Beauharnois--Salaberry, presented a private member's bill that was not selected
for debate in the House. I presented the same bill. I hope that this time it
will be deemed votable and a majority of members will have changed their minds
so that this parliament can modernize the way it proceeds and can take into
account, in its extremely important international dealings that affect the
lives of Canadians and Quebecers, the notion of respect for
consultation.
(1100)
In addition to providing no opportunity for input,
there are two other elements that we find completely unacceptable about this
approach. The first is an obvious lack of transparency. The government is
always saying that it is the best in the world when it comes to transparency,
but when it talks about transparency it refers people to an Internet site. This
is not what democracies consider transparency. Throughout Quebec and Canada
many people are suffering because of this situation. There is a lack of
transparency.
There is also the issue of disregard for provincial
jurisdiction. When Canada signs these trade agreements or international
conventions, not only is it acting within its own jurisdiction but it is also
acting within that of the provinces. We cannot gloss over this.
However, this is not the reason we will be voting
against the bill at third reading. We agree on the content of this
implementation act, and we could vote in support of it after having the chance
to speak eloquently to the issue. However, there are two other serious problems
with this trade agreement and its content, and, consequently, the
implementation act.
This free trade agreement with Costa Rica was signed on
April 21, 2001, after negotiations conducted while preparing for the summit of
the Americas that was held in Quebec City on the free trade area of the
Americas, an issue that is still of interest to Quebecers and Canadians. Here
again, if that free trade agreement is signed, it will have an impact on our
lives.
During the preparations for the Quebec summit, the
government stressed through, among others the Minister for International Trade,
that it agreed with numerous observers that the way NAFTA, the free trade
agreement among Canada, the United States and Mexico, deals with issues
relating to foreign investments is not the appropriate way. The Minister for
International Trade said, and I quote “Canada is not advocating the replication
of NAFTA investor state rules in the FTAA.”
The minister added “--and has not supported the
proposals made so far by other FTAA countries to include such a type of dispute
settlement mechanism”.
I can give the address of the Internet site where this
quote from the minister is to be found.
At the same time that the minister was making that
statement, he was negotiating to renew the free trade agreement with Costa Rica
that had first been signed in 1998. He was very proud when he showed up with
this renewed free trade agreement with Costa Rica. We noticed that the rules in
the agreement between Canada and Costa Rica to settle disputes between
investors and states are exactly the same as those found in NAFTA.
(1105)
In committee, I pointed this out to the minister. He
turned to his negotiator, who said “No, the member is mistaken. That is not the
case. What we have renewed is a foreign investment protection
agreement”.
Oddly enough, this foreign investment protection
agreement, or FIPA as it is called, contains the very same provisions as
chapter 11 of NAFTA, which many people with an active interest in free trade
agreements oppose.
How can this be explained? Not too easily, and it is a
big concern. It is why my colleague, the young and brilliant member for
Joliette, brought forward an amendment on this issue in committee. He suggested
that the bill be amended by replacing the wording in the agreement signed by
the government with the following “dispute settlement, by providing for the
repeal of article 12 of the agreement between the Government of Canada and the
Government of Costa Rica concerning the encouragement and protection of
investments”.
In fact, the important thing to understand, even if it
seems complicated, is that, until 1993, all agreements signed by Canada with
other countries were based on the principle that, when there was a dispute over
foreign investment--if there was nationalization, a government policy, rules
which seemed to prevent a company from setting up business, or a dispute of any
sort--the rule was that the two states discussed the problem and, if no
agreement was reached, they could take their case to a tribunal. That was for
two states.
When NAFTA was signed by Canada, Mexico and the United
States, this approach, which had been recommended by the OECD, by the way, was
replaced by the principle whereby an investor who has cause to complain may
bypass its state of origin and take its case directly to a tribunal.
This possibility, this capacity awarded to investors,
has had disastrous effects on the role played by states.
With NAFTA we are beginning to see that the settlements
coming out of these tribunals, which operated in a totally secret and discreet
way until this summer's agreement and which does not change their intrinsic
nature, make it possible for an investor to take the state in which he has
invested before a tribunal which is all powerful. This is so much the case that
private tribunals have in secret, without a third party being allowed to attend
to listen in on the proceedings or make representations, made decisions that
equated a governmental decision, to protect the environment for example, with a
measure that would reduce profits.
(1110)
This was very far removed from the principle of
nationalization for which compensation was required. Loss of profit was
considered as something for which the state should compensate. I believe
everyone agrees on the effect of this. It is that businesses in countries
needing investment, and some here in Canada as well, will launch huge suits,
because they are allowed to do so, in order to get government policies
withdrawn.
In Quebec, the public might perhaps tell the government
“Paying for that makes no sense at all. Quebec is entitled to decide on its own
policies, environmental or otherwise”. The situation remains, however, that the
fear of having to pay is going to be very great, and will run counter to the
democratic power of a country. This will in my opinion be even more the case
with the poorer countries, which are in greater need of foreign investment.
As for the famous NAFTA chapter 11, which sets out the
principle of the investor's right to challenge a state directly, this principle
must absolutely not be part of the free trade agreement of the Americas. If
Canada is to act consistently with the statements of the Minister for
International Trade when it renews agreements, often with developing countries,
it must do away with this principle, which is tantamount to investor domination
over states desperately in need of investments and often vulnerable.
Despite our speeches and our references to the Minister
for International Trade, after debate on whether or not it was admissible, this
amendment was rejected in the end.
There is also a third and different problem, to which
our colleague from the Canadian Alliance referred, and that is sugar. This
agreement opens the market to sugar from Costa Rica. This provision, if it were
limited as we recommended, would not have provoked our opposition in and of
itself, since the sugar that Costa Rica could export to Canada would not
threaten the current situation in the sugar industry despite the fact that the
industry has some concerns.
In Quebec, Lantic Sugar is located in Montreal. This is
a world class refinery that employs 345 employees and has just invested
$100 million to modernize its Montreal refinery.
(1115)
Workers came to my office to share their fears with me
with respect to the talks that are currently underway with four other sugar
producing countries in South America, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and El
Salvador.
Guatemala's exports of refined sugar alone represent
75% of the Canadian market. This gives us an idea of the size of Guatemala's
sugar exports. We cannot blame this country for wanting to export its sugar, to
the contrary. However, in Canada this refinery and the industry are telling us
that they themselves are in a situation where they are prevented from selling
products that contain a single grain of sugar in their exports to the United
States. Even cookies have to be made with sugar substitutes rather than sugar.
This shows how major the barrier is that they are facing.
What we and the member for Joliette proposed in
committee were basically two things. We proposed an amendment that read as
follows:
It is understood that the agreement
must not serve as a model for future bilateral free trade agreements, and that
all future negotiations on sugar must take place in a multilateral context and
within the framework of the future Free Trade Area of the Americas. |
I think that this amendment is easily understood. The
Bloc Quebecois and industry are not against continuing negotiations, but they
must take place within a multilateral framework. The idea is not to open up
markets to Quebec and Canada alone, but to have other markets open up at the
same time. This amendment was ruled out of order.
Being very much pro-free trade, we are in favour of
bilateral agreements with countries in the southern hemisphere. We therefore
find ourselves in a situation where we would have liked to vote in favour of
this bill. Given the fact that this agreement essentially reproduces the
contents of chapter XI and given the government's refusal to provide assurances
that this agreement will not be used as a basis for other bilateral
negotiations before an attempt is made to sort out sugar exports within a
multilateral framework, we are voting against the act to implement the free
trade agreement at third reading to show that our concerns are
serious.
In conclusion, I wish to say that the issue of opening
up markets to southern hemisphere countries is fundamental. It is not a
question of being opposed. It is also obvious that opening up markets in this
way will not in itself improve the situation of southern hemisphere countries.
The effects on the labour force will have to be considered.
It is incompatible with treaties that are negotiated in
secret without consulting the public and without even making provisions, as was
done after 1988 and during the 1988 discussions, for dealing with any negative
impact, given that the expected benefits are so much greater.
(1120)
We cannot ignore the real and serious concerns of
industry workers. If we want to further develop this type of agreement, and we
do, we must do it in an open fashion, through open consultation with the
provinces, the workers and the public.
People in northern countries must realize that it is
urgent for them to have access, through southern countries and, I should say,
through oriental countries to the markets of the richest countries. In order to
do so, the preparation work must be based on consultation and on results, so
that we can indeed open up and allow for a better sharing of wealth.
Oddly enough, it cannot be said that opening up
markets, even though everyone right now thinks it is the be all and end all, is
the only factor that will ensure a better sharing of wealth. If, in those
countries where wealth is growing there is no sharing of it, whether here, in
southern countries or in the orient, there are people who will get richer.
However, the gaps between societies will not be bridged.
One way that the European Union, among others, has
found to help southern or eastern countries in its bilateral relations is to
open up its market and buy the production but also provide real assistance by
injecting money to promote diversification. We cannot complain about or regret
the fact that some countries rely on a monoculture, that they sell only coffee
or peanuts, and ignore history.
If today these countries only sell coffee or peanuts,
it is because of what happened during the 19th century with colonial empires,
where industries did what they wanted and countries that had a diversified
production were transformed into countries relying on a monoculture.
It is absolutely necessary to recognize that southern
hemisphere and Asian countries should diversify. Some are doing so rapidly and
are becoming developed countries. However, those experiencing the most
difficulty should be helped.
I would have liked to be able to say that at last
parliament was consulted before the signing of a treaty. Perhaps some
provisions would have been included in the agreement to reassure our workers
and to inform the public about the needs of southern countries. Unfortunately,
because this was done behind closed doors, without consultation, without
transparency, we find ourselves in a situation where we can only say after the
fact that we deeply regret the way things went, and this is what I am
doing.
(1125)
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
I wish to point out that starting with the next
speaker, members' speeches will be limited to 20 minutes, followed by 10
minutes for questions and comments, unless members indicate that they will be
sharing their time.
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to
speak to Bill C-32, an act to implement the free trade agreement between the
Government of Canada and the government of the Republic of Costa
Rica.
It is not the intention of the New Democratic Party to
support the bill. That should be of no surprise as we have indicated that
previously. I will expand on the reasons in the next few minutes.
Bill C-32 and the Canada-Costa Rica free trade
agreement follow the North American Free Trade Agreement and the FTAA model of
free trade that the New Democratic Party has consistently opposed because they
put corporate rights ahead of human rights, the environment and democracy.
The side agreements on labour and the environment are
insufficient to promote higher standards across the board in these areas. Costa
Rica's record on labour is atrocious. We see no reason to make things
worse.
The purported advantage of free trade in agricultural
products is unproven. While Canadian farmers are not seeing the benefits of
increased imports, the livelihood of Costa Rican farmers is endangered by an
agreement such as this one. Many must wonder how that would be the case.
The bottom line is that the specific agreements are set
out with the right of the investors to make a profit. They are the ones who
benefit from these trade agreements and they do not encompass a holistic
approach to the well-being of a country, a community or an industry within a
country.
My hon. colleague from the Bloc mentioned that
colonialism in southern countries does not allow for diversification in some of
those countries. Quite frankly we see that happening even within Canada where
there is no diversity and as a result certain industries are
suffering.
The Bloc will not be supporting the bill at third
reading. I am pleased to see the Bloc come on side with the New Democratic
Party's view that trade agreements are not okay if they do not encompass
environmental rights, human rights and labour rights.
I know there were numerous members from the Bloc who
went to Quebec City earlier this year, along with members of the New Democratic
Party caucus. We listened to many people from southern countries who have seen
the effects of trade agreements in their countries. They said that the effects
were not always good and in some cases were detrimental.
According to the National Farmers Union, Canadian
farmers and consumers have not benefited from increased agricultural exports,
nor have farmers and consumers in the developing countries to which we export.
The position of the governments of Costa Rica and Canada that it is a good deal
for everyone is just not the case. There is no benefit when products go on the
market at an extremely low cost. Flooding the world market with food prices far
below production costs damages the ability of other countries to feed their
citizens. That is exactly the case.
In Costa Rica in 1998 a flood of cheap imported grain
drove the local farmers out of business. The number of farmers growing corn,
beans and rice, the staples of the local diet, fell from 70,000 to under
28,000. Therefore it was not a good deal for everyone.
The problem with a number of the trade deals is that
they put the rights of investors ahead of everything else. That is extremely
important to the New Democratic Party because we represent a number of people
who know that making a profit is not the only thing that counts.
(1130)
New Democrats are not opposed to trade. Trade is
necessary for strong economies,but not unfettered trade. Trade agreements must
include labour, environmental and human rights. It is absolutely a necessity,
and that is where we differ from the Liberals.
I was absolutely shocked as I listened to the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade this morning.
That is the Liberal member for
London--Fanshawe. He
referred to labour and environmental rights within trade agreements as
littering up the agreements. He said “environmental rights and labour rights
litter up the agreements”. That is like saying labour and environmental rights
are garbage. That is not the case. The Liberal member for London--Fanshawe
called environmental and labour rights garbage. If we refer to them as
littering up an agreement, that is not good enough.
However this sets the scope of how the government tends
to deal with labour and environmental rights. We have seen numerous
environmental issues come before the House many times where the government uses
tough talk but never follows through on environmental rights.
The government waves the ILO banner. Costa Rica and
Canada would fall under the ILO banner; they would do everything it says.
Frankly Costa Rica has implemented more of the ILO conventions than
Canada.
Let me tell members about the history of labour rights
in Costa Rica. Costa Rica is notorious for its persistent denial of labour
rights, especially the rights of collective bargaining, association and
strikes. In Costa Rica's private sector it is virtually impossible to form or
join a trade union because of the hostility from employers and the government's
unwillingness to enforce labour laws. That is Costa Rica's history. That is its
position on labour rights yet it has introduced more of the ILO conventions
than Canada.
We acknowledge that in some areas we have been able to
succeed in having good labour legislation in Canada. We all know it is not
automatically there. The reason those rights are maintained is the strong
efforts of a number of labour unions, the number of people involved in social
justice making sure that those rights are upheld, and the legal system built
around that. Those things are not a given forever. Civil liberties are not a
given forever in Canada. We are seeing that now with the anti-terrorism bill
whereby our civil liberties would be jeopardized.
We must ensure strong legislation dealing with
environmental and labour laws and the protection of privacy and civil
liberties. We must fight for those things on a daily basis because they are not
a given. It is crucially important that we do not accept willy-nilly every
trade agreement the government comes up with.
My colleague from the Bloc mentioned how the deal was
put forward. Negotiations on the trade deal began in June 2000 and the
agreement was signed during the third summit of the Americas on April 23, 2001.
It is coming before parliament as a fait accompli. Parliament did not even have
a say in it. Really and truthfully we did not. The government went ahead and
did what it wanted. It said the heck with every elected member of parliament,
including its own members on that side.
I do not believe for a second that each and every one
of them told the minister to go ahead and sign the deal. I do not believe they
did not care or worry about our sugar producers or refineries in Alberta or
Quebec. However that is what the government did. It went ahead and signed it,
much like it did with the patent legislation.
(1135)
The WTO ordered Canada to change its patent legislation
and increase it to 20 years. We are now in a situation where we have huge drug
costs. Drug companies were not suffering with a seven year patent. I
acknowledge that there needs to be patent protection, but excessive patent
protection jeopardizes the well-being of a country and its citizens. We are
seeing that now.
These trade agreements should not be a fait accompli. A
booklet was passed around and I chuckled when I read the comments. It was sent
on October 24. It contains Canada's objectives for the fourth WTO ministerial
conference. I laughed because, as my hon. colleague from the Bloc mentioned,
there is never any consultation with the government. Everything is a fait
accompli. The document is from the Minister for International Trade and it
states:
The government continues to seek
still better ways to inform a mutually beneficial dialogue with concerned
Canadians. Citizen engagement on foreign and trade policy issues is the key to
informed debate and decision making on public policy, and that has been an
ongoing process. |
Where is the informed debate? When do we go out and
have a dialogue? Has anyone ever seen the government getting the views of
Canadians and of members of parliament? The government throws something in
front of Canadians and says this is the way it will be. We have to take it or
leave it.
The government will not listen to any amendments put
forth in committee. These are amendments that would protect industries within
our country and protect human, environmental and labour rights. Is any of that
there? No. The government does not care.
These documents are a waste of taxpayer money. They are
not accurate, to say nothing of the fact that we have to get ourselves around
the words “to inform a mutually beneficial dialogue”.
Trade agreements have not benefited our agricultural
industry. I am encouraged by the fact that the member of the Canadian Alliance
for Lethbridge is here. He pointed out that in February of this year any
agreement with Costa Rica would lay the foundation for future negotiations on
trade agreements. We know that to be true because the government is following
along with NAFTA and the FTAA. The member went on to ask:
Will the government live up to a
commitment it made to western Canadian beef producers when it was in western
Canada last year that it will do nothing to destroy their industry? |
Does anybody believe for a second that the government
would live up to any commitment it made during the election? We have seen the
government break one promise after another on a continual basis. We were
promised infrastructure dollars, good environmental legislation, and support
for our agricultural industry and grain farmers. Have we seen any
follow-through? It has not been followed through for one second because the
election is over.
The government pulled the wool over the eyes of
Canadians once more. I will wager the government will not be able to do it in
the next election because Canadians are not fools.
Canadian farmers are not fools. Farmers know that the
government has not supported their industry. If they look at the facts they
will know the government's position that trade agreements are good for farmers
is not true. Farmers will see that. Farmers know that the government is not
supporting the agricultural industry. The beef farmers in Alberta and refinery
workers in Quebec will know that is not the case.
This is critically important. I challenge the Canadian
Alliance. Every time it supports one of the government's trade deals it
jeopardizes the agricultural industry in Canada. Every time it supports one of
these deals without taking a stand it jeopardizes Canadian industries. It
jeopardizes human and labour rights. If it supports the government then it is
as detrimental to Canadian industries as the government is because it
jeopardizes those industries in the same way.
(1140)
I challenge the Canadian Alliance to say for once that
the trade deal is not good enough and that it is not what is best for Canadian
farmers. This trade deal does not include environmental rights, human rights or
labour rights. I would hope that members within the House do not talk like the
Liberal member for London--Fanshawe and call environmental rights and labour
rights littering up an agreement. They are equally as important as any profit
that will be made which will send a paycheque across some investor's table or
some company's table. They are important for Canadians and they are important
for people in those other countries.
We all know that Canada has a good standard of living
for the most part and we do not want to jeopardize that. That is why there are
those of us who fight hard to make sure that there is more to a trade deal than
just profit and that there is a holistic approach to a strong, healthy economy
and country. It is not just profit for one company.
There is more to it such as the value added industry
that benefits the local economy. We all know that the little grocer down the
road and the small and medium sized businesses need those industries because
they benefit from the value added to those industries. We all benefit as a
nation by paying our fair share in taxes and supporting each other and our
social programs. There is more to it than just one company making a profit,
such as everything that goes along with having those industries within our
country and supporting those industries.
If something reads made in Canada it is an extra
incentive for me to buy it because I know I am supporting an industry in Quebec
or an industry from the east coast. If I see Manitoba potatoes in the grocery
store, I will buy them before any others. That is what it is about. It is about
supporting each other because that is how we maintain a strong country. However
it is also about supporting the people in those other countries. I am not
saying we should never buy their products; of course we should. We want to make
sure that they have a chance of attaining the same benefits we have.
One of the classic quotes that New Democrats use is by
J.S. Woodsworth who said “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all”, and
we do. We want people in other countries who do not have some of the advantages
we have to have those chances.
Will they have that chance when their governments do
not enforce labour legislation or do not allow them the right to collective
bargaining or to make a decent wage for the work they do? Will they have that
chance when their governments do not ensure that their human rights are upheld
or do not give their children a chance to have an education instead of being
made to work at a loom or in the fields? We want the right to education for
children. We want the right to social infrastructure. We want people in other
countries to have the same benefits that we have in Canada.
The New Democratic Party is not opposed to trade.
However we certainly are opposed to unfettered trade. We are absolutely opposed
to trade that does not consider human rights, environmental rights and labour
rights. We are not opposed to trade, not for a second.
Our national sport in Canada is hockey. Our Deputy
Speaker's son plays for the Montreal Canadiens. However even in hockey there
are rules. One team cannot be stronger than the other so it wipes out the other
guys. There are rules in place involving a draft process so certain players
cannot get all the cash and certain teams cannot get all the very best players.
Imagine a team with Gretzky, Lindros--
An hon. member: Team Canada.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Team Canada, sounds great.
Imagine one team with all the muscle and all the power. What does that do to
the other guys?
(1145)
They do not survive. That is the problem when trade
agreements do not consider everything and when they do not consider the whole
scope of how it will affect a country and the world.
Until the government comes up with trade agreements
that include environmental, labour and human rights as equal to the profit of a
corporation, it will not get the support of the New Democratic Party, and I am
proud to say that.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the
member's speech. As she was denigrating the member for London--Fanshawe, she
mentioned he had indicated that something in the agreement was garbage. I heard
the speech of the member for London--Fanshawe and I did not hear that. I am
sure the member is mistaken.
The member wants to talk as though no negotiations took
place and the agreement suddenly fell out of the sky. The fact is the two
governments dealt with environmental and labour co-operation. They go hand in
hand with trade liberalization. That is tantamount to the agreement. It is not
something that just happened. It is something that was negotiated between the
two parties, keeping in mind labour and the environment and the side agreements
on them.
If we look at the Canada--Costa Rica free trade
agreement, we will see that it complements the environment and labour and
strengthens both environment and labour management, while reaping the benefits
of increased trade with Canada.
Her side is indicating that somehow this did not
happen, that it all just came together and there were no negotiations that took
place. Yet Canada is a trading nation and depends on trade to be a nation of
prosperity, such as we have.
Would the member withdraw the words she put in the
mouth of the member for London--Fanshawe? He is quite capable of defending
himself, but perhaps she would want to think about that. Could she comment on
that?
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais:
Mr. Speaker, quite frankly Hansard will show the
comments of the Liberal member of parliament for London--Fanshawe tomorrow when
he said that environment and labour standards were seen as littering up the
trade agreement so that is why they should not be in there.
I never for one second said there were not
negotiations. There was no debate in the House before the agreement was signed.
That is the problem. That is the comment I was making.
Negotiations with another country before we have
discussions in the Parliament of Canada leave out a very important group of
people: the people of Canada and members of parliament who represent the people
of Canada. When that deal was signed without it coming here first, that said
“To heck with you. Your view isn't worth anything”. That has been a problem in
the House.
