House of Commons Hansard #43 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was benefits.

Topics

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Madam Speaker, we are all facing a time of hardship in Canada. Peru puts a 4% to 12% tariff on the cereal, pulp, paper, technical instruments, machinery, plastics and rubber industries. Thirty-eight percent of our exports to Peru are wheat and there is a 17% tariff now.

The United States has just signed an agreement. This could put us at quite a disadvantage. The Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Mining Association support the agreement because it would help the workers in those industries. Does the member think workers in those industries would have increased access to jobs because of the reduction of tariffs on their projects in Peru?

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Madam Speaker, let us not fool ourselves. Trade between Canada, Quebec and Peru is relatively slim. We are talking about a few hundred thousand dollars, except in one sector: mining. It was primarily to protect Canadian interests in the mining sector that the federal government, the Conservative government, promoted and sought out this agreement. We also have a problem with that. Had the government's response to the roundtables on corporate social responsibility in the mining sector come up to the expectations and recommendations, we could tell ourselves that, in the mining sector, Canadian companies in Peru will be operating in a socially responsible way that is acceptable both in Peru and internationally. Unfortunately, the response from the Minister of International Trade was to establish some kind of representative responsible for receiving complaints, basically an empty shell. I have no illusions in that regard. This agreement was not signed with the paper, lumber or forestry industry in mind, but for the Canadian mining sector, to give it a free hand with something similar to chapter 11 and with the federal government refusing to take its responsibilities, as requested by the roundtables.

I will conclude by saying that, thankfully—and I thank our Liberal colleagues for it—with Bill C-300, we will have the opportunity to discuss at committee this issue of corporate responsibility of Canadian companies abroad. Perhaps that extra element will ensure that the free trade agreement with Peru can eventually be made better. This would also be true of agreements with other countries which are currently smaller trading partners of Canada and Quebec.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's presentation and found it interesting. I would like to ask the hon. member a couple of questions.

First, I think the hon. member is opposing this agreement mostly because of a concern over corporate responsibility. Does the member not agree that Canadian corporations, as a group, are the most responsible corporations in the world when it comes to how they care for their investments and operations in other countries?

Second, the member seemed to dismiss the issue of an increase in export in farm commodities, particularly in grains, as a result of this agreement. The increase may be a small amount, but with ever-increasing protectionism in the United States, Canada is finding it more and more difficult to move farm commodities in particular to the United States. Any other market we can get is important.

I have a 3,000 acre farm. I rent it out on a crop share basis, but I have my share of the crop from those acres to sell. Even if it is only a relatively small amount of extra market we may gain from this agreement, to me that is important. If that is my grain, a portion of my grain or my neighbour's grain, it is important. How can the member so easily dismiss this increase in market that we would see as a result of this agreement?

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Madam Speaker, the member is right. Most Canadian mining companies, like all Canadian companies operating throughout the world, are generally businesses that are eager to obey local laws and to assume a number of responsibilities they have. The problem is that, whenever a rule, a standard or a convention is put in place, it is not for the majority of companies that already do what they should be doing, but for those that do not. When there are no specific rules, it is easy for a company to say that it has not broken any rules since there are none.

Right now, in Ecuador, a Canadian company is being sued for a number of wrongful acts, but it is being done within a legal framework that leaves something to be desired. If foreign investment protection is important for both Peru and Canada, how come there are no mechanisms in place to protect the rights of unions and workers as well as the environment? These mechanisms should be just as important as investment protection, if not more. I do not think the Conservative government is looking to enter into an agreement with Peru to increase trade in general with that country. I think it just wants to protect the interests of the Canadian mining sector, which is totally legitimate, as long as it is done on a reciprocal basis and with respect for the rights of all concerned.

