Bob Speller

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in terms of the first question, I had hoped at that time that we would have an opportunity to travel across the country. I have had a number of personal invitations to visit places across Canada to talk about the issue. I would encourage all hon. members to get out and talk about the issue. When the minister speaks, he can speak on behalf of the government.

It was the intention of our committee at that time to travel but because the negotiations were going on in January we did not have that opportunity. There are many groups that represent the different concerns of Canadians on that issue. We brought them here to make sure their points of view were expressed. I would encourage the government to put more effort into getting across the country to inform Canadians.

On the culture issue, I was disappointed in the Reform Party's recommendation not to protect the cultural industries which I feel have contributed to much job creation. There is much support in Canada on that issue. In terms of the protection, as was said earlier and as the minister stated, certainly Canada has put that on as one of the provisions it feels is a deal breaker. It feels if we do not get the protection that is needed, the Canadian government will not sign it.

The government has said on many occasions that if there is not a deal that is in the best interests of Canadians, it will not sign it. I would certainly encourage the minister not to sign any deal that does not protect Canadian culture and cultural industries.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

We are telling the public. We sent something to the member which I hope he will put in his householder.

I encourage all Canadians to get a copy of our report. I feel it reflects what Canadians are saying. The government has indicated to all members in the House that it thinks the report is good and that it will reflect the final outcome of the negotiations.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to debate this issue on the MAI. I chaired the subcommittee on international trade and trade disputes. We had the opportunity to study the MAI for three months before Christmas.

At that time the hon. member was a member of that committee. He knows we heard from some 50 witnesses in the month of November including the chief negotiator, the Minister for International Trade and a number of significantly large Canadian groups which represented concerns on this issue. We brought forward a report on the MAI which is available to all Canadians if they order it from Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Also, this report is on the Internet. It is at www.parl.gc.ca. Also the Department of Foreign Affairs has a site specific to this, www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca. There is all kinds of information on the Internet from all over the world on this issue.

I challenge the opposition parties to show any government involved in these negotiations which has been more open on this issue. We had witnesses before the committee who stated that this is one of the most open negotiations in the history of these government led trade negotiations.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about the recommendations in our report. I feel they reflect what Canadians were telling us across Canada. I agree with the hon. members who say that there is a great deal of misinformation or disagreement as to what is in the report.

I also question the hon. member especially on what he said in terms of negotiation and information being given to the provinces and the territories. There were plenty of meetings throughout the history of these negotiations with the provinces to let them know. Representatives of British Columbia appeared before the committee. The representative who was not a politician agreed that they had been informed by the government.

As the parliamentary secretary said, there were some 30 meetings with the provinces over the years, but there were also meetings with private organizations and non-government organizations such as the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada, auto parts manufacturers, auto industry associations, book and periodical councils, the Canadian Auto Workers, Canadian book publishers, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canada Council for the Arts, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. There were numerous meetings with representatives of these groups as well as correspondence. The list goes on. Clearly there has been a lot of effort made by the government to inform Canadians.

I want to take a few minutes to speak about the recommendations of the subcommittee, as they reflect what Canadians from across the country who appeared before the subcommittee wanted us to tell the government.

Our first recommendation called on the government to continue participating in the MAI negotiations but only if the final text fully protects Canadian culture, the environment, labour standards, health, education and social services, both at the federal and subnational levels; in other words, federally, provincially and municipally.

That is a very important point. There is confusion in terms of what role each level of government can play in this issue. The federal government has spent a lot of time with the provinces in bringing light to this issue.

Our second recommendation was outlined by the previous speaker. It recommends that the government continue and increase its efforts to inform Canadians. That was agreed to by all members. It was felt that the government should be informing the public. I know the government has reacted. Since the subcommittee reported the minister has spoken publicly on the issue. It is incumbent on all members to do that as well. They have received information packages from the government which they should include in their householders to let Canadians know what the issues are.

The third recommendation is to fully involve the provinces. I have already spoken about that.

With respect to the fourth recommendation, it is felt that the government should consider undertaking a full impact study to let Canadians know the impacts this will have on certain sectors of our economy. It is not practical early on in the negotiations to do this because we do not really know what will be in the final text. These issues will be negotiated, but we do not know what will be the final conclusions.

The subcommittee indicated that it wanted to look at this issue again to ensure that Canadians continue to be informed. It is important that the government let Canadians know and it is in the process of doing that with respect to the full impacts the agreement will have on certain sectors.