Quite frankly on the issue of a side agreement for
labour, human and environmental rights, when do those values become secondary
to a buck? That is the problem with the government's position. They should not
be side agreements. They should be an integral part of those trade agreements,
which should state that if countries do not do certain things in the area of
human, labour and environmental rights, we will not trade with them. They will
not have access to our markets.
The problem is the government sees them as side
agreements and secondary and we do not. The New Democratic Party sees them as
of more value than a dollar, but definitely in those trade agreements they had
better be on an equal footing.
(1150)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member used a hockey analogy to
explain why she would be concerned about some trade agreements. In hockey, if
one team scores more goals than the other team, one side gets all the points
and the other side goes home with no points.
In trade, if a person for instance makes a hammer and
sells it to another person for $10, both sides go away better off. The person
who makes the hammer gets the $10 and the person who buys the hammer gets the
hammer to make something.
Will the hon. member not acknowledge that trade
actually benefits both sides no matter what, because both sides enter into a
trade agreement voluntarily because it will leave them both better
off?
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais:
Mr. Speaker, certainly I will comment. There is no
question both sides can benefit, but both sides do not necessarily benefit,
especially if we have a situation where one side decides it will ignore
environmental, human and labour rights and pays someone 20¢ then sells the
hammer for $20. Someone is losing out and I would be willing to wager it is the
person who is getting paid the 20¢ or some child who is ordered to make the
hammer. The child is paid 5¢ and the person who owns it is paid something else.
We agree it can benefit both. We are not opposed to
trade and never have been. However, it has to be with some rules in place that
make it fair for both sides.
Have Canadian farmers benefited overall? They can
produce a product now but have to sell it for less than what it costs them to
produce to survive. Do we want to wipe out our farming industry and say that we
will not make a buck off the farming industry today, that we will let it go,
then a few years down the road cry and say we have no farming industry in
Canada? Will we say to heck with the small farmer? A big corporation from
somewhere else can buy up all the farmland and make maybe an extra buck by not
giving the same kinds of benefits to its local communities and those families
who are an intricate part of our community within Canada. That is when it
becomes a problem.
There is no question: it can benefit both but not if
both sides do not play by the same rules.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
Canadian Alliance, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the
comments of my hon. colleague from Churchill. I was involved in some of the
discussions dating way back to the 1988 election when that election basically
became a referendum on free trade in the country and the pending free trade
agreement with the United States specifically. When I listened to the NDP back
in those days, and I am sure if I researched history long before that, I was
left with the unescapable conclusion that if the NDP had its way, despite the
hon. member saying she is not opposed to trade, we would never have had any
free trade agreements signed, certainly in this hemisphere and probably in the
world if the NDP was a factor in other countries. It is important that people
bear that in mind.
Also I need look no further than my province of British
Columbia, where thank goodness the NDP was recently thrown out of office, to
see what its economic policies do to an economy.
I find it almost hypocritical when the NDP talks long
and hard about the downtrodden of the world. It has often remarked that we have
to increase our aid to developing and third world countries, help out more with
humanitarian aid and improve human rights. All of us would agree on that. On
the other hand, every time a free trade agreement comes before the House, the
NDP is opposed to it because it is not good enough.
I would ask the hon. member to comment on
that.
(1155)
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais:
Mr. Speaker, I am glad I have the opportunity to
comment. The New Democratic Party has never been opposed to trade. I would
suggest to the member that he go back in history and also listen to numerous
members of parliament or MLAs from the provinces. They are not opposed to
trade. We are in favour of trade that considers more than just the dollar
coming across the table. We are in favour of trade deals that consider human,
environmental and labour rights. There is no question about it.
Regarding my colleague's comments about what happened
in B.C., I suggest he look no further than the former
Conservative government of Saskatchewan, under Grant Devine, that literally
wiped out a province. The New Democratic Party then came in and built it up
again so that it is now very strong and doing well. It had to come from a
terrible time when the Tories literally wiped it out.
There is no question that provincial governments make
their mistakes and have to own up to them. However, from a federal perspective,
which is why we are here today, we recognize that trade agreements are
important but not if we are willing to abandon human, environmental and labour
rights of the people in both countries.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
Canadian Alliance, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my
colleague and friend the hon. member for Prince George--Peace River.
I would be remiss if I did not take a minute to respond
to the NDP member who just spoke. She talked about the environmental and labour
side agreements as being secondary. I remind the member that those agreements
were negotiated in advance. She said we are ignoring them.
The Government of Canada has an opportunity to help the
Costa Ricans. There is always improvement and they can learn from us. We cannot
expect something to happen overnight. We enjoy about $270 million annually in
two way trade with the Costa Ricans. That can grow.
The NDP has argued against every single free trade
agreement since I can remember as a child, and that goes back to the 1960s. The
NDP is notorious for being absolutely opposed to trade.
Let us look at trade for a moment. We have had a number
of free trade agreements. The 1989 Free Trade Agreement preceded NAFTA in 1994.
Canada was successful in negotiating a free trade agreement with Chile in 1997.
We are currently negotiating the free trade agreement of the Americas which
would bring North America and South America into one free trading area with 34
nations by 2005.
We enjoy $1.4 billion a day in two way trade with the
United States. Forty per cent of our GDP in Canada comes from our trade
agreements. One in four jobs in Canada is a result of free trade agreements
negotiated by the Canadian government with other nations over the
years.
We have an enormous trade surplus with the United
States. It is not without its problems. We are all fully aware of them and the
challenges. We are struggling with the softwood lumber agreement. There are
challenges to overcome but we cannot just give up and say that we do not want
trade because there is a certain issue.
Let us get more specific with respect to the Costa
Rican free trade agreement. One major concern in the country is with respect to
the sugar industry. It has been raised by a number of people. The member for
Saint John used to have a sugar refinery in her riding but it closed a few
years ago. They are concerned.
My hon. colleague and good friend the member for
Lethbridge, when I was travelling with the minister to Costa Rica last spring
specifically to deal with this, brought to my attention the issue of the sugar
beet industry in Taber. He asked that I bring it up with officials down there.
I did that with the Canadian and Costa Rican officials.
In Canada the issue is with refined sugar. Those issues
were raised. One of the biggest concerns of the Canadian sugar industry is not
so much the free trade in refined sugar with the Costa Ricans but that it would
be a template for the upcoming negotiations with the CA-4, the Central American
countries of Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador. Canada is
currently negotiating with them, and more specifically with Honduras,which
already has a sugar refinery. There are some concerns.
I specifically met on numerous occasions, and as
recently as Tuesday of this week, with Claude Carrière who is a senior official
and chief negotiator for Canada on not only the Canada-Costa Rica agreement but
also on the trade agreement with the CA-4 and the FTAA.
(1200)
I should compliment him for the good work he has done.
He has given me his assurances, and I am aware he has given them to others,
that this is not a template, that this is not a model. It is important that
this be read into the record. It is important as they negotiate the free trade
agreement with the upcoming CA-4 that there be an exclusion with respect to
refined sugar because that is the concern.
They have talked about other things with respect to
refined sugar. Canada exports 12,000 to 14,000 tonnes of refined sugar from
Taber into the U.S. a year. Of course that is because it is country of origin.
We export 57,000 tonnes of premixed sugar products to the U.S. More
specifically we are allowed to export 2,000 tonnes of non-originating sugar
into Costa Rica and under this agreement that has been doubled. It has been
increased to 4,000 tonnes so there are potentially new markets out there for
our sugar producers. I acknowledge it is albeit whether the economics and the
economies would warrant that but we will have to be aggressive in going after
that.
Overall I want to come back to the free trade
agreement. It is really good for Canada. On commodities for which there are
tariffs on Canada's side, we lose those tariffs immediately on auto parts,
prefab homes, various agricultural products and fish products. It is good for
Canada but it is also good for Costa Rica.
We do not have a large amount of trade with Costa Rica,
some $270 million annually in two way trade and the Costa Ricans are looking to
develop their economy. This is a win-win for both countries.
I applaud the member for Lethbridge and the sugar
industry itself. They have done a very good job in educating parliamentarians
on the industry's concerns. I applaud the government officials. This is one
time that they have listened. They have addressed those concerns. They have
given reassurances that in the CA-4 countries this will not be a template, that
there will not be free trade in refined sugar. It is reassuring that they were
listening.
Coming back to the NDP member's comments, it is almost
unbelievable to listen to those members say that there are no environmental or
labour agreements when in fact side agreements were negotiated to deal with
them specifically. There is an opportunity for Canada as we increase our trade
to share our information, to help the Costa Ricans improve their labour and
environmental standards.
History has shown us that in every single free trade
agreement we have entered into, it has been win win win for Canada. I cannot
overemphasize that when there is $1.4 billion of trade, 40% of our economy,
going between Canada and the United States. One in four Canadian jobs depends
on free trade. That is why it is critically important. The reality is we are
going to a global economy. In places like Europe, the economic borders are
evaporating and trade is opening up.
The members of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic
Representative Caucus and I will be supporting this legislation. The concerns
within the sugar industry were real. We have been given the appropriate
assurances by the department that this will not be a template in the upcoming
negotiations with the four Central American countries.
(1205)
I look forward to the implementation of this
legislation so we can continue to grow Canada's free trade with smaller
nations.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
Canadian Alliance, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we learn more, and I am
still learning, about the country of Costa Rica.
For decades, especially in the last decade or two,
Costa Rica seems to have been a kind of beacon for democracy in Central
America. We are aware of the problems that some of the neighbouring countries
such as Nicaragua have had. It is a country that outlawed its military and does
not have a standing army. It has actually been referred to as the Switzerland
of Central America. I think we would very much want to have closer economic and
trade ties with a country like that so that we could assist it in assisting
other countries in the region.
As my hon. colleague has pointed out, we should not be
doing what the NDP has done, which is to point out that the agreement is not
perfect. What agreement ever is? We can be of immense assistance to the Costa
Ricans in helping them to lead the way not only within their own country but
within Central America itself.
My colleague has had the opportunity to travel with
officials and other members from all parties to that region. He has had
bilateral discussions with a number of those countries. Would he be willing to
comment further on that?
Mr. Gary Lunn:
Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. As trade
is increasing, Canada is leading. Canada has successfully negotiated the first
free trade agreement with a Central American country that has a smaller
economy, a nation probably similar in population, and it has done it in a very
positive light addressing some of Canada's concerns.
There is a lot of work to be done in many of these
countries. In many cases they have developing economies. We can share our
information. We can help bring them along on labour and environmental fronts.
At the end of the day it is not only a win-win for the Costa Ricans but also
for Canada as we open up new markets.
Canada is a very large country with the majority of its
population very close to the 49th parallel, the southern part of the country.
The reality is that we need to open up our trade corridors north and south.
There are great markets both ways as we move into South America and Central
America. Canada is leading in this respect as we move forward.
A good example is the free trade agreement that Canada
has negotiated with Chile. Canada is the envy of many countries as we have
successfully done this. While we are in a downturn in the economy our growth in
trade with Chile has far surpassed that of every other country trading with
Chile. Other countries have been in a negative cycle in trade with Chile.
Canada has made a positive gain in this struggling economy. The numbers speak
for themselves. In every single free trade agreement, trade grows. It creates
jobs in Canada as well as in Costa Rica. Everyone can win.
I look forward to working on future free trade
agreements, most important, the free trade agreement of the Americas. I think
it will be great for Canada.
(1210)
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
Canadian Alliance, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise
today to speak to Bill C-32, an act to implement the free trade agreement
between the Government of Canada and the government of the Republic of Costa
Rica.
I must say at the outset, having sat in the Chamber and
listened to some of the debate this morning, that it is as well very
informative for Canadians viewing the debate at home. They can hear the
different positions being put forward by the various speakers and parties on
the issue of free trade, in this case with a very small country, certainly
small as far as being viewed as an economic power is concerned. There is a huge
disparity between the respective sizes of our countries, but nevertheless we
are hearing various members representing their parties putting forward
different perspectives.
I want to state for the record that I do agree with the
hon. NDP member for Churchill in the sense that many times unfortunately we see
in this place what I would classify as a flawed process. I think that was a big
part of her angst about the agreement itself and about the other ways in which
legislation comes in here. In that regard I would concur with her observations.
All too often the government uses what many of us on the opposition side would
view as a flawed process to arrive at legislation.
That should not necessarily detract from the fact that
occasionally the government does get it right. Certainly I and the coalition
believe that this is one of those cases where by and large the government has
gotten it right with Bill C-32, the free trade agreement with Costa
Rica.
I want to go back in history a bit. I am one of the few
members from the coalition who ran in the 1988 election. That is where my
personal history with free trade comes from. I think many in our country will
remember, as I said earlier, that in 1988 our country was embroiled in an
election campaign that became for all intents and purposes a referendum on free
trade with the United States.
I remember, ironically enough in light of the fact that
I am now involved in a coalition with the Progressive Conservative caucus in
parliament, that at that time as a candidate for the Reform Party of Canada I
found myself on stages throughout my huge rural riding of Prince George
basically in line with the Progressive Conservative incumbent, who obviously
was promoting free trade with the United States during that election campaign.
Aligned against us during those all candidate forums were members of the
Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party who were passionately and
emphatically opposed to that free trade agreement.
There is a certain sense of irony, I guess, in that now
it is the Liberal Party, and I congratulate its members and encourage them to
continue to work toward more free trade with the Americas. They have in the
past and I am sure they will continue in the future with more conferences and
negotiations with countries. As my colleague from Saanich--Gulf Islands
indicated, we are now on the very cusp of having true free trade throughout the
Americas, a free trading bloc of 34 countries involved in a free trade
agreement. I think of what a great thing that will be for all the
countries.
It will not be without its problems. As my colleague
also pointed out, coming from British Columbia, I will say that right now we
are involved in a pretty serious situation with regard to the economy of
British Columbia and by extension the economy of Canada.
(1215)
The fallout from the demise of the softwood lumber
agreement in March is just rocking our lumber industry to its very foundation,
in particular in British Columbia, which constitutes the vast majority of
lumber exports to the United States.
I had to point out that certain irony, because as I
say, there are four members involved in our coalition, including the leader of
the parliamentary coalition, the member for Calgary Centre, as well as myself,
my colleague from Edmonton North, who was running for the rural Alberta riding
of Beaver River at the time, and my colleague from South Surrey--White
Rock--Langley, who ran in that election and well remember the debates that took
place about the need for free trade. By and large, with the possible exception
of the NDP, I do not think that many people are disputing the fact that the
free trade agreement and the agreements which have flowed from it, such as
NAFTA, more recently the agreement with Chile, and now the agreement we are
going to enter into with Costa Rica, and we will hopefully expand beyond that,
have been good for Canada.
Have we had problems? Of course we have had problems.
Have some industries to a certain extent been affected detrimentally from time
to time? Of course they have been.
By definition any agreement requires some give and take
and some compromise, but that does not detract from the fact that overall it is
the way to go. It is the way the world is going. It is the way the global
economy is going. I think that ultimately it means that producers who can
produce the best product at the best price will be in that business and we can
get away from this system where all governments around the globe are
continually forced into a situation where they have to subsidize certain
industries. Obviously we ultimately do not want to do that. We want to see
countries that can produce the best product for the best price in that
particular business.
Partly due to this bill coming before the House, it so
piqued my interest that I started doing a bit of research on Costa Rica. My
partner, Leah Murray, and I have had the good fortune from time to time to take
educational trips to certain countries during the winter recess. We hope to do
that this winter in Costa Rica and learn more first hand about that country.
As I was saying in questions and comments to my
colleague, it seems that the more I have researched Costa Rica the more I have
come to understand that it is really a beacon for democracy and has certainly
been a pretty good example. There again, has it had and does it continue to
have problems as an emerging nation in Central America? Of course, but by and
large when we compare it to some of its neighbouring countries it has done a
pretty good job of being the country that others around it can look to and
model themselves after. I know it has welcomed hundreds of thousands of
Nicaraguan refugees into the country because of the fallout of the civil war
and other wars in that area. That in and of itself has posed some real problems
for the Costa Rican nation, but in my understanding it is doing the best it
can.
Just as a personal aside, one of the things I will do
when I am there is visit with a cousin of mine who emigrated to Costa Rica
quite a number of years ago and is operating his own business there. He is in a
business whereby small local corporations contract with him to provide English
language training for their staff. Why are they doing that? Obviously those
business people can see the opportunities that are emerging in Costa Rica not
only for themselves and in regard to the ability to make a profit, but also for
the betterment of their employees and the people of that area. Certainly I will
be interested to learn more about the businesses and companies that he is
working so closely with.
(1220)
As a final point, for those who are so opposed to free
trade agreements and say that until everything is perfect we should not sign on
to them, I only need to point to NAFTA. There were a lot of legitimate concerns
expressed at the time, but look at what has happened to the country of Mexico.
If we have this outpouring of concern for the less developed countries and want
to help the people of those countries, I think we should look there. It is not
a perfect system, but I think it is a lot better than the alternative, which is
isolationism.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest my colleague's
comments about being a Reform member running alongside a Conservative and being
pretty much onside with everything. I do not think there is any question about
it. There will not be any argument there. New Democrats have long maintained
that there really is not a whole lot of difference between the alliance-reform
and the Conservatives. Quite frankly, we would also maintain there is not much
difference between them and the governing party. That point is made.
He commented on the benefits of the trade agreements. I
would agree that there certainly are benefits to trade agreements. He talked
about the English language and people in Costa Rica learning the English
language in order to be able to carry on trade. That is really important and
there is no question about it, but what happens when we have what supposedly is
called free trade with, say, the U.S. and because the U.S. lumber industry does
not want its industry to suffer in the U.S. it imposes a 19% tariff on Canadian
softwood lumber? Where is that great free trade with the United States?
That is the problem with these deals. They are not
there to benefit both fairly. It is usually the big guy with the big stick who
wins out.
I would like his comment on the 19% tariff that the
U.S. has imposed on softwood lumber from Canada.
Mr. Jay Hill:
I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for her
observations and questions. I will not get into a debate about the differences
between the old Reform Party of Canada and the Progressive Conservatives
because that would use up all available time, plus pointing out the differences
we have had in the past. I think that on a number of issues we continue to
differ even today, but the great thing about a coalition is that we are allowed
to differ and I would commend that to her for consideration.
At any rate, as far as the softwood lumber agreement is
concerned of course there are some problems and she quite correctly pointed out
the problems, as I did during my remarks. The fact is that we do have this
outstanding problem with the United States. Part of the problem is that we
entered into a softwood lumber agreement in the first place instead of having
true free trade. That is what the industry is fighting for and certainly what I
am in favour of. That is why I hope that whatever comes of the present
negotiations will move us closer to free trade, which is sort of the opposite
to the hon. member's argument because the problem with it is that we have not
had free trade in softwood lumber. We have had these agreements and when they
expire the Americans impose duties, tariffs, countervail and whatever against
our product. Hopefully in the very near future we can solve that
problem.
I have to agree with the member that free trade
agreements by definition do not mean that we have to be less vigilant all of a
sudden. We still have to be vigilant in regard to the problems that develop
from them. They are not perfect, just as anything in life is not
perfect.
(1225)
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member commented on his election to
represent Prince George--Peace River and the comments of the NDP. This morning
the NDP took a run at the member for
London--Fanshawe and
actually turned his words around, which I guess must happen all the time in
election campaigns. The NDP member indicated that the member for
London--Fanshawe said something to the effect of littering up trade deals. In
fact the member was quoting the EU ministers who were the ones who said that
trade deals are best done not littered up by environmental and labour
standards. He was quoting someone. I wonder whether the member could comment on
the desperation of the NDP to score points by misconstruing members'
words.
Mr. Jay Hill:
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to defend the NDP on
anything, but I would point out to my hon. colleague that it seems to me that
all of us in the House, probably all members at different times, could be
judged guilty of misconstruing comments or twisting words around.
I would point out in conclusion that obviously these
agreements are not perfect. I agree with the government in that I do not think
it is necessary that standards for environmental or labour rights to protect
those things have to be included and integral to the agreement itself, as the
NDP seems to be hanging its hat on. I think it is sufficient that it be written
in good, solid language and that it is in the side agreement that those rights
will be protected and will be considered part of the free trade
agreement.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting time with my
colleague, the member for Medicine Hat.
Besides being probably two of the best looking members
of parliament, my colleague for Medicine Hat and I have something else in
common. We are probably the sweetest because we have the only homegrown sugar
industry in Canada. I preface my remarks with those comments.
I would like to get into some of the details of Bill
C-32, the free trade agreement with Costa Rica. The main concern I and many of
my colleagues on all sides of the House have with the bill is the sugar aspect.
The bill follows the free trade agreement with Chile which was signed in 1997
and the North American free trade agreement inked in 1994.
Our party supports free trade as a means of maintaining
a healthy economy by providing jobs for Canadians and improving the standard of
living in Canada. We also believe that free trade is good for developing
nations and provides stability in those nations as well.
One of the stated purposes of Bill C-32 is to promote
regional integration through an instrument that contributes to the
establishment of the free trade area of the Americas, known as the FTAA. It
could be the first of several of these agreements with the other countries of
South and Central America, and that is part of some of the concerns we have. I
will get to that later.
We in the official opposition feel it is important to
establish good trade relationships with these countries to encourage economic,
social and democratic growth. Eighty per cent of what Costa Rica exports to
Canada, goods such as fruits, vegetables, coffee and coal, already enters our
country free of duty.
Canadian producers are looking to expand their markets
for goods in Costa Rica. These are products such as french fries, metal
structures, along with fish, paper products, auto parts, plastics, wood and
agricultural goods. Many of these items currently face high tariffs when
exported to Costa Rica, even though the populace has expressed an interest in
them and the products are not economically produced within their own borders.
The proposed trade deal would change all that. The proposed trade deal would
benefit Costa Ricans by providing them with greater access to the products they
cannot currently afford or manufacture on their own.
In the year 2000 Canada exported $86 million in total
trade to Costa Rica. In that same year we imported $183 million worth of goods
from that country. The bill would ensure that Costa Rica maintains an open
access to all our markets while opening Costa Rica's door to Canadian producers
and their high quality specialized products. The proposed trade deal would
benefit both countries in that way.
The Canadian Alliance promotes free trade and, I want
to emphasize this, the joint elimination of tariffs with our trading partners.
We have seen in the past, particularly in our grain and oilseed sector, where
tariffs and support were reduced in Canada when our trading partners did not
reciprocate and this put our producers at a disadvantage. We do not want that
to happen particularly in the sugar industry.
In this respect, our party has one particular and
significant concern with the bill. If the Costa Rica free trade agreement, as
described in Bill C-32, is used as a template for other FTAA negotiations,
especially the CA-4 countries, we feel the Canadian sugar industry will suffer
and suffer greatly. Canada already has one of the most open sugar markets in
the world. Our import tariff on raw sugar stands at zero and our tariff on
refined sugar is only 8%, one of the very lowest in the world.
