Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2005

Veterans

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade (Emerging Markets)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to respond to the question in the House today from the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni concerning Canada's efforts to resolve the softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. and to secure the return of the duties paid by Canadian lumber exporters and held in the U.S.

As the hon. member may know, the federal government has worked closely with the Canadian lumber industry and with the provinces in seeking a durable resolution to this long-standing dispute. We share a commitment with the provinces and the industry to defend the interests of the people and the communities that depend on this vital industry.

I must commend the hon. member, because he brings up the issues of the industry almost every day, in committee, and we are working to overcome the problems that the industry has.

Among the numerous legal challenges that Canada is undertaking, the NAFTA and WTO proceedings on threat of injury are critical cases. Without a determination that imports of Canadian softwood lumber threaten to injure the U.S. lumber industry, the U.S. has no legal basis for its countervailing and anti-dumping duties. The WTO ruling of March 2004, which found in Canada's favour that imports of Canadian lumber to the U.S. do not threaten to harm the U.S. lumber industry, was a major victory for us here in Canada.

Notwithstanding these very positive results from both the NAFTA and the WTO injury cases, we are not yet at the end of our litigation process. As the hon. member will know, the U.S. requested the establishment of an extraordinary challenge committee in November to review the proceedings of the panel in the NAFTA injury case. Our government believes that the U.S. allegations before this extraordinary challenge committee are without foundation and we are working with the industry to mount a strong defence of Canadian interests in this case. If we are successful, the U.S. will be required under its own law to revoke the duty orders and refund the duties with interest.

The U.S. has legal obligations under both U.S. law and NAFTA to refund those duties. In every previous FTA and NAFTA case, from pork to swine to red raspberries to steel, the U.S. has refunded duties when the underlying order has been found by FTA and NAFTA panels to be inconsistent with U.S. law.

The United States also routinely refunds duties in cases before U.S. courts when the U.S. courts strike down these duty measures. The U.S. argument that it has no legal obligation to refund lumber duties would apply only to NAFTA partners. This would mean, in effect, that every other country in the world could expect to receive better treatment than Canada and Mexico.

I can tell the House that Canada would not have negotiated an agreement that would give us worse treatment than we would receive in U.S. courts.

The government is fighting hard to get those duties back for Canadian producers, not only through litigation but also through high level representation. For example, in June the Minister of International Trade wrote a strongly worded letter to the U.S. commerce secretary outlining our concerns. The minister urged the commerce department to uphold U.S. law and its international trade obligations. Most recently, on January 26, in response to the commerce claims that the U.S. is not obliged to refund the duties, the minister released a public statement repudiating these claims.

In the meantime, the government uses every opportunity to raise Canadian concerns over the U.S. trade actions with the U.S. administration. Our Prime Minister raised the issue with President Bush when he was here, most recently during the president's visit to Ottawa on November 30--

[The Speaker]

I am afraid the hon. parliamentary secretary has run out of time. The hon. member for Nanaimo--Alberni has a one minute reply.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, because of the government's inaction on this file the very survival of NAFTA is at stake here.

Michael de Jong, the B.C. minister of forests, in speaking before the Vancouver Board of Trade, said that it was no longer a dispute about softwood lumber, that it was all about the survival of NAFTA. He said that to the extent that the U.S. was signalling its unwillingness to be bound by decisions of the NAFTA panels, it casts doubt on whether Canada and Mexico could rely on the terms of NAFTA and casts doubt on the reliability of the U.S. as a trading partner. He asked whether we were on the verge of trade anarchy with the U.S.

Rising log exports are a big concern in my community. We have rules about log exports that state that we cannot export logs unless they are surplus. As a result of this dispute, the mills are down, production is down and therefore there is a surplus of logs. This really hurts people in my community.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the passion the hon. member has for this industry and his community. My community suffered a downturn in the steel and coal industries so I know what it is about.

The government is taking a multi-prong approach to this issue. We have put over $350 million into these communities. We are negotiating and pushing hard at both the Prime Minister's level and the minister's level.

We have a customer who has been treating us unfairly. We also have an opportunity to have countervailing measures. We are looking into that to see what industries will be affected when we do that.

We are using every measure we can to keep pressure on the U.S. to give us back our money.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today in the debate on Quebec's jurisdiction with regard to international representation.

