House of Commons Hansard #92 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was industry.
Jean-Pierre Blackburn ConservativeMinister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the manufacturing industry, as members are aware, Canada Economic Development is preparing the 2008-2011 strategic plan to support economic development in all the various regions of Quebec.
About two weeks ago, we put in place what we call “major economic and tourism facilities” for the targeted regions, and within two or three weeks, we will be implementing new measures to better support the manufacturing and forestry industries.
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Speaker, the government continues to ignore mounting scientific evidence proving the efficacy of the safe injection site in downtown Vancouver. Instead of acknowledging the success of this program, the Minister of Health has left its future hanging in limbo. This is an ideological attack against people who desperately need our help.
Scientists, health experts, the province, the city and the police all support the Insite program. Why does the minister believe his personal bias should trump the health and safety of Canadians?
Steven Fletcher ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Health
Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made on this issue, but I will share with the member a statement on the safe injection site, “it's an ad hoc scheme that has nothing to do with treating addictions and getting people off drugs”. Who said that? The member for Vancouver South.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the point of order raised on May 8 by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh on the selection of report stage amendments to Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.
It will be my contention that the member is, in effect, Mr. Speaker, asking you to allow his party, and especially the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, to act in variation from the principle you laid out for us on March 21, 2001, when you said:
—motions in amendment that could have been presented in committee will not be selected....Accordingly, I would strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created...
Let me give you some background, Mr. Speaker.
Bill C-377 was referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on April 25, 2007, in the previous session and was subsequently reinstated in that same committee pursuant to Standing Order 86(1).
The committee began its study on December 11, 2007, and was granted an extension on March 12, 2008, which gave the committee until May 7 to report the bill to the House.
At its April 17 meeting the committee adopted a motion, on division, which had been put forward by the New Democratic member for Windsor—Tecumseh, to put an end to the committee's clause by clause examination of the bill and to report it back to the House with amendments.The committee adopted the motion well in advance of the May 7 deadline imposed by the Standing Orders.
The bill was subsequently reported to the House on April 29. The committee had more time to complete its work than it used, but it chose not to do so. It chose to do so, on division.
Procedural considerations that should be taken into account are the following. The note to Standing Order 76.1(5) states that the purpose of report stage is:
—to provide Members who were not members of the committee, with an opportunity to have the House consider specific amendments they wish to propose. It is not meant to be a reconsideration of the committee stage of a bill.
The committee decided to end its clause by clause examination of the bill prematurely. One of the persons involved in that decision was the member who is now proposing further amendments. The new Democratic Party is putting forward amendments at report stage therefore that ought to have been considered in committee. Thus, the course of action being proposed to you, Mr. Speaker, by the New Democratic Party is inconsistent with the purpose of report stage.
In this vein I would note that the amendments on the notice paper stand in the name of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, where the bill was considered. He therefore had ample opportunity to introduce the amendments at that time.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the fact that I sound like I am doing a bad imitation of Brian Mulroney, but I have a cold.
Furthermore, the Standing Orders state, at page 270:
Motions which were considered in committee and subsequently withdrawn are also generally not selected.
I would note that the amendments that appear on the notice paper are the same amendments the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley had given notice of during the committee's clause by clause examination of the bill. These amendments therefore were effectively withdrawn when the committee decided to report the bill back to the House.
In his point of order, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh took note of the lengthy debate on the bill during the committee's clause by clause consideration of the bill and stated that this was the committee's rationale for ending its work prematurely.
I would concede that this point might have been relevant if the debate in committee had prevented the committee from reporting the bill before the May 7 deadline, at which time, in accordance with the Standing Orders, the bill would have been deemed reported without amendments, thereby depriving the member of the ability to present those amendments in committee. However, this was not the case as the committee decided, with the support of the relevant member, to end its study of the bill three weeks before it was obliged to report the bill to the House.
We turn now to some precedents.
To support his argument, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh raised two previous rulings where the Speaker selected report stage amendments that could have been moved in committee. However, the circumstances in each case were clearly different from the case before us today.
