Debates of March 18th, 2013

Nuclear Terrorism Act

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the extended time I have today to speak to such an abstruse topic will allow me to address a number of points that members have unfortunately, or cleverly, not raised in the debates on enshrining the four nuclear terrorism offences in law.

This speech could not have been better timed given that the media this morning were reporting on the failed cooling system at the Fukushima plant. A few minutes ago, a colleague mentioned the Fukushima situation, and I will inform the House of the latest developments.

There was a power failure at the Fukushima plant. Power was cut to cooling systems for the three spent-fuel pools at the Fukushima plant on Monday after a power outage. The Japanese news agency reported that the neighbouring command centres did not record any significant changes in radiation levels after the power outage, which happened on Monday just before 7 p.m. local time.

When industry supporters say that it is possible to contain radioactive waste, I cannot help but be doubtful, especially in the face of such news. Facilities, buildings and structures built by humans have a limited lifespan. The pyramids of Giza are thousands of years old, but they just may be the oldest structures on the face of the earth. Trying to contain radioactive waste for millions of years seems downright impossible to me.

During my last speech, I focused on the procedural aspects of introducing these four new offences into the Criminal Code. I spoke about creating them and enshrining them in law from a practitioner's point of view. As I have said time and time again, I am a criminal lawyer, but I specialized in the areas of health and mental health. That is why I had some misgivings about how these offences were worded.

I thought about cases that I had dealt with up until recently, over the past two years. There is a possibility that some of my clients would be labelled as terrorists a bit too hastily. That is a rather derogatory description for clients with mental health issues.

When I appeared for certain cases, my clients were often in a fragile state and troubled. They might make threats. The judges took note, but they fairly often let things go, considering the state of the individuals who were sometimes dealing with toxic psychosis and who would utter threats right and left. We have already heard that. However, sometimes charges follow when an individual in the dock decides to threaten everyone in the courtroom. I have seen the same type of behaviour with clients.

When I spoke at second reading, I was recalling these cases, knowing full well that some of my clients uttered threats without necessarily having the opportunity or physical ability to put these threats into action and make them a reality. It is sort of on that basis that I said in the House that I had some reservations about the possibility of an individual being given the fairly notorious label of nuclear terrorist. I am just saying that this would not look too good on a resumé.

The scope of this bill gradually directed my arguments at second reading in order to highlight the impact of the provision creating the offence in which someone would:

possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations, with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment;

With the words “cause death”, we see that it is a crime of intention, but it also mentions possessing and disposing of nuclear or radioactive devices. This is not something you buy off the shelf. The last I heard, you had to have very good connections to get your hands on nuclear devices or even radioactive material.

The second clause concerns threats to:

use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation, with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything;

commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, a nuclear or radioactive device, or access or control of a nuclear facility;

Still, some degree of preparation goes into each of these offences. I know that it is ultimately up to the crown prosecutor to assess each individual case to see if there are grounds for a lawsuit. However, if prosecutors follow the letter of the law, there could be many more cases. Some clients who are not necessarily of sound mind could be given the label of terrorist and charged. However, a certain degree of organization and preparation are required to acquire a nuclear or radioactive device. It is not easy and it is not just anyone who can do it.

I would now like to talk to you about my own experience with the nuclear industry. The first time I had dealings with this industry was in 2009. At the time, I was a lawyer for my own band council. One morning, we met with a Romanian engineer who owned an engineering firm in Sept-Îles and had come to see the band council to warn us of the potential danger facing our community.

Unbeknownst to band members or leaders, uranium exploration was being conducted near my home reserve. This individual came and made such an eloquent presentation to my band council that, a few weeks later, the council had launched a lawsuit. The band council had documentation and a resolution on the lack of consent for mining exploration on traditional lands.

This was the first experience I had with the uranium and nuclear industries. That year—2009—was a busy one. Among other things, we held many public information briefings. One conference, which lasted several days, was hosted by industry specialists, but opponents were also present. Through the networking I did at that conference, I was able to meet other stakeholders and individuals. Experts from across Canada, as well as from the United States and other countries, came to meet with the people of Sept-Îles for a week.

Certain materials were brought to my attention, including polonium 210. I will come back to that later. We will see that nuclear terrorism is taking a strange twist in 2013, particularly when we look at actual cases of nuclear terrorism and the media coverage of those cases.

