Martha Hall Findlay

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the proof is in the pudding. We would not have a buy America act if we had enough people representing Canadian interests on the ground before it happened. The buy America act and the response, by the way, that only includes 37 of the states, so even then is incomplete, was a reaction after the fact. People were scrambling.

The fact that we have had such difficulty with protectionist sentiment and protectionist legislation in the United States is the problem, and if we have that problem, we know we are not doing enough.

It is not a commentary on the diplomats who are there. The ones who are there are very capable, but we simply do not have nearly enough resources or the will on the part of the government to do it.

Second, in terms of the Liberal government, I would assure the hon. member that if, in a Liberal government, we had been asked to sacrifice the privacy of Canadians in this way in terms of control over airspace, the Americans have control over airspace, just as we have control over our airspace. This goes further and we are now being held hostage. If a Liberal government had been asked to do this, we would have asked how we could work this out so we did not accede to this and sacrifice the privacy of Canadians.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a rather difficult position because although we have significant concerns about the privacy of Canadian travellers, the government, through its failure to do anything to protect those interests, has allowed us to get to the point where we have, in effect, become hostage to demands from the United States.

Canadians obviously now are faced with concerns about commerce and the challenges to travel, but where on earth was the government when this issue first came up? This is not the first time, either. The Conservative government seems to be far more interested in placating or pleasing the United States than in even listening to Canadians' concerns.

A number of my colleagues have proposed some significant amendments, which I am very pleased about. My hon. colleague from Eglinton—Lawrence was extraordinarily eloquent in describing the concerns about Canadian privacy. I have a much larger concern, which is how we got here in the first place.

When the Conservative government was first asked to agree to this, it did not even ask for reciprocity. How is the government acting on behalf of Canadians when it will not even ask for fair and equal treatment for Canadians? I find it appalling. This is another example of the government's apparent desire to please the Americans rather than listen to Canadians.

Another example is the fact that the Prime Minister is in the process of negotiating a security perimeter agreement with the United States. He is doing it in the United States. He is doing it with the Americans. He is not speaking with Canadians about this. He is not answering any questions about what this might mean. Once again, it is all in the guise of security.

At some point Canadians are going to have to take a stand and say that using the word “security” and spreading fear that somehow we are under attack at all times is simply not true in Canada. It is wrong to make the people of this country fearful all the time. It is just not right. It is also particularly offensive to me to use the word “security” and fearmongering as a foil to hide the failures of the government to do so much more with the United States.

Although the bill deals with aeronautics and air travel, it is more of the same in what the Conservative government has not done in terms of trade. For example, the security perimeter is being billed as the answer to the thickening of the Canada-U.S. border and that this is something we should agree to, even though we have no idea what is in it as we were not part of the discussions. That is reserved for the Prime Minister and the Americans.

We are being asked to support this. We are going to be asked to support an idea of a North American security perimeter because it will enhance trade and help reduce the thickening of the Canada-U.S. border from a trade perspective.

There has absolutely been a thickening of the border. Liberals do not disagree with that at all. For many Canadian businesses, whether in the agriculture or agrifood sectors, all sorts of other businesses, as well as Canadians travelling back and forth, there has been a significant thickening of the border, which has created lots of problems and, indeed, many jobs lost in this country. To say it is entirely due to security is completely false.

Onerous country of origin labelling rules have absolutely nothing to do with security. Buy American legislation has nothing to do with security. The proposed legislation in the United States to deal with foreign trade representatives is extraordinarily protectionist and has nothing to do with security.

Increased fees to simply get across the border have nothing to do with security. There are all sorts of examples of how the border has been thickened, not because of security, but because of protectionist sentiment in the United States which, thanks to the most recent elections, has only increased.

A number of people think that the Tea Partiers are somehow more Republican in the sense of being more open to free trade. On the contrary, I am afraid a significant number of the Tea Partiers, and a significant number of the new congressmen and women, are more against trade than their predecessors which is of real concern to us here in Canada. The government simply seems to let it go.