Canadian sugar producers such as Lantic and Rogers
provide almost enough refined sugar to meet the domestic needs of all
Canadians. U.S. and Latin American tariffs on sugar range from 50% to
160%.
The Canadian domestic sugar industry employs over 2,000
Canadians. This includes the sugar beet industry and growers in my part of the
world, in southern Alberta, and the refinery workers across the
country.
One threat to Canadian domestic sugar producers comes
from the four Central American countries, the CA-4 countries: Guatemala,
Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras, because of their refining capacity and the
subsidies they receive from their governments.
Twelve per cent of Canada's refined sugar is made from
the sugar beets that are grown in my area. This is the only region left in
Canada that grows sugar beets for refining in Canada. The rest comes largely
from imported cane sugar which is refined and a small amount of refined sugar
imported from abroad.
(1230)
The three cane sugar refineries are located in
Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. They employ many Canadians and have been
providing our country with the highest quality of refined sugar for
years.
The jobs and economic impact of the current sugar
market situation are not limited to beet growers and refinery workers however.
Canada's low sugar prices have attracted substantial investment in Canada's
food and beverage industry. These industries provide thousands of jobs at
bakeries, biscuit manufacturers, dairies, fruit and vegetable canneries,
confectionery manufacturers and so on.
By generating demand for goods and services, the sugar
industry also indirectly supports a number of other economic sectors, including
agriculture, natural resources, packaging, industrial machinery and
transportation.
The industry has concerns with the sugar aspect of the
deal with Costa Rica because of the precedent it would set for upcoming
negotiations with other Central American countries. The industry has closed two
plants in Canada since 1997 reflecting the competitiveness in the Canadian
market and limiting export opportunities. The industry has been forced to be
efficient and globally competitive, and it has done that. The industry has
changed to meet the new competition in the world. The sugar market is very
competitive. We have very little access to the U.S. market, our closest trading
partner. I know my colleague will expand on that somewhat. However the industry
has changed and shaped itself. I know the investment in the plant in southern
Alberta has been in the tens of millions of dollars. The growers themselves
have invested in new equipment and new methods. The industry is in tune and has
made the changes necessary to stay competitive.
Import competition from Central America and other
countries in the hemisphere has grown dramatically in recent years, even with
Canada's small tariff. If new regional trade deals lead to the removal of
Canada's refined sugar tariff in advance of WTO trade liberalization, the
Canadian sugar industry may suffer. It may not even survive if we get out too
far ahead of the rest of our trading partners.
Our members on the House of Commons trade committee,
who saw that the issue could be a precedent setting trade deal with the other
CA-4 countries, worked with people in the industry and people on the government
side of the House. It is funny that when we are dealing with a trade agreement
we cannot really make amendments. We either agree with trade or we disagree
with it.
However we thought if we did not change the text of the
trade deal itself, but put in the preamble that there is a concern and that
this trade deal should not be used as a pattern for the other CA-4 countries,
then that would put most of what we feared could happen to rest. Costa Rica
itself does not have the capacity at the moment to greatly harm our industry
but the other countries in Central America do. We have assurance from the
chairman of the subcommittee on international trade and others that this will
be added to the preamble. That will allow us to support the bill and we will.
We must remember that the whole idea of free trade is
to benefit both parties. If we are going to ensure that a vital industry in
Canada remains viable, then we need to keep that in mind when we open up the
other trade deals in the rest of Central America.
I wanted to make that point. We support free trade. We
support what it does and how it helps nations around the world. We wanted to
make sure that our concern about the sugar aspect of this was brought forward,
and it has been. We feel fairly comfortable, if it is followed through as
indicated, that those concerns will be put to rest. We look forward to further
debate.
(1235)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lethbridge for
the great speech. He made a great case for why, while we support free trade, we
do have some concerns about the pattern we see developing with respect to how
we treat sugar when it comes to dealing with the CA-4 countries in upcoming
trade negotiations.
I want to start out by talking about free trade more
broadly and simply make the point that free trade does raise the standard of
living for all people. It does provide better working conditions. It does
ultimately lead to a cleaner environment. It leads to higher wages. Everybody
benefits when we engage in free trade.
Canada is a trading nation. Forty-three per cent of our
GDP comes from trade. Canada, better than most nations and perhaps better than
just about any nation in the world, understands the benefits of free and
unfettered trade. It leaves people better off and provides higher standards of
living, all those sorts of things.
While my NDP friends talk on the one hand about their
belief that trade is good, on the other hand what we always see from them is
rhetoric suggesting that trade is a disaster. I have yet to see the NDP members
support any kind of trade arrangement. I do not think they have ever supported
one, and that is unfortunate because in the countries they are concerned about,
Costa Rica in this case, trade arrangements will allow those people, who in
some cases are very poor, to become much wealthier. It raises their standard of
living.
Probably the best example recently is Mexico when we
entered into the NAFTA agreement. Mexico has seen its middle class increase
dramatically. After years of having very wealthy people and a very large group
of poor people, Mexico is now starting to see its middle class develop.
We have seen that same process occur in other
countries. One of the best examples is India where a couple of hundred million
people have now become part of the middle class. This has happened in many
other countries around the world. Free trade is a very good thing.
The NDP member for Churchill who spoke earlier
suggested that sometimes trade can be compared to hockey where all the talented
players are on one side and the players who are not so good are on the other.
She suggested that sometimes a big country will dominate a little country like
a big team will dominate a little team in hockey. As I pointed out to her, the
difference is that in hockey when one team wins the other team loses and the
team that wins takes the two points and goes on to the next game. In trade both
sides come out ahead because it is a voluntary exchange. The analogy I used was
that if someone produces a hammer and sells it for $10, the person who buys it
is happy because he or she gets a hammer and can use it for something useful.
The person who gets the $10 for the hammer is happy because he or she can use
it for whatever. In essence, that is what trade is all about. Both sides come
out ahead.
The member for Churchill offered some examples that are
simply not the case. She wanted to know what would happen if some got 20 cents
for it. I would say that the person is probably happy to get 20 cents if he or
she were only getting 10 cents for whatever they produced before. People enter
into these things voluntarily. They enter into them because it leaves them
better off. Surely the member for Churchill wants to see people better
off.
I want to talk specifically about Bill C-32, the Costa
Rica free trade legislation.
As my friend said at the outset, we believe in this but
we do have concerns about the sugar component. Why? Is it because we do not
believe in free trade? We do believe in free trade, but the problem is that
Canada is being opened up to the import of sugar from all kinds of countries,
not necessarily through Bill C-32, because Costa Rica at this point does not
have the capacity to send us refined sugar, but we are concerned that it might
be a template for what will happen when we enter into negotiations with the
CA-4 countries, like Guatemala, which have a big capacity to export refined
sugar.
(1240)
The concern is not that we would have that sugar coming
here but that we also have access to the U.S. market. The U.S. is Canada's
natural export market, but in the last number of years Canada's ability to
export sugar has declined.
We produce sugar in this country. A lot of people do
not appreciate that. There is a sugar beet industry in my riding and in the
riding of my friend from Lethbridge. It produces a lot of very good sugar. Our
sugar producers can compete with anyone in the United States which also
produces a lot of beet sugar. We can compete with any of them. We have an
excellent facility in Taber, Alberta, that has just been upgraded. Several
million dollars have been put into it. We can compete.
The problem is that the Americans are protectionist on
sugar and our government has not been able to crack that open. Not only has it
been unable to crack open the American market, the amount of sugar we export to
the U.S. market has shrunk from 55,000 tonnes a few years ago to 15,000 tonnes
today.
In the end it is the decision of Americans. However the
government has not done a good job of looking after the interests of our sugar
producers. It has not made it a priority. The reason it has not done so is that
it is a relatively small industry compared to, for instance, the supply
management industries.
The government gets heat constantly from the United
States and other countries about supply management. Instead of threatening a
big industry like supply management our government trades off sugar. It does it
over and over again. In the free trade deal there is no question that sugar was
traded off.
The Americans are happy to protect it. They like
protecting it because a number of senators and congressmen have the industry in
their areas and want to protect it for political reasons. We have not pushed
them too hard on the issue. However it is time for the government to find a
spine and push the Americans hard.
I am glad to stand by the Americans at any time. We
will certainly stand by them during their time of need. However today we are
talking about free trade. The Americans are protectionist on this and other
issues. Softwood lumber is another example. We could go through the list. It is
time the government started to push them.
The government thinks sugar is a small industry and no
big deal but it is a critical industry to the people involved in it. It is not
important in terms of overall GDP but to the people involved it is their
livelihoods. It is very important to them.
I urge the government to make cracking open the
American market more of a priority. It should at least raise the quota back to
the 55,000 tonnes we used to have. That is still not a lot, frankly. It was not
a big amount of sugar to export relative to what we produced but it was three
times better than what we export today. It is critical that the government take
that into account when it sits with the Americans the next time because this is
unacceptable.
In my riding and across the prairies it is a difficult
time in agriculture. People know that. Sugar beets provide a real option for a
lot of people. They provide a good livelihood not just for producers but for
all the people who work at the facility in my riding.
If we cannot appeal to the government to make it a
priority on the grounds that the sugar industry is important, we appeal to it
on the grounds that farmers need options at a time when wheat prices are low
and they do not have many options.
(1245)
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond since
my colleague referred to an analogy I made. In the point I was trying to make I
referred to your son and the Montreal Canadiens in the same breath. It was in a
good light, Mr. Speaker. I said that even in hockey we have rules. We have
rules so that one guy or team is not so big and powerful that they have all the
power in one area to the detriment of the other. That is the point I was trying
to make.
That being said, I want to comment on how well Mexico
is doing and re-emphasize that New Democrats are not in the least opposed to
trade. We need trade for strong economies on both sides. Whatever countries are
involved in the trading process it should be beneficial.
I will tell my hon. colleague a story. I was visiting
Arizona a few years back and watching an American program. This is important
because it deals with the issue of trade. On the program there was a
representative of American companies that were doing business near Guadalajara,
Mexico. The story talked about 200 dead women were disappering found in the
desert.
Women were disappering going to and from their
workplace. They were as young as 12 or 13 years old. Some 200 bodies were found
over the course of a few years. People were imploring the companies to put some
kind of system in place to bus the women to and from their residences and the
workplace. These companies made a fortune selling their products in Canada and
the U.S. yet their representative said they had to have flexibility and be able
to make a profit. He asked why they should have to put in a busing system.
They found the bodies of 200 Mexican women. Is that
right? Is that a fair deal for everyone? Is that what the member's idea of free
trade is all about?
Mr. Monte Solberg:
Mr. Speaker, that is indeed a tragedy; it truly is. No
one likes to hear a story like that one. The question is: Where would the women
go if the factories were not there? What would they do to support themselves?
That is a legitimate question.
Does the hon. member have an answer to that? Where
would they work if the factories were not there? How would they support
themselves? How would they feed their families? That is my question to the hon.
member.
Can the hon. member get up and tell us what trade deal
the NDP has ever supported in the House? The hon. member claims she supports
trade. What trade deal has the NDP ever supported in this place?
(1250)
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais:
Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of good debate we need to
have in the House. I will answer the question. Whenever we think the right or
the opportunity to go to work is a licence to kill, something is seriously
wrong. That is the problem. Yes, by all means they should have a job to go to.
However with all due respect people said the same thing about the miners at
Westray. They said if they had not had the mine to work in they would have had
nothing.
Do we accept unsafe work conditions? Do we accept child
labour? Do we accept death on the way home because we cannot put in safe social
systems and safe transportation? Is that okay? No, it is not. That is where we
differ. Yes, they should have the right to go to work. However they have a
right to other things as well such as human rights, labour rights and
environmental rights. That is where we differ. When the hon. member comes up
with a trade agreement that has those things he will have the support of the
NDP.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk about the Montreal
Canadiens. They are a great team. If one cheers for them or knows some who
plays for them that is great.
I want to bring the attention of the hon. member for
Medicine Hat back to the concern I have about Alberta's sugar production. The
member has mixed up the U.S. free trade agreement with what we are discussing.
This agreement is about Costa Rica and Canada.
Costa Rica would incur the same costs trying to export
to the prairies or western Canada that western Canada would incur trying to
export to Costa Rica, so there is some balance there.
I wanted to know a little more. Costa Rica has no
refineries or beet sugar production whereas Alberta does, at least in the
riding of the member for Medicine Hat. What are the member's fears? Could he
expound on them a little? I am unclear on exactly what his fears and his
farmers' fears are.
Mr. Monte Solberg:
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say except that it
is pretty unrealistic to think Alberta would start sending sugar to Costa Rica
which is in Central America and is surrounded by all kinds of countries that
produce tremendous amounts of sugar.
We do not oppose the idea of free trade but in a world
of complete free trade everyone would obviously find their natural market. Our
natural market for sugar is not Costa Rica but we would have a natural market
in the United States.
That is the problem with bilateral deals. If we had
rules based trade through the WTO things would find their natural level. Canada
would trade with the U.S., which is obviously the right way to do things. It
makes so much sense. It is the largest market in the world. The $11 trillion
U.S. market is right below our border. We should be trading with the
U.S.
The problem with the bilateral deal is that it would
give us some new free trade on the one hand but entrench a bunch of distortions
on the other hand. It would make more permanent some of the problems that
already exist between Canada and the U.S. It would give the government an
excuse not to deal with an issue that really and truly affects the sugar
producers in my region.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32, the Canada-Costa Rica free
trade agreement implementation act, must be examined in the context of the
debate that has already taken place regarding the current process for
negotiating a free trade area of the Americas and in the context where clearly
we are in the midst of a globalization process. I believe that the exchange we
just witnessed between the NDP member and the Canadian Alliance member
demonstrates this fact.
Currently it is clear that the Canadian government's
strategy consists of multiplying bilateral agreements to speed up the process
of economic integration with the continent and with the world.
We already have a free trade agreement with the United
States and Mexico, NAFTA. We have a free trade agreement with Israel, and
another one with Chile. This weekend the Prime Minister announced that there
would be negotiations for an agreement with Singapore. We also know that the
government is interested in negotiating a free trade agreement with four
Central American countries: Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador. The
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recommended that
the government enter into negotiations with the European Union to establish a
free trade agreement.
This then is the context in which we must look at the
bill before us, regardless of whether we are friends with Costa Rica or not. I
think it is clear that the people of Canada, like those of Quebec, are friends
of the Costa Ricans. This is not the issue. The issue is what is we are getting
in the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement.
I think the position of the Bloc Quebecois on free
trade, like that of most Quebecers, is well known. We support it. We think it
is an excellent idea because it encourages countries, by opening their borders,
to specialize according to the advantages they enjoy such as natural resources,
human resources or capital. This increases the general productivity of our
economies. What I mean by productivity is not working intensely, but more
effectively, more intelligently. All of this generates additional wealth, which
can then be shared, and the problem often lies here, in the equitable
distribution of the resultant wealth.
We must face the fact. The world has never been as rich
as it is now. At no other time in recorded history has the world been as rich.
At the same time, we must acknowledge that globalization and free trade
agreements have not reduced the gap between the rich and the poor. Quite the
contrary, they have widened it. A certain set of qualifications and a certain
mobility are needed to benefit from globalization, free trade and
specialization. Unskilled workers, as this is all the more apparent in
industrialized economies, are unemployed and underemployed, in unacceptable
working conditions and living in poverty.
The same can be said for regions. If free trade is not
guided by a number of rules about the creation of this wealth across the
continent or worldwide, inequalities among regions and among various classes of
people within countries will grow. Accordingly, all aspects of our life must be
taken into consideration, not just the economic issues more directly linked by
trade agreements, but also the various social, environmental, cultural and
democratic aspects. If they are not considered we may end up, under the guise
of improving economic activity, creating inequalities, eradicating cultures and
violating democratic rights.
Returning to the hockey analogy, although I
unfortunately missed the beginning of it, I again congratulate you, Mr.
Speaker, on your son's choice.
At this time, the professional teams and leagues have
systems to try to level out disparities. If the top team had its choice of
players during the selection process, not only would their team keep getting
better but the one in the cellar would stay there. Professional hockey leagues
have therefore come up with a plan to share player talent around more fairly by
letting the bottom team in the rankings have first choice.
(1255)
This of the same sort of philosophical approach we
would like to see used by the Government of Canada in the free trade
agreements, particularly in negotiations for the FTAA, as well as in the
upcoming WTO negotiations.
Unfortunately there was nothing on this in the
Canada-Costa Rica agreement. The Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is a
first generation agreement, as is NAFTA, as are those with Chile and Israel. It
does not take the social, democratic and environmental dimensions into
consideration.
The only new reference I was able to find in this
agreement is one to the WTO declaration of 1998 on fundamental rights. This
reference, however, has no mechanism for application.
We must take into account these economic, social and
environmental concerns. Quebecers and Canadians should have been consulted in a
meaningful manner, but this was not done. All that was put at their disposal
was a website where they could make comments. Some groups did receive 18 months
ago a letter from the Minister for International Trade inviting them to express
their views. However, no systematic consultation process was set up. At no time
were parliamentarians involved in the process. Now the government is coming up
with an agreement that is presented to us as a fait accompli, expecting us to
blindly pass the implementing act. We will not.
I hope that the federal government will realize that it
can never again put parliamentarians, Canadians and Quebecers before a fait
accompli.
In this case and in future ones, if there is no true
consultation process that includes parliamentarians, civil society and all
Canadians and Quebecers, we will vote against these free trade agreements out
of respect for our democracy.
The first fundamental flaw of the whole process leading
to this agreement is that it was not transparent. Negotiations were not
conducted following a monitoring of the whole process by
parliamentarians.
The second element which in our opinion is a serious
mistake in the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is the investment
clause.
In its documentation, the Minister for International
Trade tells us that nothing is changed in terms of investment and services. I
realize that nothing has changed regarding investment and services. An
agreement had already been negotiated in 1998 between the Government of Costa
Rica and the government of Canada for the promotion and protection of
investments.
In the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement,
reference is made to this previous agreement. Under the provision on
investment, article VIII.2 reads, and I quote:
The Parties note the existence of the
Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Costa Rica for
the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed in San José, Costa Rica, on
March 18, 1998. |
When we take a look at the 1998 agreement, what do we
see? We see that the provisions of NAFTA's chapter 11, which we condemned here
and the Minister for International Trade said he wanted to change, are all
there.
I would remind the House that in the debate we led and
are continuing to lead for the negotiation of the free trade area of the
Americas, we do not want to see investment protection provisions similar to
those in chapter 11 of NAFTA, which give multinationals and private
corporations too many rights over governments, states and the democratic will
of peoples.
There were many problems with chapter 11, but I will
mention just four: the definition of investments, which is far too broad;
national treatment, which means that we cannot have a specific policy to
further the economic development of a particular sector; the concept of
expropriation, which is far too broad; and finally, the dispute settlement
mechanism, which allows a company to go directly to an arbitration tribunal to
challenge a government decision or policy. The agreement between the government
of the Republic of Costa Rica and the Government of Canada contains these same
provisions to promote and protect investments.
I will take the example of investments. The agreement
reads as follows:
|
(g ) “investment” means any kind of asset owned or
controlled either directly, or indirectly through an enterprise or natural
person of a third State, by an investor of one Contracting Party in the
territory of the other Contracting Party in accordance with the latter's laws
and, in particular, though not exclusively, includes: |
|
(i)
movable and immovable property and any related property rights, such as
mortgages, liens--; |
|
(ii)
shares, stock, bonds and debentures--; |
|
(iii)
money, claims to money--; |
The list goes on.
(1300)
The definition of investment is far too broad in the
Canada-Costa Rica agreement, and it is inspired by the NAFTA
definition.
Now as for the national treatment provisions, there is
exactly the same clause as in chapter 11 and for expropriation exactly the same
type of definition. I will quote from article VIII:
1. Investments of investors of either
Contracting Party shall not be nationalized, expropriated or subjected to
measures having an effect equivalent to nationalization or
expropriation-- |
This is rather broad. Finally, as far as dispute
settlement is concerned, I will quote from article XII:
2. If a dispute has not been settled
amicably within a period of six months from the date on which it was initiated,
it may be submitted by the investor to arbitration in accordance with paragraph
(4). |
Chapter 11 is found indirectly within the Canada-Costa
Rica free trade agreement and runs contrary to the commitments made by the
Minister for International Trade when he stated that he did not want to see any
equivalent of chapter 11 in the treaty on the free trade area of the
Americas.
The final element that makes this agreement with Costa
Rica unacceptable is the matter of sugar, as has been stated
already.
In this case, there has been a unilateral
liberalization of the sugar market on the part of the Canadian government
without anything corresponding being done on the other side by Costa Rica or
any of the other Central American governments that will follow later. There is
no way I will be convinced that in agreements with Guatemala, Nicaragua,
Honduras or El Salvador we will have what is not in the free trade agreement
with Costa Rica.
In the case of Costa Rica under the agreement, the
doors are now open to selling in Canada, with no applicable tariff, over 20,000
tonnes of refined sugar starting in 2003, and the volume involved will have no
limits starting in 2009.
Canada is one of the countries, if not the country,
that is most open to sugar imports. There is no tariff on raw sugar and there
is a $30.84 tariff on refined sugar, which is the equivalent of 8%. Our price
for sugar is one of the lowest in the world, whereas the U.S. and the European
Union have many protectionist measures that resultsn distorted prices on the
world level.
In Central American countries such as Guatemala, the
tariffs on refined sugar may be as high as 160%. We are opening up our market
while there are no market opportunities for Canada in these economies. The
previous speaker mentioned this and I agree with him.
The United States is the obvious market for our refined
sugar industries, but there is so much protectionism that even though they
consume ten times more sugar than Canada they import less.
The four countries of Central America that I mentioned
produce 2.8 million tonnes of raw sugar, of which 1.6 million tonnes, half, is
exported. Three hundred thousand tonnes of that is refined sugar. In total
Canada consumes approximately 1.2 million tonnes.
Guatemala, for example, currently produces and exports
1.1 million tonnes of sugar per year or the equivalent of our annual
consumption. In 2000, Canada imported 273,000 tonnes of raw sugar from Central
America, compared to our exports of 110,000 tonnes, under the quota, to the
United States, a country that consumes ten times more sugar than we do, as I
mentioned earlier.
Our industry is competitive, but in a market where
there is no price distortion. On the world market and in the United States and
Europe, where protectionist measures are in place, such distortion exists. I
refuse to believe that there will be a market for Canadian refined sugar in
Costa Rica, Guatemala and Nicaragua. Why? Because of the rule of
origin.