It is also a strategy aimed at increasing the number of agreements to force countries in the southern hemisphere to accept the rules of those in the northern hemisphere. In this regard, President Obama has understood that this would lead nowhere. There are signs that he will probably revisit this strategy. Again, as the Prime Minister did in Trinidad and Tobago, he will be the only one thinking he is on planet Bush when everyone else will have understood that we are now on planet Obama.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, in listening to the members from the Bloc debate this bill, one thing that becomes very clear is that they have not taken the time to read it. They have stated, as the members in the NDP have stated, that there is nothing in this agreement for Canada. That is ridiculous. Let us take just a couple of them, such as wheat and barley. Right now the U.S. enjoys a free trade situation with Peru in wheat and barley. That same situation is going to be extended to Canada under this agreement.

As the member for Vegreville—Wainwright stated earlier, where there are tariffs attached to lentils and peas, Canadian lentils and peas will be exported to Peru on a free trade basis. Farmers have expressed an interest in establishing this trade. Perhaps the NDP and the Bloc have not heard the farmers but we in the Conservative Party have our ears close to the ground with growers in Canada.

It goes on. U.S. farm imports, equipment, machinery, pork, beef, corn, fruits, vegetables, processed products, everything that the U.S. trades with Peru will be available to Canadian producers. Why are the folks opposite opposing this bill when they have not, obviously, even read it?

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Madam Speaker, I cannot answer that question. I could quote Galbraith who said that Democrats read only Democrats, but Republicans do not read at all. I have the impression that the members of the opposition parties tend to read what suits them, but they do read. With the Conservatives it is just pure ignorance. It is obvious that this is an outdated trade strategy. We now have to move towards multilateralism and not bilateralism, as this government is currently doing.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Is the House ready for the question?

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

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

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

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

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

The vote will be deferred until tomorrow after question period.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

Carleton—Mississippi Mills Ontario

Conservative

Gordon O'Connor ConservativeMinister of State and Chief Government Whip

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion regarding statutory reviews and their reference to committees. I move:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be the committee for the purposes of Section 44(1) of the Employment Equity Act;

the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be the committee for the purposes of Section 21.1(1) of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act;

the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology be the committee for the purposes of the Statutes of Canada, 2001, Chapter 14, Section 136; and

the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be the committee for the purposes of Section 13 of the DNA Identification Act.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

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

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

(Motion agreed to)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's RulingHuman Pathogens and Toxins ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

There are two motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-11. Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern at the table.

Motions in AmendmentHuman Pathogens and Toxins ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-11, in Clause 66.1, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 17 to 24 on page 31 with the following:

“regulation before each House of Parliament.

(2) A proposed regulation that is laid before Parliament shall be referred to the appropriate committee of each House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may review the proposed regulation and report its findings to that House.

(2.1) The committee of the House of Commons referred to in subsection (2) shall be the Standing Committee on Health or, in the event that there is not a Standing Committee on Health, the appropriate committee of the House.”

(b) replacing lines 28 to 32 on page 31 with the following:

“tion is laid before Parliament,

(b) 160 calendar days after the proposed regulation is laid before Parliament, and

(c) the day after each appropriate committee”

(c) replacing lines 36 to 39 on page 31 with the following:

“report of the committee of either House. If a regulation does not incorporate a recommendation of the committee of either House, the Minister shall lay before that House a statement of the reasons for not”

(d) replacing, in the English version, line 2 on page 32 with the following:

“before Parliament need not again”.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-11, in Clause 66.2, be amended by

(a) replacing line 6 on page 32 with the following:

“being laid before either House of Parliament if”

(b) replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 32 with the following:

“before Parliament, the Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement of the”.

Motions in AmendmentHuman Pathogens and Toxins ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at report stage of Bill C-11, An Act to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins, to speak to the government amendments to clauses 66.1 and 66.2, which are now before us.

We heard at second reading that there is strong support in this House for strengthening safety and security with regard to human pathogens and toxins right here in Canada. We are committed to moving forward with this legislation to address the serious safety and security gaps that we have identified in order to safeguard Canadians from the threats posed by human pathogens and toxins.

Members of the Standing Committee on Health had an extensive opportunity to review all elements of Bill C-11. All told, the committee heard from five government witnesses, in some cases more than once, and from 13 other witnesses over a period of a month. In total there were seven separate sessions devoted almost entirely to review and discussion of Bill C-11. In these sessions, all voices were heard and all opinions were closely considered. The result of the committee's hard work is an amended bill that we think well reflects the underlying policy intent of the bill, as well as other key aspects of concern to some witnesses.