We have done very little, we being Canada, and I put the blame squarely on the Conservative government. The government has not been on the ground in Washington. The current ambassador has been doing yeoman's work, but he is one person. We have not been on the ground nearly enough, negotiating and lobbying. Yes, lobbying, because that is how the American government works. We have to be on the ground to protect Canadian interests. We have to be on the ground in Washington. We cannot just respond and at the last minute expect to accomplish something. We have to be on the ground. We have to be working with the Americans. We have to explain why Canadian interests are important to them and how that affects their interests in return.

We have to be working at the state level. It is simply not enough to do a photo op in Washington. We need to have Canadian representatives working on the ground at the state level with the governors, with the congressmen and congresswomen in Washington, but we need to be on the ground doing far, far more.

I will bring that back to the question at issue today. Has anyone been doing that? Has there been any effort in the United States to protect Canadians' interests? Has anyone said that we do not think the United States should have all that information about Canadians, simply because they are flying over the United States, that we have some real concerns about that?

As my colleague described, we worked very hard to establish legislation to protect the privacy of Canadians and we are very proud of that legislation. In one fell swoop we ended up being held hostage in such a way that we have to exempt this particular situation from the protection of privacy of Canadians.

The government seems far too interested in pleasing the Americans, listening to the Americans and adhering to American interests. I have nothing against the Americans, but in this situation we are sacrificing the interests of Canadians in order to please the interests of the United States. That is simply not acceptable.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, is my colleague aware of whether the government at any point in time in these negotiations with the United States even bothered to ask for reciprocity? Not to say that I necessarily agree with that or would even agree with the deal if there were reciprocity, but I find it rather extraordinary that the government would bend over backward and offer something to the United States that I think significantly affects Canadian privacy and would not even ask for the same thing in return.

Again, I stress I am not suggesting that even that would be a good thing, but just in terms of process, I would like to know if the hon. member is aware of any effort in that regard on the part of the government.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is using security as a foil to disguise his failures on trade with the United States.

Yes, the border has thickened, but do not for a minute think that it has to do with security. Labelling rules have nothing to do with security. Buy American legislation has nothing to do with security. Higher fees at the border have nothing to do with security. Recent U.S. softwood lumber claims have nothing to do with security. It is our Canadian sovereignty.

Why is the Prime Minister having these discussions with the Americans but not having these discussions with Canadians?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, while American Senator Joe Lieberman is dragging our national reputation through the mud and slagging our border, the Prime Minister is negotiating a secret perimeter security deal with the United States. If the Prime Minister is negotiating this deal in secret, it is because he intends to sacrifice large portions of our sovereignty.

Why is the Prime Minister discussing perimeter security with the Americans and not with Canadians?

[United Arab Emirates, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, 27,000 Canadians live in the United Arab Emirates. Over 200 companies do business with them. These people are being held hostage because of the stubbornness of the Conservative government. Two examples are Cirque du Soleil and CAE in Montreal, which have several million dollars' worth of interests there.

When will the government show some maturity when it comes to managing our foreign affairs? When will it act in the interest of Canadians and restore healthy relations with this important Canadian ally?

[United Arab Emirates, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, what country did the government describe as Canada's most important export market in the Middle East? The UAE. Where, thanks to the government's pigheadedness, have some Canadians now been refused entry? The UAE. Where, thanks to the government's amateur level of diplomacy, the Toronto-based Circa Solar Energy, have to stop shipping product? The UAE.

How long will Canadians and Canadian jobs be penalized by the government's incompetence with regard to the UAE?

[Ensuring Safe Vehicles Imported from Mexico for Canadians Act, December 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise on behalf of the Liberal Party to debate Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

The purpose of Bill S-5 is to amend these two statutes to allow for the importation of certain used vehicles from Mexico with certain conditions applied.

The amendments are required in order to bring Canada into compliance with its international trade obligations under NAFTA.

Bill S-5 was introduced in the other place on April 14, 2010, and successfully passed third reading on June 8. Simply put, Bill S-5 would bring Canada into compliance with our NAFTA obligations regarding the importation of used cars from Mexico.

Although NAFTA was signed approximately two decades ago several provisions were delayed by up to 20 years in some cases. This is one such provision, a provision that only came into force last year.