We would have to import raw sugar from Central American
countries and refine it in Canada in order to sell it back to these countries.
The transportation costs alone explain why it would be difficult to sell this
sugar, notwithstanding the fact that they produce raw sugar themselves,and
could develop their own refining capability.
In Montreal, 345 jobs are being threatened. This may
not seem like a lot to the Minister for International Trade, but in the
Montreal area, particularly in these troubled economic times, these are jobs we
want to keep.
Why were the opinions of industry, the unions and
opposition parties not taken into consideration on this issue, if “it is not
true”, as the Minister for International Trade said?
(1305)
I personally presented an amendment to the
Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment to make
sure that this provision would not be included in the future. It is true that
in the current context Costa Rica is not a threat, but Guatemala is.
I presented an amendment to make sure that in future
free trade agreements with Central American countries we would not have the
provision that is included in this one. That amendment was rejected by the
Liberals. Now they would have us believe that they care about the 345 workers
at Montreal's Lantic Sugar. Come on.
I think this provision should have been left out of the
agreement. We must negotiate the liberalization of the sugar market. My
proposal to the Minister for International Trade is to put this item on the
agenda at the negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas and also at
the WTO. We want the liberalization of sugar at least at the continental level,
if not at the world level, so that Canadian and Quebec businesses that are
competitive can compete in a fair market in terms of the practices used.
Because of these three elements, namely the lack of
transparency during the negotiations, the fact that chapter 11 is indirectly
included through the agreement for the promotion and protection of investments,
and the fact that Canada's refined sugar industry is put in jeopardy, the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against Bill C-32.
(1310)
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's
comments. One is almost at a loss to know where to start, there are so many
questions I would like to ask. I will follow up on a couple of brief
observations if I might.
I take this opportunity to clarify some comments made
by the member for Churchill and to ask my colleague from the Bloc for his
opinion on labour agreements. Earlier today I quoted the president of the ILO
who said that he supported the use of side agreements on labour and the
environment. He not only supported them but applauded Canadian creativity in
using that approach.
I referenced the EU ministers who at a meeting I
attended a year ago on behalf of the Minister for International Trade indicated
that they too did not want to litter up trade agreements unnecessarily by
including labour and environment rights. This was the point I sought to make
earlier. I believe I was misinterpreted by the member for Churchill but that
has been clarified by some of my colleagues.
How does the member feel about labour and environment
agreements in trade deals?
I am disappointed to hear my colleague talk about the
proposed amendment he put forward in committee. He knows very well that when he
put the amendment our side supported it. In fact his amendment was agreed to
unanimously.
I will give him a chance to clarify. The next day he
came to the committee with a substantially different amendment with no
consultation on this side of the House. Obviously we could not support a
substantially different amendment from my colleague. We try to deal in good
faith so I will give the member a chance to clarify.
I point out that there is no Costa Rican investment to
speak of in Canada. Canada has some $400 million of investment in Costa Rica.
These are protected by FIPA, a foreign investment protection agreement, which
has been in existence since 1999.
I do not understand his fears in this regard. They are
misplaced. It saddens me to think that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against a
bilateral free trade agreement with a developing nation, one that badly needs
it. Does he really mean that?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette:
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and I often
attend the same meetings, but I do not think we see them the same.
With respect to the secretary general of the ILO, he
said that the debate had taken place within the ILO on issues involving
workers' rights within trade agreements and that no consensus had been reached
for the moment. We know that it is a tripartite body.
I served as the secretary general of the CSN for eight
years. I know, therefore, that within this forum many governments and unions
and perhaps some enlightened managers think that an effort must be made to find
a way to introduce dimensions pertaining to fundamental rights into trade
agreements. They are working on this.
The International Labour Organization and the World
Trade Organization must give thought to such things.
The tragic events of September 11 should give us cause
to think. We cannot do things the same way any more. Much of the revolt in the
world arises from the fact that trade agreements take no other dimension into
account although they have an impact on society, the environment and
democracies. The debate must therefore continue and the Bloc will support this
debate.
Now as concerns what went on in committee regarding the
amendment, I moved the same amendment in the subcommittee and in the standing
committee. In the subcommittee, the chair declared it out of order. I looked
into it in the course of the evening and came back with the argument that it
was admissible. Finally it was allowed by the chair of the Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and was voted on. I moved the same
amendment twice. In the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade, it was defeated by the Liberals.
It is also true that, in the subcommittee, and this
will be in the report, I agree, out of desperation to a general proposal to
ensure tha, in future interests such as those of the sugar refining industry
would be considered and that a multilateral perspective would be maintained
during negotiations.
Specifically in the case of sugar, the Government of
Canada should focus on multilateral negotiations to liberalize the sugar
refining market.
I would like as my final point to say that we support
free trade, but we must learn from past mistakes. Chapter 11 of NAFTA, and I
think the Minister for International Trade agrees with many of our criticisms,
cannot be repeated in new agreements we will sign.
In the case of the Canada-Costa Rica free trade
agreement, I would have expected Canada to reopen the agreement with respect to
the protection and promotion of investments in order to take into account the
remarks made by the Minister for International Trade himself in this regard,
but it has not.
I think it is time we gave a signal to the Liberal
government. We will not sign and we will not go along with any free trade
agreement that does not meet a certain number of conditions. I have mentioned
three in this case. We do not feel that there was sufficient consultation. At
no time were parliamentarians asked what they thought. Instead we are being
presented with a fait accompli.
Second, the clause on investments contains elements of
chapter 11. Third, I cannot in all conscience agree to jeopardize 345 jobs in
the Montreal area by unilaterally liberalizing the refined sugar
market.
(1315)
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien:
Mr. Speaker, surely the member knows that there is a
sugar caucus in parliament chaired by my colleague from Etobicoke. The member
knows that there have been representations on concerns about the sugar industry
in Montreal and other parts of Canada by government members as well. They have
been very forceful about that.
The member knows there was an agreement in committee
that passed unanimously. It stated that we would pay close regard to the
concerns of the sugar industry. There was wide consultation and opportunity to
have input at that meeting. Those concerns were listened to and the committee,
chaired by my colleague from Ottawa Centre, went out of its way to pass a
motion stating that we would pay close regard to the concerns of the sugar
industry in all parts of Canada. We attended the same meeting. Is that not the
member's recollection of what took place?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette:
Mr. Speaker, once again, when I put forward my
amendment to the effect that there were no similar provisions for Central
American countries, the Liberals defeated it.
I therefore remain extremely concerned about the
content of the Costa Rica agreement and the agreement to follow. Let us hope
that negotiations for free trade agreements with the four Central American
countries introduce a number of other dimensions absent from these first
generation agreements. Once again, I remain extremely worried.
When I sat on the Sub-Committee on International Trade,
Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, we heard from representatives of Lantic Sugar and the
Canadian Sugar Institute. They testified and I did not have the impression that
all members of the committee clearly understood the extent of the
problem.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the committee drafted a unanimous report
endorsed by Liberal and opposition members from all parties to improve the
system used by Human Resources Development Canada for employment insurance.
This is a unanimous report. The committee is chaired by a Liberal member, yet
the minister ignored its report.
My colleague from Joliette tried to move an amendment.
We did it in every committee. The Liberals have a majority and they use the
steamroller technique to ram their bills through. The committee and the
committee hearings are just window dressing.
When the Conservatives were in office, the Liberals
vehemently opposed the free trade agreement.
In my riding there are lumber producers currently have
a problem concerning lumber on the U.S. market. This issue is still not
settled. We have problems and we are asking for a free trade
agreement.
There are dairy producers who also have a problem.
There are tomato producers, such as Charlevoix's Serres Lacoste, which also
have to pay a surtax.
If today we sign an agreement with Costa Rica, we will
have the same problem when the time comes to negotiate. I think that a free
trade agreement should allow for the exchange of goods and services without
restrictions.
(1320)
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-32,
the implementation of the free trade agreement between the Government of Canada
and the government of the Republic of Costa Rica.
Time after time the Canadian Alliance has said it is in
favour of free trade. In that context we see this agreement as one step forward
in the implementation of free trade, which we feel is the route to go for the
prosperity of Canada.
I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the
member for Surrey Central.
One of the concerns raised by members on this side of
the House was the impact on the domestic sugar industry. I am pleased to note
that an agreement was reached in committee to say that this model would not be
applied throughout the other free trade agreements, which paves the way for the
Alliance to support the bill.
Our concern for the sugar industry still remains
regarding future trade agreements that Canada might sign. We are putting the
Minister for International Trade on notice that if future trade agreements are
signed they should be more balanced in the interests of both
countries.
I want to talk in general about free trade in the world
and globalization. I just returned with the minister from the APEC conference
in Shanghai last week where an interesting paper was presented by the
government of Australia called “Globalization and Poverty”. I hope my
colleagues from the NDP and others will listen carefully to what the research
said.
I will quote some statements from the
document:
Globalisation --in the form of
increased economic integration through trade and investment--is an important
reason why so much progress has been made against poverty and global inequality
over recent decades. |
Good national policies,sound
institutions and domestic political stability are also important...in reducing
poverty. |
Up to 1.2 billion people of the developing world's 4.8
billion people still live in extreme poverty, but the proportion of the world
population living in poverty has been steadily declining. Since 1988 the
absolute number of poor people has stopped rising and appears to have fallen in
recent years despite strong population growth in poor countries.
If the proportion living in poverty had not fallen,
since 1987 alone a further 215 million people would be living in extreme
poverty today. There is very strong evidence here. The very poorest countries
now represent less than 8% of the world total population compared with just
over 45% in 1970.
The Australian document went on to say:
Most progress has taken place in
developing countries that have reformed their policies, institutions and
infrastructure to become the ‘new globalisers’...During the 1990s their growth
in gross domestic product per person was 5 per cent a year compared with 2 per
cent of the rich countries... But far more serious problems confront the
countries that have not integrated with the global economy--countries that
account for up to 2 billion people. Often experiencing internal conflict and
suffering poor government anti-business policies and low participation in
international trade, these countries have not joined the process of
globalisation, with the consequences of slowly growing incomes or even
declining incomes and rising poverty. |
The document says quite clearly that evidence produced
over the last decade shows that globalization and free trade have been major
instruments in moving people out of poverty, specifically in Asian countries.
This is clear evidence why it is important to have free trade in the
world.
(1325)
The member for
Churchill gave one
example when she talked about 200 women who lost their lives while travelling.
Yes, that is a tragic consequence. However, in the overall context of the
situation, we must look at the bigger picture that has propelled people to move
out.
The problem with these anti-globalization protestors,
and the NDP, is they nitpick. The loss of 200 lives is extremely important, I
am not saying that it is not. However, they nitpick small little things to put
up barriers against free trade and globalization. Evidence shows that the
majority of people have moved from the poor sections of the economy to better
living standards.
In the APEC conference, which I attended with the
Minister for International Trade, every country there talked about moving their
economies into the global market. After years of experimenting with other
forms, they see that as one of the key factors in helping their countries to
move out poverty and improve the living standards of their citizens.
Twenty-one countries cannot be wrong, can they? They
have looked hard at the results. They are the ones that have been governing for
years. Yet we have the anti-globalization led by the NDP, that is the new
mantra these days of anti-globalization, putting up barriers, supposedly for
these poor people. I do not know for whom they talk.
All I know is that most of these NGOs and
anti-globalization protestors, who supposedly live in rich countries and have
great living standards, are trying to impose their will on other countries that
want to improve their standard of living. The anti-globalization protestors are
putting up barriers to stop the same people who they are trying to help, when
all economic indicators and research point to the fact that free trade has
assisted them in moving forward. I do not understand why the NDP is picking up
that mantra.
In conclusion, the Canadian Alliance will support Bill
C-32 in the context that free trade has been one of the engines of prosperity
for Canada.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member has come back from
the People's Republic of China and the APEC conference with his head full of
corporate information about globalization and that it is good for everyone. I
have heard this so often at committees, from the pharmaceutical companies that
are pushing the idea of intellectual property rights and that this is somehow
lifting people out of poverty.
If the hon. member had taken the time, whether it was
in Quebec City at the summit of the Americas, or at APEC when it was in
Vancouver a few years ago, or now in the People's Republic of China, to attend
the parallel conference and hear from workers about impact of corporate
globalization, he would know that the NDP is not nitpicking, or as he said,
“small little things”. We are defending the fact that workers have established,
through these agreements, virtually no rights. Now we are looking at trade
agreements, particularly the one before us today, that will do nothing to
enforce and ensure the rights of workers in Costa Rica, or other countries
where these agreements exist, to the basic human rights and labour rights to
organize, to work in livable and decent conditions, to speak out and to
associate. None of these things properly exist.
I am really offended that the member would somehow
consider this to be nitpicking. He needs to go and do his homework. He needs to
hear from worker organizations, both international and national. He needs to
hear the very deep concerns that are being registered about these agreements
and how they absolutely do not provide any adequate measures to protect workers
in other countries.
I would ask the member to respond to that. Did he
bother to take the time to find that out when he was at the APEC
conference?
(1330)
Mr. Deepak Obhrai:
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the
question. Let me tell the member that I grew up in a country that was in
poverty. Today it is one of the poorest countries in the world.
I was there in August and talked to the people. I will
say repeatedly that the NDP is nitpicking these little things because of the
rhetoric being used. The members use so-called NGO groups who have similar
interests and say they represent the people. If they went to those nations,
walked the streets and talked with the people who have businesses, they would
find out exactly what people want. They want prosperity.
Of course they want good living standards and better
labour standards, but that will come through free trade and economic activity.
It will not come through a central state government as the NDP wants. I have
lived in that country and have seen the labour standards. The standards that
the NDP says are there do not exist.
Where it exists is where people have choices. They have
the choice to go from business to business to raise their living standards.
With this documentation and the usual NDP rhetoric about corporate interests,
the member seems to forget every time that it is the economic activity minus
the corporations. Corporations do not operate the major activities of the
country. Major activities of the country are done by small and medium sized
businesses. That is where economic prosperity comes from, not from large
corporations.
I would suggest to the NDP to forget about a parallel
summit, to go out and walk the streets and talk to the local people to find the
answers.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary East
for allowing me to share his time. I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people
of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-32 regarding the
proposed free trade agreement between Canada and Costa Rica.
The free trade agreement implementation act tries to
lay out the terms for a free trade agreement between our two countries by
gradually eliminating trade barriers in goods and services. The bill follows
the free trade agreement with Chile in 1997 as well as NAFTA in 1994. One of
its stated purposes is to promote regional integration through an instrument
that contributes to the establishment of the free trade area of the Americas,
commonly called FTAA. It could be the first of several of these agreements with
the other countries of South and Central America.
Eighty per cent of what Costa Rica already exports to
Canada enters Canada duty free. Already our bilateral trade with Costa Rica has
had an annual growth of 6% in the last five years with a 7% increase in exports
and a 5% increase in imports. The agreement would further accelerate that
growth. Canada is looking to expand its market for goods and services, many of
which currently face high tariffs when exported to Costa Rica.
Costa Rica is not the problem, but the main risk is if
this provision is extended to the CA-4 countries, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El
Salvador and Honduras. That is where I see a threat because of their refining
capacity and because of the subsidies given by the governments in those
countries. The domestic sugar industry has been asked to make representation at
the House of Commons committee and to offer amendments to the proposed
legislation.
After the bill was debated in committee some of our
concerns were addressed. I opposed the bill at second reading. I commend some
of the improvements made at committee because of the pressure from the official
opposition, the Canadian Alliance members.
The bill now appears to support the Canadian Alliance
policy regarding free trade. Reduction of tariffs should be done in stages, in
step with other countries and not unilaterally. Canada reduced its tariffs
prematurely on grain and this created many problems, as all of us
know.
There is a concern that the government is putting our
sugar industry at risk in order to reduce completely unjustified high Costa
Rican tariffs on french fries and selected other exports.
We have one of the most open sugar markets in the
world, with an import tariff on raw sugar at just zero and a tariff on refined
sugar at only 8%. United States and Latin American tariffs on sugar range from
50% to 160%. For our domestic needs Canada produces enough refined sugar. In
terms of exports, our only really viable market is the United States, which
imposes strict quotas of 12,000 tonnes of sugar per year.
Other countries like Costa Rica hit us with very hefty
tariffs when we export sugar to their countries. For example, Guatemala has a
160% tariff on sugar imports.
Canada currently has three sugar refineries to process
raw sugar which, by the way, is down from seven 20 years ago. The Canadian
domestic sugar industry employs about 2,000 Canadians. A 111 year old company,
Rogers Sugar, in B.C., supports the livelihoods of 650 people and stands a
chance that it will lose under this agreement.
As a footnote to the debate, the people of British
Columbia have already been hurt through the government's bungling of softwood
lumber, tomato dumping, the mining industry, fisheries, tourism, the film
industry and some others.
(1335)
Also losing may be some 450 farmers producing 140,000
tonnes of sugar each year, and we know that our farmers are already in
desperate shape.
Rogers Sugar currently injects close to $100 million
into the Canadian economy through its operations in Vancouver and Taber,
Alberta, providing high quality employment to their employees. Some people from
my constituency are employed there as well.
Costa Rica does not currently use refined sugar so
there is no possible benefit to Canada on this score.
There are some concerns that this agreement may stifle
the operation of market forces by giving Costa Rica more access to Canada than
Canada gets to Costa Rica. Trade should not only be free but also fair.
As we all know, a balanced free trade agreement usually
helps to raise the standard of living for both partners through increased
competitiveness and lower prices. Free trade, when done right, leads to lower
prices for consumers. Who benefits? It is the consumer who benefits. Free trade
must provide our firms with a level playing field in bilateral trading
relationships with Costa Rica. Markets work best where government intervenes
least. When the government does intervene, it must try to promote fairness and
look at the whole web of Canada's trade relations with other countries. We
cannot afford to be shortsighted. We must look at the big picture.
As I mentioned, though, the agreement does more than
open the door for the exchange of goods and services with Costa Rica. It may
act as a model for the whole FTAA framework. Regional trade agreements such as
the FTAA should not conflict with our WTO agreements.
Despite the bill hurting our sugar industry somewhat,
this agreement seems to be a step forward on several other levels. It includes
some side agreements on the environment and labour. It demonstrates that free
trade agreements can be negotiated between larger and smaller economies.
Canada has about $500 million invested in Costa Rica.
The improved access that we hope to gain with this FTA will give Canadian
businesses an edge over foreign competitors who do not have preferential access
to the Costa Rican market. We are getting access to the market. This market
access will benefit about 90% of Canada's current agriculture and agrifood
exports, so that is a big benefit.
Also, Canada exports goods and services of close to 45%
of our GDP, which is almost half of our GDP. This is a high proportion in
comparison to our major trading partners, so our success in international trade
is important to sustain our Canadian economy, particularly during this time.
Many SMEs, small and medium sized enterprises, in Canada depend on trade and
the foreign market for their success and growth.
Therefore I look forward to the bill and I will be
supporting Bill C-32 at this stage.
(1340)
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I will advise the Chair that I intend to
divide my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.
We have witnessed the most extraordinary spectacle in
the House this afternoon: this unholy alliance between the Liberal Party, in
particular the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade,
and the Canadian Alliance. They are attacking the New Democrats. Why is it that
they are attacking us? They are attacking us because we have the effrontery to
actually speak out for human rights, to speak out for the rights of working
people and to speak out for the environment, because we have the nerve to talk
about the importance of democracy and putting the rights of democratically
elected representatives of the people of this country ahead of corporate
rights. What a shocking thing.
The hon. member from Calgary who spoke earlier on
behalf of the Alliance said that we have to listen to the people from the south
and that this legislation will be good for them. I wish that member had
listened to the voices from the south, from Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, Peru,
Brazil and elsewhere when they were in Quebec City speaking about the
destructive impact of the existing trade deals on their people. Had he been at
the women's forum in Quebec City he would have heard women speaking about the
appalling conditions in the maquiladora zones in Mexico, the poisoning of
workers from chemicals, the violence and the ruthless repression of the rights
of working people.
The member from Calgary asks why we are nitpicking over
workers' rights. I will tell him. Is it nitpicking to say that working people
should have the right under ILO standards to organize and bargain collectively,
the right to equal pay for work of equal value, the right to work free of
discrimination and prohibitions? They should not have to work without any
restrictions at all on child labour and forced labour.
What is it that the Liberal Party and the Alliance do
not understand about the rights of working people? Or is it that they do not
really give a damn about the rights of working people? All they really care
about is corporate profit. That is the bottom line for them.
We in the New Democratic Party oppose the legislation
and we say that this Canada-Costa Rica bilateral free trade agreement is in
fact part of what would lay the groundwork for a hemispheric agreement that
would simply replicate all of the destructive impact of the existing NAFTA. We
want nothing to do with that, certainly nothing that would increase the
momentum toward a free trade area of the Americas, an FTAA.
Why is that? Too often Canada's trade policy has
ignored social considerations, human considerations, the environment and the
rights of workers and has put strictly commercial advantages for Canadian
corporations ahead of all of them. There is no better example of that than
chapter 11 of NAFTA. While chapter 11 of NAFTA is not explicitly included in
the Canada-Costa Rica bilateral free trade agreement, it is in fact imported
into that agreement.
[Translation]
I was a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs when my friend, the hon. member for Joliette and Bloc Quebecois critic
on international trade, tried to move a very clear amendment to exclude chapter
11 from this Canada-Costa Rica agreement, but the government did not accept
this fundamental principle.
(1345)
[English]
We already know that the rights of working people in
Costa Rica have been trampled on. It is virtually impossible to form or join a
trade union in Costa Rica in the private sector because of the hostility from
employers and the government's unwillingness to enforce its own labour
laws.
We know that Costa Rica was the birthplace of the
anti-worker Solidarista movement which set up employer sponsored associations
in banana plantations to supplant bona fide trade unions. In the banana zone in
Costa Rica working conditions are appalling and dangerous because of the lack
of protection for workers using chemicals, resulting in the birth of
genetically deformed babies, sterility, ill health and death among workers. In
the private sector, Costa Rican workers are effectively denied any opportunity
for collective bargaining whatsoever.
The Canadian Labour Congress and the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions, which represents 125 million workers
worldwide, recently wrote to the president of Costa Rica, Dr. Miguel Angel
Rodriguez, expressing their concern about the situation faced by Costa Rican
workers, especially those in the public sector.
What does the government say? The government says that
it has great side accords. It says that it has a side accord on labour and on
the environment. We have seen this movie before. We have seen the so-called
side accords under the existing NAFTA and they are a joke. They do not protect
workers and they sure as heck do not protect the environment.