My cursory research of the subject we are examining and incidents and examples of nuclear terrorism tend to indicate that media coverage of the real impact of such criminal activity is fairly limited, other than when it comes to the cases involving the poisoning of international political figures that have occurred over the past few years. To my knowledge, there have not been hundreds of such cases, but the number has been fairly high nonetheless.

I will talk about a case discussed in 2009 at the symposium, the case of Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB agent who died in 2006. At the time, he was living in England and was poisoned with polonium-210. This has been proven. Doctors conducted analyses and discovered that he had ingested polonium-210. What is insidious about this substance is that it can be added to drinks or food, and thus be ingested, and it is also possible for an individual to be poisoned by breathing it.

The person in question died within three weeks. He was given a rather massive dose of polonium-210. I learned about this incident this morning while researching this issue, and I committed it to memory. This incident is one of the first hits in a quick search for “nuclear terrorism” on the Internet and also in Wikipedia.

This specific case clearly shows the potential for the misuse of radioactive materials and how it is difficult to detect their harmful effects on the human body. We should also remember that, in Canada, there are obvious deficiencies in the supervision and management of tailings sites and the transportation of radioactive materials, and this opens the door to malfeasance and criminal misappropriation.

This afternoon, I began by mentioning Fukushima to prove that humans cannot control radioactive and nuclear materials.

Industry stakeholders will always tell us that all these materials can be stored and that it is possible to properly manage radioactive waste, but that is not true.

No man-made structure can house this waste for many years. These materials have a half-life. It is so complicated that I cannot explain it. However, I can say that the potential health hazard lasts for thousands or even millions of years. That is what I was told. Reputable scientists came to give us all this information. I got the same information as everyone else on the north shore, but the information provided was so detailed and worrisome that I had to speak today.

There are difficulties. It is almost impossible for human beings to manage this problem. Look at what is happening in Japan. For now, the problem has been contained. There are no major problems, but who is to say that this cooling down is unnecessary and that there will not be other problems?

We must also see that there is a real threat of a terrorist attack in Canada since we store radioactive waste.

Highly radioactive materials, such as contaminated metal beams, are being sent back into the civilian market. I will provide an example of this later on. This is an issue in Canada right now, but the problem is contained. It would be disturbingly easy for a malicious terrorist group to target strategic storage locations in Canada and Quebec.

In Quebec, the topic of uranium mining often represents a serious question of identity. Uranium mining has been criticized and people have spoken out against it. Gentilly-2 is currently being decommissioned. Discussions on uranium mining are taking place and action is being taken.

The Matoush project has also been strongly opposed by the public. This is a topical issue, but there is a dangerous potential for terrorism at our door, near Toronto, as my colleague pointed out.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You have three minutes.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the materials that are being reintroduced into the market. This information has been brought to my attention in recent years. I do not have any documentation to show you, but the information is out there.

In Quebec, there is a scrap yard owner who has a rather sophisticated machine. I think this is common practice and perhaps fairly standard at scrap yards. I would assume that is the case. One day, as he was analyzing and processing new materials, his machinery detected a very high level of radiation on certain metal beams, on some metal posts. He had rather sophisticated machinery, probably a Geiger counter, that could detect that. Tests were done and they were able to determine that it came from Gentilly.

How did this material and these highly radioactive beams manage to end up in civilian hands? I put it to you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very worrisome situation that was brought to my attention and to the attention of the general public. I simply wanted to reiterate that today.

The biggest nuclear terrorism threat is found in the residue of Canadian nuclear power plants, in the waste that is not protected from physical impacts and attacks. It would be very easy, in Gentilly or from the St. Lawrence River, to get access to the nuclear fuel stored on-site. The buildings are not immune to attacks.

To conclude, I would like to quote Gordon Edwards, one of the professionals who came to meet us on the north shore and who is now a math professor at Vanier Cégep in Montreal. He said:

Obviously irradiated nuclear fuel will be a primary target on any terrorist's hit list, provided it is accessible as a terrorist's target.

Those are the wise words of Gordon Edwards.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on that note, there is a wide nature of nuclear material, from medical isotopes to nuclear power plants and other forms of nuclear material.

