David McGuinty

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

And you had nothing to do with Walkerton. Explain Walkerton.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

You are a Queen's Park denier.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will just say that the government has had a terrible record concerning supply management in the last 30 months.

In Canada, we have already seen the dismantling of the call for tenders system for our aboriginal companies and communities, for example. There have been a number of situations where backroom deals took place, where the way in which the government carried out a call for tenders was compromised, and where the participating companies were complaining more and more about the tendering system.

It is up to us, as the official opposition, to pay close attention to what the government does with this free trade agreement.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the preface of the member's remarks. She heralded the notion that the countries with which we are entering into this almost complete negotiation are countries with strong social democratic traditions. Her language was “strong social democratic traditions”.

If in fact these are countries with strong social democratic traditions, I do not think they have expressed in any discussions, debates, negotiations or positions they have taken their view of what the member has categorized as a sellout. If they are countries of social democratic traditions, then I would expect they would negotiate in the best of faith and would put the interests of their trading partner alongside the interests of their own.

Surely the NDP is not suggesting that as a social democratic party that does not believe in the free market, only it can understand what is happening in terms of the Hamilton steel industry. The problem is that the NDP keeps pushing and pushing, not because it would like to see a carve-out. Once there is a carve-out, it sets a very interesting precedent. It is risky business and the question becomes, what is next to carve out?

I think what the NDP is really saying, and it should level with Canadians and tell them, is that it does not believe in the expansion of rules based trading systems; it does not believe in the international trading order; it does not believe in the international economic order; and it does not believe in private capital flows. It should say so and then give us an alternative vision of the world and the order that we ought to be pursuing.

Instead of trying to scare Canadian families and workers from the steel industry and beyond, I think it should--

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the United States is going through some very difficult and troubling times. I personally predict that we will see culprits. We will see the blame laid squarely at the feet of different actors in American society who I think concocted a sub-prime mortgage scam that has affected many vulnerable Americans. I wish our American cousins all the best in the recovery that we would like to see in the United States and, of course, the spill over effects in helping to keep Canada's trading arrangements there robust and healthy.

However, there is no doubt that Canada needs to expand its reach. We are already trading all over the planet but the formalization of this trading arrangement with four nation states goes another certain distance to help us diversify. Diversification is good. Dependency on one particular market is not so good. We are seeing that there are risks now despite the fact that so many hard decisions were taken by the previous government to prepare the country to deliver 10 years of surpluses consecutively, to pay down so much debt and to lower taxation while addressing core social equity and justice questions.

Canada is well positioned and well prepared to weather the storm, although we are not sure what the fallout effects will be of the recent 30 months of decisions taken by the government.

However, more important, expanding our reach in terms of trade builds on our people. The single greatest asset we will have over time will be people: their brain capacity, their training and their skills levels. We have people from every corner of the planet now living right across this beautiful country. It is up to us now to play intelligent hockey and to build on those relationships all over the world and to strengthen our trading relationships.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, let me wrap up in terms of why this is so important.

It is funny how the member for Charlottetown tied it together well in his closing remarks, pursuant to a question that was posed to him. Let me reframe and restate before concluding.

A lot of the multilateral approaches in which we are presently involved in terms of multilateral trading arrangements are stalled. Canada, in my view, needs to pursue and adopt bilateral trade agreements in order to remain globally competitive. We have benefited well. We are, as many describe, the most trade dependent nation on the face of the planet and, therefore, this is a good step forward.

As I said earlier, there is no evidence that the expansion of rules based trading regimes is in fact decelerating. On the contrary, it was China only several years ago that managed to break through and join the WTO after more than a decade of aggressive negotiations and positioning.

Here we have a win-win situation. We have the biggest concern addressed coherently in shipbuilding. Some concerns on supply management we have spoken to. We believe the bill addresses that imbalance as well. In fact, it took roughly 10 years to complete this negotiation because of the shipbuilding concerns that I believe have been adequately addressed. It is not a total carve out, as the member for Charlottetown indicated, but it is a good, solid agreement on which to move forward, to expand Canada's trading relationships and to create the wealth, the jobs and the investment that we need to move forward.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying for Canadians who are watching or reading this debate, in due course this is about implementing a free trade agreement between Canada and a small number of European nations that form the European Free Trade Association: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

It is important to remember that the negotiations began in 1998 through the former Chrétien Liberal government to pursue this bilateral trade negotiation. It was signed on January 28, 2008 in Switzerland and then tabled in Parliament on February 14, 2008, three short months ago.