When governments fail to enforce labour laws that
protect such basic rights as the freedom of association, what is the recourse
under the side agreement under NAFTA? They can make a submission to the
national administrative office of a signatory government. What can that office
do? It can recommend ministerial consultations with the offending government,
and that is it. There is no respect for the fundamental rights of workers and
no respect for the environment whatsoever, and that is continued in the
Canada-Costa Rica agreement.
Far from expanding the principles of NAFTA, which put
corporate rights ahead of democracy, ahead of the rights of working people,
ahead of the environment and ahead of basic human rights, we should be
replacing that agreement with a fair trade agreement.
We do not support the bill and we certainly do not
support the extension of NAFTA into Costa Rica or anywhere else in this
hemisphere.
I want to take a moment to say a few words about the
impact of the bill on the sugar industry. I recently met with representatives
of Rogers Sugar, an refinery that has over 200 employees in the Vancouver area
located in the constituency of my colleague for Vancouver East. Many of those
workers live in my constituency of Burnaby--Douglas.
Rogers has been around for about 112 years. It is a
Canadian owned company. It provides quality union jobs to over 200 employees
who are members of the Retail Wholesale Union. It contributes about $33 million
to the economy. I want to be very clear that the employees, the management of
Rogers refinery, as well as others in the sugar industry across Canada, are
deeply concerned about the implications of the bill for the survival of that
industry.
If the bill in any way is seen to be a model or a
template for negotiations with the so-called CA-4 nations of Guatemala,
Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras, it will be very destructive for the sugar
industry in Canada.
I was pleased that the foreign affairs committee made a
recommendation to the government. The recommendation was not part of the bill
but it was a strong unanimous recommendation that this not be seen in any way
as a model.
Certainly, on behalf of my colleagues in the New
Democratic Party, I want to make it very clear that we reject any extension of
this Canada-Costa Rica agreement to the other countries I have mentioned. It
could very well spell the end for the Rogers Sugar refinery.
(1350)
In closing, I would once again say that we as New
Democrats have always supported a rules based trading system but what we have
seen too often is that those rules benefit not working people, not small
businesses, not the environment and not human rights. They simply hurt the
poorest of the poor.
I have not even had the opportunity to speak to the
implications the bill would have for agriculture. I would note that too often
agri-business means that more and more small farmers, some of the poorest
farmers in Central and South America, are being pushed off their land because
of cheap imports coming in from the north. Certainly, that is not
acceptable.
We have serious concerns as well about the impact of
pesticides in the agriculture industry in Costa Rica but these concerns have
not been addressed in the legislation. In terms of human rights and in terms of
the implications for agriculture, the environment, the rights of the working
people and for democracy itself, we say no to the legislation and we say no to
the extension of the bill into any form of FTAA.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, after listening very carefully to my
colleague's comments, my reaction is that here we go again. The NDP is the sole
repository of all truth and virtue and if we do not happen to agree with the
New Democratic Party of Canada we are somehow part of some unholy alliance.
Well I guess 75% of Canadians are part of this unholy alliance because 75% of
Canadians strongly support free trade.
I would like to ask my colleague to react to the
comments of Juan Somavia. A few days ago I asked the director general of the
ILO whether the ILO supported the inclusion of labour standards within trade
agreements. I told him that the Canadian government did not think it was the
way to go. Mr. Juan Somavia's answer was, and I quote:
For example, Canada is being very
creative in this, through side agreements which are of a promotional nature.
There are a number of ways in which the energy that has been behind this trade
and labour standards debate can be channelled so we're making things
happen. |
|
--we
have to run with the ball with the instruments that we have. |
Mr. Somavia was very flattering toward Canada. He
rejected out of hand the fact that we must enshrine ILO standards into trade
agreements. I know the hon. member could not be present for that discussion but
I have just quoted Mr. Somavia. I would like to know what the hon. member's
reaction to that is.
I would also like to know what the hon. member's
reaction is to the EU ministers. We often hear the EU cited by the New
Democratic Party. What is his reaction to the EU trade ministers who have said
that they reject putting labour agreements into trade deals, that they litter
up the trade deals unnecessarily and that it is not the way to go?
Finally, why is the NDP against helping one of the
poorest nations in the Caribbean area, a nation that needs trade not aid? Why
does it oppose that?
(1355)
Mr. Svend Robinson:
Mr. Speaker, maybe the parliamentary secretary wants to
ask the workers and the representatives of the workers in Costa Rica why it is
they oppose the provisions of this so-called trade deal.
The hon. member asked a question about littering up
trade deals with workers rights and environmental rights. The Liberal Party and
the Alliance have a rather interesting notion of what constitutes litter. Is it
litter to say that we believe that child labour should not be exploited in
Costa Rica? Is it litter to say that we believe in the freedom of association
of workers in Costa Rica? I do not think so. If the Liberal Party believes that
is litter--
Mr. Pat O'Brien:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Inadvertently
or not, the member is certainly misquoting me. I am quoting the EU
ministers--
The Deputy Speaker:
I think we are engaging in debate and certainly not on
a procedural point of order.
Mr. Svend Robinson:
Mr. Speaker, if they think these basic rights are
litter then they can defend that to the Canadian people. I think the Canadian
people would accept our concept that if we can protect the rights of
multinational pharmaceutical companies in trade deals through patent rights, we
can sure as heck protect the rights of working people to organize and we can
sure as heck protect the environment.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby said that I was
nitpicking and I will repeat that he is nitpicking again. In reference to free
trade and globalization the study stated:
The very poorest countries now
represent less than 8% of the world ’s population compared with just over 45%
in 1970. In countries that have embraced the opportunities created by
integration with world markets...” |
The member talked about the workers in Costa Rica. I
repeat that the NDP is nitpicking. It will bring its people together but it
will not go and talk to the people on the street who are benefiting from
economic liberalization.
Mr. Svend Robinson:
Mr. Speaker, which part of the fundamental ILO
standards does the Alliance consider nitpicking? Is it the internationally
recognized fundamental right to organize and bargain collectively? Is it the
right to equal pay for work of equal value? Is it the right to work free of
discrimination? Is it the prohibition of child labour and forced labour?
These are basic standards that New Democrats believe
workers around the world should be entitled to. If the Alliance says it is
nitpicking, it is a pretty sad commentary on its respect for working
people.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[Translation]
Small Business Week
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the pillars of
Canada's economy and the largest source of job creation in the
country.
That is why it is important to highlight Small Business
Week taking place across Canada from October 21 to 27, 2001. Organized by the
Business Development Bank of Canada with the theme “The Power of Innovation
Driving Small Business Growth”, Small Business Week salutes the talents and
accomplishments of small business owners and managers across the
country.
Entrepreneurs in every sector in Canada are finding
innovative ways to increase the productivity of their businesses. Small
Business Week allows them to share ideas and information regarding innovative
strategies that will help Canada play a leading role in the highly competitive
world market.
Our thanks to the men and women of Frontenac—Mégantic
who contribute to the prosperity of their region and our country.
* * *
[English]
Poppy Campaign
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, October 27, I will be
participating in the Calgary remembrance walk and parade to help kick off this
year's poppy campaign.
The poppy campaign is perhaps one of the Royal Canadian
Legion's most important fundraising events. The money raised from the sale of
poppies helps to provide direct assistance to ex-service people who are in need
as well as to fund medical appliances and research, and numerous other
purposes.
The poppy is our symbol of remembrance for those who
were killed during the wars. Let us not forget that these men and women paid
the supreme price for the freedoms we enjoy today.
It was from the field of war that Lieutenant Colonel
John McCrae penned the words of that famous poem: “In Flanders fields the
poppies blow”. These words take on a special meaning of significance on
Remembrance Day when we pause to honour our war dead.
It is not enough for us to pay respects on Remembrance
Day alone. I appeal to all Canadians to give generously to the poppy campaign
so that our struggling veterans can live out the final years of their lives
with respect and dignity.
* * *
(1400)
Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention
Month
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, October is Child Abuse and Neglect
Prevention Month which was started in the 1980s by the Independent Order of
Foresters. During the month of October the Children's Aid Societies of Ontario
are distributing purple ribbons to raise awareness of child abuse and
neglect.
It is vital that we all take some time to reflect and
become involved in efforts to prevent any form of child abuse and neglect in
our society. No child deserves to fall victim to abuse.
It is for this reason that I encourage all members and
citizens to wear the purple ribbon during the month of October in an effort to
raise awareness of child abuse and neglect. After all, as we have often said,
the future lies in the hands of our children.
* * *
James Gladstone
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this morning at 11.30 there was a ceremony
to pay tribute to the Hon. James Gladstone, the first aboriginal appointed to
the Senate.
The ceremony included the unveiling of a bust of
Senator Gladstone. Fred Gladstone, the senator's son, was in attendance as were
Senators Dan Hays, Joyce Fairbairn and Thelma Chalifoux.
James Gladstone was born in 1887 near Mountain Mill,
Alberta, and was a member of the Blood Band. He was appointed to the Senate in
1958 to represent Lethbridge, Alberta, and served for 13 years. As senator he
co-chaired the joint committee on Indian affairs and fought for improvements
for native people. His biography, The Gentle Persuader, was published in
1986.
I call on the House to join me today in paying tribute
to the lifelong dedication and achievements of Senator Gladstone.
* * *
Medical Radiation Technology
Week
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this year Medical Radiation Technology
Week will be celebrated from November 5 to November 9. Medical radiation
technology is and will continue to be at the forefront of medicine in the 21st
century as more procedures will be based upon the use of diagnostic imaging and
radiation therapy.
Medical radiation technologists in all disciplines,
like Elaine Buchner from London and other professionals from across the
country, are frontline health care workers in a variety of settings such as
hospitals, clinics, and labs. More of these professionals will be needed to
meet the future needs of our citizens.
Recent large government investments in new diagnostic
imaging and radiation therapy technology promises to benefit both the public
and professionals involved with such state of the art equipment.
I ask the House to join me in recognizing Medical
Radiation Technology Week and encouraging more of our young people to seek a
career in radiation technology.
* * *
Literacy Action Day
Mrs. Carol Skelton
(Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in
recognition of the eighth annual Literacy Action Day. I had the opportunity
this morning to meet with Don Pinay, a Yorkton tribal councillor and elder
Irene Yuzicuppi from the Saskatchewan Literacy Network. These people are very
concerned about literacy and are actively promoting literacy programs in their
community.
Currently over 20% of Canada's population does not read
well. There are many things that we can do in support of literacy: read to our
children, volunteer with literacy programs and encourage those around us to be
lifelong learners.
We tend to equate the ability to read with
intelligence. This is not the case. We do not know what happened along the path
of learning for those who struggle with illiteracy. We need to offer our
support and encouragement to those who now desire to learn. I applaud those who
are making the decision to become lifelong learners.
* * *
[Translation]
Marc Alexandre
Chartrand
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at this moment, a funeral is taking place
in a church in my riding of Laval East for a 17 year old adolescent, another
victim of Quebec's biker gangs.
In fact, Marc Alexandre was killed in cold blood on
Friday night at the entrance to a downtown Montreal bar. Bikers affiliated with
the Rock Machine wanted to enter the bar before everyone else and were refused
entry by the doormen. One of the bikers, in a fit of rage, drew his gun and
fired. Marc Alexandre was mortally wounded.
There are no words to describe the pain felt by his
family as they come to grips with the loss of their loved one. He is another
victim of the criminal bikers.
Bill C-24 passed third reading in parliament on June
13. The measures contained in this bill would help eliminate or reduce the
number of gratuitous crimes committed by these undesirables in our society. It
still requires the approval of the other place.
In closing, on behalf of all my colleagues, I offer my
sincere condolences to the Chartrand family.
* * *
(1405)
Block Parents
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in this International Year of Volunteers,
I would like to recognize the work done by people in my riding and more
specifically those involved in the block parents program.
Originally intended to provide a network of safe homes
so that children away from home could find help and shelter, the block parents
program has broadened its scope to include seniors.
In 1977 the program was set up in my riding. Today
there are over 900 safe homes in the area. This year volunteers came to the aid
of some 20 people. They met over 600 seniors and over 11,000 children in their
activities and school visits.
In this national Block Parent Week, I invite everyone
to use this opportunity to become actively involved in the program. It is
reassuring to know there will always be trustworthy people who will provide
help.
* * *
[English]
Literacy Action Day
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South
Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I too rise to pay tribute to the eighth
annual Literacy Action Day. Over 20% of Canadian adults face a major literacy
barrier, and that is 20% too many.
I have long been an active advocate of improving
literacy among Canadians both as a school board member and now as a member of
the House. Recently I had the opportunity to participate in a resource
announcement with literacy partners and 29 other Manitoba literacy
organizations.
All these organizations are dedicated to helping adults
overcome the gap that exists between their current reading level and numeracy
level and their potential abilities for the workplace and the community. It is
groups such as these that we need to continue to assist.
There are delegations here today comprised of people
from every province and territory to highlight the issues related to literacy.
It is important that as parliamentarians we take this opportunity to sit down
with them so that we can talk, plan, learn and work together in a co-ordinated
effort to ensure that all Canadians are full participants in our
society.
* * *
The Economy
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is asking
the federal government to implement two important resolutions presented to it
by the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce.
The first resolution asks the federal government to
make permanent its spousal employment pilot for highly skilled workers.
Allowing spouses and partners to seek employment in Canada attracts the best
high tech workers from around the world and brings their considerable talents
to the flourishing technology sector in the Okanagan.
The second resolution calls for the federal government
to provide tax incentives to businesses and individuals who buy ultra low
emission vehicles. Kelowna is the home of Dynasty, a maker of electric cars and
a leader in environmentally sound technology.
I encourage the federal government to work with the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce to make these resolutions a reality and to support
the dynamic economy of the Okanagan.
* * *
[Translation]
Literacy
Mme Raymonde Folco (Laval-Ouest,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House that
October 25 is International Literacy Day.
Literacy affects just about every aspect of our life.
It is the key factor in the growth and development of individuals and in the
economic success of our country.
In addition, Canadians know that good reading and
writing skills represent a powerful key to many learning situations.
[English]
It is essential that all Canadians reach a high enough
level of literacy to meet the current and future needs of the job market and
the knowledge based economy. This is why skills acquisition and continuous
learning are key priorities for our government.
[Translation]
I sincerely hope that my colleagues in the House will
join with me in congratulating all those who help make Canadians more
literate.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House the
announcement the other day of the compensation package for our remaining
Buchenwald veterans. These veterans were Canadian airmen who were shot down in
World War II.
Instead of being placed in a regular prisoner of war
camp, the German government at the time placed them in a concentration camp.
Many lives were lost as a result. After 56 years these brave men and their
families have received the compensation and recognition they were fighting for
and so rightfully deserve.
The other day the remaining 15 survivors and some of
their spouses received that recognition from the German government and our
Department of Veterans Affairs.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party and
parliamentarians all over Canada we thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs and
his department for bringing this issue to a final resolve for our veterans and
their families.
On behalf of our colleague, Gordon Earle who served the
House from 1997 to 2000 from Halifax West--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Châteauguay.
* * *
[Translation]
2006 Gay Games
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this morning we were proud to learn that
Montreal will be hosting the seventh Gay Games in 2006. This major
international event will afford Quebec the opportunity to show off its skill in
organizing a major event.
More than 24,000 participants will congregate in
Montreal for this event. The Montreal region will be hosting not only the
athletes but over 200,000 visitors from all over the world, with an economic
and tourism impact of some $150 million.
Its selection is the result of the social, economic and
sporting contribution of the gay community of Montreal and Quebec. With its
highly professional presentation, the organizing committee was able to win out
over all competitors' bids for the games.
The Bloc Quebecois congratulates the Montreal
organizing committee on its exceptional submission.
Bravo and good luck to everyone.
* * *
[English]
Harbours
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, ports and harbours across Canada are in
desperate need of a cleanup. In my own city of Halifax untreated sewage has
been dumped directly into the harbour for over 250 years.
As the major centres of commerce, transportation,
tourism and recreation, harbours are the lifeblood of their cities. Years of
neglect and inaction have taken a substantial toll on our harbours, but it is
not too late.
We need the Government of Canada to take a leadership
role in harbour cleanup. Halifax Harbour would make a perfect test case for
other remediation projects in cities like Saint John, Toronto, St. John's and
Sydney, to name a few.
I call on the Minister of the Environment and the
Minister of Industry to work together to bring forward a national harbour
cleanup initiative starting with Halifax to ensure that Canadians now and in
the future have safe and clean harbours.
* * *
Immigration
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, in the past week the minister of
immigration has done little to ease the concerns that Canadians have about
their immigration system. We have asked her pointed, clear and concise
questions yet she insists upon giving vague, cloudy and rambling answers.
This week alone I was nearly shouted out of the House
for asking who the 3,989 individuals were that the minister herself signed into
the country. These people were not allowed to enter without her special
permits. Were they criminals? Were they terrorists? We may never
know.
I also asked about the 27,000 people with deportation
warrants issued against them and what the minister intends to do to locate and
deport these people. I am still waiting for that answer.
When will the minister admit that she just does not
know the answers?
* * *
Liberal Government
Hon. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker,
It was eight years ago today
When Canadians had their say.
After many tumultuous years
Many were brought to tears.
There was $42 billion in debt
From the Tories you say? You bet!
So the choice was clear.
Time for a change. Hear, hear!
So after eight years of prosperity,
An opposition in anonymity,
Canadians are truly proud
As they say to the world out loud
Canada is the best,
Clearly better than the rest.
But in a typical Canadian way
We leave it to others to say...
Eight years of Liberal success
Hip hip hooray!
* * *
Chalk River
Laboratories
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
(Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government's broadcasting corporation
has repeatedly run a video of fighter planes flying overhead, giving Canadians
a false impression that our airspace and vulnerable facilities are fully
protected.
One facility of particular concern to my constituents
is Chalk River Laboratories, which has several nuclear reactors that produce
over 70% of the world's medical isotopes and provides the research and support
for Canada's nuclear power plants.
It was revealed during expert testimony in the defence
committee that the only reliable way to protect a nuclear power facility from
air attack is with on-site anti-aircraft batteries. The Liberal government has
instead downsized CFB Petawawa to an area support unit and eliminated a
standard operating procedure between the base and Chalk River in the case of
nuclear emergency, including evacuation and containment protocols.
The attacks of September 11 were real. The threat of a
terrorist attack is real. When is the government going to start taking concrete
steps to ensure the safety of Canadians?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Health
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is only appropriate that we begin
today's question period by acknowledging the Prime Minister's eighth year as
Prime Minister.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Stockwell Day:
If he is considering another four more years, we
welcome that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker:
We have a limited time for questions. I think we should
get on with the question.
Mr. Stockwell Day:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health should bring the
controversy to an end by clarifying a few things.
He is saying that junior officials in his department
made a very controversial decision and action to break the patent law, to put
in a huge order for an amount of drugs that already were available and had been
provided, that he already had. He is putting it all on these junior
officials.
I would like to ask him very clearly, did he himself or
his office know that these so-called phantom junior officials were taking this
very controversial action?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
No, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition and his
colleagues wanted to have some clarity of the facts. The clarity of the facts
has been provided. The facts are now crystal clear. The chronology has been
provided by those who were involved. It is in written form and the other side
has it.
I hope the other side is now able to appreciate where
we are. This time last week we did not have a secure supply of a drug Canadians
may need. We now do. We have it at a cost which we got Bayer to reduce to match
the American prices. Canadians will not be spending one cent more than they
need to for this protection.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there is a problem here. The minister
insisted that Bayer provide the drugs immediately, while he allowed Apotex
until November 8.
Why this favoured treatment for Apotex?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. They have been
disclosed in full to all members of the House. It is clear from those facts
that Health Canada officials acted in the best interests of Canadians to get
the kind of protection they need in these circumstances.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the official opposition gave the minister
the opportunity to put all this controversy to an end by asking that documents
be tabled showing that these mysterious telephone calls took place which Bayer
denies. He released not here in the House of Commons but to our media friends
certain affidavits, but all the names are blacked out. There is no way of
checking.
I am inviting him, since he does not trust us in the
House of Commons, to give those names to our friends in the media, we trust
them, so that they can follow up and see if in fact these telephone calls took
place.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of targeting specific
individual officials of Health Canada who are doing their job in good faith.
This is not about a witch hunt by the opposition parties, or anyone else for
that matter, against individuals in Health Canada. This is about the protection
of Canadian health security. The government and this minister will always act
aggressively to protect the health of Canadians. That is our
priority.
(1420)
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, what this is really about is telling the
truth and upholding Canadian law.
Yesterday the Minister of Health conveniently left out
that Health Canada had already purchased 800,000 Cipro pills from Bayer. But in
response to my question yesterday, the minister said he needed one million
more, which he claimed Bayer could not supply. Therefore he broke the Patent
Act.
Given that the minister has now accepted he must deal
with Bayer, has he placed the order for those additional one million pills he
so desperately needed last week?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is an odd situation. We have a big
pharma company that is more interested in the bottom line than in the health of
Canadians and we have an opposition party over there that is more interested in
partisan politics than in talking about the real issues confronting the
country.
The facts are clear and they make clear that Health
Canada did its job.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister told us the
situation was so urgent he had to break Canada's patent law by ordering those
one million pills from Apotex. However, the minister knew that Apotex could not
deliver until November 8. Meanwhile, Bayer has the pills in stock at its
Toronto facility right now.
If it was so urgent last week, urgent enough for the
minister to break Canada's patent law, why has the minister not placed the
order for those one million pills with Bayer?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Bayer has now given us the security of
access to those pills. It was not available one week ago. It has promised in
writing we could have them on demand. That provides the kind of health security
Canadians need.
The reality is we are focusing on protecting Canadians'
health; they are after partisan political points.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health encouraged Apotex
to produce a drug in violation of the law, apparently in good faith.
Normally the Minister of Health, a former attorney
general to boot, should have denounced the illegality of the transaction but
that is not what he did.
Will the Minister of Health admit that by condoning an
illegal contract he was acting more like a former attorney for Apotex than a
former attorney general?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that an error was made in good
faith. Accordingly, we have resolved the dispute with Bayer. It is also clear
that one week ago Bayer said it could not provide the necessary
drugs.
We now have a secure supply of the drugs necessary to
protect the health of Canadians. That is our priority.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health says that it is
clear. I would like to see an accused tell a judge that it is clear that he
broke the law in good faith and is therefore innocent. That is ridiculous. It
is not a defence.
What I find surprising is that not just the Minister of
Health, but his officials, cabinet, Liberal members and even the Prime Minister
are saying that there was nothing wrong done because it was done in good
faith.
