Charlie Penson

[Softwood Lumber, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question yesterday from my colleague for Comox-Alberni regarding the softwood lumber dispute being taken to the WTO, the Minister of Foreign Affairs answered: "To provide an orderly arrangement with our largest customer requires us to play by the rules".

Surely the minister must know that Canada was one of the main proponents in establishing the World Trade Organization. It took nine years at the Uruguay round of the GATT to establish rules to handle disputes of this nature which are extremely important, more important in many cases than our NAFTA rules of dispute.

Would the minister not agree that it is time to use these rules to defend Canada's interest in these types of trade disputes?

[Gun Control, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, constituents in my riding of Peace River are fair and reasonable people. When it comes to government they only ask that this federal government be fair and reasonable also.

They want government to spend their tax money wisely and they want their government to be honest. But these days many constituents in Peace River are seeing red and in this case it is not the government's flag program.

They ask: What will making farmers, ranchers and hunters register their rifles and shotguns do to reduce crime in this country? They believe this Liberal government is not being honest with Canadians. They see this as a half baked measure that will waste taxpayers' money, tie up the police force in paperwork and achieve little in reducing a growing crime problem.

I agree with the constituents of Peace River. I believe most fair minded Canadians do also.

[Softwood Lumber, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who the trade minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were consulting, but it certainly was not the hundreds of companies that are feeding information to us that they are in serious trouble because of this deal.

A recent survey we conducted shows the industry is ready to fight this case instead of living with the quota system. They want the government to scrap this deal and if the United States countervails us, to fight this at the World Trade Organization. Will the minister commit to that?

[Softwood Lumber, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

We were told when Canada signed the softwood lumber deal with the United States that it was because the industry wanted it. However, there is growing evidence that lumber companies are unhappy with this deal. Many companies are facing bankruptcy because of inadequate or no quota. Others are facing shutdown and job losses, all at the same time that the government is realizing increased taxes through penalties charged on softwood lumber companies.

When will the government admit it was wrong to accept the export caps and scrap the softwood lumber deal?

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Sounds like an accountant.

[Export Of Arms, November 20th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Motion No. 290, the motion proposed by the member for Winnipeg Transcona dealing with military exports.

The motion has been read already, but for the benefit of those just joining us I would like to read it again. It is quite a mouthful:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending Canada's system of arms export controls by requiring that export permits for military products be granted only after the Department of Foreign Affairs has conducted and tabled in the House of Commons a security impact assessment determining that the proposed export will enhance international security.

I suppose my concern is whether there is a demonstrated need for what the hon. member is proposing. I question whether there is.

I would like to approach this question by comparing the motion to what the process is for export permits currently. Presently every exporter of a military product must apply to the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for an export permit. The procedure is handled by the export's control division of the department and takes anywhere from a few days to a few weeks. The division consults with other areas of the department such as the geographic region to which the sale is being proposed and the Canadian embassy in that country. It also consults with other interested government departments such as the Department of Industry and the Department of National Defence.

The consultation process, from the information I have received, is a fairly careful one. It is done in such a way as to protect the commercial confidentiality of the proposed sale. Making this process public in any way could result in the loss of that sale not only to another Canadian company but to a foreign competitor.

If there were public money involved, if this were a crown corporation, maybe the need for that type of transparency would be necessary, but we are talking about private companies here.

I am not sure what information the member for Winnipeg Transcona intends to be divulged when a security impact assessment is tabled in the House of Commons. After being tabled in the House of Commons, such an assessment would be part of the public record. It would be information out there for any competitor to use.

Even after sales have taken place the department has been careful to group all sales into categories. This is done so that precise information regarding the product and destination cannot be linked back to one particular company. This has to do with commercial confidentiality.

I have often had problems dealing with the department's hiding behind a veil of commercial confidentiality, but this particular case involves Canadian companies that are not receiving export subsidies on credit, unlike some of the ones that we have going through organizations like the Export Development Corporation. This is one of the ways in which the motion differs substantially from what is occurring presently, and I have not heard anything this evening which would justify making company information public.

Another way that this motion differs from the present procedure is the objective of the security impact assessment. The motion states that the assessment should determine that the export will enhance international security. The consultation which presently takes place only establishes that the sale will do no harm and will not have any negative impact.

