Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 086 (Official Version)

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a private member's bill that would repeal all sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act dealing with security certificates. I would like to thank the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for seconding this bill.

This legislation is consistent with the long-standing commitment by the New Democratic Party on this issue. Security certificates have turned into one of the worst violations of civil liberties in Canada. Detaining individuals without charge, without trial and without conviction for seven and eight years should not be possible in a country that has confidence in its justice system and that values fairness and due process.

Security certificates were never intended to make it possible to imprison someone indefinitely. They were intended to be a mechanism for expedited deportation from Canada. Today that is not how they are being used, and that is why I believe this legislation must be repealed.

Security certificates should never have been allowed to replace basic police and intelligence work and the full engagement of our justice system, which should have resulted, if warranted, in charges under the Criminal Code, a fair trial and a decision by a judge or jury given the facts of the case.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

Committees of the House

International Trade

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP)

moved that the second report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Wednesday, April 1, 2009 be concurred in.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the New Democratic Party to move concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on International Trade today in the House.

As the House knows, we have been discussing trade policy for the last few months, and we have seen some of the more egregious aspects of the current government's trade policy.

I am happy to say that despite some disagreements we have had in the past on certain aspects of trade policy, the Standing Committee on International Trade was able to actually have discussion on the report last March. This report deals with the provisions of chapter 11 and investor-state provisions that exist in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The second report states very simply this:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, March 31, 2009, your Committee recommends: that the Government vigorously defend Quebec's Pesticides Management Code in the case opposing Dow Agroscience and the Government of Canada in order to safeguard Quebec's right to enact legislation and make regulations in the public interest.

That report was a report that essentially demanded of our national government that it vigorously defend the right of Quebec to make regulations in the public interest, in this case the banning of a chemical that very clearly has negative environmental impacts and negative health impacts and that is 2,4-D.

However, there are much broader implications for this particular report and this particular provision of NAFTA. The broader implications are the implications that it has, through the chapter 11 provisions, on any government. Whether we are talking about the Quebec government or the Government of British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, any province, any territory or any municipality in Canada, it is essentially impacted by the provisions of chapter 11.

This is an important discussion we need to have and an important report that we hope Parliament will endorse. It comes out of the Standing Committee on International Trade in light of the concerns about Dow Chemical Company's attack on Quebec's right to make this regulation in the public interest. It could be Quebec today and it could well be British Columbia tomorrow.

As democratic representatives in the House of Commons, we have to very clearly take the stand that when powerful international companies attack democratic entities and attack the rights of those entities to make safety regulations, health regulations and environmental regulations in the public interest, Parliament has to clearly take a stand.

I am pleased to say at the outset that this report stemmed from hearings the NDP was able to obtain at the Standing Committee on International Trade on 2,4-D pesticides and on the attack by Dow AgroSciences against Quebec's right to make this legislation in the public interest.

We pushed for that at the beginning of March. I am pleased to say that we had the support of the majority of members of the Standing Committee on International Trade. We had those hearings, and subsequent to those hearings we brought forward the report with the support of the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party as well. We brought forward the report, it was adopted and it has now been brought forward to Parliament for discussion.

[Translation]

The information sessions and witness testimony that the NDP was able to bring before the Standing Committee on International Trade were what was most important. I will talk about some of the statements we heard in committee about this attack by Dow AgroSciences on the Government of Quebec.

(1010)

Once again, Quebec is not the only one affected by the provisions of chapter 11 of NAFTA, which the NDP has long opposed. All the provinces, all the territories, all the municipalities in Canada could be affected by the provisions of chapter 11.

A number of witnesses appeared before the committee. Their testimonies were very helpful in the report we are discussing today. We first heard from Steven Shrybman, the legal counsel for the Council of Canadians. This is the largest citizens' organization in Canada, with more than 100,000 members nation wide. Mr. Shrybman said:

Under chapter 11 of NAFTA, private parties-—investors and companies—from the other NAFTA jurisdictions, namely the United States and Mexico, can make a claim for damages arising from an alleged breach. We're going to take the case of a claim against Canada--a Canadian government, be it a federal government, provincial government, or municipal government--because of something the government has done that the private investor or the U.S. company, for example, argues is in breach of the broadly worded and ill-defined constraints of chapter 11.

That is the problem. These private investors, such as Dow AgroSciences, have the right to attack regulations made in the public interest, and that is why the Committee on International Trade decided to strongly urge the government to protect the interests of Quebec and all of the other provinces from the use of chapter 11 to attack these regulations.

Hugo Séguin, public affairs coordinator with Équiterre, a well-known Quebec organization, had this to say about the dispute with Dow AgroSciences, or rather, Dow AgroSciences' attack on Quebec's right to pass legislation in the best interest of Quebeckers in areas under its jurisdiction:

The Quebec Pesticide Management Code has been in effect since 2003. The ban on 20 active ingredients in pesticides has been in effect since 2006. For example, the Pesticide Management Code applies to turfed areas, including areas used frequently by children. Public health studies seem to show that children are exposed to even greater health risks when they play in parks, schoolyards or day care yards.

Mr. Séguin went on to say that Quebec has justified its actions on the grounds of the risk to public health. He added that Quebec is not the only jurisdiction in the world to ban 2,4-D or other pesticides. This is also the case in Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Ontario, where some pesticides, including 2,4-D, have been banned.

That is the problem. Quebec took responsibility. The Government of Quebec decided that it had to protect children by prohibiting the use of 2,4-D. Quebec is not the only jurisdiction in the world to prohibit 2,4-D. Several other jurisdictions are doing so, including Ontario. Even though Ontario is behind Quebec on this issue, it is heading in the same direction as Quebec. So Dow AgroSciences could choose to attack the Government of Ontario for its decisions, just as it has attacked the Government of Quebec's decisions. However, countries like Norway, Denmark and Sweden have also decided to prohibit the use of 2,4-D.

(1015)

These countries are not governed by the chapter 11 provisions. So companies do not have the same grounds for attacking decisions made in the public interest by democratically elected governments.

That is the problem, and that is why there is a motion to concur in this report today. This affects municipalities, Quebec, Ontario and other provinces that want to bring in legislation to prohibit products like 2,4-D.

[English]

That is the fundamental problem. Essentially, there are chapter 11 provisions that can be used by any company to attack any democratic decision that is taken by a democratic government in the interests of the people it represents.

It is important to note that when the discussions were held around NAFTA, the provisions of chapter 11 that provide this super chèque en blanc, as is said in French, this blank cheque to the corporate sector to challenge government initiatives were something which, immediately upon signing NAFTA, the United States immediately retreated away from.

There was a very clear unease in the United States and other jurisdictions about the provisions of investor state and what it could mean in the long term. It is interesting to note, and this comes down to a fundamental question, that the chapter 11 provisions have not been reproduced by the United States in any other trade agreement it has signed since NAFTA. The provisions of chapter 11, the blank cheque given to the corporate sector to challenge the health and safety regulations put in place in the public interest, are something the United States, since that time, has moderated in all its trade agreements. There is no longer a blank cheque in any other American trade agreement.

The United States took that step back from the brink. It said that these provisions are far too widespread, that they give too much power and control to the corporate sector. In place of them, the United States, in any provisions around investor state, has made it very clear that environmental regulations, health and safety regulations, decisions that are made by democratic bodies in the public interest cannot be challenged under chapter 11 or investor state provisions. The United States retreated immediately from that.

Canada is the only country in the world where every single comprehensive trade agreement that we have signed since NAFTA has included these blank cheque investor state provisions. I will repeat that because this is of fundamental importance. Whereas other countries have retreated from the brink, we have gone right over. Agreements that have been brought to this House have all included the chapter 11 provisions that give a blank cheque to corporate CEOs to challenge decisions made in the public interest.

Only one party in the House of Commons has defended the public's right to make regulations in the public interest through its democratically elected representatives. Only one party consistently has said that these investor state provisions, rejected by the United States since NAFTA and by every other country on the planet, are a negative, unsustainable and irresponsible provision of trade agreements that Canada has signed.

That is why New Democrats have stood in the House consistently over the past two decades, since the signing of NAFTA and the putting into place of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, and opposed those chapter 11 provisions. We have done that for one very simple reason, that when we give investor state provisions, when we allow this blank cheque to the corporate sector, it is understandable there is going to be a very clear attack on some democratically elected government's right to put in place that legislation.

What is more important is the effect it has on legislation even before it is brought forward. We have heard in discussions at the municipal and provincial levels on the possible implications of chapter 11, that sometimes governments step back from taking action in the public domain because they are concerned about whether or not investor state provisions could be applied by companies that feel that their right to make a profit may be infringed upon.

That brings me back to the issue of 2,4-D, an issue that, I will repeat, was supported, that we must vigorously defend Quebec's right to put forward this legislation in the public interest to protect children. As I have mentioned, witnesses were very clear on this. As a trade committee, and I am hoping to get the approval of Parliament, we are saying that the Canadian government has to vigorously defend the right of provincial legislatures, the right of the national assembly, the right of municipalities, the right of democratically elected bodies to put in place legislation in the public interest.

(1020)

It is important to mention some of the chapter 11 cases that have been brought forward, because these indicate the impact of chapter 11 and why the NDP believes, like Barack Obama, that NAFTA needs to be renegotiated. The chapter 11 provisions need to be strongly curtailed because they simply were not appropriate at the time, are not appropriate today and are not a mechanism that allows for the kind of public policy Canadians want to see.

As soon as NAFTA was put into place, Ethyl Corporation, a U.S. chemical company, challenged a Canadian ban on the gasoline additive MMT. MMT is a neurotoxin. No one objects to the very clear health impacts of that ingredient, but the fact that the government moved to ban MMT led to the use of chapter 11 provisions. Canadian taxpayers across the country from coast to coast to coast had to cough up $13 million for an out-of-court settlement. This was for a product that is a known neurotoxin. It was banned by the Canadian government in a responsible way to ensure that the product could not have the negative health impacts, but because of the chapter 11 provisions, Canadian taxpayers had to compensate the company for producing a product that has known health impacts.

What is wrong with that picture? Embedded in NAFTA are provisions that force taxpayers to compensate bad companies for producing a product that is a health risk. What is wrong with this? It is rewarding bad behaviour. It is like saying to somebody who has murdered somebody, “We are going to give you compensation because we are going to have to put you in jail”. This is absolutely absurd.

That is why the NDP has been saying consistently over the last number of years when these investor state provisions come forward that NAFTA has to be renegotiated and that we have to fundamentally rejig our approach on trade policy, including removing the chapter 11 provisions from the trade policy template that is put forward for all of our comprehensive trade agreements.

That is a fundamental problem. It is a problem in Quebec when it tries to legislate and ban a toxic product, 2,4-D, and it is challenged by the company. It is a problem for other provincial governments that may choose to do the same thing. It is a challenge for our federal government.

The NAFTA chapter 11 provisions have a negative impact on public policy. The NDP believes that NAFTA must be renegotiated. We will agree with Barack Obama on this. We believe that investor state needs to be removed from the provisions of NAFTA.

(1025)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friends on the other side of the House that just because they say it, it does not necessarily make it so. It has been my experience, in listening to the NDP, that it has never seen a trade agreement it could ever support regardless of what is in the agreement.

I want to set the record straight. I sit on the international trade committee as well, and we have made these comments in the trade committee. I also want to state for the record today three points on which we on this side of the House want to be very clear.

Certainly, as the Government of Canada, we are currently assessing the claim and we are consulting with the government of Quebec. The fact that a notice of arbitration has been filed does not establish the merits of the challenge. Once again I remind my colleague across the way that just because he says something, it does not necessarily make it so.

The second point I want to make is that should this claim proceed, the Government of Canada will continue to work with the government of Quebec to vigorously defend our interests, including the pesticide management code.

The third point I would like to leave with the House is that NAFTA preserves a state's ability to regulate in the public interest, including issues concerning the environment and conservation.

I will end with those comments.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian:

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague must admit that the Standing Committee on International Trade disagreed with the government's stand that somehow it was standing up for the interests of Quebec and the public. As he well knows, the reason this report is before the House is that a majority of the members on the Standing Committee on International Trade said that the government was not vigorously defending. That is the fundamental problem.

The other issue is very clear. The member is essentially saying that chapter 11 provisions are not a problem. Well, most honest taxpayers would disagree with him on that. The idea that we need to reward a company for bad behaviour and pay compensation when it produces a toxic product and that somehow it gets money out of it because of the perverse provisions of chapter 11, I think most Canadian taxpayers would fundamentally disagree with that.

I know the member and his riding well. I know that if he went door to door and asked if people would be willing to contribute $13 million for this toxic product because of chapter 11, most people in his riding would say “you must be kidding, you need to stand up for Canadians”. That is what we are saying the government should do.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a precedence and a pattern within the government and the previous Liberal government's negotiations, particularly with the United States, but on all trade agreements. The pattern suggests that policy and legislation made within Canada's own jurisdiction, whether it is at the federal level or the provincial level, is always subject to someone else's interests ultimately, which is a confounding notion to Canadians who go to the polls, elect people to speak on their behalf, come to a place like this to negotiate and debate, come to some resolution over what the policy should be in Canada's own interest, and then have those very same governments, our own governments, subject to a foreign interest, whether it be a commercial or foreign government's interests. I am thinking of the softwood lumber dispute that we went through recently where we are witnessing Canadian lumber policy being made by a foreign national government. The federal Government of Canada does not even have that power and yet the federal Government of the United States somehow was given that power in a trade agreement that Canada signed onto.

Now we have a case with pesticide management where Quebec seeks to protect its own interests, the interests of its citizens, and somehow finds that subject to a foreign company's interests.

Does this have any sort of a chilling effect on Canadian legislators and policy-makers when we are setting up our own regulations knowing there is this 800 pound gorilla out there that can actually subvert and destroy Canada's own actions, whether at the federal or provincial level?

(1030)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian:

Mr. Speaker, I admire the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley because he is one of the most knowledgeable members in the House on environmental issues. He comes from one of the most beautiful parts of the country. He is absolutely right. This is not only an attack on existing legislation, such as the Quebec ban on 2,4-D, but the chill effect on any other legislation that comes forward for health and safety and the environmental health of Canadians.

We are often criticized in the House by the Liberals and Conservative for having opposed the softwood sellout and the shipbuilding sellout, but for simple reasons. We actually read the agreements and we knew the impacts so we were able to oppose knowing what the impacts of those trade deals would be.

The member referenced the softwood sellout. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost across this country and dozens of mills closed. There is no doubt that it was one of the most irresponsible bits of public policy ever brought forward by the government. Supported by the Liberals, the Conservatives brought in the softwood sellout and softwood communities across the country continue to pay the price.

We are very proud that we stood up in the House. Our responsibility is to read through and understand the impacts, to do our due diligence, to do our homework, as we always do, and to push back when bad policy is being introduced. In this case, we have the support of the majority on the Standing Committee on International Trade and we hope to have the support of a majority of the House of Commons on this.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen:

Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago, there was a case in which Canadian pesticide regulation on the fruits and vegetables that were produced and sold to Canadians in-house were achieving a certain level of stringency so that fewer and fewer pesticides were being used and fewer chemicals were coming into the Canadian food system and yet we received a challenge from the U.S.

The U.S. was saying that it wanted higher levels and, in some cases, it was 10 times the rate that Canadians were experiencing. What was Canada's reaction? It might be somewhat in connection to these trade policies but Canada relented and then allowed our chemical levels that were permitted on fruits and vegetables to be increased and, in some cases, tenfold.

It is perverse and bizarre. Folks back home assume that the power to set health and safety regulations and standards must rest with either the provincial or federal government. Therefore, when the government imposed this on fruits and vegetables saying that it would like there to be fewer chemicals because it knew from the studies this was harmful to Canadians, particularly to vulnerable populations such as seniors and young children, Canada did not have that power anymore.

How could we have possibly eroded such a fundamental principle in our democratic system?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian:

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has put his finger on the exact problem of not only our existing trade policy but our policy in general over the past few years under the previous government and under the current government.

What we are seeing is the public interest being undermined. We need to ask to what end. The idea to increase the pesticide residue in Canadian food is absolutely ridiculous when people sense, as I do and as most of us across the country should, that Canadians actually want a higher standard of food safety. They want a better, cleaner food product available and better water quality. Canadians want higher standards not lower standards but what we are seeing, which is a perverse result of the investor state provisions, is the exact opposite.

If I had more time I could have read into the record pages and pages of the chapter 11 challenges against legislation that has been introduced in Canada at various levels opposed by some corporate CEOs using the chapter 11 provisions. It is not just the Ethyl Corporation, the $13 million Canadians have to pay out, or the 2,4-D ban in Quebec being attacked by Dow AgroSciences. It is a myriad of challenges and that is a fundamental problem.

When public policy is being challenged, not on the basis of whether it is good for the public or good for a certain corporate executive, then the public interest is being neglected.

(1035)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to this motion. We did have a debate at the trade committee on the issue of chapter 11. We heard from some witnesses on the issue of chapter 11 and some of the potential chapter 11 cases involving Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec.

A provincial government has taken a position on a regulatory matter in terms of pesticides within its jurisdiction. We stand, and I believe and I certainly hope the government stands, in support of that provincial government on this issue.

We had a fairly short session at committee on chapter 11 but we need a longer study. I remember that day I spoke at committee urging it to at some point have a longer study of chapter 11.

The principle behind chapter 11 is that of national treatment, which is a reasonable principle. In fact, it is core to trade agreements. It is essential that we have some level of protection of national treatment to ensure that Canadian companies, which are investing abroad in other countries with which we have trade agreements, are not discriminated against by those governments. That could be in areas of procurement in some cases or it could be in areas of regulations in other cases.

We know now and we see what is going on in the U.S. around buy American and some of these other provisions what a pernicious impact protectionist measures can have on Canada and on Canadian companies. We clearly need provisions to protect Canadian companies, workers, investors and pensioners whose retirement savings and income depend on their investments being protected for Canadian companies doing business abroad.