Is this not encouraging people to break the law, to
conduct themselves illegally? How can the government just break the law?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I greatly admire the member's devotion to
the laws of Canada but I must say that if officials erred, they did so in good
faith. The dispute with Bayer is now resolved.
In the meantime, we have ensured that the necessary
drugs are available for Canadians and that is what is most
important.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister congratulated
his Minister of Health on his handling of responsibility in the Apotex
affair.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his congratulating
the minister sends the following message to generic drug producers.
“Manufacture and stockpile drugs illegally. It will be worth your while”? That
is what he is telling them.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I must make it clear to everyone that it
is very important for the government to take steps to ensure that in the event
of a crisis the necessary drugs will be available to Canadians. This is what
the minister has done.
Today it is clear that the drugs required are available
in sufficient quantity in Canada, thanks to the actions of the Minister of
Health.
(1425)
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the president of Apotex himself says he
asked the departmental employee who contacted him whether he had the go ahead
from the Commissioner of Patents to proceed with the order. Clearly that was
never obtained.
How can the minister plead that he made an error in
good faith when this was instead a deliberate, wilful and fully informed action
that was against the law?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
They acted in good faith, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[English]
Patent Legislation
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime
Minister.
The NDP begs to differ with the spirit of question
period. The Minister of Health is not the problem. He will move on to another
political disaster sooner or later. The problem is the law and it needs to be
changed.
We have seen the moral inadequacy of the law, not just
in respect of what happened in Canada but in respect of what happened earlier
with the availability of AIDS drugs in Africa.
Would the Prime Minister commit to the House today to
review Canada's commitment to these kinds of laws because they are proving
inadequate in emergencies and other kinds of situations?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I realize that the hon. member has been in
a disastrous situation for the last 20 years being a member of the
NDP.
I just want to say that at this time the laws are in
place. The minister needed that. There is a possibility under the law to have
an exemption that was not asked for and should have been, but it is provided in
the law so that if there is an emergency, we can turn to somebody else to get
the pills.
It was done exactly that way in good faith by the
Department of Health.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I remember being on the same side of the
House with the Prime Minister when he was criticizing the very law he just
defended.
Could the Prime Minister tell us why his Minister for
International Trade, in respect of talks having to do with the trade related
intellectual property rights talks, is siding with the United States when the
big multinational drug companies are trying to stop the easy flow of generic
drugs into developing countries? Why are we doing that when we have just
experienced how difficult those patent laws can be for public
health?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Canada is playing a
leading role on TRIPS discussions we are having at the WTO. We have been
working very hard at clarifying some elements in the existing TRIPS to allow
for good flexibility in terms of emergencies like HIV-AIDS, TB and malaria to
actually accommodate these countries in the existing agreements. We hope that
in Doha we will be able to have that in the draft ministerial statement.
* * *
Health
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has a personal
history with Apotex. In 1984 he was its legal counsel. In 1994 when he was the
Attorney General of Canada, he intervened in a lawsuit involving Apotex. In
1997 his conscience twinged and he had a little chat with the ethics
commissioner. What was that about? It was about Apotex.
Now the same company gives up $1.5 million after what,
a late night meeting with a Health Canada order clerk?
Is the minister the only one left who does not
understand that there is an apparent conflict of interest in his dealings with
Apotex?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my law firm acted for generic drug
companies including Apotex from time to time just as it acted for brand name
companies from time to time.
The member knows I was not involved in the decision to
purchase from Apotex in this case. If this member has a specific allegation to
make about me and conflict of interest in this case, let him make it. If not,
let him stand down.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Health told
me to shut up. I will not shut up.
[Translation]
The evidence is piling up. It is now clear that the
Minister of Health has, in the past, had a sometimes close relationship with
Apotex.
This morning I asked the minister if he had informed
the Prime Minister about his previous connection with Apotex but he refused to
reply. Instead, he panicked.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he was advised
by his minister that the latter's relationship with Apotex might create the
perception of conflict of interest, even before the Minister of Health broke
the Patent Act?
(1430)
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish the member would take my
advice. If he has some allegation to make about me and my conduct, I wish he
would make it specifically here or outside the House. If he does not have an
allegation to make then he ought to remain quiet.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the health minister, who is
a former minister of justice, seems to have trouble respecting the rule of law
or any rules. He violated Canada's law by ordering an illegal supply of drugs.
He also violated a mandatory directive which controls government spending. His
illegal order grossly exceeded even the approved limit allowed if there is a
pressing emergency.
How can Canadians trust a lawbreaker to protect
them?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I did not order these
drugs. It was done by officials acting in good faith. As to what Canadians
ought to have confidence in, Canadians will look at this spectacle on the
opposite side of the House and wonder just what they are thinking over
there.
Canadians want to know that we are concerned with
protecting their health and getting on hand medications we may need in times of
emergency. From that perspective I wonder just what the opposition is talking
about.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was that minister who stood
behind a microphone and said “I am in charge”. Now he is saying “I did not even
know what was going on”. Which one is it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Health Canada will always be there acting
aggressively to make sure the health of Canadians is protected. Unlike the
other side of the House, which is interested in scoring cheap, partisan points,
we are focusing on what truly matters to Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance announced a budget
for the beginning of December but, at the same time, he said that we should not
expect direct support measures for the economy.
We agree that we must avoid any deficit but will the
Minister of Finance recognize that he has the means to act and that this is not
the time to use all the surpluses for the debt, but to allocate the majority of
them to economic recovery?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is in fact what we have always done.
If we look at the tax reductions, which are
substantial, at the infrastructure program and at the investments made by the
government, we can see that we have always invested in measures that promote
economic growth and job creation for Canadians.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to live up to his
claims, will he pledge in his next budget, so as to be effective, to transfer
more money to the provinces for health and education, now that would be
effective, to have targeted measures to stimulate the economy, as proposed by
the Bloc Quebecois in its plan of October 3, that would also be welcomed, and
to pay off the debt?
The minister can do all that and still avoid a deficit.
We think that if there are no structuring measures in the next budget the
minister will have failed in his duty.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we will definitely have a debate on the
measures to be taken, before and after the budget.
The hon. member will have the opportunity to make
suggestions and I anticipate that he will. However I hope that these will be
very targeted and detailed suggestions because we have no need for empty words.
What we need are detailed proposals and concrete measures.
* * *
[English]
National Security
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, provincial premiers, business leaders and
the U.S. ambassador to Canada have been urging the government to develop a
continental security perimeter in order to secure our trade.
The foreign affairs minister met yesterday with Tom
Ridge to discuss border delays and domestic security issues. My question is for
the foreign affairs minister. Did he discuss the concept of a continental
security perimeter and if not, why not?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did talk about the importance of
assuring both the citizens of Canada and of the United States that they live
within secure borders. We also discussed at great length the importance of the
border as an economic measure of great importance to both Canada and the United
States.
We agreed we would continue to work closely together to
ensure that the border remains as open as can possibly be.
(1435)
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the U.S. is more concerned
with domestic security than international trade. Earlier this week U.S.
immigration officials announced that exit and entrance controls would be
implemented at border points within two years. This would create incredible
backlogs inflicting a death blow to Canadian exports.
The minister has stated that no new security measures
have been requested of Canada by the U.S. However, did Tom Ridge assure the
minister that the exit and entrance controls announced by U.S. officials this
week would not be implemented?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a close reading of what was referred to
earlier this week indicates an intention to transfer existing paper records
collected at border points to electronic records; nothing more than
that.
However, if indeed such measures were to be introduced,
of course it would be of concern. We indicated clearly to Mr. Ridge how
important it was, and he acknowledged that, as a former governor of
Pennsylvania, by the way, to ensure that both goods and people pass freely
across the Canada-U.S. border.
* * *
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, one of the key aspects of an employment
insurance program is that it works and meets the needs of workers who become
unemployed, particularly in crisis periods.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
made 17 unanimous recommendations to the minister, who rejected every one of
them.
Does the minister realize that there is a crisis, that
she has tools with which to act and that she is refusing to use
them?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, and Canadians can count on a reliable
and effective employment insurance program that has been around for 60
years.
Employment insurance is designed to adapt quickly and
automatically to local labour market fluctuations. Eligibility is reviewed
every four weeks, based on the latest unemployment statistics.
[English]
The system is there and it is working for
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, given the promises made by Liberal
ministers from Quebec, the unanimous recommendations made by the committee, the
decline in the economy and a $6 billion surplus forecast for 2001-02, how is it
that the minister can still say no to women, no to seasonal workers, no to
young people and no to older workers, in other words, to all those who are
waiting for real measures in these difficult times?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. As a result of the fiscal
measures the government has taken, the employment insurance program is there
now for Canadians should they need it.
The system is flexible. Every four months it is
reviewed. If there is so much as an increase of one-tenth of a per cent in
unemployment, the system changes. Entrance requirements are reduced and the
benefits duration is elongated. The system is designed to be flexible and
responsive to the needs of Canadians.
* * *
Customs and Excise
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to reassure
Canadians that all is well with Canada-U.S. border crossings. Even backbench
Liberal members of parliament know differently.
The Canada Customs and Excise union is floating an
excellent proposal for major commercial preclearance facilities in British
Columbia, Quebec and Ontario in partnership with U.S. customs. Will the
government work with the union to make this happen?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said many times, we have developed
over the past few years a customs action plan. As I said as well, we went
through a period of consultation in which we consulted with the union. I have
met lately with the president of the union. Just before question period I was
on the phone with the president of the union.
Our aim or goal today is to make sure that we put in
place a border open for trade, a border for economic development, because
customs has to be seen as an economic development tool. As well we have to make
sure we work in co-operation with the United States. This is what we are
doing.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, our security minister goes to the U.S.
basically empty handed. Our commercial traffic is suffering and this is a
proposal that could be done in partnership with the Americans. It is urgently
required, not consultations.
The U.S. is spending a billion dollars to tighten the
Canada-U.S. border. We already have U.S. customs passenger preclearance through
Pearson and Vancouver airports and other places. When will the government adopt
this proposal?
(1440)
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would have a look at
the reform, he would know it is already in place. We have some pilot projects
at the land border respecting the crossing of goods and people, for example
Canpass and Nexus.
We are working at this point in time, and my colleague
in Washington talked about it yesterday, to ensure that we will resume those
programs. More specific, we would like to resume Nexus which is a joint
program, a harmonized program.
Apart from that he would know as well that indeed we
are talking about preclearance using a new technology customs zone at airports
and plenty of good things that will ensure we have an efficient
border.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign
Affairs. The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting which was postponed
earlier this month would have provided an opportunity for Commonwealth leaders
to discuss measures for international co-operation against
terrorism.
Has the Commonwealth taken any steps since the
postponement was announced to address the terrorism issue?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Secretary General of the
Commonwealth issued a very clear and strong statement against terrorism on
behalf of Commonwealth leaders.
This follows the suggestion that went to him, to the
incoming prime minister of Australia, the incoming chair of the Commonwealth
Heads of Government, and the outgoing chair, the prime minister of South
Africa, from our Prime Minister recommending a strong statement. We are pleased
that it was adopted.
It is yet one more step along the way to building the
broadest possible coalition against terrorism.
* * *
Air Canada
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the government is scrapping the 15%
shareholder limit in Air Canada. Given that industry analysts are telling us
that there are no large investors waiting in the wings to buy shares in Air
Canada, will the Minister of Transport admit that the move is simply a
substitute for taking substantive measures to help the airline?
Why will the government not consider significant
proposals that will actually have some effect, like lower airport lease fees,
lower air navigation fees and workplace stabilization plans such as those
suggested by the employees?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it has become quite apparent over the last
few weeks that the 15% single shareholder limit under the Air Canada Public
Participation Act provides a constraint on Air Canada's ability to raise equity
in the markets. That is why we have taken the position to introduce the bill
today that will eliminate the particular provision.
We are advised by our financial advisers there will be
people in the country who will come forward to take an equity stake now that
the changes will be passed by parliament.
* * *
Trade
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the trade minister will know that western
Canadian premiers met last August with governors from 18 western states. The
Canadian government kindly prepared a briefing book for our premiers out west
that contained messages and talking points on everything from P.E.I. potatoes
to greenhouse tomatoes to Great Lakes water.
Strangely absent from the notes, however, was any
reference to the growing disparity between grain and oilseed producers and
prices because the government will not match U.S. support payments.
Why were matters such as export subsidies and domestic
support for grains and oilseeds not given any profile whatsoever by his
department in the briefing to western Canadian premiers?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I certainly trust enough the premiers of
the western provinces to understand these issues very well indeed. Our
determination for promoting at the WTO a reform in agricultural trade is loud
and clear and is there all the time.
We often work with the Americans at the multilateral
level, hoping that it will also help our farmers in competition with the
Americans, while they will have to respect this important structural reform
that we want in agricultural trade.
* * *
Health
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has referred
defensively to politically motivated witch hunts, which is quite ironical and
cynical coming from the architect of the ongoing Airbus investigation.
The Minister of Health felt compelled in 1997 to
consult with the ethics counsellor about his potential conflict of interest due
to a prior connection with Apotex.
However, if the Cipro kid wants to be consistent and
credible, can he tell us if in 1994, when he was the attorney general and his
department and Apotex were together before the Supreme Court of Canada, he
consulted with the ethics counsellor about his then potential conflict of
interest?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when I was attorney
general I told my officials I would disqualify myself from any involvement in
any litigation involving Apotex because I had acted for the company.
I have behaved myself since I have been in public life,
entirely in compliance with the highest standards of ethics. I say to this
member, as I say to the rest of that party, if they have anything to allege
against me let them come out and say it. Otherwise it is offensive to listen to
these types of questions.
(1445)
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I thought we were saying it.
There he was, the sixties hippie, the eighties lawyer
and now Minister of Health. He should always obey the law but he broke the
patent law and failed his number one responsibility. Then he said that there
was no national emergency, and then he blamed it on his officials. Now he has
been caught in a glaring conflict of interest.
In all these incarnations, why has this minister not
learned that when he breaks the law he pays the price?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this member is wrong in everything she
just said. The easiest way of dealing with that absurd question is to say
no.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Algerian armed Islamic group had a 20
member terrorist cell operating in Montreal for years. It included Ahmed
Ressam, who was finally arrested by American authorities when he attempted to
cross the border with his bomb making material. We have now learned that
although French authorities continually advised Canada of this group's
terrorist activities the government did nothing to assist in their arrests.
Why?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think in the Ressam case my hon.
colleague is fully aware that the American government thanked the RCMP and CSIS
for the part they played in that case.
My hon. colleague is also well aware that CSIS and the
RCMP work with all the police and security intelligence agencies around the
world.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the only thing I remember is the
astonishment of the judge who remarked on the procedures of the RCMP and the
member's department in that case.
While other countries assisted the French in carrying
out arrests when some of these terrorists finally left Canada, Canada only
frustrated French efforts to put an end to the activities of this terrorist
group.
Were French sources correct when they advised the media
that Canada closed its eyes to this terrorist activity in order to buy peace
with these terrorists?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that an hon. colleague
would make such a statement in the House of Commons. I am really
disappointed.
The fact of the matter is that my hon. colleague is
well aware that the attorney general of the United States and the director of
the FBI thanked CSIS and the RCMP for their co-operation and support in this
case and in many other cases.
* * *
[Translation]
Afghanistan
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we are receiving contradictory information
on the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Reuters is reporting that
the International Committee of the Red Cross estimates that the numbers are low
but the UN representative in Islamabad is concerned that they are on the
rise.
Did the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was in
Washington yesterday, have any discussions with his American hosts about this?
Does he have other information he could share with us on this troubling
matter?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all the discussions I had yesterday with
my counterparts had to do with matters of security. I hope to speak with the
U.S. secretary of state later today before leaving for the Middle East. I am
certain that I will have an opportunity to speak with my counterparts in the
Middle East and Asia about the situation in Afghanistan after the
war.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, these are not the only contradictory
messages we are receiving.
Conflicting versions are coming from Mr. Bush's own
entourage. According to defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Taliban is
putting up more resistance than expected. According to secretary of state Colin
Powell, the conflict will not go on for very long.
When he speaks to Mr. Powell, will the minister try to
get some information and report back to us? The outcome of this conflict hinges
on the answers.
(1450)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will certainly discuss the situation in
Afghanistan with the secretary of state when I have an opportunity.
I must say that it is not surprising that there is some
slightly contradictory information, because this is a very complicated
situation in which it is difficult to obtain precise information.
I am certain that in time we will have all the
necessary information.
* * *
[English]
National Security
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP under the Liberal government has
suffered unprecedented cuts, with $175 million slashed from its budget and
2,200 job losses. How can the solicitor general boast about his new funding
when RCMP detachments across the land are left begging for more money and
adequate personnel?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said a number of times to my hon.
colleague, the government, including the last budget and since, has put $2
billion into the public safety envelope. Just in the last couple of weeks the
government put $100 million into policing and security intelligence agencies to
make sure this country remains one of the safest countries in the world to live
in.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, how can the solicitor general brag about
his paltry increases to the RCMP? The reality is the RCMP has faced a decade of
cuts and lost personnel. He is the solicitor general who gutted its resources.
The remaining members are spread too thin and are left begging for adequate
resources.
With the responsibilities expanded, does the solicitor
general not understand that stable, long term funding is essential, especially
with the added threat of terrorism?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am not just sure what my hon. colleague
does not understand. He had special sources informing him yesterday.
What I am saying is that this government put $2 billion
into the public safety envelope. The commissioner of the RCMP has indicated
quite clearly he has the resources to fulfil his mandate. The director of CSIS
has indicated it has the funding to fulfil its mandate. What does my hon.
colleague want?
* * *
The Economy
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today's businesses, large and small, have
become reliant on numerous technologies for their very existence. In keeping up
with the ongoing changes and the speed with which changes occur, could the
Minister of National Revenue explain what new initiatives the Canada Customs
and Revenue Agency is undertaking in support of Canadian businesses?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency of
course offers the business community a wide range of services online. Today I
am pleased to report to the House that we have launched a new website for
businesses called business registration online. It provides the opportunity to
businesses to register for certain programs of Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency and the government of Nova Scotia and the government of Ontario. This is
a good initiative for the business community and this is what we can do when we
work in co-operation.
* * *
National Security
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, at the public accounts committee the
commissioner of the coast guard admitted that unless a ship approaching Canada
voluntarily announces its pending arrival the coast guard has no way of knowing
who is approaching our shores.
My question is for the minister of fisheries in the
Government of Canada. What assurance can the government give to Canadians that
we are safe when no one has any idea what criminals may be reaching our
shores?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the House that we
have adopted the same regulation as the U.S. in that all ships that come to
Canadian ports are now required to provide 96 hours' notice, not 24 hours as in
the past, so we can provide better security on our waters. This is a
substantial increase and is very consistent with what the U.S. is
doing.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is a voluntary announcement, not a
required, supervised, “we found you” announcement. The coast guard has also
been short $150 million a year for so many years under the Liberal government
that it will need $2 billion to get the ships out to sea and out of dry
dock.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us that there will be
money in his upcoming budget to get the coast guard up to shape and doing the
job properly?
(1455)
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member has not been
following what has been happening in the coast guard. In fact the finance
minister provided just last year $115 million to the coast guard to make sure
that we can do the job.
The hon. member should spend more time reading the
budgets and following closely instead of asking us questions before he has done
his research.
* * *
[Translation]
Charitable
Organizations
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, L'Action nationale, which has been
publishing for 85 years, is at risk of losing its right to issue tax receipts
for donations.
According to Revenue Canada, “this publication does not
meet the criteria for charity status”. It has had that status since 1967, and
now Revenue Canada is withdrawing it.
Can the minister explain to us why L'Action
nationale should have to lose its charity status, while he has not taken
the same attitude toward the Council for Canadian Unity, which benefits from
such a privilege?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can indeed confirm that this
organization had its charity status withdrawn this past June.
As for any specific questions concerning it, I would
like to point out that this is confidential information--
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh!
Hon. Martin Cauchon: --under section 241 of the
Income Tax Act.
I would also like to point out that the minister
responsible for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency does not intervene in
decisions of this kind.
* * *
[English]
APEC
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St.
James—Assiniboia, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on October 20 and 21 Asia-Pacific leaders
met in Shanghai to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
summit.
Some media reports characterized the APEC statement on
counterterrorism as weak. Would the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific please
tell the House what was achieved at the summit?
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State
(Asia-Pacific), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the APEC leaders in fact issued a strong
and unprecedented political statement unanimously condemning the terrorist
attacks in the United States.
They committed themselves to enhanced co-operation on
counterterrorism in very specific ways under the UN charter and other
international laws. They in fact indicated in the statement that the APEC
leaders are very much against terrorism.
* * *
Health
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Health did not know
what he was doing in the Apotex affair why was he not advised that he was
breaking the law by the minister responsible for patents, the Minister of
Industry?
Was it because this minister is also unaware of the law
or was there another reason why he left his colleague to bear the
cross?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this member, like his party, seems to be
learning the facts slowly so let us go through them again.
A week ago Canada did not have a secure supply of or
access to the drugs we need. Now we do. We got Bayer to reduce the price to
American levels. We also made sure that Canadians did not pay a cent more than
they had to to get the drugs they need. The opposition knows from the facts
that Bayer could not give us the drugs when we first asked.
Those are the facts. The member should remember
them.
* * *
Housing
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, a federal investment in social housing in
the order of 30,000 to 40,000 units, which is what every national group agrees
is needed, will produce 46,000 jobs immediately, increasing to 90,000 jobs in
five years.
I would like to ask the finance minister now that he
has finally agreed to a budget, first, will he honour his commitment to poor
Canadians and not leave them out in the cold, and will he commit to such a
housing program not only to help people who are homeless or poorly housed but
as a sound economic investment in the country with good jobs?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the last election we promised that we
would house Canadians, as we always have. We committed $680 million in the
Speech from the Throne on negotiating with the provincial ministers. As a
matter of fact, we have a meeting at the end of November in Quebec City with
all the provincial and territorial ministers of housing. I hope by then we will
have a national housing program to which Canadians can look forward.
* * *
(1500)
[Translation]
Pay Equity
Ms. Diane Bourgeois
(Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we learned this week that, after delaying
the appeal for over nearly a year, the federal court will finally hear the case
of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which is trying to obtain recognition
of the right of some 6,000 public servants to pay equity payments.
Will the President of the Treasury Board stop using
legal means to prevent her own employees from being entitled to pay equity and
does she intend to see they get justice by paying them their due?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of
the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in our system of public administration,
there are various employers.
Treasury Board is the employer for many public
servants, but there are separate employers as well. Clearly, the settlement
applied only to employees belonging to Treasury Board.
If separate employers can prove that a pay equity
problem exists within their organizations, we will provide financial
support.