The fifth recommendation was that for future negotiations there should be an open and transparent process and public consultations and disclosure as much as is practical under the circumstances. I do not think hon. members expect that negotiations such as this can take place with a million groups looking over the shoulders of the negotiators. Frankly, that is not practical. However, what is practical is as these negotiations continue governments can give updates to certain sectors of the economy. They can have meetings, such as those which took place under the WTO when we had farm groups coming in to talk about agriculture. They were actually there in Geneva at the time with the government.

Governments can do these things. I know that governments have asked certain international groups to the OECD, have met with them and have brought them up to date on these issues.

The sixth recommendation was that the definition of investment in the MAI should be clarified and should reflect the approach taken in the NAFTA.

The seventh recommendation was, in the interests of certainty, that governments and investors under the MAI ensure that it reflects which international agreement takes precedence in terms of the rules. As we know, there is the WTO, there is the NAFTA and now there is the MAI. We wanted to make sure Canadians knew before they invested which international agreement took precedence.

Number eight was that we wanted the government to use this agreement to subsequently pursue an investment accord worldwide. We feel it is important for Canadian corporations. I know the opposition likes to talk about these as big international corporations but over the past number of years the smaller corporations have been engaging in the majority of world investment. Canadian small and medium size enterprises are presently the major worldwide investors.

We are not talking about big monoliths. We are talking about small businesses throughout Canada. They need certainty in some of the smaller countries that are not in the OECD to ensure their investments are safe. That investment helps with trade and it helps Canadian businesses get in there.

[Patent Act, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be given an opportunity to speak to this later.

For these reasons I know that most members on this side of the House would be in disagreement with this bill. Bill C-248 as a whole would upset the balance in our system between the benefits of having generic drugs reach the market as soon as possible after patent expiry and the need for effective enforcement of patent rights.

As other hon. members from this side of the House have stated, we are committed to this principle. When we responded to the industry committee's report on Bill C-91 we reaffirmed our commitment to the principle of the proposed changes to the drug patent regulations announced January 21, 1998 and which were published on January 24 in the Canada Gazette .

The government's proposed changes will continue to provide effective enforcement of patent rights while reducing delays in getting generic drugs to market. The length of the regulatory stay on insurance of a health and safety approval for a generic drug would be reduced from 30 months to 24 months. Members on this side of the House believe that the improvements we proposed will also discourage litigation and make the system fair.

We have concerns. We have worked on them for the last number of years since this bill was brought in by the Tories under the Mulroney government years ago. We believe we have made significant changes. We believe the system now in place is fair to all sides.

[Patent Act, February 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to take a few minutes before the hon. member finished his five minutes to talk about Bill C-248. I have been in the House 10 years now and as a result have been through this debate on a number of occasions.

I chair the subcommittee on foreign affairs and trade disputes. One of the issues we look is issues like this bill. It worries me that the intent of the bill would contravene some of the international agreements under the World Trade Organization.

Agreements such as those under the WTO, I think all members would agree, contribute to Canada's economic growth and help Canada in terms of its exports around the world. Certainly in terms of our policy we would not want to support legislation that contravened very important trade agreements that have been very beneficial to Canada.

Being part of the global marketplace brings significant benefits to Canadians. There is investment in Canada in new plants and in research and development which is critical for creating direct new jobs. We also have good access around the world.

The WTO requires a 20 year patent protection. A pre-1993 compulsory licensing regime and a 17 year patent term would not be in line with the WTO—

[Volunteer Firefighters, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on two occasions since I was elected to this House in 1988, I have brought forward to the House motions recommending that the government raise the tax exemption levels for volunteer firefighters.

In June 1994 my motion to raise the tax exemption level was given overwhelming support by all parties. It should be noted that the last time an increase was given was in 1980. Since that time, training and equipment costs have gone up. Those who have purchased the equipment with their own money and who give their time serving their communities have not benefited from the increase in inflation.

I agree with the Minister of Finance that during these times of fiscal restraints we must be careful not to overextend ourselves. However, I would think that all members here would agree that tax breaks could help promote volunteerism in our communities.

I believe one of the top priorities should be to encourage volunteerism—

[Interparliamentary Delegations, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 54, I have the honour to present to the House a report from the Canadian branch, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, concerning a parliamentary visit to the United Kingdom which took place November 18 to 28, 1997.