There were 12 amendments to the bill, of which eight were put forth by the government and four were put forth by the opposition. These amendments include a government amendment to clarify technical aspects of the bill, such as the fact that there will be no requirement to report to the minister of health when there is a simple spill in the laboratory, but only when there is a release of a human pathogen or toxin from the facility itself.

As well, two opposition amendments were put forward to require the establishment of scientific advisory committees to advise the minister of health regarding the schedules to the bill. These amendments, which the government supports, go a long way in ensuring there is an evidence base for decision-making on how to treat dangerous, and less dangerous, pathogens.

Two other government amendments responded to input that the committee received from the office of the Privacy Commissioner, which we believe resulted in better privacy protection in this bill.

The bill was also amended to clearly articulate that there will be no security screening of persons accessing risk group 2 human pathogens and to signal that the regulations should be drafted taking into account the varying degrees of risk between risk groups of human pathogens and between toxins. As well, the penalty clauses in Bill C-11 were amended to lower the penalties related to contraventions of the act and regulations related to risk group 2 human pathogens.

These amendments were made to respond to what we heard from numerous witnesses at committee who strongly emphasized that risk group 2 human pathogens, although clearly capable of causing serious disease and death, posed lesser risks. Therefore they warranted less stringent treatment both in the bill and in the regulations.

We heard what these witnesses had to say and the government was comfortable proposing these numerous amendments which were all agreed to at committee.

In addition to the successful amendments put forward at committee, two amendments are related to a requirement for the tabling of regulations made under Bill C-11 before both Houses of Parliament. These amendments were put forward by the opposition and became the new clauses 66.1 and 66.2. They were agreed to by the committee, including the government members, subject to one qualification.

The government responded to these proposed amendments by requesting that the words “and the Senate” be added where the words “House of Commons” appeared in the amendments, to ensure that the regulations would also be tabled there.

After some discussion, the committee agreed to the suggestion, which was considered a friendly amendment, with agreement that the changed amendments would be worded in a way similar to what is now found in the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.

Unfortunately, upon review of the bill as reported from the Standing Committee on Health, it became obvious that this last specific requirement relating to the tabling of regulations in both Houses of Parliament was not included in the amended bill, as was requested by the committee.

Many of the needed references to the Senate, and particularly the fact that the regulations must be referred to a committee of that House, were simply left out. The government has put forward amendments at report stage to address this omission.

More specifically, the government has proposed an amendment to clause 66.1 to require that the regulations be tabled before each House of Parliament and that a proposed regulation that is laid before Parliament shall be referred to the appropriate committee of each House, as determined by the rules.

The new clause 66.2 allows for some specific exemptions from the requirement to table regulations in both houses of Parliament. The proposed government amendment now before us specifies that should the Minister of Health make a regulation without first laying it before either house of Parliament, she must lay before each house a statement of reasons for doing so.

These proposed government amendments to clauses 66.1 and 66.2 are completely in line with the wordings of section 66 and 67 of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act as requested and agreed to by the Standing Committee on Health.

The bill, with these new amendments, reflects the hard work and co-operative approach that was taken at committee, reflecting the need to work together to safeguard the health and safety of Canadians. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee for a job well done.

I request that the House agree to these amendments, which simply reflect what the committee had previously agreed was the right way to proceed, in the same spirit of co-operation and concern for the health and safety of Canadians that was apparent in all of the discussions around Bill C-11 that occurred in committee.

As I noted, we believe that the amended Bill C-11, which was reported to the House from committee, is a stronger piece of legislation that well reflects the policy intent of the legislation and concerns expressed by some witnesses at committee. These government amendments to clauses 66.1 and 66.2 will essentially complete the good work of the committee by ensuring that the amended Bill C-11 reflects what was actually agreed to by committee in consideration of the input of many witnesses over a period a month.