Stephen Owen

[Japan Prize, April 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the House today of a most prestigious award in recognition of the work of University of British Columbia Professor Emeritus Dr. Timothy Parsons. Dr. Parsons is the first Canadian to receive the prestigious Japan Prize, which is equivalent to a Nobel Prize.

Awarded the Japan Prize in Tokyo last Friday, Dr. Parsons was recognized for his extremely valuable work in fisheries oceanography through his work in renewable resource management and conservation.

Through this award, Dr. Parsons is recognized by scientists around the world. The level of this award exemplifies his important career in science and the advancements of sustainable marine life.

[National Defence, April 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, serious allegations were made in the House yesterday regarding living conditions on Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt. I call on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence to respond to this allegation.

[Criminal Code, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today to speak in favour of Bill C-24. I was pleased to listen to the Minister of Justice and I heard the comments made by members of the opposition who seem to have a full understanding of the issue.

If it is not understood in the Canadian public at large, it is well understood in the House by all parties and all speakers that the scale of organized crime in the country and internationally, the magnitude of the threat that it poses to our society, is something of real urgency. The bill addresses it and needs to be passed quickly and put into force.

I would like to speak about the variety and complexity of the problem internationally as well as to individuals, communities, government and private enterprises in Canada.

Internationally there is more than a trillion dollars a year in earned profits from criminal activity worldwide. The figure is growing every year. It has not been hampered and restricted by deficit cutting that governments around the world have had to undergo through the 1990s. These profits have been soaring. In terms of the critical nature of this threat, former President Clinton identified organized crime as the number one threat to national security in the post cold war world.

The citizens of my constituency, Vancouver Quadra, understand the chilling nature of the threat. It is much broader than just gang wars. It involves the supply of drugs to our schools and children. It involves property crime that is attendant on drug addiction which is fed by organized crime. It involves home invasions and the security of our homes. Ten years ago who in our society had heard the chilling terms of terror such as home invasion, carjacking or drive-by shooting? These are new terms of terror which are directly connected to the scourge of organized crime in society.

In terms of our economy, billions of dollars of laundered money are put into our society which is based on a market economy. It is corrupted by them. They debase the vigour of competition in our market economy and threaten our economic viability.

They also threaten our economic institutions. Corruption and organized criminal activity in scams with respect to banks, credit card fraud, telemarketing fraud, insurance fraud and stock market fraud are all part of the growing expanding scourge of organized criminal activity which is sapping the economic strength of the country as well as the safety of our citizens.

In terms of government agencies themselves, we have had troubling information about the infiltration and corruption of people working in government agencies at all levels in Canada and internationally.

These are major challenges for our society. They require new tools, many of which the bill provides. If we think about how we will apply those tools we have to think carefully about the new nature of criminal organizations.

Criminal organizations working in Canada and around the world are no longer monolithic crime families that are suspicious of each other or competitive with each other against criminal projects for turf. Today criminal activity is conducted in a highly networked, complex, flexible and international fashion. Criminal gangs are no longer fighting for turf with each other although that happens, and we know too sadly of the horrors in Quebec of criminal gang wars. However that is not the typical character of organized criminal activity today.

Organized criminal activity works in networks, works in cells across criminal organizations and across borders to uniquely compose a criminal operation across boundaries, gangs and criminal products. It requires a very special approach from law enforcement agencies which is not our traditional approach. It requires those agencies to be more flexible and more resourced in their response. I will be splitting my time.

I would like to comment on the new tools that are necessary and that are being applied by the bill. Monetary resources are needed for police agencies. Those have been provided for over the last two years with increased budgets and there are projected further injections of financial resources for the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies. That is critical.

The bill presents other tools. There will be stiffer penalties for participation in criminal gang activity and broader definitions of what constitutes criminal gangs and criminal activity. There are very important provisions to create the offence of intimidation of officials in the criminal justice system. It is a critical point of protection that is necessary and overdue.

The expanded definitions and increased ability to seize the proceeds of crime are important in the bill. There must be an ability to seize and forfeit property in a fashion that is efficient, quick and hits at the heart of the enterprise nature of organized crime.