I wonder if the member might provide comment on the importance of the Government of Canada working with provinces and other stakeholders to ensure there is some sort of plan in place to deal with potential terrorist attacks on our own ground or, for that matter, even accidents.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

I would like to reiterate the importance of working with all of the stakeholders involved. We need to shed some light on the uranium and nuclear industries. Some people are trying to get their hands on these substances. That puts a lot of people, including lobbyists, in an uncomfortable situation. I know that it is a very powerful lobby that has a direct line to the party opposite. However, the public's opinion and the demands of Canadians will have to be heard because there is strong opposition to the mining and use of these materials.

That is all.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Manicouagan will have eight and a half minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on the motion.

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

International Trade

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again with respect to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement. I appreciate the opportunity to follow up on a question that I asked recently about leaked reports from the European Union that suggested that negotiations between Canada and the EU were unfolding in a way that could lead to an imbalanced deal that is not in the interests of Canadians.

The first document stated that the EU list of offensive interests is larger than the Canadian one, and that Canadian services are on the table, while Europe's stay exempted. More recently, we have seen leaked documents, again from the European Union, stating that the EU is aggressively coming after Canadian banking regulations, regulations that helped Canada weather the blow of the global recession that began in 2008.

I have brought up similar issues with the parliamentary secretary before, and he generally says that he will not comment on leaked documents. This could be a justified policy except for the fact that leaked documents are all that Canadians have to go on because the Conservative government is the most secretive of any government involved in trade negotiations, maybe in the history of our country.

I have been the official opposition trade critic for almost a year now. In that time, the Minister of International Trade has never come before our committee to update us on the progress of negotiations, not once. The government does not provide us with specific information about what we are seeking to gain from the deal, and it will not provide any information about what we are willing to give up.

Once again today there was a motion before our trade committee that called the minister to update us on CETA. Once again, the Conservatives made us discuss this in secret. Once again, the motion to call the minister before our committee was not adopted. This is not how transparency is provided to Canadians.

Before being elected to this place, I negotiated hundreds of agreements. I know that negotiations can be done in a more transparent manner. Of course, actual negotiations occur behind closed doors. However, the government could give periodic updates and outline what issues are on the table to the principals upon whose behalf it is bargaining, that is, Canadians.

Trade negotiations are no different. We need look no further than our partner, the European Commission. Those doing the negotiations on the EU side must give periodic detailed updates to their trade committees. Our largest trading partner, the United States, also has a much more transparent process that involves their Congress in a real, meaningful way. Instead, in Canada, we get vague descriptions about a wonderful future where the Conservatives spin fanciful stories of mythical gains. Economists would tell us that these predictions are laughable, and that these claims have been cobbled together by a questionable methodology that is not based on real world assumptions.

On the other side, Canadians are expressing serious concerns about what the Conservatives are willing to give up in order to secure a deal with the EU. There are worries about investor state dispute resolution processes that would hamstring local economic development initiatives. There are major concerns about the effect of this deal on farmers in the dairy, egg and poultry industries. Will it raise the cost of medications for Canadians and provinces?

What is needed here is transparency in the process so that we are dealing with facts rather than with leaked documents, fear, ideology and spin. Why will the government not give a briefing to this Parliament and Canadians about what is at stake with CETA so we can see this deal before it is concluded?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we have pretty well heard most of what the hon. member has to contribute. He summed it up himself just now: fear, ideology and spin. That pretty well sums what he really had to say.

The member wants to look, in a serious way, at leaked documents. What is a leaked document? Who even knows? The member says this deal should be over. Is that based on a calendar? Should this be done by the calendar or on the quality of the agreement?

The minister has briefed the committee. He has been to the committee. We have had trade officials at the committee. We have had Steve Verheul, who is our chief trade negotiator, at the committee. It is absolute nonsense that somehow the European Parliament is better briefed than our own parliamentarians. It is a false statement, clearly.

We have been to the European Parliament, and we listened to this nonsense before we went. When we got there, we found out that the European parliamentarians on that trade committee were not nearly as well briefed as we were on the facts of the agreement.

The reality is that this agreement is being negotiated. People do not do negotiations in public or in the press, unless they are the NDP or trade unionists, using it to leverage some type of gain. In this case, I would call that some type of supposed political gain.

