Debates of April 18th, 2005

Petitions

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from constituents in the town of Springside in my riding. They ask Parliament to define marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman because that is the best foundation for families and the raising of children. They state that whereas the definition of marriage has been changed by the courts, it should be the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament to define marriage and not the courts. They ask Parliament to define marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I have another petition of a similar nature from a number of constituents in Wadena. I will not go through it all, but they are essentially asking for the same thing.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a number of petitions containing just under 2,000 signatures of constituents from Crowfoot. These are people from all across the large riding of Crowfoot: Three Hills, Drumheller, Strathmore, Rockyford, Big Valley. The petitioners ask Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to present on behalf of my constituents. These petitioners are primarily from Three Hills, Linden, Carbon and Bashaw. They call upon Parliament to provide Canadians with greater access to natural health products and to restore freedom of choice in personal health care by enacting private member's Bill C-420, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by literally thousands and thousands of Canadians insisting that the government immediately implement the refugee appeal division approved by Parliament in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002.

The petitioners express serious alarm that although Canada has been a signatory to the 1951 UN convention on refugees and the 1948 universal declaration of human rights, many of its recent actions have fostered a climate hostile to refugees. In particular, they point to the failure of the federal government to implement the appeal provision approved by Parliament in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002, despite international recognition of the right of an appeal for refugee claimants and despite repeated public promises of implementation. It is urgent that the government act on the message contained in the petition.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon on behalf of a great number of citizens to draw the attention of the House of the following.

The petitioners believe that the majority of Canadians believe that the fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary.

They also put forward the argument that the majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of a single, that is unmarried male, and a single, that is unmarried female.

They are petitioning Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents in Brandon--Souris asking Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions.

The first is from a number of residents from Langley in the greater Vancouver area. They are petitioning Parliament to consider autism therapy for children with autism as a medically necessary treatment. They are also asking for the creation of an academic chair at a university in each province to teach treatment to deal with autism.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also have five petitions dealing with marriage. The petitioners are asking Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking section 33 of the charter if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions covering the same issue. They all concern the definition of marriage. These petitions are signed by individuals from the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, the city of Niagara Falls, and Fort Erie and the greater Fort Erie area including Stevensville and Ridgeway.

The petitioners are calling on Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. These are sentiments with which I completely agree.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like so many of my colleagues, and the many times I have risen in this chamber in the past month or two, I am pleased to present a petition. This one is from the citizens of the beautiful city of Prince George in my riding.

The petitioners note that the majority of Canadians believe that the fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament, not by unelected judges. They also note that the majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of a single man and a single woman.

Therefore they call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, commonly referred to as the notwithstanding clause, if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition. I had hoped to rise on a motion with regard to Bill C-206. Unfortunately the Speaker's arrangements require that to be delayed.

However, I would like to present a petition which is also on the subject matter of marriage. It is a petition we have heard hundreds of times in this place.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that the fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary, and that the majority of Canadians support the current definition of marriage.

The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the invocation of section 33 of the charter, commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-40, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act, be read a second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Grain Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before my speech was interrupted for statements by members and oral question period, both CP and CN provide service to Thunder Bay and points further east of that city.

Grain from Thunder Bay can be shipped directly to export in ocean vessels, by lake freighter for consumption in eastern Canada, or for export to world markets from ports on the St. Lawrence River. All rail movements passing through Thunder Bay are covered by the revenue cap up to Thunder Bay. Eastbound movements over CN's north line are also covered by the revenue cap, as far as Armstrong, Ontario, which is north of Thunder Bay. Armstrong and Thunder Bay are approximately equidistant east of Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Eastbound movements by rail east of Thunder Bay or Armstrong are subject to commercial freight rates. There are separate revenue caps for CN and CPR. The revenue caps vary from year to year and take into consideration factors related to inflation, traffic volumes and changes in the average length of haul. Compliance with the revenue cap is monitored by the agency, which compares the railways' eligible revenues to the amounts they were entitled to earn under their caps.

The agency is required to make its determinations by December 31 each year. In determining compliance, the agency will reduce the railway revenues to account for incentives, rebates or other reductions negotiated between railways and shippers. If the agency determines that a railway has exceeded its revenue cap for the crop year, the railway must repay the excess amount plus a penalty.

