Debates of Feb. 20th, 2007

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, you may recall that on February 8, in a late show similar to this, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board characterized the streets in the city of Winnipeg as being full of gangs, guns and thugs.

The next day in the House I had the opportunity to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he too shared this opinion and in fact he acknowledged that it was his view of Winnipeg, and spoke about my alleged softness on crime.

I am here to ask some questions of the representative of the Treasury Board who is here tonight. I would say that the scope of his comments go beyond normal political discourse. As you and I both know, Mr. Speaker, they truly only serve to hurt the city of Winnipeg in both a business and economic sense, and create a false impression about the safety of Winnipegers. For partisan political gain I would say that he has abdicated his responsibility as an ambassador for the city.

I would ask him this question. Does he expect the Liberal Party to support bad legislation when he introduces bad legislation, and then chooses to call us soft on crime because we will not support bad legislation?

I ask the President of the Treasury Board, if he was serious about crime prevention, would he accept the numerous studies that say building more prisons does not prevent crime?

I ask the President of the Treasury Board, would he acknowledge that in the United States, which has very much a tough on crime approach, there are over 600 people for every 100,000 incarcerated, whereas here in Canada we have about 107 for every 100,000 incarcerated?

Why would the President of the Treasury Board choose not to showcase the many positive features of the city of Winnipeg? Again, as you and I both know, Mr. Speaker, it has accessible education, a vibrant cultural community, good opportunities for economic growth, and affordable housing, just to name a few.

I ask the President of the Treasury Board, is he aware of the comments of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce when it said, “When Winnipeg is singled out like this, it does nothing good. It just makes it tougher for us to market the city as a place to live and do business in”?

I ask the President of the Treasury Board, is he aware of the comments of the police spokesperson, Sergeant Kelly Dennison, about the comments on guns, gangs and thugs where the sergeant indicated that they were off the mark. He in fact said, “But to empower the criminal element in our city by claiming they rule the streets is crazy—they're criminals”.

I raise these questions and say to the President of the Treasury Board that in terms of his characterization of the city of Winnipeg, it was irresponsible. It was wrong. Winnipeg is an urban centre. It is no different than any other urban centre that has its share of crime and to paint the city that he is supposed to be an advocate for is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes that organized crime, including gang activity, continues to pose a threat to the safety of our streets and communities. The government is taking both legislative and non-legislative steps to counter it.

For example, with Bill C-10, the government is proposing to toughen minimum penalties for serious repeat firearms offences, tailored in a manner that targets the specific problem that currently exists with respect to guns and gangs.

With Bill C-35, the government is proposing to create a reverse onus for bail for those charged with certain serious firearms offences.

With Bill C-27, we are targeting serious dangerous offenders.

I should point out also that Bill C-25 received royal assent on December 14 and ensures that Canada's anti-money laundering regime more fully complies with international best practices.

The Department of Justice officials are currently undertaking a review of our criminal laws to ensure that Canada's legislative measures appropriately respond to threats posed by organized crime.

Of course, strong laws are not by themselves enough to fully combat the threats posed by organized crime. That is why the government has invested in a range of measures designed to prevent crime before it happens.

For example, we committed nearly $200 million to enhance the ability of our national police force, the RCMP, to combat crime and to keep our communities safe.

We have also invested in crime prevention activities, specifically targeted at youth at risk, and focusing on gangs, guns and drugs.

There are several important reasons why society should be concerned with youth involved in gang activity. Gang members commit a disproportionate number of offences, and commit serious and violent offences at a rate several times higher than youth who are not involved in gangs.

In the 2006 federal budget, the government announced resources in the amount of $10 million per year to prevent youth crime, with a focus again on guns, gangs and drugs.

Last October, federal officials signalled to the provincial and territorial counterparts that resources were available for communities in need.

To date, several proposals have been received and a number of pilot projects that provide programming for youth involved in or at risk of gang involvement have been funded.

Before closing, I would be remiss not to highlight everything Bill C-10 proposes to do to tackle the specific serious threats that repeat firearms offenders pose to our society.

As members know, in spite of a general decrease in gun crimes, the situation across Canada is not looking all that bright and there is a major cause for concern. Serious gun crimes, such as firearm homicides, gang-related homicides, and the proportion of handgun robberies have increased in a number of our larger cities.

The guns and gangs problem is not a concern only in large urban centres of Canada, it is also a concern in some of the rural and other areas across our country. So, this is something that we, as parliamentarians, have to take very seriously.

