Charlie Penson

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my feeling that the highest court of the land is the Parliament of Canada. I wonder if the hon. member would disagree or agree with that.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and I thought the member for Medicine Hat made a very well informed presentation. The member spoke about the affirmation of marriage and I really agree with that.

There was a couple in my riding who had their 60th wedding anniversary last year, Harold and Ruby Reiswig. They renewed their vows in a reaffirmation about the important institution of marriage. It sent a very strong message to their friends and family about the importance of that.

The phones in my constituency are ringing again today supporting this resolution and—

[Preclearance Act, June 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to Bill S-22, the preclearance bill.

I would like to state upfront that my only reservation is the fact that it was introduced in the Senate. Many of my colleagues have raised the same point. I do not think this bill has the same credibility, having been introduced by a body which is not elected and therefore not accountable to the Canadian people.

Many in this House would have liked the opportunity to speak to or speak longer to this bill. We are down to the wire with the closing of parliament and we have approximately one hour of debate at third reading, which makes it a bit difficult and also leads to some misunderstanding.

As the trade critic for the Reform Party, the official opposition, I think it is very important that this bill be passed as quickly as possible. The reason I say that is because of our tremendous trade relationship with the United States, our biggest trading partner. Over 83% of our exports go to the United States. Therefore, a lot of Canadian companies and Canadian business people are involved and they need increased ease of access.

The amount of trade export and imports between the United States and Canada is massive. We have the biggest trade relationship in the world. There is $1.5 billion a day in trade crossing our border. It works well in most instances, but we have to continue to work to make it easier to do business across that important border.

I returned about three weeks ago from meetings with U.S. senators in the western states. There was a meeting in Great Falls, Montana. I saw the problems facing the border states and the border provinces. I saw sweet grass in Montana cross the line from Alberta. I saw thousands of Canadian trucks moving cattle into the western United States.

Commerce is going to do nothing but increase. We have a number of integrated economies. We see it continuing to develop. These economies include steel, the automotive sector and the cattle industry, and there are going to be more and more integrated economies with the United States in the future.

We are in the process of trying to negotiate a hemispheric free trade agreement, free trade for the Americas, which will bring South America, Central America and North America into one trade agreement. Therefore, there is all the more need for arrangements which make it easier for our business people to cross those borders in a timely fashion. Time means money and these people have to have ease of access. That is what this is really about.

This is a preclearance bill. Preclearance means that we do not have to clear customs in the United States. It can be done in Canada prior to boarding a flight to the United States, for example.

As my colleague said, as well as making it easier, it will build economies at some Canadian airports. Vancouver is a good case in point, where travellers coming from Asia will probably use the Vancouver airport to access the United States. We want to encourage that. We do not want to put roadblocks in the way. Hence, the need to have this preclearance bill.

I want to talk for a moment about the trends in trade. In the 1960s Canada exported approximately 60% of its goods to the United States. People were concerned about that. I remember at the time trade minister Allan MacEachen and Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson wanting to diversify that trade into other areas, Europe for example. However, that was not to be because Europe was looking inward to the European Union. We know the kind of arrangements they have there. They have a customs union, which means that the trucks do not even stop at the borders in the European Union. Commerce flows across those borders every day.

I am not sure if that will ever happen between Canada and the United States, but we know that the trend is that more business people will be travelling and there will be closer linkages.

There is an excellent article today in the Globe and Mail by Heather Scoffield which suggests that integration is speeding up more and more and there are calls for tax harmonization and a common currency. We hear that right in this House.

The trend after the free trade agreement with the United States, and following that the NAFTA, is that more Canadian companies are looking for markets outside Canada. They see that a 30 million person market is not good enough to serve them in the future. They look at the big market south of the border and they want a piece of it.

In fact, because of the free trade agreement and the NAFTA with Canada, Mexico and the United States barriers have come down. That means that tariffs and duties have come down. Between Canada and the United States all duties are gone except for a couple of selective industries. Small Canadian companies which were doing business in Canada only had a protected market here because of high tariff walls. They no longer have those high tariff walls. There are companies from Mexico and United States that are looking at Canada as an attractive place to do business. There is fairly heavy competition for these Canadian companies right in their home market. Therefore, they have to look elsewhere for markets and they are looking into the United States and Mexico where duties have also disappeared.

I am suggesting that the trend will be to more movement of business between our three countries. As we expand free trade into the Americas, into the hemisphere, there will be more need to accelerate programs that can ease the way we do business in Canada and how we clear customs in this preclearance fashion so that goods are moved quickly.