I think most Canadians and most members of the House would agree that national treatment is a reasonable principle. We need to ensure that Canadian investors, companies and workers' interests are protected in the countries with which we enter trade agreements.

At the same time, for us to protect our workers, our companies and our investors in those countries, we need to ensure we provide equal levels of protection to their companies doing business in Canada. So there is a compromise there and a trade-off but it is a principle that we believe in.

The question about chapter 11 and the investor state provisions specifically within chapter 11 are important questions. Whether or not chapter 11 in its design is working in Canada's interests is also an important one. What are the other approaches to national treatment that other countries in their trade agreements are pursuing? Those are important questions that we need to study.

I have talked to some of the people involved in the negotiation of NAFTA, people who believe very strongly in NAFTA and strongly believe in the principles of free trade but who also believe that there are issues around chapter 11.

How do we deal with those in NAFTA? How do we reopen a discussion on chapter 11 and should we reopen NAFTA at a time of deepening and strengthening American protectionism? Those are important questions for us to ask in the House. Even with whatever flaws that may exist in chapter 11, I think most Canadians would agree that the NAFTA and the FTA have, by and large, benefited Canadians, have created jobs for Canadians and have increased competitiveness for Canadians.

(1040)

The question is how we deal with investor state provisions, with the principle of national treatment and with chapter 11 of NAFTA.

It is an important study, not just in terms of our current agreements, our North American Free Trade Agreement, but in terms of future trade agreements and how we deal with the principle of national treatment. It is distinct from whether or not we open up chapter 11, potentially opening up NAFTA at a time when we see heightened American protectionism. It is quite possible that there are areas for future trade agreements where we may consider a different approach to national treatment and that there are ways to better protect Canadian interests and strengthen our capacity to defend the right of Canadian sub-national or national governments to put in place policies, environmental or otherwise, to protect our citizens and at the same time enter into and expand our trade relationships. I think those are important discussions.

We have not had, in my opinion, as much success as we should have had on some of these challenges. Is that because of flaws within chapter 11, or is that because the federal government has not provided enough resources or support to the challengers? Are we not providing enough support for chapter 11 challenges from within Canada? I have heard the case made by trade experts that the Department of Justice is not provided with enough resources, that it does not provide enough support to sub-national governments when they issue a challenge under chapter 11. That is important. It is one of the reasons we are seeing these disproportionate failures. We are not doing a good job at the federal level to help sub-national governments defend their interests and their capacity to protect their citizens.

In some cases legislation has been crafted that has not been chapter 11 compliant, that has been sloppy in its design. It was designed for a pre-NAFTA era, but then it failed when exposed to post-NAFTA rigour under chapter 11. We need to make sure that when we draft legislation, both at the federal and the sub-national government level, whether municipal or provincial, that the federal Department of Justice and the department of international trade work with other departments on the federal side that may be issuing a challenge, and/or they work with sub-national governments to ensure they are in fact compliant with NAFTA and chapter 11, and that it is tenable under NAFTA.

The whole approach of how we deal with this has to be looked at from the beginning. If a provincial or municipal level government intends to introduce a piece of legislation, say on the environment, we should make certain that those governments have access to federal expertise in the Department of Justice and the department of international trade to ensure they design the legislation in such a way that it can withstand NAFTA or chapter 11 challenges. The design of these initiatives is critically important.

Second, if the legislation has in fact been implemented in a way that ought to be chapter 11 resilient, then we should offer the provincial or municipal governments full support from the federal lawyers in the Department of Justice and the department of international trade.

Number one, are we doing our utmost at the federal level to support other levels of government in ensuring that they design legislation and regulations that are consistent with and tenable under chapter 11? Second, are we helping them enough, when there is a challenge, to succeed in fighting those challenges?

(1045)

I would say that on both counts the federal government is not doing enough. We need to reach out. This is a federal government that has simply not engaged provincial governments effectively on some of these matters. For instance, with respect to the whole buy American issue, after seven months of buy American provisions, attacking Canadian jobs and exports at a time when we are seeing unprecedented job losses in Canada, the only leadership we have seen has come from provincial level governments in Canada.

I commend the provincial governments for filling the vacuum, rising to the occasion and taking leadership on that file. However, the fact is that it takes federal leadership and cooperation. I am certain that many of my colleagues opposite would agree that the Conservative Prime Minister has not built strong relations with provincial premiers and governments.

Frankly, at a time of global financial crisis and rising American and international protectionism, it has never been more important that we have a prime minister and a government that reaches out, strategizes, cooperates and collaborates with provincial and municipal governments. I think part of the issue is that the federal Conservative government does not understand the importance of close collaboration with provincial governments on these issues.

I alluded to the second issue earlier. We have to ask how we deal with the current chapter 11 provisions in NAFTA. I believe that the international trade committee should study chapter 11 thoroughly. I think we should put a significant amount of time into the study of chapter 11 so that we understand it.

The question that comes after is that when we have a more granular understanding of what we might do differently if we were negotiating a NAFTA again, would it then be in Canada's national interest to open up the NAFTA during protectionist times? I would assert that the bar had better be pretty high in terms of the gains to us if we were to propose to open up NAFTA during these times, because otherwise the risk would be very significant.

The third question is how we can better inform ourselves and our negotiators for future trade agreements. Clearly, national treatment is central to any trade agreement. We simply have to ensure that our companies are protected against discriminatory practices by foreign governments. That is important for Canadian workers, investors and union members whose retirements savings depend on Canadian equities that are invested in companies around the world.

We have to make sure that Canadian investments are protected. The only way to ensure that is to provide reciprocal protection to those investments. I do not think that anybody who understands the importance of trade would disagree with the principal of national treatment. The question is what the best vehicle and the best approaches are.

I would propose that when we have this study at committee that we bring in some of the people who were involved in the NAFTA discussions. We should bring in people like Gordon Ritchie, who was involved in the NAFTA discussions and who may have some views as to what could be done differently in terms of investor protection, investor state provisions and national treatment for other trade agreements going forward.

I think we should have a discussion at the trade committee about other issues as well, not just about investor state provisions. We should have a good discussion on the whole issue of chapter treatment versus side agreements on issues like the environment and labour.

(1050)

It is not accurate to say that side agreements are meaningless, because they are not. In fact they can be very substantive and may have certain advantages over full chapter treatment, depending on what is written in the full chapter agreement and what is written in the labour and side agreements.

However, the point is whether we should be looking at what some other countries are doing. Some other countries are moving toward a full chapter treatment approach to some of those issues. Is that more substantive than side agreements with teeth and meaningful provisions to ensure enforcement?

Some trade experts I have talked with have argued that it depends on the specific agreement; it depends on the side agreements and the full chapter treatment. These are the kinds of issues we should have at committee. However, it is only possible if we are able to put our ideological weapons down.

When asked, there are people who simply say that they are pro free trade, because they are from the ideological right. And there are people who say that they are against free trade, because they are on the ideological left.

I think that the 20th century belonged to rigid ideologues and that in the 21st century the issues are far more complex, the challenges and opportunities facing Canada are greater, more frightening in some ways but more exciting in some ways, and it really takes an important debate that is less ideological than some of the ones we have had in this place in the past. That means we have to be prepared to look at these issues, not in terms of being a New Democrat and thus opposed to free trade agreements or being a Conservative and thus in favour of free trade agreements, but in a more mature sophisticated way, to actually study these issues and ensure we believe in trade.

But how can we strengthen our trade agreements to ensure we build a better global governance around issues of human rights? How can we strengthen our trade agreements so that we build stronger global and multilateral governance on issues of the environment? How can we ensure national treatment and protection of our Canadian companies as they invest and diversify their interests geographically outside the U.S.? How can we ensure they are protected and at the same time protect the rights of Canadian governments, national and sub-national, to implement legislation to protect its citizens?

Those are all important questions, and they are the types of questions that I hope the trade committee and this House could discuss and debate in a more open-minded, constructive way and less ideological and divisive way, because these are important issues for the future of the country.

Canada has the first trade deficit it has had in 30 years. As a small, open economy that depends on external trade for our standard of living and quality of life, we are now buying more than we are selling. That is ominous.

These trade agreements are important. There is a need to diversify our trade relationships outside of the U.S., outside of North America. There is a need to deepen our trade relationships with the EU, with India and China. China is growing by over 8% this year, and it is projected to grow by 8.5% next year, with massive investments in infrastructure, high-speed rail, clean technology, environmental sciences, clean energy and commodities, all of which are areas where Canada can lead and excel. We need to deepen our relationships with China.

The current Prime Minister has shown contempt for China and neglect for India.

We, the Liberal Party, believe in deepening our trade relationships with places like China and India, diversifying our trade relationships and building on multiculturalism, not just as a social policy, but as a successful economic strategy to build natural bridges in the fastest growing economies in the world.

These are important debates. We are committed, in the Liberal Party, to dealing with these constructively, to defend Canadian jobs and interests right here and to extend our influence on the world.

(1055)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated the remarks made by the hon. member for Kings—Hants, especially when he talked about a longer study of chapter 11. I would definitely be willing to support a longer study of those provisions in committee, if he were to propose it. I think this is an important aspect.

Of course, we have not always agreed, especially when it comes to the trade agreement with Colombia, which is still being debated in this House. We think it would be completely irresponsible to sign this special agreement with that regime, which has had so many problems in the area of human rights and has ties to paramilitary groups. That said, we do agree on some points at least, and a longer study of chapter 11 is one of them.

This government's lack of coherence and its lax attitude when it comes to defending Quebec's right to legislate on the introduction of 2,4-D is another aspect that must be noted.

Would my colleague agree that the government's actions in this file have been deficient so far?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Scott Brison:

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. The government must do more to defend our international interests. It must support provincial and municipal governments, and their efforts to preserve the legislation and bills meant to protect their citizens.

As I have already said, working with provincial and municipal governments has always been a Liberal priority, for we see the importance of defending their environmental efforts, for example.

[English]

At the same time, the government can do more, but in terms of the current cases, it would be very simple to have the Department of Justice and the Department of International Trade, and I would posit that we should have ministers, before committee. We should have the Minister of Justice and we should have the Minister of International Trade to actually discuss whether or not the resources are being provided adequately. We have to have the resources there.

There will be discussion on Bill C-23 and I look forward to having that discussion. I hope that it will be a truthful discussion in which the member presents the facts and not his hallucinations about the situation in Colombia.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Dow AgroSciences LLC case against the government, and this came up I believe on August 25, 2008, I had a look at one of the articles by Meg Sears, who is an investigator for the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. I thought it would be interesting to have the member's comment on her conclusion with regard to the matter now before the House in this report. She says:

The Dow challenge to the regulation of 2,4-D by Quebec directly challenges Canadians' ability to take precautionary measures to protect health and the environment. Trade agreement should bring signatories to higher levels of protection, not the opposite--

She goes on, but I think we can get the gist of her concern here. She concludes by saying:

I urge the Government of Canada to defend the rights of all levels of government to enact precautionary measures to protect health and the environment, and to ensure that NAFTA puts Canadians' health before multinational corporate profits.

For the layperson, I think that really capsulizes the issues now before us, and it does not surprise me that the majority of the Standing Committee on International Trade wants to defend the rights of Quebec in this matter.

What does concern me, however, is that the government does not support protecting the health rights before corporate profit. This is very disturbing to me. I am sure it is very disturbing to Canadians and I would hope that the member could maybe try to explain why the government has taken a position contrary to the majority of the committee.

(1100)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Scott Brison:

Mr. Speaker, I know Premier Charest. I know him very well as a premier, as somebody who is very rigorous in his approach. Let us be clear. Premier Charest is a free trader. Premier Charest believes very strongly in trade. He is also somebody who has a strong history of environmental policy and strength. He was a former federal minister of the environment who earned a great reputation internationally as a minister of the environment.

Therefore, I believe that the Government of Quebec under Premier Charest's leadership would have subjected this legislation to great rigour prior to its implementation with the full understanding that it could be challenged through chapter 11.

I have every expectation that the legislation was designed rigorously and merits the support of the federal government. We have the Premier of Quebec, the Government of Quebec, take a strong position to ban a particular pesticide to protect its citizens and the federal government does not do anything. No wonder we are losing these cases, if the federal government does not do anything to help sub-national governments win them.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, in the past, in the member's different incarnations in one party and then another, there has been a consistency of support for these types of trade agreements.

My question is around the notion of anticipation. An international agreement contract is a signature of some sort of hope or desire for the future, no different than any other business contract, marriage agreement or international trade. It is the same thing. It is the coming together to agree on a more hopeful future.

Yet, did the member not, in endorsing this, campaigning for it and praising its glories to the Canadian people, anticipate that written into this agreement in chapter 11 was an element that would subject Canadian legislators to some sort of punitive action from foreign companies?

It is as black and white as can be and this was one of the concerns raised with the NAFTA at the time of its creation and its negotiation, that Canada would be subjected to this, in negotiating this piece in particular, aside from the ideological support of trade agreements, whatever it may be, by some in the House, and regardless of the conditions and terms that exist within the trade agreements. That is insane.

Did he and the folks that he worked with, on whatever side of the House he was working on at the time, not anticipate this very result? Provincial and federal governments would be subjected to foreign interests and affect the very laws that we hope to create, the very regulations we hope to promote, such as the pesticide one that we are talking about today, softwood lumber and others that have gone on, and Canadian interests would be, in fact, be hurt by agreements that he endorsed at the time and continues to endorse today.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Scott Brison:

Mr. Speaker, the fact that I have said I want to see this studied at committee is to ensure that the principle of national treatment, which I support and believe in, is defended effectively on a go forward basis when we sign these agreements.

I actually said earlier today in the House and at committee that I believe, and I have spoken with some of the people who were involved in the negotiations of NAFTA, that there may be better ways than the current approach with chapter 11 to defend national treatment and at the same time protect Canadian interests.

I have actually said that which shows the capacity, when presented with facts, to change an opinion. Whereas the NDP has been against free trade agreements consistently when they have created a tremendous amount of wealth, prosperity, improved standard of living and quality of life for Canadians. In fact, I am willing to embrace change and willing to look at the facts on an ongoing basis. That is our job as legislators.

I am not ideologically blinded like the NDP which is against every free trade agreement despite the overwhelming burden of evidence that free trade is good for Canada.

(1105)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, an American company, Dow AgroSciences, sued under chapter 11 of NAFTA for $2 million in compensation, claiming that Quebec's pesticide management code violated its right to sell 2,4-D in Quebec.

Quebec's pesticide management code, which was adopted in 2003, is the only one of its kind in Canada. It sets standards governing the use and sale of pesticides in Quebec. The code prohibits the sale of the herbicide 2,4-D for public health reasons. Quebec chose to ban this product because it considers 2,4-D harmful to human health and the environment. In case of doubt, the precautionary principle must apply.

Members will also recall that the Bloc Québécois member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie questioned the Minister of the Environment to make sure the government was committed to defending Quebec's pesticide management code. The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth, however. While the Minister of International Trade is saying he wants to defend Quebec's position on this issue, the Minister of the Environment is telling the United States that Canada must harmonize its policies with the American government's. According to my Bloc colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, the actions by the Minister of the Environment, in addition to undermining my efforts as the Bloc's international trade critic in this House at the time, were watering down environmental requirements and favouring the Dow Chemical Company at Quebec's expense.

We know that Équiterre, Ecojustice and the David Suzuki Foundation, along with other environmental groups, prepared an online petition that concerned citizens could sign to express their support for the code. Clearly, the response was in favour of protecting the code.

Moreover, this was the purpose of the motion the Standing Committee on International Trade adopted on March 31, 2009, a motion I had put forward. This motion said that the committee:

...recommends: that the Government vigorously defend Quebec’s Pesticides Management Code in the case opposing Dow Agroscience and the Government of Canada in order to safeguard Quebec’s right to enact legislation and make regulations in the public interest.

Two key elements stand out in all of this. First, there is chapter 11 of NAFTA and second, there is the right to protect public health and the environment. These two elements are obviously at loggerheads. This brings to mind the many, often heated discussions held on what was known as the SPP, the security and prosperity partnership of North America. The purpose of all these discussions was essentially to lower the bar for regulations in just about every governmental sphere of activity so that they would be comparable to those of the United States. There have been a number of examples or attempts in that sense.

As for chapter 11 of NAFTA, it was drafted and agreed to by Canada's negotiators. It is well known that Canada's negotiators have a very good reputation. I am not blaming them for all this. However, it is the government that tells them what it wants and thus they give direction to the negotiations.

We will always wonder why chapter 11 was included in NAFTA at the time if not primarily to protect corporate investments.

(1110)

In the case of the United States, it was to protect the investments of their companies in Canada. In the case of Canada, it was to protect its investments in the United States. And look what happened. We began to see an increase in challenges, based essentially on the definition or interpretation of expropriation. We know it is not necessarily easy to draw a clear line in every case.

In Quebec and in Canada, in the wake of regulatory changes, a Canadian company does not have the same power to sue that a foreign company operating in Canada does. It is quite something to give foreign companies additional rights or the freedom to impose their views and to interfere in how Quebec or Canada operates. We know that the Government of Quebec has banned the use of this pesticide because it was being used in more domestic settings and was more likely to pose a threat to the public. When such a pesticide is used on big fields with close to zero population density, it is not the same. However, when the Government of Quebec legislated on this, it was to protect the environment and public health.

We can talk at length about chapter 11 on investments. I will come back to that. The real goal of the United States is to lower standards that restrict their trade. They are then free to sue Canada and in this instance Quebec.

We know this. It is all fine and well to talk about free trade, but the freedom to trade, as the lawyers say, goes something like this: when laws are passed, the freedom of some ends where the freedom of others begins. The freedom to trade, therefore, should also end where the freedom to health and a safe environment begin. Where is the balance? There are people who want to make money, who are prepared to sell all sorts of things. By all accounts, they do not think that way.

