Bonnie Brown

[Air Transportation, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Maher Arar's name has been cleared, but the government still cannot get his name off the American no-fly list.

Why is the Minister of Transport providing private information on Canadians to the Americans when we know they have misused it in the past?

[Air Transportation, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my question is about the government's decision to blindly obey the Bush administration's order to surrender passenger lists for Canadian flights that do not even land in the United States. Why does the Bush White House need to know which Canadians go to Cuba on vacation?

Could the minister tell us what this information will be used for, or does he even know?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Thanks to the NDP.

[Quarantine Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not remember if we ordered the bill reprinted. I have to assume that if he has the first reading bill, it is simply an oversight.

However, I remember clearly from committee that the original bill said “air and sea conveyances” and that is what triggered our reaction to it, because we knew that the original Bill C-12 said “all conveyances” or “a conveyance”, implying anything that carried people or goods. My understanding and memory of the committee work is that we restored the idea of “a conveyance” and that is taken to cover any conveyance: land, sea or air.

[Quarantine Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-42.

Through the cooperation of all members on the health committee, we have together managed to amend and reach consensus on the bill and have done so in a timely fashion. I commend the committee chair, the parliamentary secretary and all the members of the committee for their efforts in this regard.

As has been mentioned, we amended the bill in committee and our amendments will bring section 34 of the Quarantine Act into force. Section 34 deals with reporting requirements of those persons entering Canada who have knowledge or suspicion that they or their passengers or cargo are carrying communicable diseases that could pose a health risk to Canadians. It imposes similar reporting requirements on those leaving Canada as well.

When the first Quarantine Act was passed in 2005, section 34 was not brought into force pending the development of appropriate regulations to deal effectively and efficiently with the act's reporting requirements.

Bill C-42 addresses these regulatory needs. It does so primarily by requiring those subject to the reporting requirements of section 34 to make their reports as soon as possible before arriving in Canada and that their reports be given directly or indirectly to a quarantine officer.

It is interesting to note that Bill C-42 as originally introduced by the government presented an odd dichotomy. On the one hand certain provisions of the bill constituted a slight strengthening of the reporting requirements, yet at the same time, the original bill sought to exclude those who enter Canada by land from any reporting requirements whatsoever.

Given that the majority of passengers and cargo entering Canada come across land via the United States, the net effect of Bill C-42 as originally tabled was to reduce the safety of Canadians. We would have been at heightened risk of exposure to communicable diseases when the entire purpose of the Quarantine Act is to protect Canadians from such risks.

Why would the government propose a regulatory change that threatened the safety of Canadians? It turns out that it is the same reason that the government has decided to harmonize the allowable limits on residual pesticide levels on our foods with the limits of the United States and Mexico.

Big business considers regulatory differences between Canada and the less restrictive American regime to be a trade irritant. In other words, our health might be jeopardized because our current health standards are impinging upon the seamless operations of transnational corporations.

In the case of pesticide residue on our food, we have been assured by the Minister of Health that Canada's new harmonized limits will be based on science and therefore ensure the safety of Canadians. However, one is left wondering what our current limits are based on if not on science.

The minister also assures us that Canada has and will maintain the highest standard of safety for pesticides and other toxins. However, Canada's current standards only seem appropriate when compared to the United States where 40% of regulated pesticide limits are higher than ours.

America's standards are set by the Environmental Protection Agency, an agency that was reorganized by the Bush administration and which has since been condemned by scientists within the United States for its “inappropriately cozy relationship with industry”.

A quick glance at Europe reveals a different view of Canada's standards. For example, our current limit on permethrin is 400 times higher than in Europe, and the Canadian cap on methoxyclor is 1,400 times higher. Canada's current pesticide limits are “middle of the pack” at best and now are about to be compromised further.

As Bill C-42 also demonstrates, if left unchecked, those interested in business deregulation can expose Canadians to health risks in their zeal for business fluidity.

What is the impetus behind these kinds of regulatory changes? It is an industry initiative called smart regulation, in which Mexican and Canadian regulatory regimes are being harmonized with those of the United States. What is rarely mentioned is that this effort is being organized through the security and prosperity partnership.