In the first case, the January 28, 2003 ruling, Mr. Speaker, you selected report stage amendments from the member for Mississauga South on the grounds that the member was not a member of the standing committee and therefore could not propose amendments in committee. This is clearly not the case with the report stage amendments to Bill C-377, as the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
The second example. In a ruling on November 6, 2001, Mr. Speaker, you selected report stage amendments from the member for Windsor—Tecumseh on the grounds that the member sat on two committees that were seized with bills at the same time and therefore it was not possible for the member to be present at the relevant committee at the time when such amendments would have, in the normal course of events, been introduced.
This precedent does not apply to the present case since the committee's minutes of proceeding show that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley was clearly an active participant in the committee's clause by clause study of Bill C-377.
In short, unlike the precedents cited by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley would have been able to move his amendments if the committee had chosen to continue clause by clause consideration. Instead, the committee decided to stop its work and report the bill back to the House, thereby precluding the introduction of the said amendments.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a blatant abuse of the rules of the House. This is clearly an example of the majority on a committee effectively suspending or bypassing the Standing Orders in order to abrogate the protection that these Standing Orders provide to the rights of the minority.
By using such tactics, the opposition majority on any committee could theoretically rush through any bill by deciding to report the bill without any study and then proposing report stage amendments to amend the bill. This would be a dangerous precedent to set for private member's bills as such items are already subject to a significant time allocation and are already fast tracked relative to government bills.
Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I would like to draw your attention to your statement of March 21, 2001, on the guidelines for the selection of report stage amendments:
—motions in amendment that could have been presented in committee will not be selected....Accordingly, I would strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created...
I have emphasized that quote because it is so important.
Clearly the New Democratic Party has chosen to ignore the Speaker's wise advice by not availing itself fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage. NDP members cannot have it both ways. They cannot decide that clause by clause consideration should be terminated prematurely and then expect people to propose its committee amendments at report stage. The NDP is essentially asking that the committee stage of Bill C-377 be continued at report stage, and this is exactly the opposite of what is stated in the Standing Orders and what has been confirmed by the Speaker.
I therefore submit to the House that the amendments to Bill C-377 should not be selected for debate at report stage.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
I thank the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for his submission. It will be considered by the Speaker and he will give his ruling in a timely manner, probably Monday morning.
Meanwhile, I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing the hon. member a prompt and complete recovery.
Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.
Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the number of people who are responding positively to Bill C-484, the bill that would provide protection for unborn children when they, as well as their mothers, are victims of a criminal attack.
The people who are sending in their names today come from right across the country, as I have experienced over the last number of days. They draw particular attention to the fact that forcing upon a pregnant woman the death and injury of her unborn child is a violation of a woman's right to protect and give life to her child.
This petition contains another 735 signatures today. I am very proud to present the petition.
Rob Anders Conservative Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition that has been signed by a number of people in my riding and from across the country.
They draw to the attention of the House that human rights in China have not improved as a result of being granted the 2008 Olympic Games and, in fact, have become worse, and that the continuing crackdown on Tibet by the Chinese government is an egregious violation of human rights.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Canadian politicians to boycott the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing and that athletes do not attend the opening ceremonies.
I would like to add that I have Tibetans in my riding who have relatives who have disappeared since the arrests and have not been seen since.
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Mr. Speaker, I, too, have received quite a number of petitions with regard to Bill C-484, which was spoken to earlier in the House.
The petition contains hundreds of, if not over a thousand, signatures, many of which are from my riding. Therefore, I, too, take the honour of presenting this petition.
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Mr. Speaker, I, too, have received petitions from my constituents who are concerned that under the current federal law an unborn child is not recognized as a victim with respect to violent crimes.
The petitioners began the petition when the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park introduced his private member's bill. They are very much in line with his position and call upon the House to enact such legislation.
I am very proud to present this petition on their behalf.
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to present petitions signed by my constituents, as well as people across Canada concerning the recognition of the importance of the Oslo process.
These petitioners call upon the Canadian government to continue its leadership role in the Oslo process and the international ban on cluster munitions that pose unacceptable humanitarian consequences.
Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 169 supplementary and Question No. 223 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Joe McGuire Liberal Egmont, PE
With regard to contracts and investments under the Industrial Regional Benefits (IRB) Policy: (a) which contracts have been awarded by the government since January 1, 2006 that require the prime contractor to make sub-contracts and investments; (b) what were the names of the prime contractor and the clients; (c) what was the description of the contract; (d) what was the contract period; and (e) what were the details of any and all sub-contracts and investments agreed to under the IRB policy, including (i) the name and location of the companies receiving the sub-contracts or investments, (ii) the description, (iii) the value, (iv) the time period, (v) the Canadian content value for each?
(Return tabled)
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
With respect to the recently cancelled visit of His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal to Canada: (a) has there been any contact between representatives of His Royal Highness and the Prime Minister’s Office ahead of His Royal Highness’ planned visit to Canada at the end of March or early April; and (b) had His Royal Highness or his representatives made special requests for customs and security procedures for their entry into Canada and, if so, (i) were these requests denied and, if so, why, (ii) how did these requests compare to normal customs and security procedures for other visiting dignitaries or eminent personalities from other countries?
(Return tabled)
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
When we were discussing Bill C-55, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup had 13 minutes to finish his speech. He now has the floor.
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the debate concerns the proposed free trade agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association, which is made up of Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill and the agreement.
In the first part of my speech, I talked about how the agreement could mean attractive opportunities for the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec. The same is true of the nickel sector, especially for one mine in Ungava, in Quebec. The agreement could also benefit aluminum exports to Iceland. Consequently, Quebec is very interested in seeing this agreement implemented.
Moreover, we have ascertained that the agreement will have no impact on agricultural supply management. The existing systems in Quebec and Canada can be maintained.
However, at the end of my speech, just before question period, I made the point that the federal government will have to take far more aggressive steps to support the shipbuilding industry once this free trade agreement takes effect. The agreement provides that tariffs will decrease over 15 years.
I believe that the shipbuilding industry in Norway, in particular, is much better equipped today than Canada's. Canada has abandoned the shipyards. The industry was not really given the tools to grow.
In that context, I would like to point out that one recommendation in the report presented by the Standing Committee on International Trade was adopted by that committee. It had been proposed by the hon. members for Sherbrooke and Berthier—Maskinongé from the Bloc Québécois, our two spokespeople in this matter. They did their work in a very conscientious manner and got support from the committee on the following motion:
The Canadian government must without delay implement an aggressive Maritime policy to support the industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada’s commitments at the WTO.
The purpose of the motion is to raise a red flag. Indeed, the free trade agreement is desirable. However, in practice, for the marine industry the government truly has to make a significant shift and implement a support strategy for the shipbuilding industry.
This currently does not exist and our shipyards have often been left to fend for themselves over the past few years. We are seeing the results of that. It is possible to have a healthy and competitive shipbuilding industry, but we have to have a policy to that effect. That is no reason not to support the free trade agreement with European countries.
We are sending a message to all of Europe. The agreement I am currently referring to is the agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association, which includes Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. It is important to note that these are countries Quebec does a lot of trade with. However, this now suggests that the real target should be signing a free trade agreement with the European Union that will help achieve results for all our exchanges with Europe.
For example, the four countries involved in the current agreement represent 12 million people and roughly 1% of Canadian exports. With the European Union, it would be 495 million inhabitants who generate 31% of global GDP. In fact, the European Union is currently the strongest economic power in the world.
Every day we are painfully becoming more aware that our economy is far too dependent on that of the United States. When there is a downturn in consumerism such as we are seeing now in the United States, when we see that the Americans are committing a lot of money to the war in Iraq, when we see the commercial paper crisis, when we see the economic slowdown in the United States, when we see the obvious aggression of emerging countries such as India and China, we can see that it is getting more and more difficult to keep our place in the American market.
This agreement gives us an opportunity to move forward and guarantee that we have access to Europe.
The current free trade agreement indicates that we are moving in the right direction. We should have a similar agreement for the entire European Union, but we do not. We believe that the federal government should speed up its attempts to access Europe so that we can arrive at an even more significant agreement that will give the best possible results.