The mandatory reporting provisions for suspicious financial transactions are important. Fifteen billion dollars was estimated as the amount of laundered funds from illegal activities in Canada last year.

I will conclude by addressing specifically the unique and changed nature of organized crime in society. It is flexible and networked. It crosses boundaries and is cross organizational. It is necessary to have an integrated and co-ordinated approach across the collection of criminal intelligence, police operations and prosecution of crime. These have to be working as a seamless whole.

The information and intelligence gathering must not be in a secretive closed chest fashion among competing law enforcement agencies. It must be shared in a mandatory fashion, but it must be secure and centrally analyzed. It must be disseminated on a need to know basis and the success and experience of operations have to be fed back into that intelligence system.

The operations themselves must be joint force operations, drawing across law enforcement agencies for the best and the most appropriate resources that can be uniquely composed and targeted on any particular criminal activity. It should then be shut down, redistributed and refocused on other criminal activity if it is to mimic the flexibility and the networks of criminal organizations themselves.

There must be an effective link to intensive prosecution which the bill and the organized criminal justice policy address. Dedicated legal advice must be present at the very earliest stages of an investigation to deal with the incredible complexity of criminal investigations and prosecutions, laws of disclosure, laws of search and seizure, laws of wiretapping, and laws of proceeds of crime. The best legal advice must be used at the beginning of an investigation right through to an intensive prosecution to make sure those prosecutions are successful.

I repeat that organized crime is an immense threat to society. Its magnitude is overwhelming. The bill needs to be passed as soon as possible.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe my ears in hearing the hon. member challenge the issue of democracy in Canada in such strident terms. It is a gross overstatement. It is an insult to the House, to the freedoms we enjoy and to the democratic privileges we exercise.

As to the question, the member mentions buying privileged access. We have talked in the House tonight and before about the civil society committee that will be assisting and that will have access to the negotiators in the free trade of the Americas process. We know this is a long process. It is going to unfold over the next three years. It is not a matter of simply one meeting with one access.

However, there is also an economic interest of cost recovery. It has become commonplace in international gatherings around the world for both the large public expense to be recognized and for some attempts to be made at cost recovery. Whether this crosses the line of propriety in any way, I am not sure. Perhaps the public discussion we are having and raising the issue as to whether it should be appropriate in future is a good thing. That illuminates the opportunity in this debate.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we must respect the opportunity we have this evening to debate these issues. We must make our views and the views of our constituents known in terms of what should be contained in the treaty. We should debate what is fundamentally important to both this treaty and any parallel treaty that may address issues linked to our relations with other countries.

As parliamentarians we have this opportunity. We have had the opportunity in standing committees to question the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade. We have had the opportunity to meet with parliamentarians of other countries throughout the hemisphere to discuss the issues of the upcoming summit.

As parliamentarians, let alone as general members of society, we can take advantage of the opportunities for discussion and the information that is available. This is a fulsome opportunity for engagement not only of parliamentarians but, more important perhaps, of Canadians to negotiate and provide information and advice to the executive of government which is responsible for negotiating international treaties.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part tonight in this important debate. The objectives of the upcoming third summit of the Americas in Quebec City include increased prosperity throughout the Americas by increased free trade and, also, most important, the spreading of democracy throughout the hemisphere and the opportunity for every person in the hemisphere to reach their full potential. When we consider the importance of the summit we must keep in mind those broad objectives and ensure that Canada as a government represents us all in pursuing them.

I will speak on a few aspects that have not been fully touched on in tonight's debate, starting with the issue of process. Having been a bit of a process and public participation junkie in a previous career, I am extremely interested by the degree of transparency and public participation in our move toward free trade of the Americas. I will give the House my observations of what has taken place to date and what I think must continue and perhaps be enhanced.

In my experience in dealing with public issues in Canada and internationally, I have never seen such a transparent and participatory process through the leadership of a government. The executive branch of Government of Canada has, and we must acknowledge it, sole responsibility to negotiate international treaties of this type.