In this case, I believe, I am convinced, that the Government of Quebec is correct, and has the right to legislate and impose higher standards. I think that people in general feel that standards must be respected from one country to the next. For example, we heard from representatives of the European Union at the Committee on International Trade. They told us that the European Union had banned certain laundry detergent products. Naturally, the other countries made threats and even wanted to take legal action. The European Union stood its ground. When a sovereign country decides to establish quality standards based on its values and interests—I am talking about the health of its people and its environment—nothing should interfere with that decision. I said sovereign, and that makes me think that if Quebec were a sovereign country, it would likely establish standards and would demand that they be respected in its free trade agreements. That is one of the items discussed while the countries are negotiating.

(1115)

The negotiating style of many countries makes it clear from the very beginning that some issues are non-negotiable. When a population respects its own priorities—which Quebec would do if it were sovereign—some issues are simply non-negotiable. Of course I support free trade, but not at just any price. We need limits and standards.

With respect to chapter 11, we know that Canada often signs bad agreements. Such agreements are part of a negative trend.They enable multinationals to sue governments directly over the policies they adopt. These companies believe that any measure—social, environmental or whatever—that cuts into their profits constitutes expropriation and requires compensation. These agreements also enable companies to sue for such astronomical amounts that they can prevent the government from working for the common good.

The Conservative government, which wants to give foreign investors complete freedom and does not want to regulate them, is involved in all kinds of bilateral negotiations to sign bad agreements modelled on chapter 11 of NAFTA and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the MAI, which everyone deplores.

Investment protection agreements do not have to be that bad. Of all the countries in the world, only Canada and the United States sign these kinds of agreements. The Bloc Québécois believes that Quebec would not copy the Canada-U.S. model, so we are asking the government to change its policy. Multinational corporations, like any other citizen, must submit to the authority of the state.

There can be no doubt that we support investment protection. It makes sense. A company looking to do business in a foreign country must be assured of a minimum level of respect and protection before dedicating assets, money and often human resources to set up shop in that country. However, that must not be at the expense of the country itself, its people or its environment.

Of course, in some countries, laws and regulations are too weak to protect people and the environment. That often happens with Canadian mining companies that are actually foreign-owned. They set up shop in Canada because they can take advantage of the Canadian government's unlimited protection for what they plan to do in foreign countries. These companies take action against labour rights and even the environment, but they are not punished for actions that would be unacceptable in Canada and Quebec.

We are in favour of foreign investment protection. We are in favour of protecting our companies' investments, and by the same token, we are in favour of investment protection in general, because a company can be expropriated for any reason.

For me, the word expropriation has a much broader meaning than to simply say that the company can no longer hope to bring in the same amount of profit as it had hoped when it was first established. As we know, things change. The expropriation we often see in municipalities, both in terms of property as well as measures taken by a municipal government, involves telling someone that he or she must physically change locations for some reason. Of course compensation is given, but not the same level of compensation that foreign companies think they should get, companies that come and set up in a country and then claim they have been divested, not of the assets they actually have and can exploit, but rather of their future, probable and expected profits.

(1120)

Even the companies in each country cannot do it this way. There are three things wrong with NAFTA's chapter 11.

First of all, the definition of expropriation is so vague that any government measure, except for a general tax measure, can be challenged by foreign investors if it diminishes the profits generated by their investments. Indeed, a Kyoto implementation plan, which would have large polluters such as oil companies pay dearly, could be challenged under chapter 11 and result in government compensation. American companies hold majority interests in Alberta oil companies. Chapter 11 opens the door to the most abusive challenges.

Second, the definition of investor is so broad that it includes any shareholder.

And third, we have the definition of investment, which I will not explain, since I was just told that I do not have much time left.

What is important to take away from this is that any self-respecting nation, like Quebec if it were sovereign, would have high standards to protect its population and its environment, and those standards would be non-negotiable in a free trade agreement that is intelligently prepared and concluded.

I am convinced that protecting public health must be at the top of our priorities because the health of individuals is at stake. Usage must be legislated by those governments closest to their citizens, the municipalities, among others, supported in this case by Quebec.

Investment protection should be adjusted to a greater extent in the agreements the government enters into in the future and in those currently being negotiated, because Canada's existing agreements are bad agreements. We believe that there should be some protection for investments but not to the detriment of public health and the environment.

To conclude, in this agreement, unfortunately, we see the influence of what was once highly touted by the principal negotiators for Canada and the United States, this partnership for security and prosperity. We had to lower our standards to adjust to those of the United States in order to achieve prosperity. But they have been hard hit and that is not what we want in Quebec. We want to protect the health of the public and of the environment. When there is doubt, the precautionary principle must apply. That is what all environmental groups are saying. It is up to us to decide what is good for us and what we should defend in spite of chapter 11, which allows for bad agreements.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in what the member for Sherbrooke had to say. He is one of the most knowledgeable members of the House when it comes to international trade. We agree that the Conservatives have proposed a number of harmful measures in this area.

I have two questions for the hon. member. We are debating the agreement between Canada and Colombia. I know that the Bloc shares the NDP's view that it is completely irresponsible to sign such an agreement. We agree on this, but we would like to make a proposal: the Standing Committee on International Trade could look more closely at all the issues around chapter 11 and its impact on democratic governments like the Government of Quebec, which is under attack because of the provisions of chapter 11.

Does the member agree that NAFTA must be renegotiated in order to eliminate this aspect of chapter 11, which is so harmful to democratic governments?

(1125)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Cardin:

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is reversing our roles: it is the NDP that is supporting the Bloc Québécois against the agreement with Colombia.

Clearly, when a country has a bad agreement, it must work on it and add clarification, such as the member for Kings—Hants described earlier. It all comes down to the negotiations and how to negotiate, but this chapter must be re-evaluated to avoid outrageous situations like what is happening with the Dow Chemical Company.

Agreements must be clear. Some things are acceptable, and others are non-negotiable. Health and the environment should never be negotiable.

I suggest that countries that want to trade with each other are mature enough to include major social measures in trade agreements, even at the WTO. These measures can pertain to labour rights or the environment. There have to be minimum standards so that countries like Canada do not hurry to sign bilateral free trade agreements just to exploit countries like Colombia.

At present, we are exploiting the anti-democratic policies that exist there when it comes to protecting people, health and the environment. There is exploitation, so there have to be standards. We have to move toward multilateralism.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, when I looked at some of the briefing notes, one area caught my attention, and maybe the member could enlighten the House.

It says when the proposed ban was announced by Quebec, Quebec's own internal documents actually indicated the absence of a scientific basis for the ban. That is a pretty strong assessment for why there should not be a ban.

The province stated that the ban was based on a precautionary approach, which I had indicated earlier in a question, pending the outcome of reassessments on the safety of 2,4-D. The assessments were conducted, and they found that 2,4-D did not pose a significant health risk.

Most people would say that if there is no evidence and the assessment shows no particular health risk, then carrying on simply because we believe doing so is precautionary does raise some interesting questions.

Almost none of the NAFTA chapter 11 disputes have been successful. Now I understand that other Canadian cities like Toronto and Halifax have implemented pesticide bans on 2,4-D.

First of all, if there is no health assessment that says there is a posed risk, why has no chapter 11 case been filed against the bans that have been made in other cities? There is something wrong here. I do not understand.

Maybe the member could enlighten the House as to the basis for the conclusion of the committee's majority report.

Second, why has a chapter 11 case not been launched against Toronto and Halifax?

(1130)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Cardin:

Mr. Speaker, of course there is scientific evidence. For example, we know very well that there are some countries that have banned specific products on the basis of certain studies and analyses whereas others accept them on the basis of other studies. We find ourselves in a system where the assessment of certain products many not necessarily be identical. It is often a function of peoples' concern for health. “When in doubt, don't” is a an often used saying.

However, some organizations have clearly stated that there is a risk to health and that it increases with the proximity of the product to the individual. In fact, you could spend a whole day beside a sealed container of 2,4-D with no problem at all. The application of 2,4-D on fields by farmers who respect the recommended standards, where people are not nearby, is altogether different than its cosmetic use on lawns, parks and gardens, where people use the product and remain in the parks and gardens.

Therefore, in this matter, the precautionary principle does apply because, I will reiterate, when in doubt, don't. Nevertheless, other scientists also say that there is a danger to health.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, my question is really a follow-up to the previous questions asked of the member for Sherbrooke.

If there are shortcomings with respect to both bilateral and multilateral applications of chapter 11 along the lines that the member is concerned about with respect to opening the door to pollution and the kinds of pesticides that have been cited and so on, what would he suggest we do in terms of applications of international rule of law?

Also, if that cannot be found and that is a problem, is he suggesting that there should be no free trade agreements, that we should have a moratorium in a global economy and not take any initiatives with respect to trying to find these kinds of fiscally balanced relationships that will add value to both national economies and international economies?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Cardin:

Mr. Speaker, I believe that in my speech earlier I said that the Bloc Québécois is fundamentally in favour of free trade. Indeed, we have to trade with other countries. Indeed, we can invest in other countries, just as other countries can invest here. Nonetheless, certain situations show that poor negotiations result in bad agreements.

We have known that for years. During the first few years after this agreement was signed with the United States, things were dead calm; there were no lawsuits. Consider chapter 11 for a moment. There are always experts who see certain opportunities and we know that the United States of America is renowned for its litigious nature. Even the American public likes to sue. If you were a weather forecaster and you promised good weather tomorrow and the weather ended up being lousy, you could get sued for that. They are well versed in lawsuits.

As soon as this flaw in chapter 11 was noticed, an immediate attempt should have been made to correct it. And why was this flaw repeated in all the bilateral agreements signed by the government? Investment agreements have been copied from chapter 11 and open the door to foreign companies to sue Canada and Quebec.

We should adjust our standards, as other countries have done, and our agreements should be signed based on standards that we respect.

(1135)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the first item on today's projected order of business was Bill C-23, which is the Colombia free trade agreement. I know it is of significant interest to the House and to many Canadians, particularly those who are concerned about human rights abuses in Colombia and the propriety of getting into a trade deal.

For those who may have tuned in to try to understand what is going on here, I thought I should briefly explain that the members of standing committees do report to the House. In its second report, the Standing Committee on International Trade reported with regard to a pesticide dispute under chapter 11 of NAFTA. Their majority recommendation was that the government vigorously defend Quebec's pesticides management code in the case opposing Dow AgroSciences and the Government of Canada in order to safeguard Quebec's right to enact legislation and make regulations in the public interest.

That is the recommendation to the House. It is a recommendation to the government to express the view of the majority of the committee. I repeat that it is a majority, because the government members of the committee did not support this report. The opposition parties were the ones who made this recommendation. It probably hearkens back to the history of talking about NAFTA issues here. I know it has come up a couple of times in debate with regard to the softwood lumber dispute and in the debates that went on in this place for a substantial period of time.

The debate during that period really demonstrated to Canadians how rigorous this process of dispute-settlement resolution can be, how nasty it can get, how there are different pieces that can take place, how the moneys were going back and forth, and how the arguments were very nuanced and difficult. Again, it was a situation where the majority of the House opposed the deal, but the government was supportive of the resolution.

There is certainly a pattern here that raises some concern. In any case, we are debating this report, which is a recommendation of the standing committee. This debate will go on until no members rise or until three hours have passed and there is a vote on the motion. It is always nice to make reports to the House, the government and the minister, but if we do not want to have the response of the government and we just want make our point and throw it out into all of the reports that are tabled in this place, there is no onus on the government to respond to this recommendation formally.

The government members at committee made their positions known, and unless one reads the transcripts of those committees and looks at the questions in all of the details, most members will not know. This is very complicated material and the issues are very important. When we see these reports, it is interesting to know that if members do not ask for a government response within 120 days it means that they do not want a response. That means that we are just going to throw this into the pool, and whenever members come up to routine proceedings on motions, people can just say, “I would like to move concurrence on that report. Let us talk about that report”.

That is where we are right now. I wish that there had been a request for a government response on this thing, because it was the government members who opposed the majority position of the committee. We are going to be debating this. We will get on to Colombia. There are some excellent speakers on Colombia free trade who are going to be speaking on that bill, so hopefully we will get back to it quickly.

(1140)

I want to share with members some of the aspects we have been talking about. There has been a lot of talk about chapter 11 and about expropriation and so on. How does all of this tie together? The best thing for me to do is to refer to an assessment on this matter done by a researcher, Meg Sears. She has a Ph.D. and is the adjunct investigator for the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. She wrote a very interesting paper which frames the issue that is before the House and which the committee considered. She is a scientist and a medical writer and she wanted to assist the committee in its study. She has examined Canada's pesticide assessment process by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the PMRA as other members have referred to it, and the assessment of the herbicide 2,4-D which is the pesticide which Quebec has banned.

There has been a challenge by Dow. She concluded that Dow's notice of challenge of Quebec's restrictions on the use of 2,4-D shows how Canada's sovereignty to protect citizens from toxic exposures is compromised by NAFTA chapter 11. That is a very significant statement. Our sovereignty to protect Canadians is challenged by NAFTA chapter 11. There is substantial information which I would be happy to provide to members if they are interested, but I would like to go immediately to her conclusion in regard to this matter. She said:

The Dow challenge to the regulation of 2,4-D by Québec directly challenges Canadians' ability to take precautionary measures to protect health and the environment. Trade agreements should bring signatories to higher levels of protection, not the opposite, compelling governments to expose their citizens unwillingly to toxic chemicals in their homes and neighbourhoods. Although it is beyond the scope of the present committee, one must also wonder about the extent of PMRA complicity, as 2,4-D was re-registered with incomplete, sub-standard data and misinterpretation of important information.

That is very, very significant. I commend the assessment done by Meg Sears. It shows the importance of this matter and the fact that it was just a report from a committee should not be taken lightly and we should protect Quebec's rights to do this.

I mentioned earlier when asking a couple of questions that there have been similar bans in Toronto and Halifax, but they have not been challenged. If there is an existing challenge under NAFTA chapter 11 with respect to Quebec's ban, we have to ask why that challenge would not automatically be extended. Maybe the mechanics of it is that if one can be won, maybe subsequent challenges could be fast-tracked to bans in other jurisdictions.

I also want to comment on NAFTA chapter 11. We in this place will probably have NAFTA on our agenda as long as there is a free trade deal with the United States. Members have already mentioned their concerns about protectionist measures in the U.S. precipitated by the global economic climate.

(1145)

We can understand that countries want to do whatever they can to recover in their own economic sphere, but they also understand that we are inextricably linked with our trade relationships and we have existing deals. When there is this aggressiveness that we want to protect and enhance domestic trade, we put pressure on areas such as bilateral trade that occur in some of the aspects that fall under the purview of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The purpose of chapter 11 is to facilitate the flow of investment within North America. That is what it really gets down to. This is very complicated. It does so by establishing a framework of rules and disciplines that provide investors from NAFTA countries with a predictable rules-based investment climate. These are the kinds of things that happen generically.

When I looked at the rest of the briefing notes, I realized that this is a complex maze of push-pulls and it takes full-time work to really understand. I commend committee members for being able to wrap their minds and their attention around such an important matter when it is fluid and constantly evolving. Like most laws and even our Constitution it is almost like a living document. Every time there is another challenge, another precedent is set. These are the kinds of things that affect the decisions that are taken by Canada and by the provinces.

Chapter 11 also establishes a mechanism for the settlement of disputes that might arise from potential discriminatory charges. In this way chapter 11 effectively prevents governments from taking measures that amount to discriminatory nationalization or expropriation of a foreign investment without paying compensation to the investor. That is the essence of what we are talking about in terms of the current challenge with regard to 2,4-D.

People should know a little bit about the elements of chapter 11 which come up in debate. Chapter 11 is broken down into two sections, sections A and B. Section A has the main provisions.

Article 1102 refers to national treatment and it states that each NAFTA party will treat investors and investments from other NAFTA parties no less favourably than it treats its own investors and investments, in like circumstances, with respect to such matters as the establishment, acquisition, operation and sale of investments.

Article 1103 will come up. It deals with most favoured nation treatment. It states that a NAFTA party may not treat an investor or investment from a non-NAFTA country more favourably than an investor or investment from a NAFTA country.

There is also the minimum standard of treatment in article 1105 which assures a minimum absolute standard of treatment of investments of NAFTA investors based on long-standing principles of customary international law.

Article 1110 has to do with expropriation and is specifically related to the matter before the House in this report. Article 1110 states that a NAFTA party cannot directly or indirectly nationalize or expropriate an investment of an investor of another NAFTA party except one, for a public purpose, two, on a non-discriminatory basis, three, in accordance with due process of law, and four, on payment of compensation equivalent to fair market value.

Most committee members probably had to spend a fair bit of time to understand the meaning of the provisions. I think that is why we have had such hot debates in this place with regard to NAFTA challenges and particularly matters where dispute settlement resolution has not seemed to work.

The key issue in article 1110 is the meaning of the term “tantamount to expropriation”. This is where it gets down to the subtleties. It is well established in international law that the term “expropriation” need not refer to the transfer of title of property. A country can be considered to have expropriated property if its actions have the effect of significantly diminishing the owner's right to extract economic benefit, including profits from that property.

(1150)

Members will understand that when we are talking about the expropriation issues here, we are not talking about taking away anything. In fact, it is affecting the rights that flow from this matter, to the extent that if Quebec bans the use of a particular pesticide, another NAFTA country is going to be impacted by not being able to either export to Canada products that use that pesticide or something similar to that. That is the subtlety and that is why the term “expropriation” is being used, but not maybe in the traditional sense that members would understand.

Section B of chapter 11 outlines the dispute settlement provisions. These provisions allow the investors of one NAFTA party to directly make claims against the government of another NAFTA party through the arbitration process. NAFTA outlines certain general procedures regarding the arbitration but stipulates that such arbitration must be conducted in accordance with the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, referred to as the ICSID convention, and facility rules of the ICSID or the arbitration rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

The mechanism of chapter 11 dispute settlement is not without controversy, as we know. The process has been criticized for its lack of legitimacy and transparency. It also has a limited form of review and no recourse of appeal. That is a challenge. It means that we need to be very careful how we address these matters because when one is in that situation, without recourse for appeal, decisions are full and final and it does get a bit sloppy.