First, I want to enlighten the House on what Canadian constitutional law says or does not say in terms of foreign policy and the right to conclude international treaties. The Constitution Act, 1867, when first enacted, was virtually silent on this subject since the British government had reserved for itself the right to conclude international treaties affecting Canada, with the result that, under section 132 of the Constitution, the Parliament of Canada was nothing more than the agent implementing these treaties for the empire.

Thanks to the Statute of Westminster in 1931, Canada acquired full status as an international presence and has maintained, since that time, that it has the exclusive jurisdiction to conclude treaties and implement them.

However, this vision was changed ever so slightly as of 1937, by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, which set things straight. In fact, London ruled that the power to implement international treaties belonged to the level of government responsible for the jurisdiction mentioned in the treaty. In other words, Parliament and the various legislative assemblies, including the National Assembly of Quebec, have the power to create legislation to implement treaties concluded by the federal government with sovereign states, as long as the matter specified in the treaty is under their jurisdiction, according to the Constitution Act, 1867.

This historic decision paved the way for a whole series of legal decisions about the power to conclude and implement international treaties. According to these decisions, among other things, the conclusion by the federal government of an international treaty targeting an exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces does not mean that the provinces are no longer responsible for this area of jurisdiction. In simpler terms, it means that the intervention of legislative assemblies remains essential to the implementation of said treaty. Furthermore, and in my opinion, the essential thing to remember from these rulings is that Quebec and the provinces are not bound to implement a treaty concluded by the federal government which affects any matter under their exclusive jurisdiction.

That is the very heart of the matter. It was raised by Quebec premier Jean Charest, who put it as follows:

When the Government of Quebec is the only government with the jurisdiction to implement an international commitment, it is normal for it to be the one who makes that commitment.

In a context of globalization, where decisions are multilateral and liable to affect it directly, what could be more normal and logical than for the Government of Quebec to demand the right to speak for itself in international forums when matters under its exclusive jurisdiction are involved?

If on the one hand, these exclusive jurisdictions enabled it to refuse to implement any international agreement concluded by the federal government because it would not fit in with its aspirations, then it goes without saying that, on the other hand, in order to achieve treaties respectful of the specific needs of Quebec, it needs to speak for itself.

In a context of globalization, where crucial decisions affecting Quebec are taken, and with full respect for its own constitutional dynamic, the federal government must recognize that Quebec has the right and power to assume on the international level the extension of its internal jurisdiction. This legitimate request is nothing new, having been stated for the first time in 1965 by the Liberal Minister of Education, Paul Gérin-Lajoie. Known ever since as the “Gérin Lajoie doctrine”, it was reiterated by the Premier of Quebec last November in Charlottetown.

Since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has publicly acknowledged that she could have said the same as Premier Charest did, we have asked her whether she would propose to her government that it allow Quebec to speak for itself internationally.

As usual, however, the question was deflected by a jesting remark from the minister, who found it amusing that such a request would come from a sovereignist MP.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government recognizes the legitimate interest of the provinces in taking part in international forums and conferences, particularly in fields of provincial jurisdiction or shared jurisdiction.

The federal government has, over the years, taken steps to strengthen the role played by the provinces in Canada's relations with international intergovernmental organizations. Thus, it has established a number of mechanisms for consultation prior to international conferences, and regularly invites the provinces to be part of Canadian delegations.

In the context of UNESCO meetings and conferences, arrangements have been made through which Canada invites Quebec or another province to speak as a member of the Canadian delegation, from the government's official place and in Canada's name, to address certain aspects of Canada's position in accordance with international law and diplomatic practice.

With respect to the draft proposal for the International Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Content and Artistic Expression, we note that, since the beginning of September, the federal government has consulted the provinces, Quebec, in particular, on the draft proposal for the convention at least 13 times, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage will be consulting Quebec again on this matter.

During the discussions at UNESCO in Paris in September, the Canadian delegation included several representatives from the Government of Quebec. Canada had the largest delegation of all the countries represented, and Quebec's position on cultural diversity was heard.

We must recognize, however, that Canada's relations with international organizations, the members of which are countries, are an integral part of Canada's foreign policy, in matters of trade or culture, in concluding agreements or treaties, in the sending of delegations or any other activities to which Canada contributes as a country. This is a strictly federal jurisdiction and in this context, the extension of provincial fields of jurisdiction may be recognized.

