Debates of Dec. 6th, 2007

Special Import Measures Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for the Ottawa valley riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I welcome this opportunity to comment on the private member's bill tabled by the member for Terrebonne—Blainville calling on the government to amend a Special Import Measures Act.

The bill proposes an amendment to the Special Import Measures Act, Canada's trade remedy legislation that governs Canada's anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of dumped or subsidized goods that are found to cause injury to domestic producers.

Anti-dumping duties are additional duties designed to offset an exporters underpricing in an importing country's market. Countervailing duties are designed to offset the effects of foreign subsidies on imported products.

The act seeks to balance the interest between parties requiring protection from injuriously dumped or subsidized imports and those requiring access to imports to ensure profitability of their economic activities. This recognizes that Canadian industries are entitled to protection under certain circumstances and in conformity with internationally agreed rules. It also recognizes that Canada is a trading nation that relies on predictable trade flows, including the flow of imported goods, in order to remain competitive in the global economy.

The act can protect Canadian manufacturers from the injury inflicted by dumped or subsidized imports but was not intended to serve as a shield for Canadian companies in the face of the economic competitive realities of the global marketplace.

As the Government of Canada, it is our role and responsibility to represent all Canadians, which is quite different from the Quebec isolationists or separatists who lack the broader perspective that Canadian prosperity depends on open access to a free market.

There is no greater advertisement for a united Canada than a sharing of the prosperity that comes with being a member of the Canadian federation. We all benefit from Canada's status as a trading nation.

In my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, my constituents depend on access to international markets for their products. Individuals, like Dave Mackay who is the local president of the National Farmers Union in Renfrew county, have expressed concern on behalf of members of what they feel is a serious financial crisis among hog and beef farmers.

I am pleased to confirm that I am working toward a meeting with our local agricultural producers in Renfrew county as together we will try to find solutions for problems in which there are no easy fixes.

The border has only recently re-opened to beef and exports for Canadian farmers to the United States. While we, on the government side, are working with our farmers and continue to be the most responsive government to farmers in over 14 years, I have a real concern that our hard work as a government could be lost as a result of this or some other private member's bill from a separatist member of the House of Commons.

The same situation applies to the softwood lumber industry. The lumber industry is a significant employer in my riding. I am proud of the fact that one of the first items of business, thanks to the leadership of our Prime Minister, was to negotiate an end to the softwood lumber dispute.

I appreciate the cooperation I have received from the Minister of International Trade on the softwood lumber file and look forward to his continued cooperation with my local lumber producers as we work together to improve upon the existing agreement.

The time had come to move forward. We got the job done.

I have many other industries in my riding that rely upon foreign markets. Under no circumstances do I feel that we should be taking any actions in this place to jeopardize employment for all Canadians, including constituents in the riding and province of the member who proposed this private member's bill.

Our new Conservative government has committed to enhancing Canada's international competitiveness with our long term national economic plan, “Advantage Canada”, a plan designed to make Canada a true world economic leader.

From Ireland, to Singapore, to the United Kingdom, other countries are developing competitive advantages based on their own strengths. Given Canada's social, demographic and economic circumstances, we have the opportunity to create a competitive advantage of our own.

Advantage Canada is focused on creating five Canadian advantages to help improve our quality of life and succeed globally. These are: a tax advantage to reduce taxes for all and establish the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G-7; a fiscal advantage to eliminate Canada's total government net debt in less than a generation; an entrepreneurial advantage to reduce unnecessary regulation red tape and lower taxes to unlock business investment; a knowledge advantage to create the best educated, the most skilled and the most flexible workforce; and an infrastructure advantage to create modern, world-class infrastructure to ensure the seamless flow of people, goods and services.

Our ambitious Advantage Canada plan was tremendously well received from numerous organizations. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce heralded it as “a great road map, it's got all the elements of the things we need to do”. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce applauded it as a “good foundation to build on”. The Canadian Council on Learning was pleased with the “welcome and positive initiatives” included in the plan. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business cheered the plan's focus and “the key issues that our members say should be focused on”. That is just a small sampling of the reaction to Advantage Canada.

Our plan is optimistic, but realistic. It is visionary, but pragmatic and results-oriented. It is ambitious, but grounded in the realities of the world markets.