What does this agreement do? What are the important points of analysis that have been treated at committee that we need to make sure Canadians understand?

The first thing the agreement does is it eliminates duties on non-agricultural goods and selected agricultural products, not all, but only selected ones, giving our Canadian exporters better access, almost preferred access to Canada's fifth largest merchandise export destination.

The agreement also lays the groundwork for a better deal, a more comprehensive deal on services and investment with the European free trade association countries, as well as free trade talks with the broader European Union. This is extremely important for Canada as we move forward progressively, bilateral deal by bilateral deal to consolidate our trading relationship more formally with the European Union, and hopefully ultimately through a free trade agreement with the EU which, as we all know, is expanding rapidly. It comprises now some 26 to 28 nation states and is expanding in terms of massive economic opportunities for Canadian exporters.

We heard talk about the sensitivities around the shipbuilding sector. These are legitimate sensitivities and impressions that were asked at committee repeatedly by the shipbuilding industries and different labour representatives who did more than the yeoman's share of work in terms of making sure that what has arrived here in the House today addresses the concerns around shipbuilding.

As my colleague from Charlottetown has mentioned, it does something that has previously not been done here in Canada. It is certainly an interesting precedent for us to follow. What it has done here is it has actually included the longest tariff phase-outs for any agreement with a developed nation. There are 15 years of phase-out for the most sensitive vessels and 10 years of phase-out for other sensitive vessels with no tariff reductions in the first three years.

These are very important fiscal mechanisms that will help to cushion the transition in the shipbuilding sector as we ramp up our trade with the four nation states involved.

We also know that shipbuilding here domestically will be supported through a $50 million renewal of Industry Canada's structured financing facility or the SFF as it is known. That will also help deal with the adjustment in the shipbuilding sector as we move to formalize this bilateral trading agreement.

Experts have also included what is called a snap back provision, which raises tariff levels to what is called most favoured nation status and rates for up to three years if the agreement results in a serious threat to domestic industry. That is very powerful protection for our Canadian shipbuilding sector.

It has gone further. As an individual who has had the privilege of working on international trade disputes in Europe, what I like about this bill is that it also includes a process for binding arbitration and, of course, relevant dispute resolution mechanisms which are attached to it. This would really help deal with differences that might arise going forward.

Once this agreement is, hopefully, ratified and entered into, it would give us transparency and predictability. If we do enter into disputes with the EFTA, we would have a better and more transparent process for binding arbitration and dispute resolution already laid out and agreed upon. That would save countries and trading partners tens of millions of dollars of legal fees, of fighting costs, of lost energy and would help deal with differences in advance before they actually occurred.

Also in the bill, from an agricultural perspective, is this. Specifically, Canadian agricultural supply management and what are called “buy Canada” government procurement programs would be explicitly protected. That is important from a supply management perspective. It is also important, in my view, from an environmental perspective. It is important because I predict that in due course we will see much more local buying occurring as citizens in Canada become more attuned to, for example, questions of agricultural input and, for that matter, impacts on overall greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric challenges. I believe that will start to drive more local and domestic consumption, which will have a bearing on our supply management systems, and I think speak volumes to keeping our supply management systems as they are presently constituted.

Why is this so important? How big is this in order of magnitude for Canadians who may be watching the debate?

These four European free trade association countries are the world's 14th largest merchandise traders and are Canada's 5th largest merchandise export destination. That is not inconsequential for a nation as deeply dependent on international trade as Canada has become.