This is the reality. We have lost 150,000 manufacturing jobs in five years, more than 80,00 of which were lost since the Conservatives came to power. They follow the laissez-faire doctrine, meaning that the market regulates everything, but that does not mean that we should not be open to new markets, as we would be with the free trade agreement we are talking about today, and of course a more widespread agreement with the whole of Europe. The European Union is absolutely essential to diversifying our markets and reducing our dependency on the United States. The fact that Canada has not yet signed a free trade agreement with the European Union considerably diminishes the competitiveness of our businesses on the European market.
At this point in my speech, I would like to say that the Canadian government must realize that it is essential to move forward on environmental issues. Other countries must see that we are respecting Kyoto, and that we will be firmly committed to Kyoto plus, which will be developed at the Copenhagen conference next year. As it stands, we could end up paying export taxes because the international community does not recognize that we have made an adequate effort on environmental issues. The government will have to be tougher and much more active in this respect, and it will have to recognize that sustainable development is not only good for the environment, but it is also good for the economy. Canada is not currently a leader, as it could have been if it had truly decided to accept Kyoto, to implement it and to create resources more quickly, such as a carbon exchange, so that we could reap all the necessary benefits.
Let us go back to the possibility of a free trade agreement with Europe. With the rise of the petrodollar, European companies have tended to open subsidiaries in the United States and leave out Canada. That is another reason why it would be a good idea to sign a free trade agreement with all of Europe.
Canada's share of direct European investments in North America dropped from 3% in 1992 to 1% in 2004. The alarm bells are ringing. We need to change our attitude, we need to change the way we do things, and we need to come to an agreement with all of Europe, like the one we are debating today, as quickly as possible. It would be to Quebec's and Canada's advantage to sign and implement an agreement as soon as possible.
I should also point out that the European Union and Mexico have had a free trade agreement in place since 2000. As such, if a Canadian company is doing business in Mexico, it is in that company's best interest to relocate more of its production to Mexico because it can access both the European and U.S. markets, which it cannot do if it keeps its production in Quebec. It is important to both companies and workers for the federal government to change its attitude and speed things up in terms of opening up markets. Being open to globalization when the conditions are right means that our companies have to be in a competitive position. We have to give them the fiscal tools they need, and we have to give them the tools they need to access the market.
The example I just gave is the best one. A Quebec company does not have the same access to the European market as a Mexican company, and companies in Mexico have access to both North American and European markets. This is an aberration that should be rectified as soon as possible.
Quebec would be the first to benefit from a free trade agreement with Europe. The Bloc Québécois has been promoting this for some time now. We proposed it as part of our election platform and our political agenda. We believe that if we persevere in this file as we have in others, we will eventually get a free trade agreement with Europe.
For example, 70% of the people who work for French companies in Canada are from Quebec, as are 37% of those who work for U.K. companies here and 35% of those who work for German companies here. In contrast, just 20% of people working for U.S. companies in Canada are Quebeckers. The Government of Quebec has been working with companies since the Quiet Revolution, and that is a major advantage when it comes time to seek out European investment. We have everything we need to become the bridgehead for European investment in America.
Thus, we see what the prevailing spirit was when the free trade agreement was signed with the United States, the agreement that later became NAFTA. Thanks to that spirit, Quebeckers rallied behind their leaders who wanted to implement free trade. Quebec has benefited from this free trade. Unfortunately, market conditions have changed considerably. Since the markets have opened up to China and other countries around the world, we are now facing a new reality. This reality calls for new tools for international trade. Free trade agreements are the best example.
Today, the Bloc Québécois is very pleased to support Bill C-55, which would implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the EFTA, that is, the European Free Trade Association, consisting of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.
We believe this is a step towards adopting such an agreement with Europe as a whole. Quebec is open to this position and hopes to see it come to fruition. Quebec as a whole shares this desire to move forward on such agreements. We hope the federal government will pick up the pace and conclude an agreement with the European Union. That would be the best way to diversify our economy, which really needs a boost, due to the slowdown in the American economy and the emergence of new competition from China.
I am pleased to confirm once again that the Bloc Québécois supports this free trade agreement and hopes to see it implemented as soon as possible. It will be beneficial for businesses and workers in Quebec.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
Before I go to questions and comments, I would like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra for maintaining order and decorum in the House over the last several minutes. Questions and comments.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Halifax.