It is for federal and provincial legislatures to debate and pass laws required to implement any treaty. That is where their obligation lies. However in spite of the lead role of the executive branch, the Government of Canada has provided unparalleled transparency and opportunities to participate in the process, including full federal, provincial and territorial ministerial meetings, consultations and public forums across the country, and the website which includes all of Canada's negotiating positions to date. The website has been up for a year and we will continue to try to post everything the Government of Canada puts forward.

We hosted, this month in Ottawa, the interparliamentary forum of the Americas with parliamentarians from throughout the hemisphere talking about issues for the upcoming summit. We are having the debate tonight. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade appeared before a standing parliamentary committee to answer questions and provide perspective on the Canadian proposals.

Even before getting to Quebec City we have had broad public participation and disclosure of negotiating positions. When we get to Quebec City we will have, and Canada has been the leader in encouraging, the full participation of a civil society committee in all the free trade of the Americas talks. That will be enhanced in Quebec City.

As we heard tonight, the second people's summit of the Americas will take place parallel to the meetings of the heads of government and heads of state in Quebec City. The Government of Canada is financially supporting that to the tune of $300,000 with a further $200,000 from the government of Quebec. These are important opportunities and are not to be made light of. In international trade agreements they are unparalleled in their scope.

Let me deal with one substantive complaint by Canadians about the process: The full negotiating positions and texts of the other countries are not yet public. Canada has taken the lead in making its positions public and has been followed by the United States, Mexico and Costa Rica. At the planning meeting in Buenos Aires in two weeks, Canada will argue that other countries should make their positions, as well as the full text of their negotiating framework, fully public. Canada will continue to be a leader and a model in that practice.

Canada is not doing this simply out of altruism and farsightedness. Modern governance goes far beyond any one government or country. It includes civil society and the market. The best information will not be accumulated and the best decisions will not be made or implemented unless we have broad participation and transparency in the development and implementation of public policy. This is a good example of such leadership by Canada.

Let me turn briefly to the question of security and freedom. Canadians cherish their political and civil rights and freedoms perhaps above anything else in our society. We take them seriously and demand they be respected. However we also enjoy, appreciate and demand that we live in a secure and protected society. For that we entrust to our police the heavy and onerous duty of ensuring that all our rights are respected, and our behaviour is appropriate to that.

I will now turn to Quebec City. Security is a challenge and a matter of complexity and concern for police authorities in Quebec City. Thirty-four heads of government and heads of state will be attending the summit. There is a topographical situation in the old town of Quebec, as was pointed out yesterday by the mayor of Quebec City. Because of the narrow streets and the hills, people gathering in large numbers could be injured.

The mayor of Quebec City stressed that security must be maintained by police so the summit does not descend into the debacle we saw in Seattle during the WTO meetings. The greatest threat to those who wished to publicly exercise their right to protest and free speech in Seattle was the few who disrupted and discredited the many. We entrust to our police the duty of maintaining order. However, that is a major challenge and we must have perimeters. I do not know whether the fences are too high or the area too large, but we must trust the police to make the difficult operational decisions given their responsibilities.

Let me turn finally to the issue of trade and democracy. We have heard a lot from both sides of the House tonight about the importance of trade to Canada and the prosperity it has brought us. The freer the trade the more prosperity we seem to enjoy. That is in context. The Government of Canada has been forthright and must be held accountable to ensure that as we engage in free trade agreements we do not sacrifice our health, our educational or social services or our cultural integrity.

It goes beyond our internal interests. Trade is about balance. It is about taking advantage of economic opportunities globally through freer trade, but it also means meeting our global responsibilities. That is why the Government of Canada has pledged to link freer trade to issues of environmental integrity, human rights, democratic development and education. The government's objective is to ensure everyone in the hemisphere has, as an example to the world, the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Let us come together, as parliamentarians and as Canadians, to make sure the Government of Canada meets its obligations to ensure that human potential is realized beyond our borders as well as inside them.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of linkages is an important one and, of course, our trade relationship with the United States, quite apart from anything that might be negotiated under the free trade agreement of the Americas, exists under NAFTA and our joint membership in the WTO.