When NAFTA was signed Canada reserved the right to maintain all of our restrictions on used vehicles until January 1, 2009. Since then we have embarked on a 10-year process to phase out all of Canada's restrictions.

Currently when used vehicles are imported into Canada from the United States they do not have to meet our environmental and safety standards as they cross the border. However, the owner must commit to ensuring that before he or she registers and licenses the vehicle the necessary repairs and upgrades are made so that the vehicle will be compliant, as we would all expect them to ensure compliance with our safety and environmental regulations.

I would argue that this is a very straightforward concept. What is odd is that the same permission is not granted to vehicles being imported from Mexico, despite the fact that Mexico is a NAFTA partner. It is this very incongruity that Bill S-5 attempts to rectify.

The bill deals specifically with two sets of regulations: Canada's vehicle safety regulations and Canada's environmental regulations. Both sets of rules are critical for the safe and clean operation of motor vehicles in Canada.

Used vehicles imported into Canada from any location absolutely must meet both our safety and environmental regulations. I do not think anyone in the House will oppose that concept. However, it does make sense for us to allow the importers of these used vehicles to bring them into Canada for the upgrades necessary to bring them up to our standards.

We want compliance with our environmental and our safety regulations. How that happens can either benefit certain people in Canada in terms of additional work and additional jobs for our auto mechanics, for example, or we could insist that that happens elsewhere and deny Canadian auto mechanics the ability to have access to this additional work.

I will stress, our concern is the safety of Canadians and the compliance with our environmental regulations. As long as that is done and as long as these cars are compliant or made compliant before they are registered and licensed, then that is a good thing for Canada. We would then argue for allowing them to come into the country first so that Canadian auto mechanics and Canadians have the opportunity for that work. Indeed, allowing this law to continue to prevent the work from being done in Canada only punishes those auto mechanics and other people who might benefit from that work. The only question I have is why it took the government so long to introduce these measures.

A similar story, these NAFTA exemptions were set to expire in 2009. Here we are at the end of 2010. We are on the verge of 2011 and we are only finally getting to this issue. The delay cannot be attributed to the opposition, as the government so often likes to do. Bill S-5 was only introduced in the Senate on April 14, 2010. It moved quickly through the other place, passing on June 8.

It is ultimately most important in the context of the bill that Canada live up to its NAFTA commitments. Bill S-5 will not weaken our environmental or safety laws. The health and safety of Canadians will not be compromised. Indeed, the benefits of Bill S-5 include allowing Canadian auto mechanics and others to benefit from this work. It is for these reasons that we support Bill S-5 and encourage its rapid passage.

[Armenian Canadian Community, December 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the work of the Armenian Canadian community in its efforts to preserve and celebrate Armenian history and culture.

Today, unfortunately, marks the fifth anniversary of the destruction of thousands of intricately hand-carved khachkars, stone crosses, erected between the sixth and seventeenth century, a significant loss of history and culture felt by people of Armenian descent around the world.

Too often, religious, ethnic and geopolitical disagreements lead to actions that are hurtful to others. We cannot change history but we can and must use its lessons to move forward.

Canada has been built on immigration from all over the world and we are now the most successfully pluralistic society on earth. We should be a beacon for how tolerance and respect for others and for all of our differences are fundamental to living in harmony.

In that spirit, I encourage my friends in the Armenian Canadian community as they continue their hard work in preserving and promoting Armenian history and culture.

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that my colleague likes me. I must say that we do enjoy a very cordial relationship and one that is quite productive on the international trade committee and in our various negotiations. I hope my colleague appreciates the sentiment in return. We can accomplish much more in the House when we work together than when we engage in ultra hyper-partisan activities. Therefore, I thank him for the gesture.

I can see, however, that there is an opportunity to take my comments out of context. I will just elaborate on my concerns. We are concerned in Canada that we are seeing jobs that tend to be the lower paid and not necessarily the most effective and good strong jobs for Canadians living in Canada. That is something that we want to avoid.

My focus is on encouraging the success Canadian enterprises that have those higher paid jobs and that focus on those areas where Canada has a comparative advantage. We need to understand that in a global environment we are not all the same and we are not all going to compete for the same types of jobs and the same level of pay scale--