It is also important to note that NAFTA stipulates that no chapter 11 tribunal decision can be used as a precedent in subsequent chapter 11 cases. I referred to the Halifax and Toronto bans on this pesticide, and although there may not be the applicability of a precedent on the disposition of the Quebec issue on the same matter, certainly the arguments and the evidence would be available, although the decision may not be binding. In other words, no body of jurisprudence can be built up over time. Each case is considered to be a unique event.

I thank the members who brought this particular debate to the House for doing the work to take a position. It does raise the question though of why the government does not support the majority decision of the committee. That is very troubling to me and it should be troubling to all members. That is why I am a little disappointed the committee did not ask for a formal government response. The government must be accountable to the House. It must respond. We have missed that opportunity. Maybe the members are satisfied that they heard substantively the government arguments at committee and I hope that they are going to share them on some specific basis.

I had also raised the fact that when Quebec made the ban, it did not have a scientific basis for the ban, but as I indicated earlier and I will conclude with this, the report of Meg Sears states that the Government of Canada should defend the rights of all levels of government to enact precautionary measures to protect the health and the environment of its citizens.

That is the essence of the argument and why the committee took this position. I hope that the government will now respond to the committee report.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, as usual my colleague has provided a pretty exhaustive overview with respect to the principles of application of a chapter 11. He has argued that the precautionary principle should be incorporated into a chapter 11 framework, such that it provides for, within the rule of law and the principles of chapter 11 and NAFTA, protection as well as the opportunity for a national interest to be protected.

The member has indicated that committee did not have the opportunity or did not seek further opportunity to pursue that line of thought, and I am sure the House would be interested in this. What would the member suggest would be the next step? I do not think he has suggested that the free trade agreement with Colombia, or any free trade agreement, should not go forward. However, what would he suggest would be the process for the House to develop the protection through the precautionary principle but would not violate the essence of a chapter 11 application that the WTO obviously applies? There have been successful and unsuccessful hearings. What is the process that the House can initiate and continue and where would the member see that would take us with respect to protecting national interests?

(1155)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his kind words.

First, on Colombia, I have already spoken on the bill and I am on the record as saying that I understand the benefits of trade. However, I have also heard from my constituents and many people from across the country who are concerned about the human rights issue in Colombia and would like to have an independent assessment done. Unfortunately, I understand that even Amnesty International has refused to participate in an independent assessment, so that is much more complicated.

Getting back to the substance of the member's question, I found in all the things we have done that there is very little black and white in trade agreements. There seems to be an ability to shape arguments and to use certain things, even to the extent that every case on a matter is dealt with as a unique case where there is no precedents. If we were to be an efficient dispute settlement resolution system, we would think that all of the work one had done in the past on same or similar matters would be relevant to the decision. We certainly understand that no two disputes may be identical in all regards, but certainly the core and the essence of the dispute and the evidence that is there must be relevant and must be used.

I have great difficulty with the mechanics. There has always been this issue of dispute settlement recognition, which never seems to have worked in Canada's favour. We always seem to be one step behind and the outcomes have not been very favourable to us.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to chapter 11 and to NAFTA in a more generalized way.

It always amazes me how the proponents of free trade continually talk about its merits, how those who work in the economy and work across the country are the net beneficiaries of free trade and that their living conditions, their economic situation and their social well-being has been enhanced by free trade.

That mantra is bandied about from this side of the House. I heard the member for Kings—Hants say that this morning and I hear the government continually suggest that this is the case. However, no one ever suggests that they look at the statistics. Why on earth would we ever look at statistics to find out if it is true? It is much easier just to say it. It sounds good. It sounds marvellous. It makes people feel good. Then again, if we read the Statistics Canada reports for the most recent period from 1989 to 2005, we find that the opposite is true. Most Canadians did not prosper under free trade and NAFTA. They regressed economically.

Why would we tell Canadians that? Because that flies in the face of negotiating another free trade agreement. We have to tell folks the mythology that this is good for them. It is somewhat akin to telling a child, when his or her first tooth falls out, that the tooth fairy will come. Of course the tooth fairy does come, but usually in the form of a parent, in the night, because there is not a tooth fairy. In the free trade debate, the tooth fairy needs to be put to rest. Clearly what has happened is the average wealth of Canadians has declined and the average wealth of a very small percentage of Canadians has increased.

Let me read into the record the Statistics Canada reports on the four quintile of income levels across the country and what happened to them.

The percentage growth between 1989 and 2005 for those at the bottom of the income scale declined by 14%. This meant they were worse off in 2005 than they were in 1989. Yet we were told by the Liberal government, and now the Conservative government, that free trade would help folks. The numbers do not support it. I do not make up these numbers. I am not the tooth fairy. These are Statistics Canada reports, which are available to all members.

If we look at the second quintile, the second group of folks whose income is relatively low, how did they fare? They fared marginally better than the bottom quintile, but their incomes still declined by 12%. They were 12% worse off in 2005 than in 1989, yet we keep hearing the mantra from Liberals and Conservatives that free trade will be good for them, that they are better off, yet the numbers prove otherwise.

If we look to the third quintile, these folks are moving into the middle income bracket. How did they fare? They did somewhat better than the second quintile in that they only lost 6% of their earnings.

It would be pretty hard for me to convince some of my neighbours to sign on to an agreement where in 16 years they will have less than they have now. That is exactly what we have done to Canadians. Sixteen years after the fact, we have the bottom quintile at minus 14%, the second quintile at minus 12% and the third quintile at minus 6%.

Finally, when we move to the upper middle income bracket, toward the top end, their incomes grew by a paltry 2% in 16 years.

Therefore, who actually benefited from these free trade agreements, the net beneficiaries of them? Lo and behold, when we look at those at the very top of the income range, those who did not really need to improve their incomes all that much from 1989 to 2005 because they were already rich, their incomes went up plus 17%.

We can see what these free trade agreements are about. It is really about certain groups doing really well at the top and everyone else sinking to the bottom.

(1200)

My colleagues across the way do not like the stats. Why on earth would we suggest to Canadians that they are better off when they are not? Why would we tell them the truth? How can we sell free trade to them if we tell them to sign up and they will be worse off, that we think it is good for the economy, but it will not be good for them personally as workers in this economy.

Is it because workers were not working? The report shows that, on average, Canadian workers whose income was sliding backwards were working more hours. While they were losing in the economy, they were working harder, working more hours and were separated from their families and sliding backwards. In an effort to try to compensate for the fact that they knew they were sliding backwards they wanted to work more and it did not help.

What do we see with their debt load? Unfortunately, as their incomes slid back, we would have expected to see their debt ratio to their household income increase, and that is exactly what happened. In preceding years of the 1980s until about 1986 the average debt load in the household declined. However, starting in 1988-89, we saw an absolute upward trend that has not stopped and continues to this day. The debt load is just shy of 130% of household income or their true assets.

When one looks at that, one has to ask were workers better off because of free trade? I would suggest that statistics are telling us that the tooth fairy really did not come to Canadian workers at all. In fact, the grim reaper came. What they have seen is a decline in their income year after year to the point where all they have done is driven themselves into debt. They have worked an excessive number of hours to try to help support their families, but have slipped behind.

We continue to hear that free trade is good for us and that chapter 11 is a necessary piece, the very piece that takes things away from workers, their rights and their abilities to do things. It allows it to be in the hands of investors at the expense of those folks, which continues to happen.

It befuddles me and really suggests to all of us, I think, that we are not speaking for the right folks. We are speaking on behalf of an investor group at the top end of the income scale that has not slipped behind. It has continually done well. We either have forgot or have never recognized that all of those whom we represent are not doing well at all. We ought to remember them when we develop free trade agreements.

When we look at chapter 11, what does it actually talk to? It talks to the sense of it is going to develop rules. Earlier hon. colleague talked about the dispute resolution. It said that it was going to establish rules for investment in North America. By having rules and discipline with countries that are predictable, there would be a rules-based investment climate. That way the investors would be protected. Note that the investor would be protected. It does not talk about labour. It does not talk about the environment. It does not talk about Canadian workers being protected.

It talks about foreign investors will be assured that they will be treated no differently from domestic investors. I think that was probably the case in the majority of investments made in our country prior to NAFTA.

I learned as a child in school that we needed to get away from the branch plant mentality in our country and build our own Canadian firms because of all the foreign investment here and because this was a good place to come. It probably still is based on the fact that we have an abundant wealth of natural resources and skills and an absolutely world-class workforce that is ready to do its work. However, we still have this leaning toward one class of individuals called the investors.

(1205)

The other thing that stands out and absolutely amazes me is that if we do something in the House which investors say will hurt their profits, they can decide to take it to the tribunal. It is not just about their actual losses. It says “expected profits”. I always expected that maybe I could be six feet two inches but It did not work out. Who do I sue? Should I sue my parents because I did not grow to six feet two inches?

In NAFTA, we have a provision under chapter 11 where companies can stand and say that we have created a new rule, an environmental protection for the benefit of our country, which is all well and good for us, but that it has hurt them as far as what they expect to make three, four, five years down the road. How do we know those companies will even be in a business three, four, five years down the road, never mind how much money they will make? However, under this ridiculous article, they can actually sue the Canadian government because they lost what they thought they might make. This does not discount the fact that those who run the corporations may have made bad decisions in that intervening period. They just believe they should be able to sue because they might have made a lot of money.

How would one quantify that? How do we quantify what we think we might lose? No one ever wants to lose anything in life but no one can quantify next week, next year or the year after. None of us know what will happen in the next five minutes. That is part of what we call life. It is the great unexpected.

To suggest that somehow there is a rule that allows people to decide they should receive payment for expectations is like relying on the tooth fairy. It seems to me that chapter 11 has more sense about it. It is like a myth. It is like the Aesop's fables one tells to one's children than it does about rules-based adjudication, because that is what it said it was about. In its rules it says that people can go to the tribunal and get a decision but it they lose, too bad. What if the arbitration panel has made a fundamental mistake? Too bad. There is no opportunity to say that there has been an error, a misinterpretation or actually a misreading of what it was about. There is no sense of appeal. That is supposed to be rules based.

All of the rules-based procedures that I and my colleagues in the legal profession are very familiar with understand that a decision made at one level has an appeals process to it because mistakes get made. It gives the party, which the decision went against, the opportunity in a rules-based system to ask someone at a higher level to actually take it into consideration. This one does not. It does not actually penalize those who might bring frivolous claims against us, regardless of what we think is the sense of what we will do.

My friends in the Liberal Party talked earlier about this prosperity. I want to relate what happened to the workers at John Deere in Welland under NAFTA. The corporation got up and left. Now, did the workers get to sue the corporation for leaving? No. Did the corporation close? No. Did the work it was performing in Welland cease to exist? No. It simply went away because NAFTA let it go. There was no payment to the workers or to the community. It had no sense of being sorry and made no apology. It simply left, went to Mexico and some work went to the United States. The company left those workers because the rules said it could.

Why, in this Parliament, would we write rules that do not talk about workers, our citizens, the people who live here and the people we represent? I did not get elected by major multinational corporations because they do not vote. They simply are entities. It is real life people who send us here to work for them, not the other way around. However, when we come here we seem to be working on behalf, when it comes to these trade agreements, of something other than the people.

(1210)

The statistics that I quoted earlier from Statistics Canada clearly show that we are in decline when it comes to the ability of ordinary, hard-working Canadians to make a living and keep up. They are slipping behind.

The big issue being raised now by both the government and the Liberals around the buy America act is the recent pronouncements made last week. The buy America act has been in force for the best part of 40-odd years, perhaps even longer. Those of us who live close to the border knew what was transpiring because the Americans were not covered under chapter 11 and they used it exclusively to ensure they were the net beneficiaries. They continue to do it to this day.

Over the years, I have spoken with some local politicians who are friends of mine. I would defy any member in the House to ask their constituents this question: “When I collect your tax dollars, would you like me to spend it on, (a) you and your neighbours; (b) on those who live in Florida,; (c) on those who live in Germany; or (d) on those who live in Colombia?” I am absolutely certain that 99.9% of those constituents will choose (a) because it is their money.

We have collected their money and I am sure they would tell us that when all things are equal, we should spend it on them because that is really why we collected it in the first place. It was collected for the net benefit of all who live in this land and to make this country a better place.

All we have heard with NAFTA is a big sucking sound of the wealth of the majority of Canadians being drained out of the country. Some of it has gone to the upper end but a lot of it has simply left. One need not look any further than Ontario to see the de-industrialization of southwestern Ontario under NAFTA in the last 18 years as it has slowly evaporated. The rush lately has been even larger.

I appreciate that my friends talked about rules and the hon. member talked about the precautionary principle, which in science is actually a rule. We like rules and a science-based approach to things. The precautionary principle is actually used by scientists to suggest that what we ought not to do is wait until folks become ill and perhaps die. If we have a sense that something is wrong, we should take action, and that is what the precautionary principle is about.

In the case of Quebec and 2,4-D, the precautionary principle was exercised at the provincial level. We see what happened on the American side with the buy America act and sub-national governments. State and local government have clearly said that NAFTA does not apply to them and here we have a company telling Quebec that it applies to Quebec.

We can see there is a bit of a shift in dynamics where one country that is a signatory to NAFTA has said that sub-national governments are not included and yet the Canadian government has not banned it yet. The Canadian government is working on it through Health Canada and the pesticide management groups, but it is cities like Toronto and others across this country and the province of Quebec that are really sub-national governments. I find it odd that multinationals think it is okay to sue Canada when it comes to sub-national governments but not necessarily sue sub-national governments when it comes to the Americans.

It is peculiar that happens but we can look at lots of other instances. I know the members from British Columbia are much more in tune with the softwood sellout than I am and I will leave that for them to discuss because it really pertains to them.

I find it disheartening when we see the claims against Canada by outside multinationals pertaining to substances that we consider dangerous. One of them was the exportation of PCBs. When I look at the total number of claims, six were environmental protection challenges, five about our natural resources and one about our cultural industry out of eighteen challenges. Clearly, 14 of the challenges are about things that really belong to us, not someone else and yet the challenges are about those. We need to change chapter 11 to ensure we have fair trade, not free trade.

(1215)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Maloway:

Madam Speaker, earlier I listened to the speech from the Liberal member for Kings—Hants who has been around the House for a number of years. He was talking about how chapter 11 should probably be revisited and that President Obama is interested in revisiting it as far as NAFTA is concerned. I found it kind of curious that he is having second thoughts as a Liberal member on the provisions of chapter 11 and yet he and his party are supporting the Colombia free trade agreement, which we will be debating very shortly, and did support the Canada-Peru free trade agreement, both of which have the chapter 11 provisions in them.

Is that not a contradiction? I would ask the member who just spoke whether he too sees that contradiction in the speech this morning by the member for Kings—Hants.

(1220)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP):

Madam Speaker, indeed, I do. In fact, I have the great privilege of sitting as a deputy critic with my colleague from British Columbia on that committee and I watched that member discuss Peru and Colombia. He is in favour of it.

When my colleague was raising the issue of chapter 11 and increasing labour and putting environmental protections into the body of the agreement, it was that member from the Liberal Party who opposed it. He wanted it as a piece at the back and never once raised the issue of removing or changing chapter 11.

It is one thing to come to the House and say that we need to change it, but the reality is that when the Liberals are faced with the opportunity to do something, they vote in favour. That is unfortunate because this is a place where we can have reflection and debate. I am gratified to hear that my colleagues in the Liberal Party who sit on international trade are talking about our need to do that.

When the opportunity arises in committee, we will be expecting the them to pull chapter 11 out of those agreements, start to rework them and start to do the things that we as New Democrats understand are important when it comes to free trade. It is always about fair trade agreements that protect and represent workers and the environment, that talk about us as Canadians and that respect those other countries that we are trading with.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I do think it is important to underline that New Westminster was the first capital of British Columbia before Victoria became the capital city.

The member for Welland is an extremely effective member of the trade committee and has brought a healthy dose of realism and main street reality to the discussions around trade.

I think most Conservatives and Liberals, not having done their homework on the issue, do not seem to understand this fundamental economic fact that since the free trade regime started back with the Canada U.S. free trade agreement, the real incomes for the vast majority of Canadian families have actually declined. That is a fundamental reality that no one on the Conservative or Liberal benches has even bothered to look into. They have this pap about free trade bringing prosperity but the reality has been fundamentally different. Statistics Canada tells every one of them that they are wrong. Real incomes have actually declined.

The member very effectively represents a riding that used to be represented by another member of the trade committee, a Liberal who always said that free trade was great, who never referenced the riding of Welland and who never went back to his constituents to find out what was going on on the ground. We know that region has been hit hard by many of the provisions of these bad trade agreements.

I would like to ask the member what it takes for Liberals and Conservatives to understand, to do their homework and to find out what is happening to real incomes in Canada. Does it take the defeat of all of the Liberals in northern Ontario after they supported the softwood sellout to get the message across, or does he think that Canadians just need to keep telling them that they are wrong on this issue?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Malcolm Allen:

Madam Speaker, there is no question about what we have seen in the riding of Welland from north to south because it is five communities. I talked about Statistics Canada, but the income level in my own riding is now one of the poorest in the province of Ontario. It used to be the highest. Before NAFTA, it had the highest per capita income in the province of Ontario as a manufacturing centre. It is now at the bottom, with increases in child poverty, family poverty and family breakup, and all of the social ills that come with that. It was because of this blind sense that somehow free trade is good for people. The government will feed it to us, so we should just eat it because it is good for us. My old gran used to say, “Just have this cod liver oil; it is good for you”. There was no proof that it was good for us; we just had to take it. Preceding that, my whole sense with the Liberals was that they wanted us to just do it because we would be better off at the end of the day.