For example, two-way Canada-EFTA non-agricultural merchandise trade is $12.6 billion. Canadian exports in 2007 to the EFTA totalled $5.1 billion. What are we selling? What constitutes the $5.1 billion? It is nickel, copper and pharmaceuticals, particularly as our life science industries explode in and around the Montreal catchment area and in other clusters that are servicing around the country, including here in my own community of the city of Ottawa. We also export forms of machinery, precious stones, metals, medical devices, aluminum and aerospace products, which are not inconsequential with Canada's burgeoning aerospace industry. We export pulp and paper, which is more traditional, organic chemicals, autos and parts, and art and antiques.

In the same year, we imported more. We imported some $7.4 billion worth of products, which included such important assets and products as mineral fuel, other pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals, machineries and medical and optical instruments. One can imagine, when we are talking about Switzerland and Norway, the kinds of high tech investments that have gone on there. We are talking about clocks, watches and many other products.

When we look at bilateral trading arrangements or multilateral trading arrangements, we often examine the concept of what is called “foreign direct investment”. We take, in this case, a cluster of four nation states and compare it with Canada. We want to know how much the four nation states are investing in Canada and how much Canada is investing in those four nation states, the EFTA. The news is overwhelmingly good because we are net winners. In fact, we are massive winners when it comes to how successful Canada has been in attracting investment into this country from the EFTA.

For example, in 2006 Canadian foreign direct investment in those four countries was $8.4 billion. In the same year, their investment in Canada was $15.6 billion. With $8.4 billion of our investment going there and $15.6 billion coming here, that is a net win for Canada at a time when the world is moving aggressively forward to a rules based,liberalized trading regime system. Whether it is Mercosur, the European Union, NAFTA and beyond, bilateral or multilateral, that trend is seemingly unstoppable.

However, when we look at the trend, we also measure the question of foreign direct investment: how much is coming here and how much are we sending there. That is not in terms of products sold, goods and services, but overall investment, and, in this case, Canada is a massive winner with almost twice as much investment being attracted here from the four countries as we are investing there. It is very promising for the future.

When it comes to the question of agricultural products and supply management, some comments were made earlier by the member for Halifax, I believe, about supply management. Here I think we should be cautious. The National Farmers Union has obviously raised some important questions around the agreement as to whether it might or might not negatively impact supply management by undermining Canada's position at the World Trade Organization. It may or it may not but in committee, from what I can recall in the transcripts I have read, I have seen no single supply management group indicating any profound concerns. The dairy sector may or may not feel some effects if this is ratified, but the Dairy Farmers of Canada were expressly consulted and at the time said that it had no deep concerns about moving forward.

That is not to say that we should not watch what flows from this negotiation in terms of the practices in those four countries and what we can learn from their subsidies in the agricultural sectors, particularly in anticipation of our negotiations with the European Union.

Why is that so? The last time I looked, 40% of the overall European Union budget was dedicated to the common agricultural policy, a massive agricultural subsidy program which, early on in the European Union's formation, lead to rampant corruption in countries like Italy and Spain where huge tracts of land were actually put into fallow status while farmers were collecting massive subsidies from the European Union. Those abuses were exposed and the European Union has moved to correct those difficulties, much later on, of course, in its existence. However, it does speak to Canada making sure that we deal appropriately with this level of subsidy. When we talk about 40% of the European Union's budget, we are talking about billions and billions of dollars.

It is also important to move forward with this agreement because, frankly speaking, the EFTA is a minor negotiation for Canada within the much larger context of the international trade portfolio. It probably will not gain a lot of media attention and probably will not form part of the next election in terms of core issues addressed at the door, but it is one of those areas where we can make progress and, again, progress because it is in anticipation of cracking the big nut, which is to begin to expand our negotiations with the European Union, which is very important for Canada's trading future.

I give great credit to former Prime Minister Chrétien for his perspicacity, his forward looking vision and his understanding of the need in 1998 to commence these negotiations to expand our bilateral and multilateral trading regimes--

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Charlottetown, for his insightful remarks on Bill C-55, sponsored by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

For Canadians who are watching or following it is an important outcome for the amount of investment, energy and time that has been invested in negotiating an agreement between Canada and what is called the European Free Trade Association. We are not talking here about the European Union, the 26 or 27 member states that form the EU. We are talking about a much smaller conglomeration of states in Europe: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

It is a move forward for Canada to be able to move to ratify yet another bilateral trading agreement like so many others we have ratified in the past and others that we are presently negotiating.