The world economy is changing. New players are emerging as major economic powers. Competition in world markets is fierce. Emerging economies, such as China, India and Brazil, with inexpensive labour, are becoming increasingly significant in the world economy. These countries have traditionally had low labour costs and their labour costs will remain lower than Canada's for the foreseeable future. This labour cost advantage is being maximized by increasingly effective trade and information and financial linkages with the global economy.

Since Advantage Canada's unveiling in 2006, we have taken significant steps in budget 2007 and in the recent fall economic update to implement its vision, including various measures helping businesses grow and compete.

Freer trade, advances in communications technology and relatively inexpensive transportation costs have helped firms to locate where they get the greatest advantage. Many labour intensive activities have moved to emerging economies, while developed countries are increasingly specialized in higher value-added activities, such as research and development, engineering and product design, that tend to be more capital and knowledge intensive. The rise of emerging economies creates both challenges and new opportunities for Canada. In the near term, emerging economies have increased the competitive pressure on low-skilled, labour intensive sectors.

In due course, the ability of developing countries to compete in higher value-added activities will also increase. Canada will need to continue to innovate and emphasize these higher value-added activities to maintain a competitive advantage and create better jobs. Yet these emerging economies bring significant opportunities for Canada and we look to capitalize and take advantage of these as our economy continues to grow and thrive.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to take part in today's debate on Bill C-411. It gives me great pleasure to be responding on behalf of the Minister of International Trade and specifically to support the comments of my colleague regarding the proposed amendment to Canada's trade remedy legislation.

The bill, introduced by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, raises issues that are at the heart of any discussion of Canada's competitiveness in the ever changing global economy. The Government of Canada is well aware of the opportunities and the challenges that international development presents for Canadian trade and investment interests.

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the government's approach and plans in this regard. Let me start with a few words regarding the international framework that underpins Canada's international commercial relations in general and specifically Canada's anti-dumping regime.

The World Trade Organization provides the rules that govern trade relations among the organization's 150 members. The membership includes Canada, plus all of our most significant trading partners.

The WTO framework consists of a series of agreements that are specific to particular areas of international trade policy. The agreement pertinent to today's debate is the agreement governing anti-dumping measures. While the WTO aims at equal treatment and a smooth flow of trade among its members, it also permits certain exceptions. Anti-dumping measures are one of these exceptions.

For those who are watching this debate, dumping occurs when a company exports a product at a price that is lower than the price it normally charges in its home market. The WTO rules spell out the circumstances in which a member may take measures against dump imports from another WTO member and the procedure for applying such measures.

Canada has implemented our rights and obligations under this agreement by means of Canada's Special Import Measures Act. This act falls under the Minister of Finance and its implementation falls under the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

I observe that Canada's anti-dumping framework involves a transparent, quasi-judicial process for the review of complaints by Canadian companies regarding dumping by foreign competitors. The process provides for a balanced and impartial review of the legitimate concerns of domestic industries in Canada and the evidence provided by foreign suppliers and their Canadian customers.

In announcing the introduction of this bill, the hon. member indicated that goods from China are a target of the proposal. Allow me to speak for a few moments about Canada's trade with China.

China is Canada's fourth largest export market and our second largest trading partner. Last year, our bilateral trade totalled over $40 billion. In Canada's case, this meant $7.7 billion in exports of goods alone. These indicators point to a strong and growing trade relationship with China, with tremendous benefits for both sides. One need only observe the accomplishments for Canadian firms in China, for example, in the engineering, financial, transportation and communication sectors, to see how strongly Canadian firms can compete in the dynamic Chinese market.

This is just part of the picture. There is another message that the statistics tell, the fact that imports from China are over four times our exports to China. Canadian consumers benefit from such imports in terms of price and choice.

We have also heard the concerns of certain Canadian producers regarding the growth in imports from China. Some of these complaints allege that these imports are being dumped in the Canadian market or that they benefit from subsidy programs in China.

Canada has 11 anti-dumping measures in place regarding imports from China. In three cases where the products were found to be subsidized, the goods are also subject to countervail measures. These actions demonstrate that Canada's trade remedy system is working.