My riding of Welland is living testimony to the failure of not only chapter 11 but NAFTA. It is quintessentially the place, ground zero, for what NAFTA has wreaked upon the Canadian economy. We have seen, as I said, the income level from the highest in the province not less than 20 years ago to one of the lowest in the province, in a matter of less than one generation. It is tantamount to the absence of any sense of leadership from either the previous Liberal government and certainly from the Conservative government about what it takes for folks to actually prosper in the economy.

Those parties have no sense of it. They talked about their management. They talked about how they were able to do things, but when it comes to helping Canadians, to help manage their economy for them, Canadians got left behind. Shame on both parties when they were in government for allowing that to happen because my constituents are saying that someone needs to help. That is why they are looking at us as parliamentarians and saying, “It is time for you to step up. It is time for you to enact trade deals that are good for us, not for multinationals”. It is about us, our neighbours, our friends, our colleagues across our constituencies, our children and our grandchildren when they come. It is ultimately about helping them. That is why I thought all of us came to this place.

The stats clearly show that what the Liberal government and the Conservative government have done to Canadians is absolutely dishonourable. We have let them slide behind because of what we have done. They did not do this. We as parliamentarians, the Liberal government, the Conservative government, did this to them. They did not ask for it. They sent folks here honestly who simply said what the member for Kings—Hants said this morning, “You are better off”. The truth is, they are not. Saying it will not make it so. To stand in the House and say they are better off is patently false. It is just false. Not only is it false, it is unfair to those out there who are listening to us say it and hoping it is true, even though their reality and their life is, “I know it is not true”, but they are hoping maybe their neighbours are experiencing something that they are not. If truth be told, their neighbours are experiencing exactly the same thing, which is that they are all sinking. We have allowed them to sink and not even bothered to give them a life vest. That is absolutely wrong.

(1225)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to participate in this debate which I consider to be critical in terms of the sovereignty of our nation and the future for many public policies that are in the interests of all Canadians. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who has worked very hard to ensure that this matter not only was addressed by the committee, of which he is a member and serving there as the trade critic for the New Democratic Party, but also ensured, with today's motion for concurrence, that this very important matter is addressed by all of us.

I think it was a Liberal member speaking earlier who asked what was the purpose of this debate, what are we going to achieve? This allows for an issue, often dealt with behind the scenes away from public exposure and away from parliamentary debate, to be brought out into the open, to be discussed by parliamentarians, and to serve as a way of informing Canadians across the country about a critical issue. It gives us a chance to try to convince the government of the day to take action on an important public policy issue, not to hide behind the rhetoric of free trade, because that is fundamental, but to actually take a moment and assess the implications and consequences of a policy that has been at work since 1994.

The opportunity for this debate comes in the most serious form imaginable. It is a question regarding the right of a government in this country, the province of Quebec, to legislate in terms of what it deems to be in the best interests of its citizens, to ban pesticides in terms of cosmetic use. That is a fundamental health and safety issue. It affects all of us because we know that there are governments in this country which allow for the use of 2,4-D in cosmetic spraying of lawns, knowing that there are serious health consequences, knowing that there is an impact on children's health, the health of pregnant women and many other citizens. It is fundamental that we address this issue because of health but also in terms of the right of a government to legislate what it deems to be in the best interests of its citizens.

We are dealing with this issue because we have a trade agreement that allows for a foreign company to challenge a government of this land about policies which it makes on the basis of what is in the best interests of the public and based on science. Those in the House who stand and say this is about a government making a decision willy-nilly, without cause for concern, without reflecting on the science, I say to them that they are wrong. In fact, the precautionary principle, which is at the heart of this matter, comes out of science. It says that when there is science that shows a particular product, chemical or substance has an impact based on preliminary research studies on individual health and well-being, then that is enough of a cause for concern to say that this matter should be put on hold, it should not be allowed to go forward until we have the complete science, the complete understanding.

It is the simple precautionary principle to do no harm. It is the role of government to ensure that the food we eat, the drugs we take, the water we drink, and the air we breathe is safe beyond a reasonable doubt. If something is developed and becomes known to us that it may have a detrimental effect on health and well-being, then it is the job of government to assess and to put on hold in order to stop the spread of that dangerous substance until such time as the producers of that chemical or that substance can prove that it is safe beyond a reasonable doubt. That is what is at the heart of this matter.

(1230)

We have a trade agreement that allows for a company like Dow AgroSciences to actually challenge a government in this country because of a policy that it has adopted in the best interests of its citizens.

That is from an aspect of NAFTA, chapter 11, which allows foreign investors to challenge governments, whether it is the province of Quebec or the Government of Canada. It allows a company to challenge our right to make decisions based on what is in the best interests of every citizen of this land regardless of where they live and how much money they make.

Chapter 11 is one of those egregious aspects of NAFTA which must be revisited. If there is anything that comes out of this debate, there must at least be agreement to do that. Maybe we could convince the Conservatives, before this debate is done, that we need to rethink chapter 11.

My colleague from Welland raised the full range of issues under NAFTA. He made a very good point when he said that NAFTA as a whole may not have served this country the way others in this chamber suggest it has, and that it has not been of the great benefit to workers and to ordinary families that Liberals and Conservatives have touted for years.

There is considerable evidence to suggest that my colleague may be on the right path when he says that we should actually look at NAFTA from the point of view of fair trade and whether or not it has actually accomplished what Canadians had hoped it would.

Numerous studies have been done suggesting that there are problems with NAFTA. We should not hide those problems under a bushel just because it has suddenly become not kosher to talk about the problems with NAFTA. We should let them out in the open and talk about them to see if there is legitimacy to those concerns and whether or not we need to reconsider our approach to trade in this context.

The work of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is exemplary in this regard. I do not think anyone in the House would doubt the work of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives when it puts out studies authored by the likes of Carlo Salas, who holds a Ph.D in economics and currently is a professor of regional development at El Colegio Tlaxcala and who is also a member of the board of directors at the Instituto de Estudios del Trabajo in Mexico City.

I do not think we would question the credentials of Bruce Campbell, who is the executive director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives. I do not think we would question the work of Robert Scott, who holds a Ph.D. in economics and is the director of international programs at the Economic Policy Institute.

These three individuals did an extensive study a few years back just assessing what the impact of NAFTA has been on workers. They concluded that workers have suffered more than they have gained as a result of being governed by this trade agreement.

I will not go into all the details, but I will reference what my colleague from Welland has put out in real terms as he sees and experiences these problems in his own constituency where workers have lost their jobs, have been at the whim of the marketplace, and feel little benefit from NAFTA.

The study that I have just referenced by the Centre for Policy Alternatives says the following:

NAFTA promised Canada increased economic growth, income, and employment across all sectors, regions, and income groups; closure of the longstanding productivity gap with the United States; the creation of a more diversified, efficient, and more knowledge-based economy; and, an economy that would maintain and strengthen the generous Canadian social model.

However, the authors of the study found that those promises, that golden age that would come as a result of NAFTA, have really not materialized. We have seen the whole nature of the workforce change to become one where employment is precarious, where people have to resort to many jobs in order to make a living, and where the very labour unions that try to protect the jobs and the working conditions of those workers are threatened under NAFTA.

(1235)

However, enough said about NAFTA, in general, because in fact what we are really talking about today is chapter 11, the provision in NAFTA that allows for foreign companies, foreign investors, to challenge governments.

I am not saying as my Liberal colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, has suggested, that we should ignore the issue of national treatment. I do not dispute that for one moment. In fact, I think we need a mechanism that would allow us to return to the days when it was a question of government-to-government dialogue and deliberation, in terms of the issue of national treatment. I do not think there is a credible author in this country, in terms of economic and trade policy, who would suggest that having a mechanism that allows for foreign companies to challenge governments is in the best interests of any one of us, or that it in fact does anything but challenge our very ability to operate as a sovereign nation. The experts have all pointed out the problems. The research branch in the Library of Parliament has made it clear that under the national treatment provisions it must be proven that the alleged measure is less favourable to the foreign investor and that the foreign investor and domestic investor are in like circumstances.

Frances Russell, who has written about this extensively in the Winnipeg Free Press and who has incredible in-depth expertise in this area, has said very clearly in an article that she wrote on March 5, 2008:

Before NAFTA, private investors' grievances were adjudicated on a government-to-government basis. But NAFTA allows foreign capital to sue government directly.

And sue they have—for tens of millions of dollars—challenging the public's right to regulate the environment, culture, agriculture, natural resources, jobs and health and safety. As of Jan. 1, 2008, there have been 49 investor-state claims under NAFTA: 18 against Canada, 17 against Mexico and 14 against the U.S. So far, Canada has paid $27 million in damages and Mexico, $18.7 million. To date, investor claims against the U.S. have been dismissed.

That is just a sample of the expertise and the research out there, in terms of the effect of chapter 11 on this country and our ability to make decisions that are in the best interests of the greater good or the public as a whole.

Nowhere is that more apparent than when it comes to health care. And this is what I want to insert into this debate. If we allow Dow Agro to proceed with its claim for damages in the province of Quebec, and if the Government of Canada sits back, does nothing and ends up paying damages, we create an open door for similar corporate interests. This is not just about a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides. It in fact has implications for the entire health care system.

Let us just stop for a minute, in terms of pesticides. I think the question was raised earlier, what about all those other jurisdictions, the City of Toronto and other municipalities, that have moved to ban the use of 2,4-D for cosmetic care of one's lawn? The question was, why was Quebec picked on and not the rest?

I think the answer is clear. The industry picked the most advanced state to make its case with the hope that once it wins, it will then have the wherewithal to pursue similar actions against other municipalities. So, the door is in fact open to the challenge of wise decisions made by local governments in the best interests of the citizens they serve.

Now, if we look at the broader issue of health care, I think it is probably fair to say that if NAFTA had been in place 25 years ago and if chapter 11 had been around when medicare was formed, I do not think we would have seen medicare reach fruition.

(1240)

That is not just my opinion. That is the opinion of many experts in this country. I want to read from a chapter of a book entitled Medicare: Facts, Myths, Problems, Promise, edited by Bruce Campbell and Greg Marchildon from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

This particular chapter is by Scott Sinclair and is entitled “Protecting Medicare from Foreign Commercial Interests”. He says the following:

Underlining this concern, Jon Johnson, one of Canada's leading trade lawyers, bluntly informed the Romanow Commission that, if the NAFTA expropriation provisions “and the accompanying investor-state dispute settlement mechanism procedures had existed in the 1960s, the public health system in its present form would never have come into existence”.

He goes on to say:

This sobering reflection stands as a warning that the power of modern trade treaties—whose scope has expanded well beyond traditional trade matters to interfere with the ability of governments to limit and regulate commercial interests—must be contained in order to safeguard the future of...medicare.

The experts in the field say that if chapter 11 had existed back in the 1960s when Tommy Douglas and others with him struggled to bring us medicare, we probably would not have been able to achieve it.

Let us just go back 25 years, since this is the anniversary of the Canada Health Act, and consider the fact that we may never have actually accomplished such innovative legislation if such a trade treaty, with chapter 11 provisions, had been in existence.

Scott Sinclair goes on to say:

The principles that underlie Canada's medicare system are at odds with the thrust of modern trade treaties. By establishing a public-sector health insurance monopoly, and by regulating who can provide health care services and on what terms, the Canada Health Act and the medicare system cut against the grain of trade and investment liberalization treaties.

We can see that on a regular basis. I do not know how many people in this place will remember the very vigorous debate we had in this place about six or seven years ago when the Alberta government threatened to bring forward a private hospital, under what was known as Bill 11. We stood in this House every chance we could get to try to convince the Liberal government at the time that in fact the acquiescence to the development of a private hospital in Alberta would open up the doors to private investors right across the board, in the same way that they have stood in the House today and agreed with us that in fact these provisions threaten the right of a government in this land to ban the use of 2,4-D for health reasons.

If only we could have gotten the Liberals back then to understand this, we might not be in such bad shape today, but the fact of the matter is that it is not too late. We still have what some would consider to be one of the best health care systems in the world, which is largely publicly administered on a not-for-profit basis. There is some encroaching privatization, that is true, but it is the opening of that door in any significant way that in fact hampers our ability to maintain a public, not-for-profit system.

As living proof of this, and just to bring us to a current attack on our system as a result of chapter 11, I want to refer to a situation in British Columbia where an Arizona health care entrepreneur is challenging the Canadian government because he believes his plans to build a private surgical centre in British Columbia are being thwarted, and he is seeking $155 million in redress from the Canadian government.

I have just begun with the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more to be said in terms of chapter 11 and its impact upon health care, upon our model of medicare system. We have to be vigilant every step of the way.

I want to conclude by saying that every government should have the right to make decisions that are in the best interests of citizens, and when foreign investors, for reasons of profit, interfere with that right and suggest that we are impeding their right to make profits, and we thereby in the process put the public interest at risk, we are doing no one any favours.

We must stand firm against chapter 11 and we must find a way to ensure that this current situation in Quebec is dealt with immediately.

(1245)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech being delivered by my good friend from Winnipeg. I have a great deal of respect for her.

However, on this subject we will disagree, and I will rebut her closing statements by saying that this House and Canadians should stand firmly in favour of chapter 11, should stand firmly in favour of NAFTA for simple reasons.

First, I was disappointed that she kept bridging back to using the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives as her source of data. That is a rather shaky foundation given that everything the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives does and everything they write has already been written before they have begun. All of their suppositions are cemented in. There is no imagination. There is absolutely nothing that the centre does.

That is the counterpoint. If I stood up and used them as the only source, I think some members would have the same point of view.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is not a serious organization to be basing serious public policy on.

That said, chapter 11 of NAFTA extends an existing Canadian principle to our trading partners. The idea of national treatment existed before NAFTA. There would be no difference in the way that Canadian law would treat foreign companies doing business in Canada if chapter 11 were not in place. National treatment existed before NAFTA.

What NAFTA and chapter 11 do is extend to our trading partners the legal protection and the legal requirement that businesses cannot be discriminated against because of where they are from. It changes nothing in Canada. It changes everything for our trading partners.

Chapter 11 protects Canadian companies so that when they are doing business in the United States or Mexico, they cannot be discriminated against because they happen to be Canadian-owned or Canadian-based. Chapter 11 protects Canadians. It extends a Canadian principle. This is an important value.

The member is saying that we need to get rid of chapter 11. It is the very essence of NAFTA. It is the very essence of equal treatment. To say that somehow Canadian businesses are being discriminated against because of chapter 11 is mind-blowing to me, because to say that gets it exactly backwards.

National treatment for foreign companies operating in Canada existed before chapter 11. Chapter 11 protects Canadian companies so that the principle on which we treat foreign companies operating in Canada is extended to Canadian companies operating in the United States and Mexico. To get rid of chapter 11 would handicap Canadian companies and allow them to be discriminated against when operating in the United States and Mexico.

My question is, does the member not understand that?

(1250)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:

Madam Speaker, first of all I think the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages should explain why Canadians are getting their pants sued off by private investors who are challenging decisions made by governments in the best interests of Canadians. That is number one.

Number two, as minister he should understand more than anyone just how free trade, so-called fair trade, is actually discouraging Canadian artists and indigenous cultural industries in this country. I would say to him that culture is just as alive in terms of the ramifications of chapter 11 as health care is. The minister is probably going to stand up in this House and say “Oh, don't worry, health care is protected.”

Why are we faced with the prospect of paying millions of dollars in damages to foreign companies that want a piece of this $90 billion golden egg that is our health care system?

I want to say to the member that I was the minister of culture back in 1986 in Manitoba. One of the reasons that I got involved in federal politics was that I saw the free trade agreement and the consequences it had for culture in our work in Manitoba, as we were trying to build a Canadian, a Manitoba-based arts and cultural community that we could all be proud of. We are still paying for the decisions made by the likes of that member and the Liberals before them about the free trade agreement and NAFTA.

I want to answer the question about the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. In fact he should understand that it is that organization that predicted the budget surpluses that he said were a shock and a crying shame when he was in opposition, and he agreed that in fact the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' predictions were absolutely accurate and therefore were the basis for acting and setting up the Parliamentary Budget Office.

I do not think the member can have it both ways, one minute suggesting that CCPA does not know what they are doing and then in the next minute accepting the fact that they are the only organization of economists in this country that got it right.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Madam Speaker, as much as I hesitate to cut into the questioning by my friend from across the way, because I know it will be insightful, if not inflammatory, for my colleague from Winnipeg, the fundamental question we are dealing with today is the effect of chapter 11 on Canadian policy and policy-makers.

It seems to me that when a principle is broken whereby a foreign firm can challenge a sovereign provincial and federal government in their enactment of a health policy, which is to suggest that Canadians should be exposed to less commercial use of cosmetic pesticides than they were, a foreign firm, not even a foreign government, at this moment can sue a provincial government within Canada or the federal government and thereby expose Canadians to a known carcinogen and health risk. We saw this on the export of fruit and vegetables from the U.S., in which Canada relented on its own standards.

Therefore, I would ask my colleague, who deals with the consequences of health and health effects, what chilling, crippling effect it has when a foreign firm with no interest in Canadian health whatsoever can insert itself into the policy debate and break the sacred bond between voters and those they elect to protect them and their families.

(1255)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for the question and for showing that he gets it. That is something the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages does not get, which is that under chapter 11 Canadian programs and policies that protect and that are done in the best interests of its citizens are under threat, including health care.

The member will yell across the way that health care is exempted from chapter 11. Well, the safeguards he talks about, and that others have talked about, do not fully exclude the Canadian health care system. In fact he should know of the challenge in B.C. by an investor who is seeking something like $155 million in damages from his government to get a foothold into the B.C. health care system to then begin to broaden and expand private health care clinics. That is just one example.

Let us also consider the fact that under NAFTA, the minute our Canadian government might decide to embrace an expansion of our health care system--I am wishing and praying that this will happen, but I do not see it under the Conservatives--to expand the medicare concept to include pharmacare, home care and dental care, it is possible that our entire health care system can be challenged under chapter 11 of NAFTA, because it opens the door in a new area for which foreign investors can claim they want fair advantage and national treatment.