We support initiatives on this side of the House in the official opposition that improve market access for Canadian businesses. We are a profoundly steeped in trading tradition nation. On balance we support the European free trade agreement deal and the bill that implements it.

Having said that, as we just heard in the previous exchange, there are some legitimate concerns surrounding Canada's shipbuilding industry and not inconsequential concerns. In large part, as we have just heard from my colleague from Charlottetown, it was the negotiating of those provisions that deal with shipbuilding that in part accounted for the 10 years it took to negotiate the deal.

We believe that there are some profound concerns around shipbuilding. We share these concerns, but we also believe that the unusually long tariff phase-outs and what are called the snap back provisions address these issues, and I will come back to that in a few moments.

We are anxious to send Bill C-55 to committee to ensure that the bill implements the agreement as has been described by the committee report dated April 7. So again, what is this all about?

[Price of Petroleum Products, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. It is important for Canadians to know that the Prime Minister has left tonight for Europe, where he will likely try to sell to European heads of state what the Conservatives call their green plan.

But at the same time, as I was asking him today in the House, will he explain to those heads of state and other European leaders that the targets in Canada are intensity targets and that, under the Conservatives, Canada unilaterally changed to 2006 the base year which was 1990 in the Kyoto Protocol?

We do not have absolute targets in Canada. It is true that the price of oil seems to increase and, what is worse, that it will continue to increase. The price of oil production seems to increase because the cheap oil is disappearing. More money is therefore needed to obtain fossil fuels.

The official opposition, the Liberal Party, thinks that it is now time to act. I agree with my colleague on that. It is time to work together in this House to plan the future of Canada. Now, outstanding solutions and major ideas are needed to trigger change. This is exactly why we are analyzing the idea of a carbon tax, which will be combined with a lowering of personal and corporate income tax. That is called a tax shift.

Therefore, I thank my colleague for his comments. It is now time to see where we will be in 20, 30 or 40 years from now.

[Price of Petroleum Products, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we are having this debate this evening because in the 30 months since the government was sworn in, the prices at the pumps have skyrocketed.

In January 2006 in my riding, the average price was 83.2¢ a litre. On May 25, 2008, yesterday's average price was $1.25 a litre. That is a 51% increase on the government's 30 month watch.

Gasoline prices are now higher than ever. It is a fact that should prompt some reflection in all corners of the House. Our society has some major choices ahead.

It was striking to hear the Prime Minister in his Q and A session in Beamsville, Ontario, last week admit defeat in this regard. He said, “The ability of governments to affect the price of gasoline per se is so small that it's not even worth doing”.

As if to distract from his bald-faced unwillingness to help those Canadians most hurt by higher gasoline prices, he went further and lashed out with a vengeance. He said, “What we don't need right now...are governments that come in and specifically impose carbon taxes on our economy”. He said that they are risky and “foolish”.

For weeks now, government members have been talking about how our plan will apparently raise the price of gasoline. That is interesting because our plan has not even been released yet, and I can tell the House that we have not faxed the government a copy of it by mistake.

This nonsense about a Liberal plan for higher gas prices is the result of a continuing propensity by the frontbenches of the government to just make things up on the fly. They have not seen our plan yet, but their shock and awe attacks betray their fear of the notion of tax shifting.

Here is why. Because the government has no plan to deal with gasoline prices, it has chosen to sit on the sidelines doing nothing in the face of all the advice and international trends.

The government says it is bringing in a cap and trade program in the fall. Let those members stand and deny it. What will be the net effect of bringing in a cap and trade program in the fall? It will have a profound effect on fuel prices.

Are government members telling Canadians that truth? Absolutely not. They are too busy firing ministers.

The government has presented Canadians with no analysis of its cap and trade program because it has not done anything. It is eerily reminiscent of the infamous “Turning the Corner” plan released amid more shock and awe last April.

Since then, no fewer than 10 very respectable Canadian and international organizations have shown that the government's math does not add up and that it will never achieve its targets. It is no better than if we had planned to fail in the first place.