Canadian firms have made use of the system by formally registering complaints regarding certain imports from China. Trade remedy measures have been applied to these imports where such measures were found by Canadian investigators to be warranted.

While it is useful to remind ourselves of Canada's current trade remedy actions against imports from China, the trade remedy system is not the mechanism we should be looking to in terms of addressing the broader issue of Canada's competitiveness in China and other key markets.

The government monitors our trading partners to ensure that they are living up to their WTO commitments. This includes China. In most cases China has implemented the commitments it took on when it joined the WTO in 2001.

There are exceptions however. Last year Canada filed a challenge against China at the WTO regarding China's tariff treatment of imported auto parts.

Canada has a strong interest in the auto parts sector. Last year Canadian manufacturers supplied over $370 million in auto parts to China's growing auto sector.

Furthermore, the government has recently decided to join other WTO members in formal WTO consultations with China. These are consultations that focus on China's enforcement of intellectual property rights and on certain Chinese subsidy programs.

The consultations will provide opportunities for Canada to relay the concerns of Canadian stakeholders to Chinese authorities and to assess China's latest steps in both areas to bring its regime into compliance with its WTO obligations.

Consultation are the first step in the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism. If consultations do not succeed in resolving the matter under discussion, Canada, like other WTO members, has the option of requesting a WTO panel to adjudicate the issue.

Canada's new government recognizes that many Canadian manufacturers are facing intensified competition and are adjusting to fast-changing global realities.

The government has recognized that Canada needs a more competitive business climate and is committed to government policies that encourage investment and job creation.

The Minister of Finance's economic statement last fall presented a road map of policy directions, “Advantage Canada”.

“Advantage Canada” includes a plan, the government's global commerce strategy, to more aggressively engage the world beyond our borders. For instance, the government is committed to reinvigorating our trade policy while we continue to work toward a meaningful result in the Doha round of multilateral negotiations.

We are also committed to stepping up the negotiation of bilateral trade agreements, ranging from free trade agreements to improved relations and investment accords.

In the case of China a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement is a priority. In today's global market, investment drives trade and investment is the essential catalyst for technology transfer and the development of supply chain links.

We therefore see significant benefits for Canada from an investment agreement with China. As well, our plan is about showing the world that Canada is moving up the value chain.

We are getting the message out that Canada is a leader in science and technology, and a great place to anchor North American commercial platforms, particularly where science, technology and innovation links are key. The government's strategy is also about stepping up our presence on the ground in key--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to ask my colleagues to take this seriously and read the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which was released in February 2007 with the unanimous approval of all members from all political parties in this House. After reading the report, they will realize that a great many of the things said in this House tonight are simply not true. A lot of misinformation has been heard.

I listened carefully to the remarks, and I think some things require clarification. I would remind the members that dumping does exist and that under international law, dumping is illegal. Companies that engage in this unfair, illegal trade practice export products below the cost of production or for less than they would sell them on their own domestic market.

When a business uses practices of this nature, it must expect countries to impose antidumping duties in order to counter the effect of these unfair and unlawful practices. Trade legislation must really protect businesses against the unfair and unlawful competition known as dumping. It is not just the Special Import Measures Act or the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, since those two authorities are under the minister, and it is the minister who raised the question of antidumping duties.

At this time, the Conservatives have decided not to enforce the Canadian trade legislation that could temporarily protect our businesses, as well as give them time to adapt to the new context and become modernized.

We would not be the first country to bring in measures to ensure that our businesses are not forced to compete with countries or importers that use unfair and unlawful means. The United States, 25 countries in Europe and all the members of the OECD have adopted such measures, all except two countries—and guess which? Australia and Canada.

The countries that have antidumping measures have issued a series of criteria to assess whether the practices of the Chinese government, in particular, distort the costs and prices. For example, they look at the value of the currency. The regulations, especially in China, are also considered. However, these countries know full well that theirs are not always on a par with the universally recognized regulations, and feel free to hide data.

The EU and the U.S. also evaluate the suppliers. Once again, Canada is showing a complete lack of leadership. I am convinced that this government, which wants law and order, cannot allow something unlawful to take place. It must automatically support my bill. I understand that the Conservative ideology is focused on the open market. However, the open market does not mean illegality. Allowing this to continue now means allowing illegality.