That is the danger. If we are serious about protecting medicare and growing it so that it meets the needs of all Canadians, then chapter 11 has to be reconsidered.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. James Moore:

Madam Speaker, first of all, culture is not included in NAFTA, so the fearmongering of the member is exactly the opposite.

Again, I will underline it, and maybe it will penetrate this time. What the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley said is exactly wrong. Chapter 11 extends the protection and the rights of Canadian companies to sue American and Mexican companies who discriminate against Canadians. The rights of foreign companies to sue and to take legal action in Canada existed before chapter 11.

It is amazing that somebody can stand up in the House and for over 20 minutes speak so passionately and forcefully on a subject she clearly knows nothing about.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:

Madam Speaker, I do not know why Conservatives feel that in order to make their point they have to insult other members and diminish the wisdom of others involved in this debate.

I have heard this for many years. The Conservatives, and the Liberals before them, said, “Don't worry. Culture is not affected. Health care is not affected. We're okay.”

Here we are dealing with a health care issue in the province of Quebec about pesticides. That is living proof, first of all, that we have a problem. Second, I want to conclude by saying that under NAFTA there are provisions where expropriation without consequences applies with full force on the health care sector. The government measures affecting private health insurance also fall under the financial rules of GATT, where safeguards apply to existing health services. Increasing the commercial and competitive element in the financing or delivery of that service narrows the scope of the safeguards and it consequently increases the exposure of the health service to trade law restrictions. That should say it all.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):

Resuming debate. I would just like to inform the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that he has only four minutes.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ):

Madam Speaker, four minutes is not a lot of time for such a substantial issue.

I would first like to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke, who introduced this motion in committee. It gives us the opportunity to have this debate in the House of Commons today and its aim is to protect Quebec’s pesticide management code against certain multinationals that would like to challenge it under chapter 11 of NAFTA.

We on this side of the House are here to defend Quebec’s prerogatives and Quebec's regulations. The motion introduced by my colleague bears witness to the fact that the Bloc is here to defend Quebec’s laws, while those on the other side of the House are still wondering whether we should be protecting laws passed by the provinces when there are potential challenges to those laws under chapter 11.

This is important for Quebec. The pesticide management code stands as an example in Canada, and to date it has been used as a model by Ontario. When it was adopted in Quebec in 2003, it regulated and banned a number of pesticides based on the precautionary principle. That is the principle Quebec applied in banning 2,4-D, for example, a pesticide that is currently marketed and sold by Dow AgroSciences. That pesticide can have consequences for human health. For that reason, Quebec decided to ban it. Unfortunately, certain multinationals are using the provisions of chapter 11 to challenge Quebec’s regulations, when those regulations have been approved and adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec.

What do we expect of this government? We expect the Minister of International Trade to stand up on the international scene, to defend Quebec’s prerogatives and to defend public health in Quebec by protecting this law, on which there was consensus in the National Assembly of Quebec. The consensus in the National Assembly of Quebec, echoed by environmental groups in Quebec and Canada, could create a precedent if the government continues on the path of declining to defend Quebec’s legislation.

The government has to stand up on the international scene and defend Quebec’s prerogatives. Unfortunately, we have questioned the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of International Trade several times, and they have refused to tell us anything more.

There are facts that show that this pesticide can have health consequences. In fact, this is inconsistent for a government that several years ago tabled a bill about pesticides. Our government says it wants to protect public health, but at the same time it is trying to stick a spoke in the wheels of Quebec, for example, which has adopted this code.

To conclude, and this is what the motion introduced by the member for Sherbrooke means, we expect that the Minister of International Trade will stand up and defend Quebec’s legislation against multinationals that refuse to apply the precautionary principle.

(1300)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

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. Denise Savoie): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): A recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until after government orders today.

* * *

(1305)

Petitions

Employment Insurance

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today, signed by, I dare say, thousands of constituents in my riding.

The first one deals with employment insurance. It calls on the government to confirm its commitment to the social safety net and to help regular Canadians through these tough times; to bring forward reform to employment insurance; to expand the eligibility and improve benefits, including eliminating the two-week waiting period; reducing the qualifying period; allowing self-employed workers to participate; raising the rate of benefits to 60% and basing benefits on the best 12 weeks in a qualifying period; and to encourage training and retraining.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):

I would like to mention to the hon. member that the petition should not be read textually, but a summary of the petition should be given.

* * *

Forestry Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP):

I will certainly do that, Madam Speaker.

The second petition is a forestry petition, again signed by thousands of constituents in my riding, calling on the government to ensure that it convenes a national forestry summit.

* * *

Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first one is on public safety officers. These petitioners from my riding of Mississauga South would like to bring to the attention of the House that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk in the execution of their duties on a daily basis. They also want to point out that when this occurs the employee benefit plan often does not provide sufficient compensation for the family. Also, the public mourns the loss when one of our police officers or firefighters loses their life in the line of duty.

The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty.

* * *

Income Trusts

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Madam Speaker, the second petition is on the income trust broken promise.

An hon. member: Oh my God, are you kidding me?

Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, the hon. Conservative member really likes this one, so I am going to do it for him again.

These petitioners, many from my riding, would like to draw to the attention of the House that the Prime Minister once boasted about his apparent commitment to accountability when he said that greatest fraud is a promise not kept. He also promised never to tax income trusts. He broke that promise and imposed a 31.5% punitive tax which permanently wiped out $25 billion of the hard-earned savings of about two millions Canadians, particularly seniors.

The petitioners call on the Conservative minority government, first, to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions, as was clearly demonstrated at the finance committee when hearings were held; second, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by the broken promise; and finally, to repeal the 31.5% tax on income trusts.

* * *

Employment Insurance

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by several dozen residents of cities in British Columbia: Langley, Abbotsford, New Westminster, Nelson and Vernon. These residents are very supportive of my private member's bill, Bill C-413, which would essentially ensure employment insurance benefits for adoptive parents equal to those given to biological parents. Adoptive parents put in as many hours raising their adoptive children as biological parents do in raising theirs. There has been discrimination against adoptive parents that must be addressed.

The government is certainly aware of my bill, and I hope it moves to adopt it. The residents of communities in British Columbia are saying that we should end the discrimination against adoptive parents and provide full support for them through the employment insurance system.

* * *

Public Service

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP):

Madam Speaker, my petition is a call to stop the wage rollbacks and to support pay equity for public service workers. The Budget Implementation Act empowers the government to roll back negotiated wages and awards retroactively as well as radically change the rules governing pay equity in the federal public sector.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support a motion by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and rescind the provisions of Bill C-10 that violate workers' rights to collective bargaining, including arbitration awards and equal pay for work of equal value.

* * *

(1310)

Questions on the Order Paper

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC):

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

* * *

[English]

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

The House resumed from September 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas has five minutes left in debate.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Madam Speaker, who will we be dealing with when we sign the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement? The government of Colombian President Uribe has been accused by international rights organizations of a long list of corruption, electoral fraud, complicity in extrajudicial killings by the army, links to paramilitary and right-wing death squads and using security forces to spy on the supreme court of Colombia, the opposition parties, government politicians and journalists. In fact, many government members, including ministers and members of Uribe's own family, have been forced to resign or been arrested.

It is also worth noting the statistics on violence directed against trade unionists. They show that 2,690 trade unionists were murdered in Colombia since 1986. In 2008 the number was up 18% over the previous year, so the situation is not getting any better. So far this year, 27 trade unionists have been murdered. Over the last 10 years, 60% of all the trade unionists murdered around the world have been murdered in Colombia. It is a horrific record.

Nearly four million people in Colombia are internally displaced persons, with 60% of them coming from areas of economic importance, regions where mining and agriculture are the key activities of that area. Private companies and their government and paramilitary supporters have forced these people from their homes. There is a huge conspiracy against the working people of Colombia, especially in the areas of great economic development.

The links between multinational corporate activity in Colombia and paramilitary terror have been well documented. Multinational corporations pay off paramilitaries to allow them access to resources and land. In fact, 43 companies have been accused of having ties with paramilitary groups and the forced displacement of communities and assassinations of trade unionists.

Clearly, this is not a record that anyone in the House could be proud of, yet we are negotiating a deal with the people who allow this to happen in their own country.

What is the attitude of other countries toward Colombia? It is important to note that the United Kingdom has ended military aid to Colombia because of the systemic crimes committed against the Colombian people. In the United States, which on the opposite side of the House there often seems to be some indication to take a cue from there, the American Congress put on hold a U.S. Colombia free trade agreement last year. President Obama has said that he will not pursue the agreement because of the human rights abuses in Colombia. It is very significant that we look to two important allies of our countries and their stance around Colombia.

In 2008 the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that no agreement be signed with Colombia until the human rights situation there showed improvement. I would think that is at a minimum. It also recommended that a human rights impact assessment be undertaken to determine the real impact of this trade agreement. The committee recommended that this be “an impartial human rights assessment carried out by a competent body which is subject to independent levels of scrutiny and validation”. This recommendation and the committee's report have been ignored by the government.

Over 50 prominent Canadians have signed a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, urging the Liberal Party to ensure that the concerns around human rights in Colombia are addressed before this agreement is endorsed and finalized. They also point out the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade in this regard. It is clear that human rights need to be taken into consideration.

There is nothing in the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement that will improve the situation in Colombia. There is nothing in the agreement that will lead to the end of violence against trade unionists. There is nothing that will improve the lives of ordinary Colombians. There is nothing that will agree adherence to environmental standards. This is not an agreement about fair trade.

The Canadian Labour Congress has opposed this agreement. It said:

We oppose the creation of any situation where Canadian investors, exporters, and importers stand to benefit from the lack of freedom experienced by the most vulnerable populations in Colombia....

The Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement was not written to protect labour and human rights. It is more than a “trade” agreement. It is a trade and investment agreement underpinned by tacit Canadian support for a security agenda that defends the extractive industries, the drug cartels, and the internal security forces of Colombia.

We have to say “no” to this agreement.

(1315)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

There has been a considerable amount of debate in the House, with arguments from all sides and, in fairness, reasonable arguments from those in support and also from those opposed. Debate has certainly been held in this place and that debate is on the record.

The official opposition believes that the time has come to move this debate and this discussion to committee so citizens can have their say and express their opinions and concerns directly. Those who have concerns, whether they are over human rights or trade issues, and those who strongly favour the trade agreement, as those in the farm sector do, would be able to express directly what they see as opportunities.

Let me be very clear. Bill C-23 should be moved to committee and it should hold hearings across the country and hear from people. The committee should do one of two things in terms of the Colombia argument: first, either travel to Colombia and hear from people directly on what they see as opportunities and what they see as concerns; or, at the very least, invite some Colombian people to come here as witnesses so they can express either concerns or what they see as opportunities in a vivid way. This trade agreement affects both of our economies and should be examined closely at committee level.

There are concerns about human rights in Colombia. The best way to understand the extent and impact of those concerns would be for committee to visit Colombia or invite Colombian witnesses to appear in this country.

There are two approaches that one could take on the conflict of human rights versus trade.

The first approach would be as we have done in China, and various governments have taken this approach. We could foster trade and encourage human rights as a result of the trading relationship. The other approach would be to oppose trade altogether until the human rights concerns have been addressed. Those are the kinds of parameters of the debate on the human rights argument.

Let me emphasize the fact that the best way for Parliament to find the balance and establish a direction and come to a conclusion is to aggressively now pursue hearings in the country and possibly in Colombia or bring Colombian witnesses here.

I can assure the House that farmers will want to be heard. They have sent letters to most of us in the House directly, suggesting how important the Colombian market is for their exports so they can achieve some economic opportunities in our country.

With committee hearings, the people of Canada, the people of Colombia and industries in both countries could be given a direct voice and direct input.

On the Colombian side, I will admit that I am very concerned, after hearing that the president has indicated he may change the constitution so he can stay in office beyond the two term time limit. That is worrisome. Has the Prime Minister raised this issue with the president? Has he said to the president that to violate the constitution in order to extend his term could have an impact in this country as to whether we would pass the Colombia free trade agreement in the House?

(1320)

I will admit I have serious concerns about agreements once they are signed and the government's ability, or courage or lack thereof, to stand up for Canadians who have established rights under those agreements. The best example is that the Conservative government certainly has failed to stand up for Canadian trade rights under the trade agreement with the United States.

The U.S. is our closest trading partner. Everybody knows how the Conservative government sold out on softwood lumber, but let me explain the latest dispute. The government has failed Canada's livestock industry, beef and hog and other livestock producers, with the trade agreement that is in place with the United States. I have said in the House many times that Canada is losing the hog industry in part due to the United States' protectionist policy and the Conservative government's failure to utilize the authorities under trade law to protect Canadian producers' interests. Here are the facts.

Dr. Milton Boyd, in an editorial in the Calgary Sun, said this about the situation of country of origin labelling in the United States. He opened the article by saying:

Struggling US livestock producers--hit hard by the recent economic downturn and the drop in demand for meat in the United States--have spurred recent trade protectionism measures—

We know what the Americans are doing is illegal. We know the Conservative government should be standing up for Canadian producers. But what are the consequences of the government not challenging the United States and standing up for Canadian producers? Here is what Dr. Boyd had to say:

[Country of origin labelling] COOL has resulted in a tightened, protectionist border. Canadian hog exports to the U.S. for market pigs have dropped...60% [from last year]...

...this loss is around...$163 million over a full year... Also, slaughter-cattle exports are down 20% and feeder-cattle exports are down by 50%.

That is an extremely serious issue. We are losing an industry. The government has the authority under trade law to stand up and fight for Canadian producers, but the minister sits on his hands. When the Prime Minister had the opportunity to apply more pressure when he was in the United States, what did he do? He got in his Challenger jet and flew home at a cost of about $60,000 to have a coffee at Tim Hortons.

An hon. member: A double-double.

Hon. Wayne Easter: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether it was a double-double or not, but it may have been. He had the opportunity to challenge directly the President of the United States and, from what I can gather, did not do so.

Canadian producers are standing by watching their asset base decline and tumble while the government sits on its hands. To have a trade agreement is one thing, but when one has a trade agreement one has to have a government that has the courage to stand up for the people in our country who are operating under that trade agreement, not just cave in to it. That is what the government has consistently done. Whether it is open market, trade agreement, whatever, it is failing Canadian producers.

With respect to this bill, what really needs to happen from the official opposition's perspective is to move the bill to committee where the voices of Canadians and Colombians can be heard and hearings can be held to establish the direction in which we want to go. The committee and the House can vote on it after all the evidence has been put forward.

(1325)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Greg Rickford (Kenora, CPC):

Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed that the hon. member may not appreciate the great news about Tim Hortons being back in Canada and the need for our Prime Minister to represent that. That is a bit disappointing.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Scott Simms:

Throw me a Timbit. Throw me a Timbit.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Greg Rickford:

Madam Speaker, we are hearing about Timbits from timbits.

Could the hon. member highlight some specific things that would make this agreement with Colombia advantageous for both Canada and Colombia? Perhaps he could make reference not just to the economic opportunities but the importance of a relationship with Colombia to help lead it in important areas like human rights, perhaps health and some of the things that have been discussed in the debate previously.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter:

Madam Speaker, let me answer the question quite directly. Of course, I see many benefits in this agreement, especially for the farm sector, such as livestock exports. Certainly the Canadian Wheat Board, a great marketing institution in this country which the current government continues to try to undermine, is saying very clearly that the trade agreement with Colombia is important to move grains and oilseeds into Colombia. There are opportunities. There will be other opportunities down the road as well. However, we need to have that debate and let those producers come before committee.

The member raised the issue of the Prime Minister coming back to Tim Hortons and I must make a couple of comments. It was just another re-announcement of a previous announcement. That is what the Prime Minister is so good at. In Prince Edward Island, I announced the new public building in Charlottetown in 2003 and my colleague, the member for Charlottetown, saw that it got off the ground and got built. That was about four years ago. What did the Government of Canada do two weeks ago? It put up a sign in front of the new federal building in Charlottetown, trying to leave the impression that it is part of its economic stimulus package. It is no such thing. That is the kind of mis-messaging the Conservative government does all the time. The government is trying to confuse Canadians that it is providing stimulus when it is not doing anything of the sort. That stimulus was provided by a previous government that believed in building Canada for Canadians.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I find it quite interesting that the member mentioned that the government is rehashing old announcements. I guess that it has learned from the previous Liberal government which did that on a number of occasions.

Regarding Bill C-23, in May the steelworkers were on the Hill lobbying Liberal MPs, asking them to honour the commitment they made in June 2008, demanding that there be an independent, impartial and comprehensive human rights impact assessment before Canada would consider entering into a free trade agreement with Colombia.

It is noteworthy to indicate that in the last 10 years, 60% of trade unionists who were murdered in the world were murdered in Colombia.

I ask the member, is it correct to think that this free trade agreement would prevent murders from happening, that trade unionists would not be murdered? I spoke on this last week and I received an email from a constituent who had just been to Colombia and had some concerns with regard to that as well.

(1330)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter:

Madam Speaker, I made it quite clear in my remarks that we, too, are concerned about the human rights issue in Colombia. We are also concerned about the fact that the president may be thinking of changing the constitution to go another term.

However, we also know that the NDP is opposed to any kind of free trade agreement, no matter what. The NDP members are philosophically opposed.

There has been this debate in the House. It should go to committee where some of the issues the hon. member raised could be addressed directly. The trade unionists could come before the committee so that we could hear them, either on the ground in Colombia or on the ground here, in order to make a balanced decision based on the actual facts rather than the rhetoric of the NDP.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Patrick Brown (Barrie, CPC):

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement bill, as I believe it is one of many elements that have advocated prosperity in our country.

Canada is taking action during these difficult economic times by reaching out to other trading partners and reducing barriers to trade. This is certainly a mechanism to create jobs. This agreement provides Canadian companies with a competitive edge in many sectors, including wheat, paper products, mining, oil and gas, engineering and information technology. This is another example of the government's efforts to deepen Canada's presence in Latin America.