Participation by the provinces in international intergovernmental conferences has never been an exception to the international criterion of a country, since the delegation speaks with a single voice.

As we can see, many consultations take place prior to international forums, conferences and negotiations, and participation by the provinces and territories is becoming stronger and more varied. The mechanisms by which the provinces and territories are involved in cooperation and consultation on the management of international issues that may involve provincial jurisdictions are regularly reviewed, so that improvements can be made as quickly as possible.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, ultimately the issue is not about who submits this request from Quebec, a federalist government in Quebec or a sovereignist member in Ottawa. The issue is whether this legitimate request will be sanctioned by the federal Liberal government. Quebec's right to speak internationally is necessary and imperative for better defending the interests of the Quebec nation.

If Quebec cannot intervene when an agreement affecting its exclusive jurisdictions is being discussed internationally, then it is only natural for Quebec to refuse to implement said agreement. The people of Quebec often do not have a voice when international treaties on their future are being discussed and concluded.

While the current government claims to work in collaboration with the provinces, it refuses to allow Quebec to use its own voice abroad in discussions involving Quebec's powers and interests. When Canada boasts that it speaks with one voice, that voice excludes Quebec and that is a great disadvantage.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of excluding Quebec, but rather of accommodating Quebec, as we have seen in the case of UNESCO.

It should be noted that Quebec did not ask to be recognized as an associate member of UNESCO.

The reference to the idea of territory as a possibility of becoming an associate member of UNESCO is inaccurate. This idea refers to colonies administered by a member state or country. Quebec is not a colony, nor do we think it should be.

However, there are rules of conduct that have to be followed, including about sole representation of delegations from sovereign countries and who can speak at these international forums.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this adjournment debate as a consequence of the response given to me by the Minister of National Defence to my question on November 15, 2004 regarding the deplorable condition of military housing.

The decision to allow military housing to deteriorate is not the decision of the men and women who occupy these homes. The Canadian Forces Housing Agency says it is broke and cannot afford to address all the health and safety concerns.

I asked the minister why his government was making the rank and file who live in the housing pay for cuts to the defence budget with huge rent increases. While the minister chose to deny the veracity of my question, let us examine the facts to determine who is being accurate and who is being inaccurate as the minister tried to suggest in his less than complete response.

When the Liberal government separated housing from direct DND supervision to the newly created Canadian Forces Housing Agency in 1997, it did so with the intention of the agency operating on a break even basis; that is, the rents collected from the rental units were now to cover the cost of maintenance and repairs. This represented a change from the past practice of just pocketing the rents since the soldiers who occupied the housing sure could not see any maintenance in relation to the rent that had been paid over the years to DND.

The Liberal government transferred the base housing to this new agency knowing full well that years of defence budget cuts had resulted in the majority of base housing being substandard; that is, a majority of base housing had been allowed to deteriorate far below respectable community housing standards. Had the necessary maintenance and repairs been completed on a timely basis, the housing crisis in the Canadian military would not exist.

If the Liberal Party were operating in an open, honest, transparent manner, the necessary repairs to bring the base housing up to community standards would have been completed before the new agency was created. It is a cruel trick of the government to announce a pay increase in the front door while at the same time implementing huge rent increases, 30% over two years in some markets, through the back door.

When we take the rent increases, the increase in the cost of rations on base and the Ontario health tax premium that is being illegally collected from members of the Canadian military residing in Ontario, members of the forces are falling further and further behind in the cost of living. It is clear that the catch-up of 6.6% from April 2004 and the increase of 2.4% for the non-commissioned ranks and the 3.28% catch-up and 2.5% increase for officers that is expected to be announced in the budget will not even come close to bridging the gap between costs and soldiers' pay.

I believe it would be informative to quote the April 5, 2001 Hansard . The member had this to say:

The government also has very sly methods of taking money away from individuals. I draw the attention of the House to one very important point. The government is giving money to our soldiers on the one hand and on the other hand it is yanking the money away with increased rents on their private married quarters and forcing them to pay for things they did not pay for before. It is giving money with one hand but taking money with two hands.