We need to examine what we are exporting. Our military exports are mostly in the area of parts and components for aircraft vehicles and electronic equipment. We sell things like aircraft simulators and landing gear for military aircraft. We are careful not to sell military goods and technology to certain types of countries. For instance, we do not sell to countries which pose a threat to Canada or to our allies. We do not sell to countries involved in or under threat of hostilities. We do not sell to countries under UN security

council sanction. Furthermore, we do not sell to countries whose governments have a persistent record of serious human rights abuses. We are attempting to determine what an export sale will not do in terms of harming. Therefore I believe we have met the qualifications necessary.

I am not convinced there is a demonstrated need for flipping the criteria on their head and asking that it be proven that the sale will actually enhance international security. I would assume that many of the companies that produce military parts, components and technology for export are also furthering Canada's capabilities in producing goods and technology for civilian use. This is often the case. As long as our military exports are doing no harm, I believe their production and sale should be allowed to continue in the present format.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a speech delivered on June 18 of this year, stated that Canada's controls are among the toughest in the world. We have heard that stated a couple of times this afternoon. Nonetheless, he said that he was tightening up the controls further to ensure that exports did not end up in the wrong hands and were not used for unacceptable purposes. He instructed his officials to carry out more rigorous analyses of the regional, international and internal security situations of the countries where these exports were destined. Furthermore, we are applying a stricter interpretation of human rights criteria. We are also exercising strict controls to ensure that Canadian firearms do not end up in the illicit arms trade and that they do not fuel local violence.

Some people might argue that there is no need to be selling military parts or exporting them at all. I would make the case that many of these military exports that Canada develops and sells end up in things like CF-18 jets which Canada buys back from the United States. We use those jets to enhance our internal security. We use those jets as part of our NATO forces and NORAD forces to deliver security in regions such as Bosnia, Somalia and areas where Canada is asked to be police persons for the world. We could make the argument that these military parts which are being developed and exported actually enhance world security and Canada's security.

I want to deal for a moment with the ironic situation which we heard about this evening from the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona as well as the hon. member for Verchères. They talked about what the position of the present Minister of Foreign Affairs was when he was the critic for the Liberals when they were in opposition. They said that he has certainly flip-flopped on his position. I believe he has probably discovered, in much the same way the Liberals did when they opposed free trade in opposition, that now that they are in power it is a pretty good deal for the country. I believe they found in this area of security for the export of military parts that things are not as bad as they seem. We have a pretty fair process in place and unless there is a demonstrated need to change it, it should not be changed.

Like most Canadians, I want to ensure that our military exports are not destroying property or injuring people. I believe that our government's export permit system balances the need to ensure that our military goods and technology do not end up in the wrong hands while protecting the commercial confidentiality of our companies and allowing them to advance their capabilities and know how. There needs to be a much stronger demonstration of this balance before that can be undone.

I would be the first one to say that if that need can be demonstrated, that Canada should review this and have a more open process and have it reported to the House of Commons, if that need can be demonstrated, we would fully support it. But I do not believe the case has been made here this evening by the presentation that I have heard that would cause us to look at this and change the system. I would invite the members who have brought this forward that if they can show us convincing evidence otherwise, we would be prepared to have another look at it.

[Exports, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it seems ironic that after only six days of this quota system we are getting a flood of mail from mills that are going to be out of business. If all the stakeholders put together such a good deal, why are all these companies going to be put out of business? What went wrong?

[Exports, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

Canada has been one of the main proponents in establishing the World Trade Organization and the rules based dispute settlement that goes along with it. This last year the Liberal government could have taken the dispute with the United States on softwood lumber to the World Trade Organization. Instead it has caved in to the Americans and accepted export quotas.

Thousands of jobs in the forest industry will be lost because of this government's misguided, bureaucratic and unworkable quota system. What is the minister going to do about it?

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago some softwood lumber mills across Canada found out that the government is putting them out of business. They were expecting to have their exports to the United States cut by 10 per cent. They were not expecting to have to close their doors altogether.

The lumber deal the government signed with the United States is a death warrant for some small mills in this country. The industry would have been better off with the American countervailing duty at the border. The mills would have survived and then we would be well on our way to a settlement with the World Trade Organization, a solution that we recommended to the government seven months ago.

This problem has developed because the Liberal government has been afraid to take on the United States. It has buckled to American

pressure. Unfortunately, the price will be paid by employees and owners of small mills across Canada.

So much for the red book. Jobs, jobs, jobs will be lost, lost, lost.