Labour and environmental standards are addressed within the free trade agreement. The side agreement with Colombia on labour and the environment will help ensure that this FTA advances the cause of human rights and environmental protection in both countries.

The labour provisions commit all parties to respect and enforce standards such as the freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively and the elimination of child labour. Environmental provisions will help protect and conserve the environment in those sectors where our companies are active. I believe this will encourage prosperity in both countries. That certainly has been the essence of our government's work in Canada since our election in January 2006.

Since we are talking about means to enhance prosperity, let me touch upon Canada's economic action plan and Canada's economic stimulus measures.

We all know a great deal about Canada's economic action plan, the $61 billion shot in the arm for the Canadian economy. More recently, we have heard about the incredible progress of Canada's economic stimulus. Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister in Atlantic Canada talk about the success of the $7.6 billion economic stimulus program.

We learned that there are 7,500 infrastructure and housing projects. More than 4,000 have begun. Of the 7,500, there are over 4,700 provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure projects. There are 1,150 projects to repair and renovate federal buildings across the country; 447 projects to improve infrastructure at colleges and universities; about 300 social housing projects; 600 projects to help communities hardest hit through the community adjustment fund; and almost 100 projects to promote culture and tourism. These are all things that are going to be major benefits to Canada and are going to stimulate communities across our country.

Sometimes when we hear those giant numbers we wonder what it means in our communities. I thought today I would mention some of the successes of the economic stimulus program in Barrie, the riding that I have the tremendous honour of representing. There has been $54 million in economic stimulus over the last year in our region of Simcoe County and I am going to talk about a few of the projects today.

There is the downtown community theatre, an investment of $2.5 million with the federal government to build and construct a theatre in our downtown, something that had been advocated for a long time by Joe Anderson and William Moore, who came to Ottawa and made a presentation last February. I know they were shocked to see how quickly this government got engaged in this project that is going to create jobs and stimulate our downtown.

I think of the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund, where there has been $5.3 million in investment, dealing with the reduction of phosphorus levels in Lake Simcoe through fighting urban waste runoff in areas where it can be cleaned up.

I look at the Allandale GO Train station. This is a $1.5 million federal investment that was announced last February. For a long time Barrie was without GO Train services. Unfortunately, in the early 1990s the NDP premier at the time cut the GO Train, despite its popularity in our region. To have GO Train services back, as was announced in 2007, was a tremendous boom to our community, but now to have a second station in the downtown dovetails so well with the downtown community theatre that I mentioned.

These are two major projects in our downtown. I certainly must credit the local councillor, Jerry Moore, who was very active in advocating the station, and also Jack Garner, who had sat on the GO Train board when it was taken away and remained active in the diligent fight to bring it back for over 12 years.

(1335)

I think of the Barrie fire station. There was a desperate need for a new fire station in our downtown and the federal government invested $4.2 million into this economic stimulus project that was announced in June. Shovels are just beginning to work on this property on Dunlop Street in Barrie.

This was something that the city did not have the funds to do. If it were not for these stimulus investments, this is the type of project that would never have happened. Dozens of jobs are being created through this building of a new fire station. I had a chance to sit down with Len Mitchell and Kevin White from the fire force and they were so ecstatic to hear that this investment was made.

To give another example of infrastructure investment, there were five different projects announced in June in the city of Barrie. These too will create prosperity. Whether talking about the Colombia free trade bill or about infrastructure investments, this is all part of a larger picture of investment and prosperity that this government has certainly been engaged in.

Of these five road projects that I was mentioning, one was for $506,000. Another was for $992,000. Another was for $1.7 million. Another was for $1.6 million and another for $3 million. These road projects are all beginning this year. They are going to be finished within a year and a half. These are all projects that are going to have to hire construction workers. These construction workers are going to spend in our community. We are leaving a lasting legacy for our community and country.

I would be remiss not to mention the expansion of Lake Simcoe Regional Airport, the federal component of which was $4.5 million. The municipalities and province are getting involved. This is another project that is embarking momentarily and will be completed within a one-and-a-half year timeframe. This expansion is going to make our region more competitive economically, but it is also something that is going to create immediate construction jobs.

I note that there are also RInC projects in our riding. There are two of them including the tennis club and Eastview Arena. These projects are also of significant stature. They are in the million-dollar range and are desperately needed. When I sat on council in Barrie nine years ago, we were talking about upgrades to Eastview Arena.

It is one of those things that is talked about every year at budget and there is never enough money around the table to do it. This federal investment in recreation enables the city to complete this long-desired investment in recreation. At Eastview Arena, the kids had to split into two dressing rooms to change because it was so small. This change has been—

(1340)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Maloway:

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought we were debating Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. All I have been hearing are stories about infrastructure. I am just wondering when the member is going to be dealing with the issue at hand.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):

I would ask the hon. member for Barrie to return to the subject of the matter at hand, which is Bill C-23.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Patrick Brown:

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, whether it is prosperity created through the Colombia free trade agreement or whether it is prosperity through infrastructure, it is important to look at the larger picture. The big picture is that this government is advocating prosperity in every sense.

Whether we create a job through the Colombia free trade agreement and have a business with a new trading avenue, or whether it is through an infrastructure project like the Eastview Arena that I mentioned, the prosperity-enhancing measures that this government has been engaged in are going to have real benefits for Canadians.

Consider an individual who has a new job in Barrie. What is the cycle of that new job? That individual is likely going to frequent a local restaurant. They are going to shop at a local business. That is more business for a business or restaurant that may have been struggling to keep their balance sheets. It keeps them alive. It maintains jobs.

I am so proud of our government for doing this. Our government is not only advocating prosperity but maintaining it. It is protecting jobs and certainly looking out for the best interests of Canadians.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.):

Madam Speaker, recently the Prime Minister attended the world summit at the United Nations and my understanding is that the President of Colombia was present at that summit as well. Considering the amount of time we are debating this very important free trade agreement with Colombia here and the very serious issues being raised including human rights issues, did the Prime Minister have the opportunity to sit down and discuss some of these issues with the president of Colombia at that summit?

We know that the Prime Minister's time unfortunately was limited at the UN because he rushed back at a cost of $60,000 to taxpayers to take the Challenger jet back to Oakville to attend Tim Hortons. Tim Hortons has opened up a location in New York. He could have done it just around the corner from the UN and saved taxpayers $60,000.

However, did he have an opportunity to meet with the president of Colombia to discuss some of these issues. If he did not meet, was it perhaps because his time was so limited because he rushed back on this taxpayer funded $60,000 Challenger trip to Tim Hortons for a double-double?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Patrick Brown:

Madam Speaker, it is always amusing to hear the Liberals talk about trade liberalization and trade because their positions really change quite rapidly.

I think of the Liberals when they were in opposition prior to the election of Prime Minister Chrétien. They were rabid anti-free traders and in office they advocated for trade.

Therefore, it is tough to take seriously anything they say today whether they are for it or against it because they tend to change their minds once elected on trade liberalization.

It is always interesting to hear the comments, but I recognize they may not have any bearing on what would happen if they were ever unfortunately to return to office.

In terms of the Canada-Colombia free trade bill, I think it is important to reference that in February 2008 a report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation in Colombia stated:

It must be recognized that Colombia has made progress in restoring security throughout the country in recent years, and the visibility given to human rights in the public agenda is a solid achievement.

Hopefully, Canada like other countries has helped raised that--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):

Order. Question and comments, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I certainly was a little confused for a minute. I thought perhaps the member had the wrong notes in front of him because he talked more about stimulus than with regard to Bill C-23. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is of great concern to not only the NDP but as well to many people within Canada and abroad.

The Canada-Colombia agreement is strongly opposed by parliamentarians in Canada and Colombia, by civil society groups, indigenous people, trade unions, environmental groups and citizens from both nations.

There was a letter that was sent by over 50 prominent Canadians including activists, professors, labour groups, civil society, Stephen Lewis, Ed Broadbent and Naomi Klein to the Leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, during the party's leadership convention--

(1345)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):

Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to refrain mentioning the name of a sitting member of Parliament, but in any event I must give the member for Barrie the time to respond to that question.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Patrick Brown:

Madam Speaker, in terms of her question about the topic, sometimes the NDP members forget to appreciate this. We have to look at prosperity in all its elements. Certainly, I can appreciate why they may not view it that way but job creation is certainly related to trade liberalization as it is to infrastructure projects. We have to look at the larger picture of how to create jobs, not just criticize or debate in Parliament. It is important to look at tangible job creation mechanisms.

Trade liberalization is one of them, infrastructure investments are another. They are all linked to the larger picture of prosperity.

In terms of Colombia, Colombia will make no progress if we isolate that country. We believe that political engagement, development assistance and free trade are all key elements for success in Colombia.

Over the last six years the personal situation of a vast majority of Colombians has improved. Illegal armed groups have been weakened. The progress has been acknowledged by the global community and international organizations that are present in Colombia.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23, the Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I must point out right away that the Bloc will oppose this bill, and not because it opposes free trade or the opening of borders. Everyone knows that, in the past, Quebeckers supported the philosophy that resulted in the establishment of the North American Free Trade Agreement, despite its imperfections. It was interesting to see that, for the first time, a free trade agreement included not only our neighbour the United States, but a developing country, as well, namely Mexico.

At the time, I was the general secretary of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. We had changed the name of the Coalition Québécoise d'opposition au libre-échange—the Quebec coalition to oppose free trade—at the time the free trade agreement with the United States was being negotiated. With NAFTA, it became the Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale—the Quebec continental integration network.

So there is a very broad consensus in Quebec on the importance of opening up borders and doing so under a set of rules benefiting both parties. In our opinion, the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia in no way serves the interests of Colombia or of Canada or of Quebec.

I point out first that the Bloc, like most stakeholders in international trade, advocates multilateral agreements within the context of the World Trade Organization or as part of an eventual free trade area of the Americas. As there is currently a blockage at the WTO, the former Bush administration in the U.S. had adopted the strategy of trying to sign bilateral agreements with countries unable to properly defend their interests. Free trade agreements have been attempted or have been signed between the United States and Chile, Peru and Colombia.

We note that the Conservative government has adopted this strategy with less success than the previous American administration. It simply blindly followed the Republican strategy, the prerogative of President Bush, negotiating bilateral agreements with powerless countries, through which the Americans imposed their vision of free trade. The Conservative government of Canada has adopted the same strategy.

This strategy, I note, is being questioned by the new American administration, and President Obama has called for a review of the strategy for expanding international trade.

It must be said that negotiations to expand free trade at the WTO and in the context of a free trade area of the Americas are currently blocked, not because people are opposed to opening up borders, but because they realized that opening up borders without another agreement on labour, the environment or culture and language leads to troubled waters, as we have seen with chapter 11 of NAFTA on the protection of investments, which has been reproduced in the free trade agreement with Colombia.

We should be very clear. This agreement is certainly not based on the amount of trade between Canada and Colombia. In 2008, Canadian imports from Colombia amounted to $644 million. We are not even talking a billion dollars here. At the same time, Canadian exports to Colombia amounted to about $700 million. These negotiations certainly do not involve a major trading partner. What is quite significant, though, is the amount of Canadian investment in Colombia, especially the mining sector, which is over a billion dollars.

If we take a look at the chapter on investor protection, we see that it is very prejudicial to governments, especially the Government of Colombia. The amount of Colombian investment in Canada is only a million dollars.

(1350)

It is obvious that the purpose of the chapter on the protection of foreign investment is not so much to protect Colombian investors in Canada as to protect Canadian investors in Colombia.

Once again, we are not against protecting foreign investment if it is done well. The problem with the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, as with the free trade agreement with Peru, is that the chapter on protecting foreign investment confers inordinate rights on foreign corporations. These are mostly Canadian corporations operating in Colombia. It is certainly not the Colombian companies operating in Canada that will pose a problem. Canadian companies operating in Colombia are given the ability to sue the Government of Colombia directly in some situations.

We saw this under chapter 11 of NAFTA, which was carefully negotiated although the people involved did not realize what all the ramifications were. We are more aware now of all the abuses that can arise as a result of NAFTA chapter 11, which has been copied in the treaty between Canada and Colombia.

These abuses have to be stopped. We will not support free trade agreements that include chapters to protect foreign investment similar to chapter 11 of NAFTA. That is why we voted against the Canada-Peru free trade agreement and it is one of the reasons why we will vote against this act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

On the other hand, we recently voted in favour of the free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association because it did not have any provisions allowing either Scandinavian companies—because the countries in this association are mostly Scandinavian—or Canadian companies to sue the other government.

It is rather strange that the kind of protection provided in these treaties is different as soon as we are dealing with a developing country that cannot bargain from a position of strength. When it comes to a developed country on our own level, the protective agreements are government to government, that is to say, it is Canada that goes before a tribunal like the London tribunal. Unfortunately, a decision was recently handed down that was unfavourable to Canada and its softwood lumber. American companies did not sue Canadian companies or the Government of Canada directly. Instead, it was the American government that filed a complaint with the tribunal and the interests of the Canadian companies were represented by the Government of Canada.

We think that is how it should be done. It is known as the OECD formula for investment protection, but that is not what we see in the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. We can add to that Colombia's terrible human rights record, and I think we have very good reason to oppose such a bill to implement the agreement.

I would remind the House that my hon. Conservative colleague was talking about improvements earlier. I do not know where he sees any improvements, considering, for example, that in 2008 crimes committed by paramilitary groups increased by 41% and 14% the year before, and considering that, in 2001, there was a slight decrease in the number of murders of trade unionists, but in 2008, there were 46 such murders. So, clearly, human rights and union rights are being systematically violated.

By signing a free trade agreement with Colombia, Canada is condoning the state of human rights and union rights in that country. The Bloc Québécois refuses to be complicit in this, and Quebeckers will not be complicit in a situation that will benefit Canadian mining companies alone, at the expense of human rights and union rights. I am also convinced that environmental rights are not being respected, because, if we were to take a closer look, I think we would find that these mining companies do not respect the environment in Colombia.

I think I have been quite clear. No one will be surprised to learn that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-23 and will be very proud to do so.

(1355)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.):

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question and some clarification points. I am not sure where Bloc members stand on the situation when they mention the United States of America. They seem to be of the impression that the Americans are against what we are doing and they too are against it, but my research tells me that it is not the case. President Barrack Obama has admitted that they are proceeding and that he is confident that ultimately we can strike a deal that is good for the people of Colombia and good for the people of the United States. I certainly do not think Congress has tossed this out either.

I wonder if the hon. member could clarify his points on that matter. I think he did touch on the United States situation. I was wondering if he could give his reasoning why they are refusing this in light of the situation in America.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette:

Madam Speaker, I do not think my colleague understood what I was saying or maybe he was not listening. The Doha round at the WTO is currently blocked. It is blocked because emerging countries do not want developed countries to be the only ones benefiting from freer trade. That should be the focus of debate regarding international trade. To avoid having to have this debate and having to make concessions to open the borders, the American government, under the Bush administration, decided to jump into all kinds of bilateral agreements with different countries. As I said, they were generally countries with which they did not have existing trade relationships, but that were not able to hold their own in the balance of power with the Americans.

I condemn the fact that Canada and its Conservative government took exactly the same approach, using the villages to surround and take the cities, as Mao Zedong said. They are currently trying to establish a model of free trade that does not take into account human rights, union rights or environmental rights.

The government is trying to force this on countries that cannot defend themselves, and make that the standard. That is unacceptable from a country like Canada or the United States. That is what President Obama said he would change.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP):

Madam Speaker, numerous Liberal and Conservative members who have spoken to the bill have talked about the importance of signing the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia as a way to improve human rights records in that country.

Does the member have any evidence that signing free trade agreements with any country has improved the human rights record of that country and, if he is aware of one, would he please tell me which one it would be?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette:

Madam Speaker, it is clear to the Bloc Québécois and to most people in Quebec that human rights must come before trade.

I think that if human rights, labour rights and environmental rights were taken seriously, then free trade agreements and investment protection would also be subject to environmental, labour rights and human rights standards.

Major international conventions exist. They must be respected in order for the advantages in the agreement to apply. That is one way Canada and other developed countries could help democracy and prosperity flourish in these emerging countries and in developing countries.

I do not buy the argument that economics and freer trade alone will lead to democracy and prosperity. That has not been proven in the past and it will not be in the future.

Statements by Members

[Statements by Members]

* * *

(1400)

[English]

The Economy

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC):

Madam Speaker, in these difficult economic times, Canada needs to attract business growth and investment. That leads to more jobs and more opportunities for Canadians.

For years, under Liberal governments, high business taxes put Canada at a competitive disadvantage to the United States. That is why our government put the federal corporate tax rate on a downward track. The federal corporate tax rate will go down to 15% by 2012 from 22% just a few years ago.

Cutting taxes is working. Tim Hortons, a Canadian icon, has packed up its location in Delaware and is coming home, shifting its base of operations to be a Canadian company once again.

Our actions are driving business investment home and that is a stark contrast to the Liberal plan of higher taxes, higher spending, a plan that would only drive business the other way.

* * *

[Translation]

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.):

Madam Speaker, since being elected to Parliament, I have been involved in cultural matters. Today, I am pleased to tell you about a petition from the Fédération de la jeunesse franco-ontarienne or FESFO, signed by several hundred young Franco-Ontarians who are concerned about the decline in the revenues of CBC/Radio-Canada.

The FESFO is calling for Radio-Canada programming to be restored to its previous level in francophone Ontario and for the station in Windsor to be reopened.

Unfortunately, because of a technical detail, I am unable to present this petition in the House. However, I feel it is crucial that the minister responsible for CBC/Radio-Canada receive it, which is why I will give it to him by the end of question period.

I met with FESFO representatives, who also indicated that they would request a meeting with Sylvain Lafrance, executive vice-president of French services at CBC/Radio-Canada. I urge Mr. Lafrance to agree to meet with these people as soon as possible.