I should mention what the opposition has done with the government's bill, Bill C-10, that would have had escalating penalties for individuals who commit offences, gang-related offences, and offences with prohibited or restricted firearms. The legislation would have taken a more serious approach with offenders and had escalating penalties for those who were repeat offenders. Unfortunately, the opposition rejected the government's proposal to provide higher minimum penalties for firearms, traffickers and smugglers.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that the member opposite chose not to make a comment about the city of Winnipeg and the insult to the residents of the city of Winnipeg that was put forward by both the parliamentary secretary and the President of the Treasury Board.

I am also sorry that when he lists the litany of innovations that his government is doing he does not talk about the issues of prevention. He does not talk about the fact that since the beginning of November nobody has responded to Macdonald Youth Services that serves the young people who are on the streets of Winnipeg.

I would like to read into the record a quote from a Winnipeg journalist who said: “Stroking the irrational fear about a crime is political strategy more than anything else and anecdotes are the best way of spreading panic. You don't need to prove anything; you just point out that there is a crime and let everyone's imagination do the rest. It's gotten to the point that the only way to counter what the diatribists are saying is to deny the very existence of crime. Once you acknowledge you can't do that, you've played right into their hands”.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member was listening to my speech because I did say that guns and gang problems were evident in all our large urban centres. I also spoke at length about the resources that we were putting into youth at risk to prevent crime. I believe those specifically addressed two of the issues she just raised.

We have been listening to Canadians and they have told us that they are fed up with violent crime. They have told us about the emergence of this problem and support this government's approach with respect to Bill C-10 that would provide tougher sentences for those who commit gang related crimes or crimes with a firearm.

We need to do our part to deliver to Canadians what they want and need, and that is meaningful reforms that target the illegal possession and use of firearms by criminal gangs, as well as firearm trafficking and smuggling.

The government has signalled its openness to work with the opposition to ensure that our laws are strengthened in a manner that focuses on the problem. We need to find a way to be successful in our efforts to effectively protect Canadians.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Yukon for raising the issue of the promise of the Arctic vessels, the three icebreakers that were promised during the last campaign. I can assure him that I also was excited about this because I was hoping those ships would be built here in Canada and possibly in Halifax.

As a result of my deliberations with people within the navy in Ottawa and Halifax, we will never see three armed icebreakers in the far north. It is not going to happen. Another broken promise by the government. The other promise of course was a 500 man battalion in Goose Bay, Labrador. It is not going to happen.

Regardless of that, my question is on shipbuilding, a question that I had asked on a previous day. The government is currently in negotiations with South Korea and Norway, through the EFTA countries, on free trade agreements.

The NDP cares about our shipbuilding industry. I know there are members of the Conservative Party who care about it as well because it affects their ridings, especially the member from Lévis, Quebec. The reality is that we fear that they will be putting shipbuilding and marine industry on the altar to sacrifice, so to speak, for other trade agreements.

These are the same Conservatives who under Brian Mulroney allowed the Americans the protectionist system of the Jones Act. My hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, knows very well what that is. The Americans excluded shipbuilding and the marine industry from the free trade agreement. We were asleep at the wheel and let it happen. Now it appears that the Conservatives once again will be asleep at the wheel and sacrifice our shipbuilding and marine industry for something else.

I want to ask the department some very simple questions. Having a domestic procurement is important and I thank the previous and current governments for some of the promises they have made that these ships will be built in Canada. However, we also need a commercial industry as well in order to be viable. If the yards in our country are no longer viable, then the problem will be that we cannot build, for security measures, our war ships, Coast Guard vessels, laker fleets and ferries because the yards will not be there to build them.

What is the essence here, the fact that down the road we could have another country building our fighting ships? Is this the goal of the government? I hope not. I believe that in its heart of hearts it does not want to see this happen.

Today we had a shipbuilding conference. We brought in members of labour and the Shipbuilding Association. J. D. Irving was present, for example, and many other people. We came up with some simple recommendations and they are the same recommendations that were presented in 2001. The previous government, unfortunately, sat on that document and never moved.

The Conservative government has now been in power for 13 months and there is no indication of where it will take this very vital industry. From Victoria to Marystown, the workers in those communities have a right to those jobs.

Does the government believe in a viable shipbuilding and marine industry and will it ensure that under no circumstances will this industry be sacrificed in the free trade talks with EFTA and Korea?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my hon. colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for his interest in the government's efforts to expand export opportunities for Canadian businesses along with the potential impact of trade liberalization on Canada's shipbuilding industry.