For the member's own province, for the first time, we are looking to get Canadian fish and seafood into the European Union duty free. That is a huge boost for British Columbia, with a great potential for the wild fish industry in British Columbia.

In the last three years British Columbia shipped somewhere in the neighbourhood of $324 million worth of lumber into the European Union. If we could lower those tariffs, if we could move that lumber into the European Union duty free, that would be a tremendous boost for the province of British Columbia.

In closing, I would emphasize that this is not going to be negotiated on the calendar and it is certainly not going to be negotiated by the opposition. When this deal is final, it will be debated in this place where it should be debated. It will be before the committee and we will study it in depth, as our responsibilities require us to do.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is classic. The government will not talk about the negotiations, but it will spin things—for example, that fish will be a benefit to Canada. It wants to talk about the positives but not what Canada will be giving up.

We can reach a deal with Europe that would be mutually beneficial. The EU is exactly the type of progressive high-standards partner with whom we should be trading, but Canadians are not convinced that the Conservative government will negotiate a balanced agreement.

Once the deal is inked, there will be no changing it. It will be presented to us, and we will have to either support it or not.

Here are some specific questions Canadians want answered now, before the deal is reached. Will farmers in supply-managed sectors be protected? Will taxpayers be protected from lawsuits? Will our federal, provincial and local governments be prevented from setting policies in the interest of Canadians? Will the cost of drugs rise, and if so, does the government have a plan to help Canadians who are faced with these increased costs?

Can the government answer these simple questions before Canadians are faced with a fait accompli and presented with an agreement to which they have no choice but to say yes or no? Why can Canadians not be involved in this process? After all, this agreement is for them.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is just patent fearmongering. Those questions have already been answered. The hon. member knows that.

The member is protected in this place because he can say anything he wants. It is like Christmas every day for the NDP, because its members are not held responsible. They are in the House of Commons. They do not have to stick to the written law or rule. They can just simply spin anything they want. It is absolute patent nonsense.

What this is about is a job-creating, pro-trade plan for the benefit of all Canadians, a minimum of a 20% increase in trade between the European Union and Canada. Jobs, growth and opportunity for all Canadians are in this trade agreement.

National Defence

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to revisit a question I asked on November 28, 2012, on the mismanagement of infrastructure on military bases, since this was also raised in chapter five of the Auditor General's fall 2012 report.

The concerns related primarily to the maintenance of sites and buildings that belong to the Canadian Forces, as well as the safety of some buildings, since some do not meet safety standards and pose a danger to the personnel working in them.

The Auditor General recommended developing a real property management framework and a national strategy for managing real property, which did not exist when the report came out. Such a framework was apparently prepared in November 2010, but it remains on stand-by.

Indeed, according to the Auditor General, until such a framework is in place, the department cannot know if it has the required real property assets at the right place, and in good repair, to meet the operational requirements of the Canadian Forces.

There are gaps in National Defence’s management practices for acquiring, maintaining, and repairing capital assets. The overall performance management framework for real property is incomplete. Maintenance work tends to be reactive, rather than proactive, for instance, in response to breakdown. This can result in a premature failure of real property assets.

I would like to know the status of this management framework. Have any measures been taken to create a national strategy for real property?

Furthermore, there were also problems regarding the funding cycles for maintenance and repairs. Funds intended for maintenance are available too late in the fiscal year to pay for plans and projects based on the normal construction cycle, which operates seasonally.

I would also like to know if this problem has been addressed through any changes or adjustments to make it easier to coordinate financial resources and capital projects.

The supplementary estimates indicate that $649 million were transferred out of real property, which means that the $649 million originally allocated for National Defence real property was not spent and was reallocated elsewhere.

What projects were supposed to be funded by that $649 million? Why was that money not invested in real property, when immediate funds are clearly needed to pay for upgrades to buildings on bases? What projects are being ignored or delayed when it comes to real property?

Real property assets are certainly less glamourous than ships and planes when it comes to photo ops, but I think they are the foundation of Canadian Forces operations.

The answer will no doubt be that the funds have been put in place. However, the reality is that these transfers mark a low point in the real property budget of the past five years, just a few months after the alarm was sounded by the Auditor General because the real property assets are falling apart.

I would like to know what the department is doing with these real property assets. What is under way? What does the government have planned? What strategy has been put in place? What is the plan?