[Radioactive Waste Importation Act, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-236, an act to prevent the importation of radioactive waste. This bill was introduced by my colleague from Fraser Valley East who I know has carefully studied the issue of nuclear waste and its potential for seriously harming the environment and endangering public health and safety. I know he is very concerned and has put a great deal of effort into this bill.

One of the questions I want to address is one with which I think Canadians are concerned: Will Canada become the garbage bin of the world for nuclear waste? We certainly hope not. I am concerned to learn that there are over 400 commercial nuclear reactors in the world and many more small nuclear reactors in universities, on ships and in submarines. All of these reactors need a place to

dispose of their radioactive waste, waste which remains highly toxic for thousands of years.

What better country than Canada to ship all this waste to? Canada has lots of land. It has a relatively small population. There are groups who might be willing to take a time bomb off the hands of other countries, especially those countries which have the ability to pay and pay handsomely. This thought is deeply disturbing to me. It has been a challenge for us to find suitable locations for our own nuclear waste. We certainly do not need to take on the radioactive waste of other countries, and there is certainly lots of it out there.

The United States will be looking to dispose of 50 tonnes of plutonium over the next 25 years. Russia has another 50 tonnes. My colleague from Fraser Valley East tells me that at the Hanford site in the United States there is enough high level waste to fill 86 football fields one metre deep. It will cost $57 billion just to dispose of the waste from that site.

Some might suggest that allowing nuclear waste to be disposed of in Canada would have an economic benefit. However, our economic problems are not going to be solved by allowing Canada to become the nuclear garbage bin of the world. We have to solve those problems here. The provinces have shown us that we are on the way to a solution. If the federal government would get on board to a greater degree, we would be able to resolve our economic problems. This is not a method which we should use to solve those problems.

We hear that there are certain aboriginal groups in Canada that are considering offering their lands for disposal purposes. Their lands lie over the Canadian Shield. They figure that they can make a fair amount of cash by allowing nuclear waste to be buried there. They call it economic development.

With the pollution coming into Canada from some of the European countries and the United States, the Canadian Shield does not even have the ability to filter out the pollution problem we have. Some of the Canadian soil on the prairies has the buffering actions that are necessary but it certainly does not exist in the Canadian Shield which is basically rock.

It seems to me that in the Nisga'a agreement, which will be used as a pattern by many other aboriginal self-governments, allows an aboriginal government to run its own environmental assessments. In effect, that local government can decide how harmful burying nuclear waste is on its land and whether it is worth the risk.

I have no problem with aboriginal communities taking on Canadian nuclear waste if they feel it is profitable enough for them to do so, but I do not like the idea of taking on international waste. We need to solve our own problems but we do not have to solve the international problems. That has to be done in their own countries. It is bad enough to have to worry about our own highly toxic garbage. Let us not take on the dangerous toxic nuclear waste of other countries.

I want to examine the question of whether this agreement contravenes NAFTA. There is some question about whether passing this act would contravene our trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. There is a NAFTA dispute settlement panel. If the panel was asked to look into this matter, several factors would have to be considered.

Chapter nine in the NAFTA would certainly be scrutinized. This chapter sets out the permissible barriers to trade that are related to standards that a country might want to set for itself. Article 904 allows a country to adopt any standards related measures that are important to its safety. The protection of human, animal and plant life is included here, as well as the environment. The article allows a country to prohibit the importation of a good or the provision of a service by another country that does not comply with this standards related measure.

There would probably be some debate as to whether nuclear waste burial is the trade of a good or the provision of a service. There would also need to be some evidence of the danger to the environment for humans, plants and animals. There might also be some debate on whether prohibiting the importation might not pose an even greater danger to Canada. Burying the waste near our border might be more dangerous for our safety than burying it far away from populated areas.

It is always difficult to predict the outcome of the legal wrangling that would take place. Much depends on the skill of the lawyers and the make-up of the panel. I would certainly be willing to place a bet that Canada could defend its standards related measure and maintain its right to prohibit the importation of nuclear waste. This is a very serious matter.

I would like to add my weight to those who are calling for the ban on the importation of nuclear waste into Canada. Because it is a commodity that has a very dangerous level to our safety and has a life that goes on thousands of years, this has to be considered very carefully. We need some kind of provisions that limit the ability of certain groups to bring this into Canada.

In conclusion, I call on all members of the House to support this bill and to vote in favour of it. Canada is a beautiful, wide open country with lots of forests, lakes and streams. Let us keep it as clean as we can and as waste free as possible. Let us not allow Canada to become the nuclear garbage bin of the world.