I was at a conference in Mexico last year, five years after the NAFTA. There were legislators there from Canada, the United States and Mexico. I think all of us agreed that we will have to move quickly to try to remove any impediments that we can to the movement of goods and services, and people.

The air cargo industry made excellent points. The way business was conducted some time ago in Canada was that small companies would build a product which they would sell in their home community, and that was it. Things have changed. Those companies started looking at bigger markets, the province and the country. Now, with barriers gone, those small companies are building products and are sending them to destinations all over the world, and they want it done in a timely manner. Hence, the growth in air cargo. Products are being shipped by plane.

Companies want legislation such as Bill C-54, the electronic commerce bill. I would suggest to the government that it is important to have that bill passed quickly. There are a lot of Canadian companies that are asking for that electronic commerce bill to be passed because it will speed up how they can get paid for their products. That is what this is all about.

Bill S-22, although I disagree with its origins, is a good bill. It needs to have speedy passage and our party will support it.

[Trade, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is a bill before the Michigan legislature that if passed would impose a tax of over 2% on Canadian companies selling into Michigan. Should this legislation go ahead, the cost to Canadian companies, especially the automotive sector would be more than $100 million per year.

What is the trade minister doing to ensure that this legislation which flies in the face of the principle of national treatment never gets passed?

[Bill C-55, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 is going through the Senate now with last minute amendments to reflect a so-called deal reached with the Americans to provide subsidies to the Canadian magazine industry.

However, there is one thing the government seems to have forgotten. We have commitments under NAFTA and the World Trade Organization which promise something called “national treatment”. Any subsidy we give to the Canadian publishers must automatically be made available to American and foreign publishers that are operating in Canada.

I find it absolutely ludicrous that the government would seriously commit to throwing away hard-earned taxpayers' dollars in this fashion. Does the government not understand the international agreements that it has signed?

I say we should forget the subsidies. Let the magazine industry compete on its own merit. We should have more confidence in the abilities of our Canadian publishers to carve out lucrative Canadian markets for themselves without coming to Ottawa cap in hand.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

We hear quite a bit of chatter coming from the NDP, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure they will get up and make their comments in due course on their own.

At the hearings we had for the trade committee in Winnipeg the International Institute for Sustainable Development talked about some destructive policies that occur especially by the use of subsidies. They said that can hurt our environment and hurt the drive for sustainable development.

They pointed to agricultural practices such as in the Netherlands and even in Canada where subsidies have had the negative effect of hurting the amount of topsoil in the last 100 years. Half of our topsoil has been depleted as a result of practices largely encouraged by subsidies.

They talked about practices in the Amazon, in Holland and in Denmark in terms of how many nitrates go into the ground water as a result of the heavy subsidies that take place. The heavy use of nitrogen especially in agriculture practices because of the subsidies that are used to produce food in those countries is very destructive to our environment.

Does my colleague have any thoughts on how destructive these practices are and the need to get rid of subsidies and get back to a market economy rather than the use of subsidies as a way of dealing with things to help clean up our environment?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments on the bill. I noticed my colleague talked about the need for sustainable development and how we in the Reform Party are very supportive of that.

[Publishing Industry, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that is gunboat diplomacy or what is happening here.

If trade negotiators are successful worldwide in reducing subsidies, is that not going to put this whole policy of the Liberal government on magazine subsidies under great risk? Is it not offering something that it cannot deliver, just as it did in the original Bill C-55?

[Publishing Industry, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's business sector has been promised major subsidy reduction in the next round of trade negotiations and Canadian trade officials are working hard to deliver. However, yesterday's offer of subsidies to the magazine industry is a contradiction to that position.

Has the trade minister not seriously compromised the work of his trade negotiators through his actions?

[The Late Allan Wright, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to a constituent Allan Wright who passed away January 29 in Grande Prairie, Alberta.

In 1944, Lieutenant Wright became one of Canada's most decorated soldiers, being awarded the Canadian Military Medal and the Distinguished Service Cross medal from the U.S. government for the heroic acts he performed while stationed in Europe during World War II. The U.S. medal is second only to the U.S. Congressional Medal of Honour. He was decorated by both the American and Canadian governments, commissioned in the field and wounded in action.

Like many World War II veterans, Lieutenant Wright lived with the effects of his wounds for his entire life. Allan or Phooey, as he was fondly known in Grand Prairie, was one of five brothers who fought on behalf of Canada. His brother Kelly was killed in action.

On behalf of Peace River constituents, I salute Allan for the sacrifices he made for this great country and for the accomplishments that he achieved. He is truly a Canadian hero.