The government shares the hon. member's interest. We recognize that some within the ships industry may be sensitive to the removal of Canadian tariffs in the context of our ongoing FTA negotiations with the EFTA countries, those being Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, as well as with South Korea. This is why we have consulted with and involved all interested stakeholders from coast to coast, including shipbuilders and ship owners since trade negotiations with Korea and the EFTA countries of Europe were first launched.

As a result of these consultations the government has, to the greatest extent possible, reflected industry's concerns in the negotiations. I can assure the hon. member that Canada's negotiators are doing their utmost to effectively address their concerns.

However, it is important that the hon. member also understand that the competitive challenges facing this industry have existed for a number of years and go beyond both these various trade initiatives and trade liberalizations more generally.

I will address how we are dealing with ships in our negotiations in more detail, but first I wish to elaborate on the overall merits of free trade on Canada's economy as a whole.

The hon. member is surely well aware of the importance that trade plays in Canada's economy, contributing to over 40% of Canada's gross domestic product. Indeed, one in five Canadian jobs is supported by trade.

In Advantage Canada, the government's plan to strengthen Canada's economy and make it more competitive, we made clear our determination to pursue bilateral free trade agreements with targeted countries. Canada is unfortunately lagging significantly behind its key competitors, not having concluded a single FTA since 2001. Since then Canada's main competitors, including the U.S. and the EU, have been aggressive in their negotiations of free trade agreements.

The U.S., for example, has successfully concluded free trade agreements with 15 countries since Canada concluded an FTA six years ago. In fact, Canada is the only significant trading nation in the world that has not concluded a comprehensive free trade agreement in the last five years.

Canada must do more to level the playing field vis-à-vis its competitors. We must ensure that Canadian exporters and investors have competitive terms of access to international markets. We cannot stand idly by on the sidelines while our competitors negotiate FTAs all around us. Canada must do more to bring trade barriers down in order to better position Canadian businesses for success. Canada is very much part of a global economy and it cannot shelter itself from increasing competition nor can it neglect opportunities.

The EFTA countries are developed modern economies that offer significant opportunities for Canadian businesses. Combined, the EFTA countries represent Canada's eighth largest merchandise export destination. An agreement with EFTA would be Canada's first transatlantic free trade agreement and would provide a strategic platform to expand commercial ties throughout Europe.

It would further offer advantages to Canadian businesses over key competitors such as the U.S. and would put Canada on an equal footing with other nations that already have FTAs with the EFTA countries, such as Mexico, Chile, Korea and the EU. A free trade agreement with EFTA countries also offers potential gains for Canadian industry and several industrial and agricultural sectors.

South Korea is another valuable trading partner for Canada and represents a gateway to northeast Asia, a region of strategic importance to global value chains. In 2006 Korea was Canada's seventh largest trading partner, with Canadian exports totalling a record $3.3 billion. A free trade agreement with Korea would offer the possibility of enhanced market access for a wide range of Canadian goods, services and investment opportunities--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The time has expired. The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with these late shows is that the parliamentary secretary usually reads from some bureaucratic notes. The parliamentary secretary did not answer the question, so I will ask him again. It is a simple question. Does the government believe in a viable shipbuilding and marine industry in Canada, yes or no?

We heard him also talk about other opportunities for agriculture and other industries. This leads us to believe that the Conservatives are indeed going to sacrifice the shipbuilding and marine industry in this country.

We know very clearly that Norway subsidized her industry for many, many years. We know that Korea did the same. We know the United States protected its industry. Why can the government not protect the men and women who work in these yards from Victoria to Marystown and provide the leadership that they need to ensure that their families will not have to be sacrificed so that other industries can benefit from these useless free trade deals that are not fair in any way, shape or form?

Does the parliamentary secretary believe, on behalf of the government, in a viable shipbuilding and marine industry in this country?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that we have been very upfront about these negotiations and have consulted every step of the way with interested stakeholders, including the Canadian shipbuilding industry. These comprehensive consultations have been very helpful in shaping Canada's negotiating position with all of our partners.

Let me reiterate that negotiators are addressing Canadian sensitivities through provisions such as longer tariff phase-out periods, product-specific rules of origin that reflect industry concerns, and no changes to the government's ability to procure ships through Canadian shipyards. On this last element let me be very clear. The government is working on a renewed approach to shipbuilding to help ensure, for example, that the ships purchased by the federal government are built in Canada where competitive conditions exist.

We are working toward comprehensive agreements that include tariff elimination for all non-agricultural products and a range of agricultural products, while also--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 128(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:47 p.m.)