Our relationship with the United States under NAFTA includes being parties to the North American agreement on environmental co-operation and labour co-operation. We already that linkage that would bear on our free trade arguments with respect to softwood lumber under NAFTA.

As we look beyond that to the other 32 countries of the hemisphere, and the Prime Minister spoke to this, it is important for us to understand that while there are great benefits to be had by society in all countries through freer trade and the development and increased wealth that comes from it, those will not actually be achieved unless there is some requisite level of human dignity and human rights in those countries, unless they have some sort of democratic support for the policies of those countries, and unless they have some sort of level of labour standards and environmental integrity.

Our interest is not just in free trade, although that is an essential part of democracy and liberalism, but it is also a precondition to the necessary stability in the rules of law and the rules based system that will allow us to trade with other countries in a successful way.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. The Minister for International Trade gave quite an account of the list of initiatives over the last number of years that the Government of Canada has taken to build a coalition of support in Washington to advance the argument the hon. member is mentioning.

The issue of the consumer interest of the United States public in avoiding what in effect is a tax on house building of over $1,000 U.S. per household is something that should and is being brought forward and a coalition built around it. The Government of Canada has been working hard over the last two years to build a coalition within Canada to work with forest product companies and their legal advisers to prepare and advance the argument as effectively as possible.

Over the last 20 years the Government of Canada has demonstrated its zeal in promoting a unified Canadian interest in the softwood trade by aggressively arguing against countervails in the past and winning those arguments before international trade tribunals. The government has expressed its strong intention to continue aggressively on that course.

My hon. colleague made an interesting comment regarding the Great Bear Rain Forest. I think of it as the central and mid-coast of British Columbia and outstanding old growth forests. When we look at free trade in softwood products we must think of marketplace democracy as well, which not only works in favour of forest companies but in favour of the environment.

We need to have a willing seller and a willing buyer for free trade in order to underline the importance of it. Marketplace democracy has played a large part in the largest forest companies in British Columbia. Sitting down with the largest environmental groups and working out a joint solution to logging practice on the west coast will be demonstrably at the forefront of those practices in the world. That is just a further expression of the extent to which Canadian producers and other aspects of our society have come together in the interest of Canada.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I join the Minister for International Trade in supporting the motion. I also commend the Bloc Quebecois for the admirable dedication to the cause of Canadian unity that the resolution exemplifies.

The issue of subsidies in the free trade of softwood lumber to the United States is one that is dear to the hearts of all British Columbians. It is an essential aspect of our economy and our social fabric.

When we look at the difference between forest practices in the United States and Canada, which is at the heart of any claim to subsidization, it is a matter of whether we have private land or public land logging. In Canada, as has been noted, 90% of logging is done on public land, with 10% on private land. In the United States it is the other way around, with private logging making up 90% of its logging practices.

The sustainability which the public demands in Canada of those logging practices is absolutely critical to the question of whether or not there are subsidies. It is also critical to the health of the economy, society and environment of Canada. Sustainability depends on a balance among those things. We simply will not have economic strength if we do not have social stability. We will not have social stability unless we have environmental integrity. We must keep those in balance.

In listening to the debate as I have with great interest today, I have been taken by the amount of unity across the country that has been expressed by many hon. members from different parties. In that spirit I want to make my next statement very gently. I simply observe that sometimes the failure from the left is that it believes government can do everything. Of course it cannot. Sometimes there could be a failure of the right as well while properly mistrusting big labour and big government but not sufficiently mistrusting big business.

That is particularly ironic given the fact that so much faith is put in the marketplace. The greatest threat to the marketplace and the cause of market failure is often uncompetitive practices and large monopolies. In the spirit of what we are saying in the House, I should like to touch on those two points.

In terms of the economic issues, we have heard of the large importance to Canada as a whole of softwood lumber exports to the United States. That is of particular interest and importance to British Columbia, making up approximately 47% of those exports, totalling almost $11 billion.