Yes, we Liberals are working on a real plan to tackle climate change, and Canadians are saying that it is about time. We are not alone.

At the World Economic Forum last year, Sir Nicholas Stern said that environmental taxes should play an essential role in combating global warming. In fact, he stated that ruling out a carbon tax is “a risk we cannot take”.

Someone should tell the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary who was up moments ago that Sir Stern is no leftist cooking up a money-sucking “socialist scheme”. Sir Stern is best known for being the former chief economist of the World Bank. He went on to be the expert author of the U.K. government's highly praised report on the economic effects of climate change.

In short, he is precisely the kind of person we ought to be taking advice from. He said:

Unless we act quickly and effectively, we will not bring down carbon emissions...we must cut our emissions from current levels by around 40%.

Carbon taxes are a responsible response to an unprecedented threat to our civilization. Sir Stern said:

This is the biggest market failure the world has ever seen. The market hasn't worked because we haven't fixed it. Equity demands that the rich countries, who are largely responsible for the problem, do more about it.

We know that in the coming weeks and months our bold proposal will prompt a national debate on how to reconcile the economy and the environment so that no Canadian is left behind.

The Conservative government's usual strategy is always the same. It is to attack any and every group that would dare contradict it. But the politics of fear are tired and tiresome.

Here is the good news. We have Tom d'Aquino, the president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, agreeing with David Suzuki. We have Andrew Coyne, hardly a left wing editor of Macleans magazine, agreeing with the Toronto Star. Why is this? Because the system is overdue for just such a shakeup.

This is about tax shifting, which brings us to internalize a neglected externality, that is, to put a price on carbon and to stop treating the atmosphere as an unlimited waste receptacle.

The very heart of the Liberal plan will cut taxes on the things we want more of. We want more income. We want more innovation. We want more savings. We want more investments. We want more productivity, as Canada is losing the productivity race. It shifts those taxes onto the things we want less of. We want less pollution. We want fewer greenhouse gas emissions. We want less smog. We certainly want less waste.

This is what we mean when we say our plan will be revenue neutral. Every new dollar in revenue will be given back to Canadians in tax cuts.

This is about solid economic and environmental policy. A tax shift requires a shift in our way of thinking. The Prime Minister's thinking is so 1960s: that we have to choose between a strong economy and a clean environment. Conservatives say we cannot have both.

The Prime Minister's thinking is that there is no room for the federal government in the lives of Canadians. As a result, the government does nothing while gas prices continue to skyrocket, and at the same time it allows greenhouse gas emissions to soar.

It lets the manufacturing sector whittle away to nothing while refusing to invest in the advanced green technologies that could create the jobs of the future.

It does not have a plan to fight poverty. In fact, it does not even mention the issue.

Liberals, on the other hand, believe that thinking that pits the economy, the environment and social justice against each other not only demonstrates a lack of imagination, not only demonstrates a party stuck in a time warp, but is simply wrong. We can do better as a country and we must.

Our environmental and economic plan will help the middle class and it will lift many Canadians out of poverty. It will reward those who go the extra green mile, those who go beyond the minimum to reduce pollution by putting even more dollars in their pockets. Industry will be rewarded for its efforts with lower corporate taxes that can be reinvested in newer technologies to further improve the environment and the bottom line. It is a scenario where we all win.

The only group in Canadian society today that appears not to understand that we are racing toward a carbon constrained future is the Conservative Party of Canada. On this side of the House, we ask, “Why would Canada not want to win that race, the race toward a cleaner, more eco-efficient economy, higher energy efficiency levels, less wasteful consumption, lower income taxes and higher productivity?”

No, we in the Liberal Party will not pursue the politics of fear. We will not race to offer the latest tax gimmick to the Canadian people. We will do our job responsibly. We will tell the truth about the climate change crisis, what the science is telling us to do and how important it is for us to move forward by putting the adequate and proper price on carbon. Pricing carbon makes a big difference in the marketplace and it prepares Canada to win the race of the 21st century, which is to become a cleaner, greener, fairer society.