* * *
[English]
Health
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in light of the very serious and
deliberate breach of our Canadian patent laws, has the Minister of Industry
instigated a full inquiry into the Apotex fiasco? Who will be
charged?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member had better get some legal
advice. Any problem with the Patent Act was resolved when the company came to
the table and entered into the agreement with Health Canada. By the way, that
agreement makes sure Canadians will get access to the drugs they need, which of
course is the last thing on the minds of the people on the Alliance
side.
* * *
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
(Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the official opposition would like to ask
what the business of the House is tomorrow and for the following
week.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the deputy opposition House leader
for her question.
I will report to the House that this afternoon we will
complete third reading of Bill C-32, assuming we can complete this legislation,
which is the Costa Rica trade bill. A little later today there will also be a
royal assent on Bill S-23, which is important for national security.
On Friday we will debate report stage and third reading
of Bill C-34, the transport tribunal bill.
Monday shall be an allotted day.
On Tuesday we will debate report stage and third
reading of Bill C-31, the export development bill. This will be followed by a
motion respecting the name of the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
On Wednesday we will debate second reading of the Air
Canada bill that was introduced earlier this day.
On Thursday we hope to deal with report stage of Bill
C-10, respecting marine parks.
* * *
(1505)
Privilege
Firearms Act--Speaker's
Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
On October 17, the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville
raised a question of privilege concerning the failure of the Minister of
Justice to comply with the provisions of the Firearms Act dealing with the
making of regulations.
[Translation]
The hon. member appealed to the Chair to ask the
minister when her notice of opinion would be tabled in the House.
[English]
Before the Chair was able to return to the House with a
ruling, the minister tabled her notice of opinion concerning regulations
amending the firearms fees regulations. I refer all hon. members to the
Journals entry of Tuesday, October 23, 2001.
I therefore consider the matter closed.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I have examined the minister's statement
and I really see no compelling reason given by the minister for the urgent
changes that she made two hours after the terrorists hit the World Trade
Center. This appears to have been a political priority, not a public safety
priority.
The Royal Assent
[The Royal Assent]
* * *
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
I have the honour to inform the House that a
communication has been received as follows:
I have the honour to inform you that
the Honourable Louise Arbour, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in
her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber
today, the 25th day of October, 2001, at 3:30 p.m., for the purpose of giving
Royal Assent to a certain bill. |
Policy, Program and
Protocol |
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-32, an act to implement the Free Trade
Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic
of Costa Rica, be read the third time and passed.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am happy to continue the debate where
my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas left off on Bill C-32, an act to implement
the free trade agreement between the Government of Canada and the government of
the Republic of Costa Rica.
In listening to the debate earlier I felt offended that
members of the Canadian Alliance lobbed at the members of NDP that somehow we
were nitpicking and attaching our debate to small things, such as defending the
rights of workers, whether they were in Costa Rica, Canada or any other
country. As the debate continued, the parliamentary secretary wanted to know
why the NDP was opposed to helping one of the poorest countries in the
hemisphere. Presumably he meant Costa Rica.
The NDP is absolutely in favour of helping one of the
poorest countries in the hemisphere. In fact, this party has had a very proud
and long tradition of promoting international solidarity, economic investment
and aid and development. We have pressed the government to meet its commitments
through the red book and in other areas over many years.
However the debate today is really about who this trade
agreement will help. I would challenge the parliamentary secretary to produce
the evidence as to how this particular free trade agreement will help poor
people in Costa Rica or, for that matter, workers in Canada.
Like other members in the House, I have also received
information from workers and management from Rogers Sugar which is located in
my riding of Vancouver East. I want to tell members of the House, particularly
the government members, that there is a huge concern about the impact of this
trade agreement on Canadian companies and the sugar industry.
In June of this year I met with a joint delegation of
labour and management representatives from Rogers Sugar. Anyone who knows about
labour management issues will know that it is not usual for labour and
management to come together. However in this case it was a joint delegation
because the several hundred people who work at the plants as well as the
management of Rogers Sugar are very concerned about the impact of this
agreement.
(1510)
In fact when they wrote the Prime Minister to express
their concern they received the following response. In a letter dated April 26,
the Prime Minister said that in any free trade negotiation it was necessary for
each side to consider compromises in the interest of reaching an agreement
which was fair overall. In the case of Costa Rica, Canada recognized that the
differences in the level of development of our two countries would need to be
reflected in the final agreement.
He then went on to say that the agreement negotiated
provided opportunities for exporters in both countries to explore new markets,
including opportunities for some Canadian sugar exporters to sell to Costa
Rica.
This is absolutely contrary to the evidence and
information that has come before us. The fact is that if the tariff were
eliminated, Canadian refineries would be exposed to competition from Costa
Rican refineries without the prospect of better access to that market for our
exporters, contrary to what the Prime Minister said.
The reality is there is virtually no market for refined
sugar in Costa Rica or elsewhere in central America. Granting duty free entry
for refined sugar from Costa Rica and we believe, eventually from Honduras, El
Salvador, Nicaragua and especially Guatemala, will end up eliminating a
significant portion of a long-standing Canadian industry. We have to be
incredibly concerned about that.
If we could look at what the NDP has articulated in its
position, it is precisely because of this race to the bottom. It is another
example of the lowest common denominator approach that opens the door to job
flight from countries, such as Canada, where there are tougher, more
progressive legislation.
It is not just about protecting jobs in Canada,
although that is very important. It is also about protecting and encouraging
high quality jobs in other parts of the world. We have heard a lot of debate
today in the House about how this agreement will lift people out of poverty. We
heard from the Alliance that globalization has moved people out of poverty. We
heard that the trickle down theory is working very well.
Again, there is ample evidence to suggest that these
trade agreements have done nothing to improve the lives of working people.
These trade agreements have done nothing to improve the quality of our
environment or the quality of social conditions that exist in many countries.
Members of the NDP take a very principled stand. This
is not about being opposed to trade agreements per se on any grounds. It is
about being in favour of trade agreements that protect our environment, that
protect quality social conditions for people and that enshrine and protect
worker rights.
To go back to the situation in Costa Rica, because that
is the agreement before us, one of the things we should be concerned about is
the development of export processing zones in Costa Rica, of which there are
nine. One thing that is taking place, particularly in the textile industry, is
that companies increasingly are hiring workers at home where they are not
protected by labour laws nor are they covered by social security, holidays or
job security.
We have to ask critically whether the agreement
actually is helping one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere or whether
it is conferring greater rights for greater profits for large corporations.
Basically the workers get left behind at home with absolutely no
protection.
There is information on the record, and it is available
for any member to see, that private sector employers have ignored the ILO
recommendations that workers, particularly in the private sector, have been
denied the right to organize. They have been denied the right to basic, safe
working conditions. They have been denied the right to decent wages.
It becomes very clear that the trade agreement is not
in the interests of poor people in those countries. It is not in the interests
of protecting our environment. I feel proud that as an NDP caucus we understand
this and stand in solidarity with international labour movements, with the
labour movement in Canada and with NGOs that have done analysis on this and
have participated in things like the people's summit at the summit of the
Americas in Quebec City and the people's summit in Vancouver at the APEC
conference.
It is through those forums that the issues affecting
workers have come to the forefront. As we know, that debate has not taken place
in the House. We raise day after day the fact that the summit of the Americas
was not brought forward to the House for any kind of democratic vote. These
agreements affect all of us. They affect our local communities and the workers
in my riding of East Vancouver but the House has not participated in any kind
of democratic vote about whether or not we should be adopting the FTAA for
example.
The NDP is not nitpicking. The NDP is not opposing the
agreement because we are opposed to free trade or any trade agreement. We are
opposing this agreement because we see it as nothing more than continuing the
sellout of Canada. We see it as a continuation of a policy from the government
that actually is abandoning the basic human rights and the basic human dignity
of workers in Costa Rica.
I am very glad that the workers I met with from Rogers
Sugar understood that they were standing in support of the workers in Costa
Rica. They did not see it as just an issue of protecting their jobs and their
turf. They understood that this race to the bottom not only affected them but
also the workers in those other countries.
I am glad the NDP is opposing this trade agreement. It
is a bad trade agreement both for workers in Canada and for workers in those
countries.
(1515)
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments
of the hon. member for Vancouver East. I listened to her say that we should
have democratic votes in the House about these things.
It strikes me that the NDP has refused to recognize
democratic votes that have taken place in elections in the past few years. It
refuses to recognize that in the last two or three election campaigns the vast
majority of Canadians voted for parties that support free trade and the
expansion of our ability to trade around the world. This would allow products
from other countries to come into our country without tariffs or with lower
tariffs so that our consumers can get access to goods and services from around
the world at reasonable prices.
It seems strange that a party that talks about its
concern for consumers and ordinary people is not interested in ensuring we are
able to get goods and services at low prices.
At the same time it surprises me that the NDP refuses
to recognize that with this agreement there are side agreements on environment
and labour. The two governments involved in the agreement believe environment
and labour co-operation should go hand in hand with trade liberalization. That
is a fundamental element of Canada's foreign policy.
The environment agreement in this case would commit the
parties to provide for high levels of environmental quality and the effective
enforcement of environmental laws. It would provide for technical co-operation
to strengthen environmental management systems. It would seek to expand public
participation in environmental policymaking.
That is important for both countries. It is important
to Canada and to Costa Rica that the public is involved in these processes and
that they are not just handed down. The people must have a chance to take part
in the discussion about the development of these important policies.
It goes without saying that the labour and environment
side agreements are important complements to the Canada-Costa Rica free trade
agreement. All I have heard today from members of the NDP is how terrible it is
that we are not dealing with the environment. They say that we do not care
about the environment or about labour. They seem to deny and ignore that in
this case there are agreements on those very things.
Will the hon. member explain to us how the NDP can
refuse to accept the decisions of the electorate in democratic votes in
Canada's last three elections?
(1520)
Ms. Libby Davies:
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question but
let us not forget our history. In the election of 1988 more Canadians voted
against the beginning of the free trade era than voted in favour.
If the hon. member would care to look at the history of
his own party he would probably remember that the party of whose government he
is a part was opposed to the original free trade agreement. If we want to talk
about democratic expression, a majority of Canadians voted for members of
parliament and parties that were opposed to that agreement.
Since that time, if we look at information that came
out before the summit of the Americas, there has been growing opposition from
Canadians to what these trade agreements represent. There is a growing
realization and understanding that these trade agreements are nothing more than
huge giveaways to multinational corporations that are able to move capital
across borders and disregard the rights of workers, the environment or social
conditions.
The member says that there are all these sidebar
agreements. The sidebar agreements are not worth the paper they are written on.
The CCRALC does not oblige a government to enact or maintain labour laws of a
high standard. It only requires that a government enforce the labour laws it
enacts.
When the minister was in central America earlier this
year he was quoted in the local press as promising that Canada would not use
environmental and labour legislation as a barrier to trade deals.
We must ask what the government's real agenda is in
this regard. Is it to raise the standard of living for people in these
countries or is it to confer enormous rights on the corporations and leave
people at the mercy of the employers?
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question
is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having
risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Call in the
members.
And the bells having rung:
(1525)
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The division on the motion stands deferred until
Monday, October 29.
Ms. Marlene Catterall:
Madam Speaker, discussions have taken place among all
parties and there is an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) to further
defer the recorded division just requested on third reading of Bill C-32 until
the end of government orders on Tuesday, October 30.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The division
on the motion stands deferred until 6.30 p.m. on Tuesday, October
30.
Ms. Marlene Catterall:
Madam Speaker, I believe you would find consent in the
House to see the clock at 5.30 p.m. so the House may proceed to the
consideration of private members business.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that
agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Private Members’ Business
[Private Members’ Business]
* * *
[English]
National Rivers Day
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North,
Lib.)
moved:
|
That,
in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the first Sunday
of June of each year as National Rivers Day. |
She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to
speak to private member's Motion No. 382. I was pleased to take on the motion
from my hon. colleague from Vancouver Quadra after he was appointed
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
The idea for a national rivers day originated in
British Columbia where on the last Sunday in September of each year B.C. Rivers
Day is celebrated.
B.C. Rivers Day started in 1980 with a single clean-up
event along the Thompson River involving about 40 people. While the event that
year was small it was nonetheless a great success in terms of the amount of
garbage and debris that the small group of dedicated people removed from the
river and its banks. As a result of that effort the group decided to plan a few
more events the following year.
Thus began the long journey of B.C. Rivers Day. It has
now snowballed to a point where this year more than 100 events took place
involving an estimated 45,000 people. It has become the largest river related
event of its kind in North America. It has become popular for a number of
reasons, not the least of which is the concern of British Columbians for the
state of local waterways.
By demonstrating their strong support for B.C. Rivers
Day British Columbians are poised to embrace a similar national celebration of
our rivers as I believe all Canadians will.
B.C. Rivers Day attracts participation from
recreational clubs, conservation organizations, community groups, schools and
local governments. Almost 350 organizations were involved last year. Virtually
every local government proclaimed it, as did the province itself.
Every year this diverse collection of groups hosts a
variety of events across the province, events that celebrate the cultural,
ecological, historical, aesthetic, spiritual and recreational importance of
B.C. rivers to the people of that wonderful province. Most of these events
involve volunteers who contribute their time and energy to make a positive
difference to the health of B.C. rivers. Their activities also benefit the
local communities that take part in the celebrations.
I will list some examples of activities that took place
this year, activities such as river cleanups, art exhibitions, interpretive
walks, workshops, tree plantings, canoe trips, readings, slide shows,
educational paddles and the Whistler Fishtival.
In the midst of all this fun, important public
education is taking place. While B.C. Rivers Day offers people the opportunity
to get out and experience the province's spectacular river heritage, it also
brings attention to the need for better river management. Some organizers view
B.C. Rivers Day as a vehicle to raise awareness about the threats facing local
rivers. Others use it as an opportunity to showcase success stories. Often
these perspectives can be combined into one event.
The intent in establishing B.C. Rivers Day was to
celebrate the province's river heritage and promote the natural, cultural and
recreational values of its waterways.
The intent of national rivers day should be the same.
Canada has a long and rich river heritage. A national rivers day would be a
fitting way of commemorating it. I suspect that the same kind of support and
enthusiasm we have seen in British Columbia will unfold across the country as
national rivers day picks up steam in the years ahead.
I share with all Canadians a deep love and respect for
our rivers. As members may recall, I helped bring Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to
Ottawa last year to speak to members about his experiences with the U.S.
organization Riverkeeper. The story of Riverkeeper's efforts to rehabilitate,
protect and preserve a long list of rivers all over the United States has
inspired people around the world including here in Canada.
I have had the honour of working with Mr. Daniel
LeBlanc who was the first riverkeeper in Canada. Mr. LeBlanc and his associates
have worked long and hard to improve the condition of the Petitcodiac River in
New Brunswick. I hope recent announcements mean that progress is being
made.
Closer to home, or at least to the House, Canada now
has a riverkeeper for the Ottawa River.
(1530)
Members may have seen the Canadian riverkeepers
broadcast on the CPAC channel.
While the riverkeepers are relatively new, Canadians'
awareness of and concern for our rivers is longstanding. I am sure all my
colleagues in this place would agree that rivers have a tremendously important
role in the history of Canada and always will. They connect us to both our past
and our future. Hugh MacLennan wrote the following in 1961:
Incredible though it sounds, the
canoe parties which used to leave Montreal in the late eighteenth century were
able to paddle nearly all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Their portages were
many and exhausting, yet few of them were longer than three miles.So it came
about, thanks to the maze of lakes in the Shield, that Canadian waters would be
used as an east-west lateral avenue from the St. Lawrence to the Pacific above
the American border. That is why it is accurate to say that without the rivers,
the early nation could never have survived. The plains and British Columbia
would have been fatally severed from the older communities of the Canadian
east. |
Canada's rivers are Canada's veins, Canada's arteries,
Canada's highways, Canada's stories, Canada's history. In fact, they are
Canada.
I am sure most members would agree that increased
public awareness of rivers and watersheds is a noble objective. We know there
is great public interest and willingness in river and lake cleanups. In my
riding of York North, for example, people in the community have exerted great
efforts on helping to clean up Lake Simcoe and on river conservation
projects.
A national rivers day would also increase the public
profile of the Canadian heritage rivers system. Established in 1984, the
Canadian heritage rivers system is a co-operative program developed and run by
the federal, provincial and territorial governments.
The objectives of the program are to give national
recognition to Canada's outstanding rivers and to ensure long term management
and conservation of their natural, cultural, historical and recreational
values. There are currently 38 rivers with a total length of more than 9,000
Kilometres on the Canadian heritage rivers system.
The Canadian heritage rivers system seeks to give
national recognition to the important rivers of Canada and to ensure their
future management in such a way that the natural and human heritage which they
represent is conserved and interpreted, and the opportunities they possess for
recreation and heritage appreciation are realized by residents of and visitors
to Canada.
Through the board secretariat and working with other
federal agencies, national co-operating and non-governmental organizations,
Parks Canada publicly works hard at promoting the system as a national program,
a national responsibility.
Canada's rivers are not only keys to the understanding
of our country's natural and human history. Virtually all of the nation's fresh
water eventually flows through rivers into five different salt water bodies:
the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans, Hudson Bay and into the Gulf of
Mexico. Our river system, thereby, cannot be separated from the larger bodies
of water into which they flow.
Royal Assent
[Royal Assent]
* * *
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to
the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House
in the chamber of the honourable the Senate. |
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the
Senate chamber.
* * *
(1540)
[Translation]
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
I have the honour to inform the House that when the
House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to
give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill S-23, an act to amend the
Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts—Chapter
No. 25. |
Private Members’ Business
[Private Members’ Business]
* * *
[English]
National Rivers Day
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to see royal assent on a
bill of the House. It is my wish and dream that perhaps this motion will
receive royal assent as a bill as well.
I would like to close with a quotation from T.S. Eliot
that speaks beautifully to our propensity to ignore and often neglect nature
personified here as the river:
I do not know much about gods; but I think that the
river
Is a strong brown god--sullen, untamed and
intractable.
Patient to some degree, at first recognised as a
frontier;
Useful, untrustworthy, as a conveyor of
commerce;
Then only a problem confronting the builder of
bridges.
The problem once solved, the brown god is almost
forgotten
By the dwellers in cities--even, however,
implacable,
Keeping his seasons and rages, destroyer,
reminder
Of what men choose to forget. Unhonoured,
unpropitiated
By worshippers of the machine, but waiting, watching
and waiting.
T.S. Eliot's image of the river as something we have
used solely for our own purposes and, distracted by the technological age,
failed to honour, is one some may differ with, especially those who work on our
rivers or who are more connected to our rivers than many of us are.
Nevertheless, we all need to be reminded of the value
of these waterways. Therefore I ask my colleagues: Would an annual day spent
celebrating rivers not serve all of us well? The creation of a national rivers
day would afford a wonderful opportunity to encourage public awareness and
involvement in stream and river management, in cleanups, in river heritage and
so much more.
It would represent a powerful step in the protection
and preservation of Canadian rivers and watersheds, one that would be organized
and implemented by communities and local groups. It would highlight an
environmental issue of great concern to Canadians for freshwater rivers are
linked to healthy fishery, healthy forests and healthy communities.
It would contribute to the illustration of Canadian
history and identity. It would provide an opportunity to bring Canada's river
constituencies closer together on tangible projects nationally, regionally and
locally. Above all, a national rivers day would be a new source of pride for
Canadians.
For these reasons I believe a national day of
celebration would be appropriate and well deserved. I look forward to hearing
the comments of my colleagues on this motion.
(1545)
Mr. Maurice Vellacott
(Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, my constituency name is a Cree word that
means a place of peace, a place where you do not feel threatened or inhibited.
It is a beautiful word. My constituency is right on the banks of the
Saskatchewan River.
I enjoy rivers. I happen to live not that far from a
river, the mighty Saskatchewan. Throughout my growing up years I had the
opportunity and privilege to canoe on rivers, lakes and bodies of water
throughout our country. There is always something calming and tranquil about
being around rivers and streams. I appreciate what the member across the way
has done today. I want to thank her for giving me an opportunity to walk down
memory lane and have a nostalgic look at what some of those bodies of water
have meant to me in my life.
There is some merit in recognizing the value of lakes
and waters in our country. These days more than ever we need to be concerned
about properly stewarding and sustaining this life-giving water. We should not
be squandering water. We should be passing this commodity on to our
children.
In the main, I would be supportive of the motion before
us today. However, some questions have to be asked as we proceed.
We have a unique situation with a national rivers day
when so many other days and weeks are proclaimed throughout the course of the
calendar year. I have a few pages here in respect of the beautiful national
parks in Canada. Many of those parks have rivers and bodies of water in
them.
I noticed as well that a United States senate
resolution introduced in May 1998 is something akin to what is being proposed
here. As to the dollar cost I am not sure what is involved in the United
States. This is one question I would raise in respect to the motion. It is
inevitable when we put something into law. What is the dollar figure? I am not
sure what is in the mind of the member. However our neighbour the U.S.A. has a
similar resolution.
I am aware of some of the events in our annual
calendar. February is black history month and Canadian radio music month. There
is nothing in particular for March.
In April there is national wildlife week. Of course we
have Good Friday, Easter and Easter Monday. There is also earth day, national
volunteer week, world book and copyright day, Canada book day, and
international dance day.
In May we have named some more days as well. The
calendar is pretty full when we think about it. We are soon going to run out of
days, weeks and months. In May we have world press freedom day, national forest
week, the international day of families, world telecommunications day,
international museums day, Victoria Day of course, aboriginal awareness week
and national access awareness week.
These are a lot of good events actually. There is
probably no end of other days we could put on our calendar with respect to
honouring and recognizing some very good events.
In the month of June there is Canadian environment week
and national public week. World environment day is on June 5. National
aboriginal day is on June 21. We also have Saint-Jean-Baptiste day, national
armed forces day and so on.
On July 1 we celebrate Canada Day. I will not go
through July and August. I am skipping some of the lesser known days.
In October there is the international day of older
persons, international music day, national family week, Thanksgiving, national
citizenship week, persons day, United Nations day and world development
information day.
In December there is the international day for the
abolition of slavery, the international day of disabled persons, volunteer day
for economic and social development, national day of remembrance and action on
violence against women, and human rights day. Then we round out the year with
Christmas Day and Boxing Day.
There are some very good days. I am sure the House has
been enlightened by the plethora of days and weeks.
(1550)
There have been numerous statements in the House when
these days have come up, such as our national flag day, which is very
important. It is the day on which we recognize the very important symbol of our
country. Members of parliament typically make statements in respect of it and
things are done across the country to honour the day.