I would simply like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence to provide the House with more information about where we are on this matter.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for asking this question as it will allow us to clarify a few facts about a file that is important to National Defence and all Canadians.

Yes, we want to take more pre-emptive action. We want to be better managers and to improve management of our real property assets. We want to be more efficient and achieve superior results in managing these assets, which are extensive.

However, I must say that it was never our intention to ignore this question, either in committee with the minister or today. During the debate on the supplementary estimates (B) that took place late last year, it was not a question of simply changing the infrastructure budget. There is no shortfall in the budget for these items. On the contrary, since 2009 we have spent much more than $3 billion across the country for all kinds of construction projects.

The government will continue to invest in infrastructure in order to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to carry out their duties safely.

The hon. member probably knows better than most Canadians that this is nothing glamourous. We do not see many headlines about infrastructure, but it is one of the four main pillars of the national strategy. Canada puts national defence first. The other pillars are equipment, personnel, and of course, readiness, which includes training—a key component of readiness.

The Department of National Defence has one of the Government of Canada's biggest and most complex real estate portfolios, including 21,000 buildings and 800 properties covering 2.25 million hectares. The department has to manage tens of thousands of square kilometres of land. Managing such a large real estate portfolio is not easy. We know that there are still problems that need to be resolved. The department has agreed to implement the Auditor General's recommendations and is in the process of doing so.

The source of the funding used to solve the problems raised by the Auditor General was an internal allocation. As a result, to date, these expenses have been absorbed into the department's existing budget, and as things now stand, they do not need to be included in the supplementary estimates.

The government already has a plan to solve the problems that have been raised with regard to infrastructure. I have already spoken about the Canada first strategy. This is an infrastructure strategy that will be carried out over a 20-year period. Let us be clear. There are factors that we cannot control, such as the weather, the seasons and how much construction can be done in a summer or fall. These factors can lead to slight changes in the plan, but they will never interfere with our determination to follow through with this great plan to renew our infrastructure.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another quick question. In terms of financial controls over Defence Construction Canada, the Auditor General raised some questions about the fact that, contrary to normal operating procedures, Defence Construction Canada was not the subject of cyclical reviews as part of the financial management processes. No cyclical reviews had been carried out since the signing of the MOU in 2008. National Defence therefore has no assurance that Defence Construction Canada is exercising its authorities correctly.

In response to the report, the department said it would hire an independent third party in the 2012-13 fiscal year. I would like to know if such a third party has been hired. What qualifications and experience does the individual have in that area? If such an individual has been hired, what is the status of the work and the cyclical review in question?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that we have accepted the Auditor General's recommendations, and this includes recommendations on the point raised by the member.

We are still working on a strategy to respond to these recommendations. To follow up on the Auditor General's report, we are developing a strategy for our real property, in which the priorities will be aligned with the initiatives in the current budget. This strategy will be at the final preparation stage in 2013.

The funds that have already been promised and allocated to infrastructure will help improve runways and will be invested in ports, aerodromes, hangars and training facilities, and will also help provide what is needed for a modern military. Considerable progress has already been made at Canadian Forces Base Borden, north of Toronto. A few weeks ago, I attended the announcement of a contract along with the Minister of National Defence. This contract will provide more effective management of infrastructure in Ontario and in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. We are already responding in many ways at different levels.

International Trade

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on November 19, I asked the Minister of International Trade a very direct question. Would the Canada-European trade agreement, CETA, which the government is negotiating, result in Canadians paying increased drug costs?

In the past, the minister has described the possibility of increased drug costs as a myth. However, in his response that day, he did not in any way deny that as a result of what the government is negotiating, Canadians would be facing increased drug costs. He did not deny it. He was fairly bland about it.

It is time the government came clean and informed Canadians about what has been negotiated away and the implications in terms of the costs Canadians will have to carry, specifically in terms of, but not limited to, health care costs.

The minister's final line in his answer was that “[t]hese negotiations have been, and continue to be, the most open and transparent in Canada's history”.

In that statement, nothing could be further from the truth. This is the most secretive government and the least transparent, most controlling and most unaccountable crew the country has ever seen. As we're seeing daily in here, with the minister resigning the other day, it is an increasingly corrupt government. As hard as it is to believe, getting information and getting the minister to answer questions before committee is nearly impossible.