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is never easy to go to war, especially for a country like Canada. Canada is known worldwide for being a peaceful country, for being a country that promotes peace, a country known worldwide for its recent land mine negotiations, a country and a flag that are well respected around the world for its peacekeepers.

We are being asked tonight to debate the issue as to whether Canada should support an international effort to send a message to Saddam Hussein. The message is that the world today does not accept the type of behaviour Saddam Hussein has expressed through his human rights abuses, through his deception, cheating and lies with the UN special commission investigating his weapons of mass destruction. It is a message that this world, the United Nations and all countries of the world do not accept his behaviour.

Who better should the international community call on but Canada, a country that has reacted in the past to terrorism in world wars, in Korea, in the gulf conflict and through our peacekeeping efforts around the world. We have reacted and we still continue to react to that type of behaviour.

We have been asked certainly because of who we are and what we represent, because we will add legitimacy to an international effort. That is the case and we should be proud of that. We should be proud of the efforts previous Canadians have made to world peace. Other countries will certainly say that if Canada is involved, there must be some legitimacy to those who say that Saddam Hussein must go.

I have listened to this debate tonight and like the hon. member from Ottawa, I spoke to many constituents over the past week to get their ideas on this issue. What I heard in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant is very similar to what is heard here in Ottawa. There are mixed messages. In fact if we look at the media, we can understand why Canadians are concerned and confused as to what the issues really are in this because I do not think they have been debated properly. Canadians have not been told the whole story as to some of the atrocities Saddam Hussein has done.

It is argued by some that the actions we may take over the next few weeks or months will not do anything to hurt Saddam Hussein. It has been said that all they will do is hurt the Iraqi people. But what is worse? The atrocities Saddam Hussein does against his own people?

That was a debate many of my constituents had. Would it be worse to deal militarily with some of the collateral damage, men and women who will be hurt by this, men and women who Saddam Hussein puts in front of his military establishments as shields against attack, or would it be better to let him go on as he did in the 1980s with the Kurdish people? It is a tough question to answer.

Last year the United Nations Commission on Human Rights condemned the massive violations of human rights in Iraq. It noted that it was the worst country in the world for disappearances. Over 16,000 people have disappeared in Iraq.

Iraq does not have the same laws as Canada and it does not have the same traditions as Canada. Iraqi people do not have the right of association. They do not have the right to stand up and say what they feel about their leadership. They do not have an opposition like the one across the floor. They are not allowed to do that and if they did, they would either go missing or they would be killed.

It is estimated that in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein made his campaigns against the Kurds, some 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds died. Women and children. Whole villages, small rural villages disappeared. Is this the type of person we want leading a country in the world, in this global village? I think not.

Why are we at this point? Why are we at the point of military build-up in the gulf? It is because the United Nations special commission which was set up after the gulf war to review Saddam Hussein, to look for weapons of mass destruction and to oversee their dismantlement, has been lied to and has been cheated and has not been able to do its job. We are at a standoff. Do we do what most of us would want to do and negotiate a settlement? But if we do, how do we trust him?

We negotiated a settlement on the gulf war. The United Nations brokered a settlement. It was given assurances and commitments by Saddam Hussein that he would tell it about his weapons. He said he never got involved in biological warfare or chemical warfare. We found out differently. How do we trust a negotiated settlement with this man?

The UN special commission succeeded in destroying 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 litres of live chemical weapon agents, 48 operational missiles, 6 missile launchers and 30 special missile warheads which could have been used for biological weapons. That is scary.

The threat that this man has on the world scares me. I am sure it scares a number of Canadians. That is why we need to take action. We need to send a message to the world that it is unacceptable behaviour. And who better to do it and who better to get involved than Canada.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the report of the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment entitled “A Study of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment”.

The government, knowing how important this agreement is to Canadians, asked our committee to hold hearings and to bring Canadians from across the country to Ottawa to hear their points of view on the MAI.

Our committee endeavoured to do this. A number of experts and spokespersons of national organizations came before the committee and let the committee know their views on this very important international agreement.

Our committee was informed about the advantages and the disadvantages of an MAI. We were presented with a wide range of views, as members can imagine, on these.

I hope all Canadians will read this report and learn of the issues involved in the MAI. We have provided a number of recommendations for our government to take into consideration for when negotiations begin again in January. I have great confidence that they will listen to the views of the subcommittee on international trade.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the pleasure to present to this House the report of the Canadian branch Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the 43rd Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference which took place September 14 to 24 in Mauritius.