This international agreement was initiated in 2005 by the Governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico. It was the brainchild of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and its American counterpart, which want deep integration of the Canadian and American economies, military and culture.

This would include uniform regulatory regimes for a wide array of products and services, including food, drugs and environmental protection. It would include increased interoperability between the Canadian and American military. It would include a continental energy pact, whereby Canada would guarantee America's access to our energy resources and force Canadians to compete with Americans for our own electricity as we do now for our oil and gas.

It would include a North American security perimeter that could erode the civil liberties of our citizens. It would include common immigration and environmental policies and a host of other policies that together would dramatically undermine the sovereignty and autonomy of Canada and its citizens.

The participants in the security and prosperity partnership are well aware that this agenda would lack broad public support and have therefore committed themselves to what they call “integration by stealth”. The SPP is not a signed treaty and has never been brought before the legislatures of the three nations for discussion or for committee oversight. Its implementation is being coordinated not by parliaments, not by a broad spectrum of social groups, but by the North American Competitiveness Council, a working group of 30 corporate CEOs, 10 from Mexico, 10 from Canada, and 10 from the U.S.

This group meets regularly behind closed doors with senior government officials and ministers. One of its key objectives is business deregulation and harmonization, yet no other stakeholders have been given a seat at the table and the meeting minutes are not made public. Even more disturbing is that two out of the 10 representatives of Canada are actually American citizens.

The entire security and prosperity partnership is so profoundly undemocratic that 14 U.S. states to date have passed resolutions demanding that the U.S. Congress act to cease America's involvement. The impending changes to Canada's pesticide residue levels are just one small element in an ongoing effort to harmonize Canadian and American regulations in the interests of powerful businesses.

The Canadian government needs to replace corporate control over this partnership with a democratic process that involves parliamentary oversight and public input. It needs to ensure that efforts to reshape our nation are fully transparent and in the interests of all Canadians, not just an economically powerful few.

Fortunately for us, in the case of Bill C-42 the regulatory changes being sought required an amendment to legislation. This brought the changes to the attention of parliamentarians, and in committee we were able to reinstate the reporting requirements for those entering Canada by land.

However, one has to wonder, given the broad scope of the security and prosperity partnership, and given the speed at which its various working groups are proceeding, how many potentially harmful regulatory changes have already been made that might have escaped parliamentary oversight and input from Canadian stakeholders?

As noted at the outset, I am pleased that all members of the health committee worked quickly and cooperatively to reverse the potentially harmful nature of this bill as originally tabled. The resulting legislation will ensure that the health of Canadians is given priority over commercial interests and, as such, I am happy to support it.

[Quarantine Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with my colleague, the member for Thornhill.

[The Economy, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think it was more like “advantage Whitby” than “Advantage Canada”.

Thanks to the Liberals' solid fiscal record, the government inherited a great deal to work with. Funding for the environment and for research and development suffered billions in budget cuts from Mike Harris's hatchet man in his first budget. Today the Conference Board reported the impact of that.

Why should Canadians have any confidence in a finance minister who is disingenuous about the promises he breaks and incompetent in the delivery of the promises he keeps?

[The Economy, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today the Conference Board of Canada reported that the Conservative government has failed on both the environmental and the innovation fronts. The report states that the government increasingly fails to meet the basic goals of a high and sustainable quality of life for all Canadians.

When will the minority government develop some long term policy that will benefit the future competitiveness and sustainability of our economy? When will it implement an innovation strategy that will not get a failing grade?

[The Environment, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the science is clear. We need to limit the rise in global temperatures to 2°C. We need to cut emissions by 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. Most of the world is prepared to act, but the government seeks to undermine the call for urgent action, will not agree to bare minimums, and looks for loopholes and back doors. Failure is not an option.

Will the government reverse course, end the defeatist approach and do the right thing?

[The Environment, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government claims that Canada is special and unique when it comes to fighting climate change. The only thing special and unique about the government's approach is its abdication of responsibility.

The Deutsche Bank said just last week that the government has materially overstated the cost of Canada complying with Kyoto and its so-called plan will keep emissions rising beyond 2020.

Why does the Prime Minister insist on a Conservative charade on the international stage?