--It is disgusting. These people put their lives on the line for us and the government is shafting them.

That quote is from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. Nothing has changed for our military personnel. What has changed is that the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca now sits on the wrong side of the House as an apologist for the government that he was always quick to criticize for obvious reasons.

In fact, the parliamentary secretary had this to say to a newspaper in his home province: “It is one thing for the federal Liberals to have neglected and underfunded the Canadian Forces since they were elected 10 years ago, but entirely another when they penalize our military personnel and their families”.

I further note that the same member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca begged the defence minister to freeze rents on private married quarters and to halt any cut to the post living differential. As a measure of the member's new-found influence on the government benches, rents were subsequently raised and cuts were made.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I will have some good news for the member in the context of this speech which addresses a very important issue that she brings up. How do we ensure that our Canadian Forces men and women and their families have the best homes, the best accommodation, and the best living conditions that we can afford to give them? That is our objective.

The members that we are dealing with, whether they live in Canadian Forces housing or rent or own private homes in their communities, must be dealt with in the fairest fashion possible. That is why we have invested more than $400 million to repair, maintain and address health and safety issues for housing since 1998. For example, the Department of National Defence has replaced furnaces, re-insulated homes, improved drainage and sewer systems, and installed new doors, windows and roofs where required.

There is no question though that more has to be done and that is our objective. There is much more that we can do and are doing, which is quite exciting. We will invest an additional $120 million to renovate, improve and maintain military housing over the next three years. I think that is good news. All rental income is reinvested back into housing through the modernization program and upgrades.

However, we are looking at the housing issue as part of a much broader package. The member is right when she talks about others, such as the PLD and other benefits that CF members are receiving, including pay raises, which should happen very soon. Hopefully, they will be quite pleased with what is coming down the pipe.

In recent years, the government has also introduced tax exemptions for Canadian Forces members serving in high-risk operations, such as Afghanistan, and has introduced new operational allowances, such as the post-combat reintegration assistance program. The government continues to overhaul the system by which we remunerate CF members and their benefits. We will continue to do that for their benefit. We have also introduced five new operational trauma and stress support cases across Canada.

I want to also bring to the member's attention that we are working on ways to ensure that the CF members and their families will receive better health care. We are working on this right now with the minister and the department. That should be quite exciting. The government has also provided substantial pay increases, as we know. Our non-commissioned members alone have received a total pay increase of more than 35% since 1996.

The post living differential that the member referred to is something that we have been dealing with for a long time. It is essentially a cost of living allowance. It is a pool of funds that increases according to the increase in the cost of living for the general public. We hope to ensure that continues. We tried to use that in conjunction with a series of other opportunities and options to ensure that our CF members and their families receive the highest remuneration that is affordable to the taxpayer.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the past the government could get away with providing substandard housing because, on average, a soldier would be posted to a base for four years and then be moved. Living in substandard housing was somehow made more bearable knowing that it was not forever.

The big defence budget cuts brought in by the finance minster, now Prime Minister, Mr. Dithers, meant that the government no longer had the money to post soldiers to different bases. While soldiers and their families might have been prepared to endure drafty houses and leaking pipes for a short period of time, budget cuts have meant that soldiers could find themselves serving their entire professional career on a single base.

This fact was recognized in the October 1998 report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs entitled “Moving Forward: A Strategic Plan for Quality of Life Improvements in the Canadian Forces”. In the chapter called “The Housing Crisis”, all the points that I have referred to have been noted and verified. What I am stating is fact. I look forward to the response from the minister.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that of our CF members and their families, 20% of them live in private married quarters, or PMQs, and 80% of them live off base. Also, for those who live on base in the PMQs, $400 million has been put into those houses. Another $120 million will be put in over the next three years. Is that enough? That is the best we can do for now.

We recognize full well that there are problems in some of these homes. We are committed to working together to ensure that we improve the homes and the PMQs. However, we will look at this as part of a larger package, including the pay raises that are coming across very soon for all members, the tax-free exemption that they receive when they are working abroad in high-risk zones, and other benefits that we are working on, including the health care package, which will be very important, not only for the CF members but their families.

We will continue as a government to work hard to improve the standard of living for our CF members. We thank them for the hard work that they do for Canadians across our country.

[The Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:21 p.m.)