In crop year 2003-04, about 24.5 million tonnes of western grain were moved under the revenue cap. This was about 50% higher than the western grain volume for the previous crop year, when drought conditions prevailed. Of course, we all remember the drought in western Canada.

In crop year 2003-04, about 11 million tonnes of western grain moved to Vancouver, 9.5 million tonnes to Thunder Bay and Armstrong, and about 3 million tonnes to Prince Rupert. CN's revenue cap in 2003-04 was $322 million and CPR's $310 million.

I will now turn to the U.S. trade complaint. On March 31, 2003, the U.S. officially requested a WTO panel to examine U.S. allegations respecting the consistency with international trade obligations of the activities of the CWB in relation to the disciplines on state trading enterprises set out in article 17 of the GATT, and certain policies affecting the importation of grain, including the rail revenue cap, rail car allocation, grain entry authorization and grain mixing in relation to GATT article III.4.

Article III.4 of the GATT 1994 requires in the relevant part that:

The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use.

This is generally referred to as the national treatment obligation.

Before I go on further about Article III.4 and the revenue cap, I want to reiterate that the WTO ruled in favour of Canada on the CWB issue. It is important to repeat this, particularly to the Conservative Party over the way, which still does not understand that aspect. The WTO found that the CWB and its activities are consistent with Canada's international trade obligations. That is clear.

In other words, the WTO confirmed that the Canadian Wheat Board is a fair trader, consistent with Canada's position at the WTO negotiating table. A number of members over there have claimed otherwise and I do not find it at all surprising that they were wrong.

In its complaint, the U.S. alleged that the revenue cap favours domestic grain over imported grain, and therefore is inconsistent with Canada's obligations under Article III.4.

The basis of the U.S. complaint was that the rail revenue cap applies only to western Canadian grain and that no imported grain is eligible to receive the benefits from the revenue cap. The U.S. argued this discriminatory treatment provides more favourable conditions of competition for Canadian domestic grain than for imported grain. In other words, we were accused of overprotecting western Canadian grain producers.

In its decision, the WTO panel noted that it may be the case that the revenue cap does not currently restrain railway rates, and that it is unlikely to do so in the future. However, the panel noted that it is not necessary to demonstrate actual adverse trade effects in establishing a violation of Article III.4, since Article III:4 protects conditions of competition and not trade effects.

The panel also noted that, according to GATT/WTO jurisprudence on Article III.4, the mere fact that an imported product is exposed to a risk of discrimination is sufficient to conclude that it has been treated less favourably. As such, the panel concluded that the revenue cap provisions of the CTA were not consistent with Article III.4 of the GATT.

The government considered various options to bring the revenue cap into compliance with the WTO ruling. One option would be to simply repeal the revenue cap provisions. That is not my personal preference. However, the government indicated in Straight Ahead , its vision for transportation in Canada released in 2003, that it would continue to monitor the impact of its grain reforms of 2000 before making decisions on further policy changes.

Let me assure members that the government has no intention of repealing the revenue cap in response to the WTO decision, and that is a good thing.

Instead, the government will bring the revenue cap into compliance with the WTO decision by extending the revenue cap to foreign grain that is legally imported into Canada. That is far more logical. This is the option that has the least impact on the grain handling and transportation system. Foreign grain would have to meet all of the existing requirements in order to be eligible for coverage under the revenue cap.

In January 2005, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food held extensive consultations in western Canada on the government's proposed approach to address the WTO decision, including the proposed approach to the grain revenue cap. There was strong support for Canada to meet its WTO obligations and broad support for the government's proposed approach.

I would encourage this House to pass this bill as soon as possible, so that Canada can fulfill its obligations in accordance with the WTO decision.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier in debate there was some interesting discussion about the WTO between the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell and the NDP member who raised it and its relevance or assistance in the matter now before the House. It seems that there is a problem, at least with regard to grain matters. The WTO is causing some difficulties. I know from prior work on this file that issues to do with subsidies, particularly within European markets, put Canadian grains at a substantial disadvantage.

I wonder if the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell might be able to reaffirm the need for the WTO in regard to the broader context of a trade organization. I wonder if he would also indicate whether or not matters as they relate to Bill C-40 are now in fact a problem with regard to the recent rulings of the WTO.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will start with the last point raised by my colleague. In terms of Bill C-40, it is not that complicated for us to implement. As I indicated in the latter part of my remarks, the government is choosing the avenue that is most appropriate.