My hon. colleagues from Prince George—Bulkley Valley and Cariboo—Chilcotin have properly recognized the importance to their communities and resource based communities around British Columbia of sustainable support of this industry.

The forest industry in British Columbia has contributed greatly over the last decade to the forest management practices that we enjoy in British Columbia and demonstrate across Canada and around the world. These are not subsidized. Stumpage rates have been significantly increased, as well as forest practices over the past decade.

With the forest industry agreement in British Columbia, those extra stumpage charges have been dedicated to forest renewal, restoration of stream beds and replanting, new research in forest sensitive forest practices, retraining of forest workers into different jobs, and more sustainable practices. They are also dedicated toward value added manufacturing which is to be the lifeblood of the future of diversified economies in resource dependent communities. The forest industry resource based communities have all done their part in British Columbia to make sure that we continue to enjoy economic strength from this vitally important industry.

Social stability in communities, in British Columbia and Canada as a whole is based on economic strength not only in resource based communities but for the general public. The issues of health care, education, social structure and infrastructure are dependent on a strong economy. The resource based economies, the forest industry above all, is the lifeblood of that economic strength in many parts of Canada, particularly British Columbia.

Let me turn to the environmental balance which is so critically important and which underlies the strength of the argument that we do not have subsidies, certainly in British Columbia or anywhere else in Canada.

Over the entire last century we have taken on the responsibility of the idea of sustainable yield logging. However, in the last 20 years, the meaning of what that total yield should be has changed as we have gone to integrated resource management. We look to all interests of society in the integrity of the environment and to non-forest product uses for our forests. This is reflected in the cost of doing business.

Forest companies in British Columbia and across Canada are required to go through detailed planning processes that usually involve multiparty planning processes which adds considerably to their costs but to the balance to be brought to those multiple uses of the forests. They must observe very high logging standards in terms of road building, stream side protection and reforestation.

We do not deforest in Canada. We replant all our forests. Those forests are not all the forests. We protect other values like old growth values and parks. We have doubled the amount of parks from 6% to 12% in British Columbia over the last eight years. This is one of the costs that goes into our logging practices which eliminates any argument of subsidy.

We have heard comments and concerns, properly placed, that logging practices and subsidies to industry not destroy our environment. The worry from the NDP is that perhaps free trade of the Americas, if not NAFTA, may contribute to the destruction of our forest ecosystems. That need not be so and I do not believe it is so in British Columbia or across the country.

What we have in NAFTA is an environmental parallel agreement for environmental co-operation which allows non-governmental organizations to challenge governments, in much the same way the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas spoke of in international corporations challenging governments under chapter 11 of NAFTA. That is available under the commission for environmental co-operation at the NAFTA environmental commission.

When we look to Quebec City and free trade of the Americas, environment and labour conditions will be parallel agreements to any agreement that Canada signs. In addition to those that are included in NAFTA, there will be agreements on human rights, democratic development and education. Free trade of the Americas as negotiated in Quebec City will build on the experience of NAFTA, the importance of environmental integrity and the effective enforcement of environmental standards which Canada is bound by and which underline the non-subsidy in terms of our forest practices.

We have a healthy industry in the country. We are economically and socially dependent upon it and it must continue. I am very pleased to support the resolution for a Canadian unified position behind its forest industry with all the integrity it practises to accomplish fair trade access to American markets.

[Patricia Baird, February 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the House of the appointment of a constituent from Vancouver Quadra, Dr. Patricia Baird, as an officer of the Order of Canada.

Dr. Baird first came to the attention of Canadians across the country when she produced her groundbreaking report on new reproductive technologies in 1993. This report quickly became the touchstone for this controversial area of genetics and public policy, and Dr. Baird became a key contact when these issues arose across the country as well as around the world.

She began her illustrious career at the faculty of medicine at the University of British Columbia, the key institutional constituent of Vancouver Quadra, where she was head of medical genetics and took that department to fame across the country in terms of research and clinical care.

In her personal capacity she has published over 350 papers. She has been a member of the Medical Research Council of Canada and a member of the Prime Minister's National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. Dr. Baird is a most worthy officer of the Order of Canada.