I see the parliamentary secretary getting ready to answer. However, the House should know that the fearless Conservatives will not even allow a motion, imagine that, to ask the minister to come before committee on what the chair of the committee himself admits, in terms of the CETA agreement, would make NAFTA look like a relic. It is a huge agreement with huge implications, and the fearless Conservative members would not allow the motion to be debated in public. That is pretty pathetic.

What are the Conservatives afraid of? The minister is allowed to go to Washington to give a little speech. He is allowed to travel around the world and give speeches here and there. He is allowed to hold press conferences and answer questions. However, he is not allowed to come before committee and answer to the representatives of Canadians on the implications of this trade agreement.

Canadians deserve the truth. They deserve information on what the costs of drugs would be as a result of the deal.

When the chief negotiator was before the committee, he indicated that some studies had been done but that he would not make them available to committee members. We are the committee members. We should have that information. The minister should appear before committee and answer questions directly. That is what democracy is supposed to be all about. It is how this place is supposed to operate.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I find it more than a bit surprising that the hon. member wants answers to direct questions, but he wants to ask those questions that are full of fallacy and innuendo, maybe and might and could be.

Here is the reality for the member. We are negotiating a comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union. We have negotiated trade agreements already with nine countries around the world. This one will be by far the largest, with 27 member states of the European Union, and 28 member states after Croatia joins on July 1. The hon. member knows that he will have to take a stand and that is really the issue about which he is concerned. He will have to balance this agreement in a reasonable, rational way. He wants to find a reason not to support it, but he will have to make a decision and he will have to present that decision based on some type of real logic to the Canadian public, because there will be real numbers in front of him at the time.

We make no apologies for negotiating this trade agreement on behalf of Canadians and we make no apologies for negotiating this trade agreement directly with the European Union. When it is negotiated, it will come back to the House for open, lengthy and fulsome debate, as it should without question.

In the meantime, the hon. member has to take a look at his own riding in Malpeque in Prince Edward Island. He has to ask himself these questions. Why not give his constituents greater access for potatoes in the European marketplace? Why not give his constituents greater access to the European marketplace for fish and seafood? P.E.I. produces some of the best seafood in the world. It is a great producer of Atlantic blue mussels.

I was at the Boston Seafood Show, the third-largest seafood show in the world, talking to our producers, many of them from the member's riding, about the advantages to reducing an average 12% tariff on seafood going into the European market with tariffs as high as 25%. If we can reduce that to zero, that is a tremendous boost for the member's constituents. The problem is that the member will have to make a decision. He will have to balance the facts, not the rumours or innuendo, of a completed agreement and he will have to make a decision.

I hope he makes that decision on behalf of his constituents, for the sake of the country and not for the sake of political gain. We have far too much of that in this place, and it is time the opposition members look beyond what they see as a quick, easy political gain to what is in the best interest of the nation.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I had to kind of smile when the parliamentary secretary said that I will have to make a decision when the real numbers are in front of me at the time. If we are taking the Minister of Finance as an example, real numbers do not mean much to the Conservatives. The Conservative government never announced a number that it hit on target as yet.

However, the bottom line is that Canadians need information on this deal. It is not me. I represent people in my riding and I represent Canadians as international trade critic. We need to know where the danger points are in the agreement. We need the Conservatives to come clean on where they are really negotiating. They have been an absolute failure in terms of trade. Ten of the last twelve months have been in deficit, and I believe we need to know where the problem areas are so we can make recommendations to the government that it can build a strategy around trade that benefits Canadians, adds value and jobs and creates prosperity. We need to recommend that to the Conservatives, but they will not even have the minister at committee.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has not looked, but the entire world is in deficit and Canada is doing better in every category than all of our competition. We are leading the world and we are going to continue to do that through growth, opportunity and exports. Sixty-five per cent of our income is generated through exports. It is probably higher than that in the member's own riding.

Another good portion of our income for our provincial colleagues and our provincial economies is services. We are looking at opening up services in the CETA with the European Union. There is opportunity here, but I am going to throw it back at the hon. member one more time. He is going to have to base his criticisms on facts, not on innuendo or rumour, and he is going to have to present them in this place in a logical manner.

I urge the member to support the agreement because it is good for the country and for his constituents.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)