* * *

Ayer's Cliff 100th Anniversary

[Table of Contents]

Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ):

Madam Speaker, Ayer's Cliff on Lake Massawippi, one of the most picturesque villages in my riding, is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year.

The first inhabitants of the village arrived in 1797 and called it Landmaid's Flat. The name was later changed to Ayer's Flat and finally to Ayer's Cliff.

Over time, the village has become a prime tourist destination. Ayer's Cliff is on the Townships Trail, which highlights the heritage of the Eastern Townships with its 415-kilometre marked road. The village is also known for its annual agricultural fair, and for one of the most beautiful campgrounds in Quebec as well as the Tomifobia Nature Trail which extends to the U.S. border.

For all these reasons, the Ayer's Cliff centennial is cause for celebration and something in which its inhabitants and Quebec can take pride.

* * *

[English]

Aboriginal Friendship Centres

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP):

Madam Speaker, across the street from my office in Halifax is a colourful building with the word Pjila'si over the door. Pjila'si means welcome in Mi'Kmaq, and I have always felt welcome in this building, the Mi'Kmaq Native Friendship Centre.

However, the funding challenges that exist for Canada's 120 aboriginal friendship centres could end that warm welcome.

Fifty-four per cent of all aboriginal people live in urban areas and this number is increasing. With a relatively small investment from the Department of Canadian Heritage, we could ensure that services exist in urban areas for our first nations peoples, services that are culturally appropriate, accessible and stable.

It is my hope that a Prime Minister who recently declared that Canada has “no history of colonialism”, will at least recognize that strong investments in friendship centres are a strong investment for Canada.

* * *

Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Robert Clarke (Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on August 31, it was my pleasure to announce, along with the Premier of Saskatchewan and local officials, that the town of Meadow Lake would become Saskatchewan's 14th city. For Meadow Lake, going from a town to a city is much more than a technical change.

It is recognition of the hard work of the Mayor Obrigewitsch, town council and community leaders and residents who have attracted new businesses and families to ensure that Meadow Lake thrived even during tough economic times.

Above recognizing past successes, becoming a city opens Meadow Lake to new investment opportunities and economic and social development.

My congratulations go out to Meadow Lake and I look forward to celebrating northern Saskatchewan's first city on November 9 with residents and community leaders alike.

* * *

(1405)

Infrastructure

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, from time to time there comes an individual willing to stand up for what is right and just, exposing the truth no matter the consequences to himself or herself.

A regional councillor from York stood up against his own party and blew the whistle on politicized infrastructure spending. Gordon Landon lost his candidacy in the Conservative Party because he dared to tell the truth. Gordon Landon blew the whistle on a scandal of epic proportions, billions of taxpayer dollars being dumped in Conservative ridings for political purposes, billions of taxpayer dollars being manipulated to serve only the interest of the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer requested documents last week to investigate the situation. Shockingly, the government refused his request.

This is how the government operates, firing candidates for exposing the truth and stonewalling the Parliamentary Budget Officer to cover up this massive scandal. This is how the Conservative government operates.

* * *

Highgate Fall Fair

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, September 26, I was pleased once again to attend the Highgate fall fair.

Highgate is located at the eastern border of my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex, a charming village founded by Scottish settlers in the mid-1800s. It has celebrated the harvest with a country fair for the last 155 years.

This year we started with a parade, then enjoyed the local politicians squirm as they tried to outbid each other for an award-winning pie and then wandered about checking children's agricultural displays, animal attractions, old farm equipment, antique cars and fire trucks. We capped it off with some really great country barbecuing of hotdogs and hamburgers.

It was a great time again this year at the wonderful Highgate fair that has been enjoyed for 155 years.

Congratulations Highgate. We will see Highgate again next year as it celebrates 156 years of country hospitality.

* * *

[Translation]

Museums in Canada

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Drummond, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating the first annual Canadian Museums Day. A number of museum directors are here on the Hill to talk about various issues, including federal government funding.

Every year, 59 million people visit museums and art galleries. Museums play an important economic role because they generate an estimated $17 billion in economic spinoffs. Museums employ over 24,000 people and spend $650 million annually on salaries. In Quebec, they are an essential part of teaching people about our culture and history.

In this context, we cannot ignore the strike at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum. The Bloc Québécois would like to see this conflict resolved as soon as possible.

Museums and art galleries are a valuable resource that we should support with a solid museums policy and adequate funding.

* * *

[English]

Foreign Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, last week our Minister of Foreign Affairs led Canada at the United Nations General Assembly and proudly spoke on important issues for Canadians.

The minister strongly asserted Canada's foreign policy priorities: economic recovery, UN reform, human rights, climate change and terrorism. Our focus was clear and our priorities continue to project our values, Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Leading by example, our government stands up for those unjustly detained in the world's most oppressive regimes. Leading by example, our government stands up for Canadians.

This government is finally giving Canada a strong principled voice on the international stage. This government will continue to be a leader in principled foreign policy as we prepare to host the G20 next year.

At home and abroad, Canadians know that they can count on this government.

* * *

(1410)

Richard Wackid

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a man who loved Parliament, Richard Wackid, who died yesterday after a courageous struggle with ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease.

[Translation]

For over two decades, Rick was a friend and colleague to employees of all political stripes. His expertise put him at the centre of every debate held in this House.

To many people, he was a mentor. We admired his kindness, his dedication to his colleagues and his unshakable devotion to his work until the end.

[English]

Rick loved the institutions of Parliament and he became an institution in turn. We will miss his curly hair, his cufflinks, his humour, his humility, his wisdom and his friendship.

We extend our deepest sympathy to Rick's wife Danielle, his daughter Stephanie, and his entire family.

Today, Rick Wackid is at peace, and we will remember him always.

* * *

Terry Fox

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ed Holder (London West, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, there are times when a member of Parliament receives the opportunity to do something extraordinary.

On Friday, September 25, on behalf of the Government of Canada, I was asked to unveil a plaque in St. John's, Newfoundland, honouring Terrance Stanley Fox at the site where he began his “Marathon of Hope”. I was joined by Terry's brother, Fred, many local dignitaries and hundreds of school children who, like tens of thousands of students across Canada, celebrated Terry's run on that day.

It was cold and damp, not unlike 29 years ago when Terry Fox ran for hope and ran for us. I met Terry and my memories of him are vivid. He was fiercely passionate and deeply caring.

As the inscription reads at Mile 0, “this is the place where a young man's dream began and a nation's hope lives on”.

Terry Fox will forever be remembered as one of our greatest Canadians. Well done, Terry. We continue to be proud of him.

All Canadians would want him to know we will continue his battle until cancer is conquered. Terry Fox: a Canadian hero.

* * *

Harmonized Sales Tax

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives and Liberals bring in the harmonized sales tax, or HST, next July, families across Ontario will be taxed at a higher rate on children's vitamins, on newspapers, even on coffee. That is right. This is a tax on our trip to Tim Hortons. If we want to hire a lawyer to fight the HST, well, that will be taxed, too.

Why is this new tax being foisted on Ontarians? Because the federal Conservatives and provincial Liberals want to shift the tax burden from the wealthiest banks and oil companies to middle-income families, the very people most at risk from the decline in our Ontario industrial economy.

Along with Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath, we are fighting the HST because it would harm Ontario workers and their families.

Ontarians will not take this and neither will we. It is time to stop the HST, stop the attack on the middle class and stop the McGuinty-Harper tax grab.

* * *

[Translation]

Jeannette Corbiere Lavell

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on September 27, 2009, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell was elected president of the Native Women's Association of Canada. She is one of the founding members of the Ontario Native Women's Association.

[English]

She is probably best known for her challenge of section 12 of the Indian Act, which forced aboriginal women to lose their Indian status if they married a non-aboriginal person. In 1985, thankfully, section 12 of the Indian Act was finally repealed.

A champion of women's rights, she has worked tirelessly against injustice toward aboriginal women in particular.

In recognition of her efforts, an award has been set up in her name, which is presented annually to native women recipients who exhibit the same qualities and dedication as Ms. Corbiere Lavell.

[Translation]

We would like to congratulate Ms. Corbiere Lavell, and we are eager to work closely with her to improve the quality of life of native women in Canada.

* * *

(1415)

Jonathan Couturier

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, once again, Quebec is mourning the loss of one of its sons, Private Jonathan Couturier, from Loretteville, who died on September 17 when his armoured vehicle struck an improvised explosive device. Eleven other soldiers were wounded in the same incident.

Our hearts go out to Private Couturier's family and friends following his sudden death. Private Couturier fought valiantly in Afghanistan. We must come together and show our respect for this soldier's commitment.

He fought courageously on the front lines, along with his fellow comrades-in-arms, who have been facing a particularly difficult situation recently.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I would like to offer our most sincere condolences to Private Jonathan Couturier's family, loved ones and fellow soldiers.

We wish them courage; our thoughts are with all of them.

* * *

[English]

Richard Wackid

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that I learned yesterday of the passing of our dear friend Richard Wackid.

Richard served every Liberal whip since Jean-Robert Gauthier and every Liberal leader since John Turner, with both honour and distinction. The consummate professional and team player, Richard was part of the glue that kept the Liberal caucus together in the best of times and the worst of times. He faced his battle with ALS just as he lived his life, with courage and dignity.

His love for the Liberal Party, the Liberal caucus and the House of Commons is an example for all political assistants, and this affection was only surpassed by his love for his wife Danielle and his daughter Stephanie.

On behalf of the entire team in the whip's office and our entire Liberal caucus, I would like to extend my most sincere condolences to Danielle and Stephanie. We will miss Rick.

* * *

[Translation]

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, in today's Journal de Montréal, a piece on the Liberal Party leader reads, “It is not clear whether his love for Quebec, which he professes endlessly, is real or a ploy”.

The Liberal leader knows a thing or two about ploys.

His ploys and his lack of leadership have just created more victims in the Liberal family in Quebec. It is not surprising really. He changes his mind as often as he changes his shirt.

What the hon. member for Bourassa has just discovered about his leader is something the Conservatives from Quebec have known for a very long time. A Liberal leader cannot be trusted.

His vision of Quebec and Canada is the image of his own reflection in the mirror. To heck with the best interests of the nation. What is important to the Liberal leader is that he gain power, whatever the cost.

A Liberal leader truly cannot be trusted.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[Translation]

Forestry Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, I met with workers at the Kruger plant in Trois-Rivières. Soon, 500 of them will lose their jobs. They are worried about their families, their retirement and their future. Yesterday, we learned that because of this government's incompetence, forestry companies are going to have to pay the Americans millions of dollars more.

Why does this Prime Minister have nothing to say and nothing to offer to these workers in Trois-Rivières? Why?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is talking about the ruling by an international tribunal, then of course, Canada will respect that ruling and will take action. That is the nature of our country.

In fact, we have programs to help the forestry sector. We also have a proposal before Parliament to improve employment insurance benefits, and I hope the Liberal Party will support these measures, which are important for workers and the unemployed.

* * *

The Economy

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to be able to count on the government to help them, even if they did not vote Conservative. But according to the report the Prime Minister released yesterday, it is clear that some Canadians are being penalized.

According to the government's own figures, the ridings in Quebec are receiving the lowest per capita infrastructure funding in Canada. Why?

(1420)

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this government is working with provincial and municipal governments, with colleges and universities and with the private sector on projects to turn the global recession around. I reported yesterday that we have identified more than 7,500 projects across Canada and that over 4,000 projects are now under way. That is what Canadians want us to do. It is crucial that we target the economy. That is the government's job. I encourage the opposition leader to do the same.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians should be able to count on their government to help them find jobs no matter how they vote and no matter where they live, but instead we have a government that is using infrastructure money like a rewards program. Quebec's unemployment rate is higher than the national average and yet Quebeckers are receiving the lowest per capita infrastructure funding in all of Canada.

How does the Prime Minister explain this? How does he explain his own numbers?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, that is completely false. We are working with provincial and territorial governments across the country and there will be a more or less rough per capita distribution on all of these programs. The fact is that 7,500 projects have been identified and 4,000 are under way.

Rather than flailing around trying to come up with excuses for an unnecessary and wasteful election, the Leader of the Opposition and his party should be supporting the economic action plan and supporting these projects in Quebec and all across this country.

* * *

[Translation]

Infrastructure

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer asked the government to reveal details about its infrastructure spending. What did the Conservatives say? No, never.

Better still, in its report, the government said that the business credit availability program was working well in Quebec, but refused to provide any figures.

Canadians and Quebeckers deserve better. When will this government tell the truth to Canadians and Quebeckers? They deserve to know the truth.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, every detail of every project announced and implemented is already on the Internet. We feel we must report on progress to the people of every region of Canada and of Quebec.

But the real success is that we are working well with the government of Jean Charest; we are working well with municipalities; and we are taking action and producing real results for Quebeckers and for Canadians in every region of this country.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, he is not answering the question. Why does he not want to disclose these figures to the Parliamentary Budget Officer?

The economic action plan report shows that the government has zero credibility. Less than 1% of the funds allocated to green infrastructure has been spent.

According to the report, only 105 jobs will be created in Quebec in colleges and universities by 2010. But we are losing 5,800 jobs per week.

When will the Conservatives stop making misleading statements and start telling Canadians the truth?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have put aside partisan politics and are working very well with every provincial government. They have done an outstanding job in response to this crisis, as have the municipalities throughout the country. All of the announcements we made are on the World Wide Web, on the Internet for Canadians to see.

However, if the member wants to talk about her province, let us look at this. The Quebec economy is in better shape than the rest of the country because its infrastructure spending is flowing. Who said that? Her premier, Jean Charest.

* * *

(1425)

[Translation]

Forestry Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

The Prime Minister's stimulus package is unfair to Quebec. Yesterday's progress report states in black and white, on page 142, that the government has given almost $10 billion to the auto sector, concentrated in Ontario, and only $70 million to the forestry sector, which is concentrated in Quebec and where job losses continue to accumulate.

Does this not prove that the Prime Minister's stimulus package does nothing for the forestry sector and Quebec regions?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the forestry sector across the country is facing serious challenges. That is why the government has responded with a number of measures, not only in the economic action plan, but also in previous budgets.

For example, we increased funding for BDC and EDC in order to help this sector. Moreover, the Quebec forestry sector has received $7 billion just from this program. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will support these important programs in future.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, with respect to EDC, the Prime Minister is referring to guarantees in the event of buyer bankruptcies.This does absolutely nothing for corporate liquidity.

I would like to ask him a question: is it just a fluke that we suddenly find, in his wonderful stimulus package, on page 142, $10 billion dollars for the auto sector in Ontario and $70 million for forestry throughout Canada? Quebec only has a share of the $70 million.

Is that the fairness the Prime Minister is talking about—everything for Ontario, nothing for Quebec?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. As I just said, the Quebec forestry industry has received $7 billion from just one EDC program. There are many other programs in the economic action plan and in this government's previous budgets.

The problem is that the Bloc voted against all these measures to help Quebec's forestry industry. They are playing politics at the expense of Quebec's forestry sector and hurting it. The Bloc should support these measures as they are important to this industry.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the government is refusing to proceed with a fair and equitable division of the countervailing duties imposed by the London tribunal on companies exporting softwood lumber to the United States. Instead of paying the $68 million countervailing duties tab and charging it to companies that have exceeded their quota, the federal government will allow the Americans to collect duties on future exports, thereby possibly penalizing Quebec businesses unduly.

Is this an approach that the Minister of International Trade considers fair and equitable?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the international tribunal has given us a very clear ruling. We are not very happy about it, but we have to abide by it and that is what we plan to do. It is very important to note that the revenues will be recovered by the Province of Quebec.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, if the government wants to be fair and equitable, it should have each province cover its own pro-rated share of the countervailing duties.

Given that Ontario companies were responsible for 60% of the quota overruns, will the government make sure that Ontario pays 60% of the countervailing duties?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting idea, but this is an international court ruling. I suggest that the hon. member take a look at the ruling because the Province of Ontario is subject to exactly the same ruling.

* * *

[English]

Taxation

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's economic update, the Prime Minister indicated that he intends to proceed with more corporate tax cuts. He will slash $8 billion from the taxes owed by some of the biggest and most profitable companies in Canada.

However, at the same time he will raise $26 billion more from Canadians with an EI payroll tax increase and the dreaded HST.

Will the Prime Minister come clean? Why is he picking the pockets of Canadians but giving big handouts to the big banks and the oil companies?

(1430)

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the government has not raised taxes and has no intention of raising taxes. We hope to continue to see taxes fall.

Just on that particular question, because the leader of the NDP raises the case of business taxes, yes, business taxes are falling and we will soon have the lowest rate in the G7.

I noticed that a recent report of the World Economic Forum says that partly because of this and other measures, Canada will be only one of two developed countries in the world to come out of this recession in a better competitive place than we were before, and that is the goal of the government.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the average Canadian who will have their pocket picked by this new HST tax will feel the same way.

[Translation]

The Conservatives rewarded Ontario and British Columbia for harmonizing their sales taxes. They gave those provinces a $7 billion bribe for raising taxes.

Can the Prime Minister tell us what kind of gift he plans to give Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island for raising their sales taxes?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader seems to be quite confused.

[English]

Whether to harmonize a provincial sales tax with a federal sales tax is a decision made by the province. On the contrary, this government lowered the GST twice. The NDP members voted against it and argued against it both times.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Right Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, they cheer. That is why nobody thinks they have any credibility when they talk about sales taxes.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion on this side. We know where this tax started. It started with that government in its budget and now it is trying to hide from it.

In British Columbia, hard-working families are being hit with this surprise tax hike on everything from haircuts to home heating. We know about the $1.6 billion bribe that is being paid to the provincial Liberals but what we do not know is when the negotiations started and why the government is now trying to duck the issue.

The people of B.C. have the right to know the truth. Could the Minister of Finance tell the House here and now when he began negotiating—

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. Minister of Finance.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the decision on whether or not to harmonize was made by those provinces that have not yet harmonized. The discussions that I had with the Province of British Columbia began after the provincial election in British Columbia.

* * *

[Translation]