There are other days such as natural resources day. I
notice that some of the these days are sponsored by associations and are not
necessarily proclaimed by the House. For example, national forest week is
sponsored by the Canadian Forestry Association. It is possible for various
groups, agencies and organizations to promote to the Canadian public and the
country at large some of these very important ideals and concepts. That is
appropriate. The initiative taken by individuals is not a bad thing in respect
of these things. We have Elizabeth Fry week and mental illness awareness week.
Fire prevention week is a little special this year
because of what has happened in the United States of America and the heroic
actions of firefighters laying down their lives in New York.
This year it was more moving and stirring for me when I
was presenting medals and awards on behalf of the lieutenant governor in the
city of Saskatoon. We hope we never have to use the services of these good
people but sometimes they do put their lives on the line. They risk life and
limb in carrying out their duties.
Other events include national marine day and national
mining week. As I said before some of these are supported and sponsored by
industries and not by the House. I appreciate that because I do not think
everything has to generate from this place, that this is the fountainhead of
all wisdom and initiative in our country. I am appreciative when certain
agencies and associations do that kind of thing.
I appreciate the member's effort in bringing forward
this motion. I appreciate the waters across our country. I and my party
certainly are of the view that from an environmental perspective we need to be
protective and watchful. We need to sustain our rivers.
I am a little careful sometimes in making a commitment
on these things when I do not know the price tag. If the motion is about
various groups across the country promoting it on a voluntary basis by way of
newspapers and other publications and stirring up activity in schools, clubs
and organizations, then I would be for it. I would be a little more reluctant
if it meant big buckets of money and lots of dollars being sent out all over
the country when it could be better spent in other areas.
If the motion is about an initiative to play up the
importance of rivers, riverways and waters in Canada and maintaining and
preserving them, then I certainly support that. I appreciate the motion the
member has brought forward.
(1555)
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the
debate on the motion regarding a national rivers day. I commend my colleague
from Ontario for bringing the motion forward. She began her speech by talking
about the things that are happening in British Columbia with rivers day. That
of course is the province I represent and it is a pleasure to add my voice on
behalf of the Coalition.
Within my own riding of Dewdney--Alouette, which
encompasses Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Mission, Agassiz and Harrison Hot
Springs, there are a lot of rivers. Actually the Alouette River is one of the
reasons the riding is called Dewdney--Alouette. Many people ask me what the
name means. They are uncertain as to where the riding is because it could be
almost anywhere in Canada. Some people think I am from Quebec because of the
name, Alouette River. It is mainly based on the name of the Alouette River and
Alouette Lake that are in the west end of the riding.
With respect to the Alouette River, a number of
activities happen on rivers day every year, a number of which I have had the
opportunity to participate in. I want to commend the folks who are involved in
rivers day in British Columbia, particularly in Maple Ridge in my riding. A lot
of fine events happen every year on rivers day.
I would like to spend a few minutes bragging about the
Alouette River Management Society. It is referred to as ARMS and was formed in
1993. The primary focus of ARMS at that time was the attempt to increase the
base flows from the Alouette dam. This goal was achieved in 1996 when the base
flow was increased fivefold. It was quite an accomplishment.
Since then ARMS has become involved in almost all
aspects of watershed stewardship, including inventory and monitoring, habitat
restoration and lobbying for the protection of aquatic habitat. Its members are
extremely active in the community and often attend private properties in order
to assist landowners with the implementation of sound stewardship practices on
their land. They should be commended for that because they not only believe in
stewardship, they practise it. They help others take care of an important
resource and part of the community, the rivers in our riding. Of course these
things happen throughout B.C. and I believe it would be a good thing if this
model were used in other provinces. I am sure there are other societies similar
to ARMS.
ARMS has also been able to have a very good
relationship with the local media. Quite often we see articles in the local
paper about its activities and the good work it is doing. I commend its members
for that and because of that they have also been able to educate and inform a
considerable number of people very quickly.
ARMS is based at the Rivers Heritage Centre in East
Maple Ridge. Its goal and stated purpose is to be a source for community
stewardship information and direct advice. Some of the activities at the centre
have included training in stream keeping, workshops dealing with sustainable
development practices, school field trips and hosting public events.
There is a board of directors and over 300 members in
the society. They have done a lot of good work in the riding, in the Maple
Ridge area in particular. I commend them for that. That is very fitting given
the topic of the motion before the House today.
The Fraser River is a major river within my riding. It
is one of the boundaries of many ridings in the lower mainland area. That is
very important not only in my riding but in the surrounding ridings of my
colleagues in the lower mainland area and upper Fraser valley in British
Columbia.
(1600)
My colleague who brought this motion forward mentioned
some of the other activities that happen in British Columbia on rivers day. It
is a way to connect average, everyday citizens with the importance of rivers,
and that is a good thing.
We may be debating to have a special day set aside for
rivers as a heritage motion one day but it is more than that. It crosses into
the environmental side of things as well. Rivers are a very important resource
for communities throughout the country. It is incumbent upon us to demonstrate
this notion of stewardship whenever we are dealing with our environment, and in
particular when we are talking about rivers.
If we do not have organizations like ARMS or
individuals involved in the process of taking care of the smaller creeks which
feed into larger rivers, or the larger rivers themselves, we will not have
sustainable creeks and rivers. The environment could be damaged and all kinds
of other unintended consequences could result.
I support my colleague's motion that was brought
forward today. There was a lot of talk about the Niagara River a few months
ago. Members in the House may recall the particular debate about the
north-south flow of that river. It is in my colleague's province of Ontario and
she may want to expand on that in her closing comments. In all seriousness it
is a good idea to have a day in recognition of our rivers.
My colleague from the Alliance mentioned that we would
have all kinds of days that would acknowledge different things and went through
a very long list. Should that discourage us from taking the action that would
have a positive effect on our communities?
We want to see the kinds of things that I mentioned
happen within communities across Canada. Those are the kinds of activities that
will enhance and sustain Canada's river system. To have a day to acknowledge
rivers is a positive thing because it would draw attention to that area and
would hopefully spark other groups getting involved in the same kinds of
activities within their local communities.
I commend my colleague on her good motion and I commend
the group in my riding, ARMS, on its good work in Maple Ridge.
Mr. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in support
of the motion put forward by my colleague from York North. We celebrate B.C.
Rivers Day annually in British Columbia.
I recognize and appreciate the comments of members
opposite, particularly my colleague from British Columbia, the member for
Dewdney--Alouette. His
constituency shares the border of the mighty Fraser River that runs through
both our constituencies. As it passes my constituency of Vancouver Quadra it
also passes West Point Gray and then flows into the Pacific Ocean.
The Fraser River is of particular importance to us as
we consider the importance of having a national rivers day. It exemplifies more
than any other river in the country the wonderful words from the poem of T. S.
Eliot as quoted by my colleague.
We have a T. S. Eliot of sorts in British Columbia. His
name is Mark Angelo. Mr. Angelo was the originator and energizer of the concept
of B.C. Rivers Day. He was the long time member and leader of the outdoor
recreation council of British Columbia. The council brings together dozens of
different outdoor recreational environmental groups and tens of thousands of
British Columbians who enjoy themselves throughout the year by teaching and
instructing us. It helps to protect the outstanding recreational environmental
values of British Columbia and has been the leader and energizer of the very
successful B.C. Rivers Day.
Indeed the Fraser River has stimulated one of the most
interesting governance institutions in our country, the Fraser Basin Council.
The Fraser basin and all the tributaries that run into the Fraser River take up
approximately 60% of the land base of British Columbia. This makes it a
tremendous catchment area. It covers first nations traditional territories and
dozens of municipalities. It attracts the important attention of all levels of
government, whether municipal, provincial, federal or first nations.
Until very recently the president of the Fraser Council
was Iona Campagnolo, a former member of the House. She was later sworn in as
lieutenant-governor of British Columbia. She led the Fraser Council as a new
form of governance which combined the mandates, the energies and in many ways
the resources of all levels of government, whether federal, provincial,
municipal or first nations, that are within the catchment area, the watershed
of the Fraser River. Those are some of the important issues in British Columbia
to focus upon in terms of the wealth of our rivers.
As Canadians we know how lucky we are to live in one of
the world's most beautiful countries. How well do we know what makes our
country such a unique place? How many of us know that Canada has the world's
longest coastline but, more important, holds the globe's greatest reservoir of
freshwater? Our hydrographic wealth is such that it is perhaps impossible to
determine exactly how many rivers flow in Canada and how many flow into the
Fraser River.
I had the opportunity to take part in a ceremony which
recognized the restoration and regeneration of spawning in a river through the
beautiful Pacific Spirit Regional Park which is in the constituency of
Vancouver Quadra. It is part of the traditional lands of the Musqueam Band that
worked thousands of hours of volunteer time with the Suzuki Foundation of
British Columbia to restore that spawning stream which had lost its vital
potential.
(1605)
The true importance of our rivers cannot be measured in
their number or in their kilometres of length, width or cubic metres of flow.
Rivers are part of Canada. They have opened up the country to the successive
generations of people who lived here for thousands of years. They have helped
us become one of the great success stories of the 20th century.
Whether our ancestors explored this land in birchbark
canoes or came here in French caravels or British square-riggers or whether we
first saw the splendour of our natural heritage from the airplane that brought
us or our forefathers to Canada, we know that rivers are part of the history of
Canada and will continue to shape the future of its citizens.
My hon. colleague opposite informed us in a very
interesting way of the number of national days that we celebrate in Canada. I
am not sure if it was his underlying intent but it certainly had the impact on
me of demonstrating what a gap we have in not having a national rivers day in
Canada. I thank him for pointing out that oversight and for his support of the
motion to make sure we plug that gap.
Perhaps no other country in the world owes so much to
its rivers. Perhaps nobody more than this generation of Canadians should want
to repay that debt. Our rivers need us today as much as we needed them in times
gone by.
That takes us to the most important part of something
like a national rivers day. We have celebrated B.C. Rivers Day for over 20
years now. My colleague from Dewdney--Alouette and I have had the great
pleasure of taking part in B.C. Rivers Days events. It brings together
thousands of people and helps us to become educated, energized and determined
to ensure that what has been damaged is restored and what is still healthy
remains so for the wealth and health of Canadians.
Our government is very proud of what has been
accomplished in favour of our national parks, national historic sites, heritage
rivers and marine conservation areas over the past few years. Let me mention a
few of the accomplishments.
They are: the appointment of the expert panel on the
ecological integrity of Canada's national parks, followed by plans to implement
most of the 127 recommendations of the panel; the creation of 7 new national
parks, including 3 extraordinary parks in the remote reaches of our Arctic; the
approval of 14 new designated Canadian heritage rivers and the nomination of 4
candidate Canadian heritage rivers; the setting aside of pristine spaces in the
Gulf Islands of British Columbia, an essential part of Canada's Pacific marine
heritage legacy; the inclusion of Middle Island in Point Pelee National Park;
and the creation of the new National Parks Act with ecological integrity as the
paramount priority.
Other accomplishments are: the introduction of the new
national marine conservation areas legislation; the first marine park in the
Saguenay-St. Lawrence region; permanent caps on commercial development in
national parks and fixed boundaries for all park communities; 90% of Canada's
Rocky Mountains parks designated as wilderness areas; legislation creating the
Parks Canada agency; the first national historic sites system plan; the
honouring of historic achievements of aboriginal peoples, Canadian women and
ethnocultural communities; the commemoration of over 150 national historic
sites across Canada; the creation of urban discovery centres to connect
Canada's students to their natural heritage; the involvement of thousands of
students in British Columbia on B.C. Rivers Day, which presents the promise of
education, energy, awareness and support from our youth across the country for
a national rivers day; and the commitment in red book three to expend $130
million on new national parks and ecological integrity over the next four
years.
These many accomplishments of the last few years have
been led by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The sponsor of the motion has rightly singled out among
the many initiatives taken by Parks Canada those that aim specifically to
protect and enhance our national rivers system and our marine conservation
areas. I believe national rivers day would help immensely to publicize these
efforts and build support for them. It would also provide an opportunity to
bring Canada's river communities closer together on tangible projects
nationally, regionally and locally.
I take great pride and honour in endorsing the motion
and I hope all members of the House will give it their full support.
(1610)
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Madam Speaker, I too want to commend my colleague from
across the way for bringing forward the motion, which I believe was seconded by
my New Democratic Party colleague from Burnaby--Douglas.
National days have been mentioned when we sometimes
joke about how we are running out of days. There are 365 days in a year and we
are starting to run out of days that we can use to name something to honour,
whatever it may be. I think we need to reflect on that. As much as it seems
that it is just one of those things we do all the time, I have to admit that I
find myself paying special attention now when I hear whatever particular day it
is. The fact that it gets additional public recognition makes a difference as
to how we look at it.
I think of March 8, international women's day, and the
impact it has had on me. I was nominated for the first time for my party on
March 8. There are numerous days like that which cause us to think and reflect
on things that are very important and near and dear to us.
Our national rivers system is near and dear to all of
us and unfortunately we sometimes do not see that. There are a good number of
Canadians who never so much as get near the water. They are either just
travelling down the highway or heading off on a sidewalk to work. Some people
never get the opportunity to be by the rivers or, if they are very lucky, to be
on a boat or a canoe on the river system. This is something that needs to be
experienced.
I have had that pleasure within the riding of Churchill
and pretty much most of Manitoba, both on land and water. There is a tremendous
number of waterways and rivers within the riding of Churchill.
I will make a point of commenting on the Bloodvein
River which is one of the heritage rivers mentioned previously by my colleague.
I did not know about the heritage rivers system until I became a member of
parliament and was reading about the Bloodvein River. I was truly impressed.
The more I studied the heritage rivers system and the Bloodvein River flowing
through Manitoba and Ontario, I recognized the impact it had on the Bloodvein
First Nation and how they worked with the river. To this day they take great
pride in the Bloodvein River and its tourism potential. For anyone listening,
it is a fantastic canoeing river and a truly enjoyable experience.
As well, in the northern part of my riding there is the
Grass River system. This is another fantastic canoe trip with waterfalls along
the way. It is a wonderful system within the riding and truly another enjoyable
tourist attraction.
Water, as a river or a lake, has the potential to be
very soothing and e very powerful, like the rivers in our country. They are
very peaceful, but when the floods come they literally have the power to rip a
community apart. The waters need to be respected and we need to show that
respect environmentally. We can do good for the rivers and the rivers can do
good for us.
I would like to comment on how we tap our rivers for
other sources of industry. In my riding we have the great opportunity of hydro
developments. The hydro projects within the Nelson River system in Manitoba
have brought a lot of good opportunities and a lot of prosperity to the
communities around them as well as to the province of Manitoba, but there have
been problems as a result of hydro projects on the rivers. I tie that to the
fact that we have to respect the river so we are not destroying what is there,
so we are protecting it for communities around it.
I appreciate my colleague bringing forward the motion.
I know the motion is not votable but it certainly has garnered the support of
members here today.
(1615)
I would hope that members will all continue to show
that support in some manner so we can go ahead, whether the motion is votable
or not, at some other point to officially name a national rivers day. It would
cause Canadians to reflect upon the importance of our river system, the
benefits to us, and the important need for our country in general.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I too wish to give my support to the
motion in favour of a national rivers day.
There are indeed many reasons to support this
initiative. Many of them have been touched upon by those who have spoken before
me, but I too am motivated personally by the conviction that too many Canadians
have only a vague idea of the natural splendour and unique character of our
rivers. A national rivers day would go a long way to helping us better
appreciate this facet of our country.
For example, in Canada there are now 38 heritage
rivers. More are being added to the system each year. Among rivers that already
have been designated and nominated from east to west we find the
following.
In Newfoundland there is the Main River, one of the
last wilderness rivers on the rock, and the Bay du Nord River, where countless
brook trout, ouananiche and Atlantic salmon wait. On Prince Edward Island there
is the Hillsborough River, which begins on the south shore of the island and
winds inland through rich farm country to its sources near the white sand
beaches of the north shore, and the Montague--Three Rivers, an unspoiled
intermixture of fresh and salt water marshes, beaches, forests and communities
interwoven by this river system.
In Nova Scotia there is the famous Margaree River,
whose clear, icy waters and deep pools provide a haven for spawning Atlantic
salmon and trout, and the Shelburne River where we can see the last old growth
stands of white pine, red spruce and hemlock in Nova Scotia. In New Brunswick
there is the St. Croix River linking shimmering lakes to the surging tidewaters
of the Bay of Fundy. There are also the Sackville River and the Upper
Restigouche River, where the salmon is still king. In Quebec there is the
Jacques-Cartier River which cuts into the magnificent valley of the
Jacques-Cartier and splits the spruce covered plateau of the
Laurentians.
In Ontario the French and Mattawa Rivers formed a vital
link in the fur trade route from Lachine, near Montreal, to Lake Superior and
the northwest. St. Mary's River is an historic waterway which begins
tumultuously, tumbling over rapids, where native people traded and fished for
thousands of years and on past the power dams, factories and urban parks of the
twin cities of Sault Ste. Marie in Ontario and Michigan. Lock and canal
building started here as early as 1798, and in 1895 the Canadian lock was the
most advanced in the world.
Also in Ontario there is the historic Rideau waterway,
winding 202 kilometres from Kingston to Ottawa, the oldest continuously
operating canal system in North America. There is the Missinabi River, a silver
thread of unspoiled wilderness, was used by the Ojibway, the Cree and later the
voyageurs as the main trade route linking Lake Superior with James Bay. There
is the Detroit River, passing through the largest metropolitan area,
Detroit-Windsor, along the world's longest undefended border. The Grand River
is in the heartland of southern Ontario. The Humber River is in the backyard of
more than four million people. The Boundary Waters--Voyageur waterway is a
paddler's paradise flowing through rapids, waterfalls, gorges, cliffs, beaver
dams and innumerable lakes. The Thames River is the most southerly major river
in Canada, flowing 273 kilometres through the cities of London and Chatham to
Lake St. Clair.
In Manitoba there is the Bloodvein River, where red
ochre pictographs of bison, human figures, hands and power symbols grace
overhanging rock faces along a course that slashes through the Canadian Shield,
slipping and sliding over 100 sets of rapids on its journey to Lake
Winnipeg.
Also in Manitoba there is the Hayes River, which served
as a route for Manitoba's first nations long before Europeans arrived and later
became the main route from York Factory on Hudson Bay to the interior of
western Canada for fur traders, settlers and explorers from 1670 until 1870.
There is the Seal River, named for the harbour seals, normally marine creatures
that are found up to 200 kilometres upstream from Hudson Bay.
In Saskatchewan there is the Churchill River, a
succession of shimmering lakes interconnected by rapids, waterfalls and short
stretches of river. It was the main water passage to the Canadian northwest for
early explorers.
(1620)
The Clearwater River in Saskatchewan and Alberta was
the main route to the rich fur country of the north. The Fraser River in
British Columbia is British Columbia's largest river, is the longest river in
the Canadian Heritage river system and is the greatest salmon river in the
world.
It seems, as usual, that we have all the greatest and
the best references both in the east and west to the salmon rivers. However I
am sure that for both sections of the country the feeling of pride in their
salmon is well deserved. Fortunately we do not have to have a contest between
our Atlantic and west coast salmon so the issue stays with the
rivers.
There are the Athabaska, Kicking Horse and North
Saskatchewan Rivers.
In the Yukon there is the Alsek River. Then there is
the beautiful South Nahanni River, which is in the Arctic in the Northwest
Territories.
I will leave the balance of the time to the member who
most deserves that time, for her to explain a little further why she has come
forward with such an excellent motion and such an excellent idea.
(1625)
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all of the members
who took part in the debate this afternoon on this motion. I appreciate hearing
the words of the member from the Canadian Alliance Party from
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin.
To address his concern about cost, it is a simple
matter of declaring this as a national rivers day. What we have to think about
are the wonderful opportunities in our communities, for example, around
community economic development. There are a lot of festivals, fairs and
opportunities for local merchants to be involved with the community in the
clean up, promotion and celebration of our rivers.
To the member of the PC/DR coalition from
Dewdney--Alouette, I was very heartened to hear about the work of his local
community organization. It is not only just the national rivers of Canada that
we would be celebrating, we would also be celebrating the work of our community
members.
To the member whose motion this originally was, the
member for Vancouver--Quadra, I would like to thank him very much for giving me
the opportunity to move the motion in the House. The Fraser Bason Council, of
which he spoke, is a very important opportunity that looks at how people,
different levels of government and first nations can all work together. Our
rivers in Canada connect us through our activities and the projects that we
undertake to preserve them.
I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Foreign Affairs for her wonderful description of some of the
major rivers in Canada. I appreciate her fine support and would like to mention
to the House how much we miss her on the environment committee now that she has
her new duties.
To the NDP member for Churchill, as a member who
represents a northern community, it is so vitally important to remember the
contribution that the northern rivers have made to our communities in the south
through the advances of the early explorers. Imagine setting out on a vast
expedition onto one of those northern rivers. What an exciting, exhilarating
experience that must have been. It is so important to our history, to the
economic development of our country and indeed to our natural heritage.
It is often said that people always remembers the first
time they see Lake Superior. I grew up on Lake Superior. It is an incredible
expanse of water. It is an image that never leaves one's mind. A variation on
this is what the writer Lynn Noel said:
The first river you paddle runs
through the rest of your life. It bubbles up in pools and eddies to remind you
who you are. |
I am sure those of my colleagues who have paddled would
agree.
The member for Churchill talked about the soothing
qualities of our rivers. I remember as a child the creeks and the rivers that I
paddled on and their cool, quiet shores with their leafy vegetation crowding
the water's edge. There are many times in this place and related to this place
that I look to that image for some soothing and calming.
The same rivers that have so informed our lives and
speak to the very soul of us as a nation can inform the lives of others.
Therefore, let us celebrate them. Let us once a year talk about rivers, clean
up rivers and float down rivers. Let us swim in them, paint them, read by them,
plant trees by them, sing by them, dance by them, learn from them and enjoy
them. Let us honour them as they honour us.
I have included some of my favourite words from poets
to best describe our understanding and feelings of rivers. A favourite prime
minister of mine, Prime Minister Trudeau, wrote in “The Exhaustion and
Fulfillment: The Ascetic in a Canoe” the following:
I know a man whose school could never
teach him patriotism, but who acquired that virtue when he felt in his bones
the vastness of his land, and the greatness of those who founded
it. |
(1630)
I believe that formal recognition of a national rivers
day can help people come to such a place and it is a journey we should well
consider. Unfortunately, the motion is not a votable motion. Therefore, I would
ask for the unanimous consent of the House to declare this a votable
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The time provided for the consideration of private
members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a
votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being 4.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 4.30 p.m.)