I believe that members who vote against my bill will be demonstrating that they are in favour of an illegal practice that harms Canadian and Quebec businesses. Next Wednesday we shall see who supports our businesses.

The government boasts that it has reduced taxes and passed measures to help the manufacturing, forestry and agriculture sectors. The reality is that they are enabling those turning a profit to add to their coffers. It has not brought forward any measures to help companies existing on credit to deal with the devastating effects of the high dollar. It is now preparing to allow foreign companies to use illegal and unethical practices.

The Bloc Québécois believes that globalization can benefit taxpayers. It provides the opportunity to have more variety in the choice of products. However, we must not allow globalization to harm the efforts of our companies who do not have sufficient means to help them exercise their rights.

Therefore, I repeat, dumping, members of the House, my colleagues—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 12, 2007, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking with respect to the issue regarding the question I posed to the government on the matter of capital punishment.

The Conservative government's decision not to seek clemency for Alberta born Ronald Allen Smith, the only Canadian on death row in the United States, is not only a reversal of longstanding Canadian law and policy, which would be bad enough, but it reflects a mindset where ideology and politics trump principle and policy.

Indeed, an appreciation of the government's decision reveals a government acting in ignorance of or indifference to law and precedent, both domestic and international, and even unaware of what its own departments are otherwise affirming.

For example, the Department of Foreign Affairs had reaffirmed Canada's traditional policy just days before the government's reversal by stating: “there is no death penalty in Canada...It is the policy of the government of Canada to seek clemency, on humanitarian grounds, for Canadians sentenced to death in foreign countries”.

But the unawareness or indifference did not end there. Witness the following: First, Canadian law prohibits the extradition of an American national to a state in the United States where the death penalty is practised. Yet, the Canadian government will not intervene in the case of a Canadian citizen sentenced to death in an American state.

Second, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Burns and Rafay case held that capital punishment was a violation of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and its protection against “cruel and unusual punishment”.

Accordingly, the court ruled that Canada could not extradite these Canadian citizens back to the United States unless it received an assurance from the requesting state that it would not impose the death penalty.

Is the government aware of this pronouncement, or is it indifferent to the decisions of the Supreme Court and prepared to proceed, notwithstanding the law of the land?

Third, on November 12, 2005, Canada ratified the second optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, wherein Canada expressed, among other things, that as a state party to the protocol:

[It is] desirous to undertake hereby an international commitment to abolish the death penalty,

Is the government aware that we ratified this protocol, or in this case as well, is it prepared to act in disregard of or indifference to our international as well as domestic commitments?

Fourth, on November 1, Canada was notably absent from the list of co-sponsors of a UN General Assembly resolution seeking an international moratorium on the death penalty.

Fifth, the supreme court of the United States has stayed an execution by lethal injection in the state of Mississippi pending a review of whether this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the American bill of rights.

In the case of a Canadian, Ronald Allen Smith, now sentenced to death by lethal injection in the State of Montana, is the government aware of the judicial review of the constitutionality of this practice now before the American supreme court, or is it yet again indifferent to and prepared to turn a blind eye to what is happening in breach once more of Canadian and international law and practice?

Sixth, a recent study by the American Bar Association demonstrates that homicide rates in non-death penalty states are no higher than in states that oppose the death penalty. As well, the study showed that the death penalty has a disproportionate impact on the poor, on people of colour, on those who have ineffective counsel and the like.

The question again, is the government aware of this data or is it indifferent to it if it does not comport with its ideological bent?

Seventh, is the government not aware that there is no appeal from the death penalty in the case of a wrongful conviction? We had a wrongful conviction in the case of Mr. Truscott. Had clemency not been given in that case, there never would have been any subsequent redress in that regard.

Moreover, the litany of reasons offered by the government for its--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has the floor.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was going on his to eighth point. Three is the number of times the opposition has raised this for the late show this week.

I will point out again, as I did yesterday, that there was no mention of victims of crime. We prefer on this side of the House to have a balanced approach to our criminal justice system where we take into account the rights of victims. I have not heard a member all week mention the plight of victims of crime.

The Minister of Justice has repeatedly stated in the House, on the issue of the death penalty, that the government is not changing the law in that regard. It was in 1976 that Canada abolished the death penalty from the Criminal Code.