Second, the ruling is based not on the fact that there was a disadvantage, but that there was an increased risk even though no harm had yet been proven. That is roughly the sense of it. That is not the larger issue with the legislation. We comply and I believe we still get to protect the Canadian industry as well as before.

That being said, obviously we need to continue to do more to protect various industries under the World Trade Organization, agriculture more particularly. This is where both the member and I will disagree with some of the comments we heard earlier. This form of a Hobbesian state of nature that was described earlier, as if we could simply ignore international trading rules and that would be better, is sheer and utter nonsense. That was the NDP member. I see the member across seems to be worried that I somehow attributed that to him.

I, for one, am of the view that we need stricter international trading rules. In that environment, Canadian industry can better compete. I have no doubt that the farmers of my constituency are every bit as good as farmers elsewhere, not only in Canada, which is already the case, but internationally as well.

What we need is good trading rules so as to prevent countries from bombarding each other with subsidies, as the EU and the United States are doing now. This has the effect of lowering world prices and of course damaging Canadian agricultural interests in the process. And it is not just Canadian interests that are damaged in the process. Not that long ago, I was reading in a publication about the state of farming in Africa.

Madam Speaker, you and I are both members of the Canada-Africa parliamentary friendship group. We have been told, for instance, how the price of cotton in Africa has gone down to virtually nothing, which means that some of the poorest people in the world producing that particular agricultural commodity cannot get any price for it. People are starving because people in other countries are artificially subsidizing a commodity that has the effect of lowering that price.

What do we need, then? We need stronger trading rules, not weaker ones. We need a good multilateral environment that would protect farmers everywhere from the large treasuries of some countries when they do this kind of damage, not only to agriculture but to other areas as well.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member calls for stronger rules, but I wonder if he would not agree that rules are fine but the enforceability issues also have to go in lockstep, as well as the timeliness of the decisions that are taken. Indeed, because of the importance of the agricultural sector, we need to have an adequate dispute resolution mechanism which would ensure that there would be no unintended consequences or penalties way beyond reasonableness, given the nature of the dispute.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right. Stronger rules include stronger enforcement. That is part of having stronger rules. However, he is right in raising it as an issue. It must be stated often that the rules must be strict, but the component of the rules about the enforceability has to be strict as well.

He raises another good point too, and that is the rapidity of which we can get something acted upon. Here I will get into another issue completely, but it makes the point.

We have, for instance, a factory in my constituency that produces metal tubes. They are used for everything from toothpaste to ointments to cosmetics and other things. Right now they are suffering the effect of another country's exports. The other country's export has now been found in relation to a third country to have elements of dumping. The company in my constituency will have to launch a similar action to determine whether the product the same company located in South America is selling in Canada in competition to it is also dumping. One of the big concerns is the amount of time it takes to arrive at determinations in that regard.

It is my view this is probably one of the finest examples of justice delayed is justice denied. If in the process the factory is closed and then it wins the determination, fat chance that will reopen a previously closed factory. That is not the way things work in business. Once the corporate decisions are made, or once the company can no longer afford to pay the employees and all of those things, not that I think the company in my constituency is at that point, but as a general principle, sometimes it is too late for any reparation even if the company wins. In other words, even if it wins, it still loses except it loses knowing that it would have won had it been able to do something earlier, which hardly puts bread on the table for the families of my constituents, nor anyone else's.

There is strong support for actions being taken by some of our cabinet colleagues to strengthen WTO rules, and in the strengthening of those, I want the preservation of our supply management systems to be part of what will be the end result of those negotiations.

They are not a form of subsidy. They do not misplace foreign markets. Supply management is self-sufficient. It is supported by the three elements: the border controls that are manifested of course by way of a tariff; the production; and the other elements of the supply management system, namely the organized system that we have for it now. Those three elements, or the pillars as they are referred to, are important and they are not trade-distorted measures at the international level. We know that as Canadians and we have to continue to convince our ministers to keep with that position at the international level.

Privilege

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties regarding the recorded division requested earlier this day on the motion of the member for Windsor West concerning privilege, and I believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following. I move:

That the motion of the member for Windsor West concerning privilege moved earlier this day be deemed carried.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Does the hon. government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)