Our government acknowledges that the legal systems of foreign jurisdictions have differing views on this issue. Although the government does recognize the sovereign decision of each state to determine its own laws, the government continues to advocate for the full respect for international safeguards where the death penalty is still in use.

On November 15, the UN General Assembly voted on a resolution that calls for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Canada supported this resolution and, in keeping with our support for the objective of the resolution, voted with the co-sponsors against efforts to undermine the resolution.

As the hon. member can plainly see, we are taking a stand internationally on this issue.

With respect to clemency, the hon. member's statement is quite incorrect. The minister has said that our government will deal with these issues on a case by case basis. Potentially, however, if another country will only grant clemency on the basis of the offender being repatriated to Canada, we could have a difficult situation inasmuch as an offender who committed murder abroad could be eligible for parole in Canada and subsequently be free to live in our communities.

As is evident from our ambitious justice agenda, our government's first priority is to protect Canadians. We would be abdicating that responsibility by the potential release of a multiple murderer. I am confident that Canadians do not want murderers free to roam our streets, especially if they have not served a sentence proportionate to the seriousness of their crime.

As the Minister of Justice has said in the House:

—this country and this government, in particular, has had an outstanding record with respect to human rights at home and abroad. I think it is a record for which all Canadians can be very proud.

We will continue to fight for Canadians. We will also fight to ensure that our families and our communities are safe.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the litany of reasons the government gives for its unreasonable decision are even less reassuring. The notion about Mr. Smith returning to Canada, nobody is speaking about Mr. Smith being repatriated to Canada. Our objection is to the death penalty. This is raised as a red herring.

The notion of protecting the security of Canadians, we are no less concerned about the security of Canadians nor about the victims of crime. This issue is all about the death penalty. Nothing the government does can deflect away from what this is all about. It is about the sanctity of life and the death penalty.

The government representative speaks about the fact that we do not care about victims of crime. In my remarks I brought up the very notion about the dangers of wrongful conviction and that there was no appeal from a wrongful conviction. The death penalty in the case of a wrongful conviction is the worst kind of assault on victims and their profound rights.

What we are speaking about is the sanctity and reverence for human life. A case by case basis is an—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what I was talking about. Once again, he is talking about a multiple murderer. There was no mention of the two native American victims in this case.

As a government, our position is extremely clear. We have said that we have no intention of changing our laws in Canada. Surely the hon. member acknowledges that our jurisdiction as a government is for our country and our country is Canada. We have no intention of changing the law in Canada.

In cases dealing with Canadians who are in other jurisdictions, the minister has said that this will be dealt with on a case by case basis. I think Canadians are satisfied with that. I will go back to my earlier remark. I do not believe Canadians want multiple murderers roaming their streets. Canadians have told us that they want us to have a justice system that protects them.

We are going to continue to respect our international obligations and our obligations to Canadians. We are going to continue to fight for human rights both here and abroad.

[Bill Casey, Independent, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, was passing through Kennedy airport in New York when he was stopped, detained and held in solitary confinement for quite a while in Brooklyn without access to a lawyer and without being charged or having any idea of what was going on. He was then taken to Syria, on a private plane, I understand, and held there for a year, where he was tortured and suffered a lot of inhumane treatment.

A lot of this happened because of information that came from Canadian security agencies, be it the RCMP, CSIS or whoever. This wrong information was provided to the American authorities. After questions were raised, after people started asking questions about it, other information was leaked from these agencies that impacted on Mr. Arar's reputation and public image and on the way everybody looked at his case.

Some time ago, I asked the Minister of Public Safety what was the status of the process to hold accountable the people who released this wrong information that caused Mr. Arar so much grief. At the time, maybe four or five months ago, he told me that there were three or four investigations under way.

I know that I was not the only one who asked about this. I know that the hon. member for Mount Royal as well as several other members asked if anyone was going to be held accountable for what happened to Mr. Arar. Mr. Arar suffered. His wife suffered. His children suffered. Canadian taxpayers paid a substantial price. Everybody has paid a price except the people who actually caused the problem. I believe they should be held accountable at some stage. To the best of my knowledge, that has never happened.

Last week, I asked the Minister of Public Safety about the status of these investigations and if he thought anyone would be held accountable eventually. He must have misunderstood my question, because his answer was that an “apology was given and also compensation”, and that the government continues “to appeal on behalf of Mr. Arar...in the United States”.

I am not concerned about the United States so much right now. I would like to know about the investigations that are ongoing in Canada. Again, I believe that someone should be held accountable. There should not be a double standard. I think this case screams out for justice. I do not believe the RCMP and CSIS should be left under this cloud. Someone should be held accountable for these actions.

Again, I would like to ask very specifically about these investigations. What are the investigations? What exact steps are being taken to determine who gave out the wrong information? What interviews are being done? Who is being interviewed? What officers are investigating?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the questions put to the House by the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley regarding ongoing investigations into Canadian involvement in Mr. Arar's imprisonment.

I respect the member's views and appreciate his concern with respect to this particular case. As hon. members know, the government took immediate action to begin implementing the 23 recommendations outlined in Justice O'Connor's report.

As a result of Justice O'Connor's recommendations, we have put in place new protocols and signed a new memorandum of understanding to establish guidelines on information sharing between the RCMP and CSIS, and also between Canada and our allies.

Our goal is to move forward and continue to make the changes that are needed to prevent what happened to Mr. Arar from happening again.

The Government of Canada, following the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, apologized to Mr. Arar last January. Furthermore, it was this government that negotiated compensation for Mr. Arar and his family.

The government accepted all of the recommendations made by Justice O'Connor in his “Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar” and is implementing each and every one of them. This includes the recommendation that the Government of Canada register a formal objection with the Government of the United States concerning its treatment of Mr. Arar and Canadian officials involved with this case.

Immediately following receipt of Justice O'Connor's report, the Minister of Public Safety wrote to the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, on September 21, 2006, asking for his support in ensuring that United States agencies were aware of the commission's findings and that appropriate steps would be taken to amend U.S. records accordingly.

In addition, the Prime Minister spoke to President Bush and the former minister of foreign affairs wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State to register Canada's objections to the actions of the U.S. government in the Arar case.

More recently, on October 24 before the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted some deficiencies in the handling of Maher Arar's case.

While the government is encouraged by the comments made by the secretary of state regarding Mr. Arar's case, further action has been taken in the hopes that the United States government will continue to take action in order to fully address this matter. Immediately following Secretary Rice's appearance before the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety wrote another letter to Secretary Chertoff, encouraging the United States government to take appropriate steps to ensure that Mr. Arar's name is removed from all relevant lookout lists.

This government has taken a significant number of steps to ensure this does not happen again. It has implemented a number of recommendations that were made. This member needs to look forward and not backward.

[Bill Casey, Independent, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that answer is almost scary. I appreciate all that the government has done to ensure that this does not happen again in the future, but something awful happened in the past and a lot of people paid a huge price. What happened to Mr. Arar was wrong and I would say from the member's answer that the government is not going to bother trying to hold anyone accountable.

It is funny that both the answer from the other day and the answer from today are mostly focused on criticizing the Americans for their actions. What I want are answers about the Canadian government's actions in the investigations that I was told were ongoing.

The other day when I heard about the awful incident at the Vancouver airport, right away it was announced that there were three or four investigations under way. It sounded exactly like the answers we got in the Maher Arar case. There were three or four investigations under way and we have never heard anything from them.

I am asking the government if anyone is ever going to be held accountable. Is there any effort to hold anybody accountable?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question but that a full inquiry has been held into the actions relating to Canadian officials in relation to Maher Arar. There has been a significant number of recommendations. The government has accepted and adopted all 23 recommendations in Justice O'Connor's report. Work on implementing them is largely complete. I think those are significant steps. Significant actions have been taken by the government.

In January 2007, the Prime Minister apologized to Mr. Arar and his family and compensated him. We have expressed and are continuing to express our opinion that Mr. Arar should not be on any United States watch list.

This government has taken many steps. There have been many recommendations. There has been a hearing and inquiry on this. I am not sure what the member is after, but there have been a good number of recommendations. Those recommendations have been taken to heart and have been implemented to ensure that something like this will not happen again.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:10 p.m.)