Charlie Penson

[Trade, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I address my supplementary to the Prime Minister.

The leaders of Canada and the United States have always had a good relationship. Indeed, the Prime Minister has often spoken about the warm relationship he has with President Clinton.

Given that warm relationship and given that this is such a hot issue which is before us right now, can the Prime Minister tell this House if he has called President Clinton on this issue in order to protect Canadian interests and if so, what were the discussions regarding this issue?

[Trade, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade, but first I would like to congratulate the minister on his new appointment.

It seems that President Clinton has agreed to pass a bill on Cuba that could seriously harm Canadian companies with investment and trade interests in Cuba. I would like to ask the minister what avenues he is pursuing to make sure we are protecting Canadian interests.

[The Deficit And Debt, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's throne speech touched on security for Canadians, yet this government continues to add to the debt at a rate of $90 million per day. One has to wonder how Canadians manage to sleep at night.

My province of Alberta has been able to balance its budget and enjoy strong economic growth. It did so by reducing spending by 14 per cent.

Just listen to this record of success: unemployment down; production up in both 1994 and 1995; continued diversification of its economy; and a budget surplus in 1995 with surpluses planned from now on.

This performance demonstrates that real growth can occur as governments get their finances in order. Believe me, Canadians will feel a whole lot more secure once the government puts a solid plan in place for deficit elimination and debt pay down.

Alberta has demonstrated how real long term jobs can be created by building confidence through a balanced budget.

[Canada Water Export Prohibition Act, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there is quite a bit of interest in this bill. We have been interested for some time in the matter of water and water exports.

It is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-202, which is an act to prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers. I know the hon. member for Kamloops has been following this issue for quite a few years. Since he is from British Columbia, I can understand his interest in the subject.

Contrary to what the previous speaker stated, these rivers quite often run through more than one province and quite a big area is affected.

We in the Reform Party have also been interested in the topic of water exports. Our 1993 blue sheet, which contains the Reform Party's principles, policies, and election platform, states that the Reform Party supports the position that notwithstanding the inclusion of water in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement, exclusive and unrestricted control of water in all its forms will be maintained by and for Canada and both free trade agreements should be amended to reflect this.

The blue sheet went further to state that until federal policies related to the free trade agreements are initiated and Canada's control over water resources is established within both free trade agreements, the Reform Party would not support the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

I believe we are covered here. However, in examining the research I can see that there are cases that can be made for either side of the argument. The first argument is that the free trade agreement and NAFTA entitle the United States to a certain share of Canada's fresh water. The second argument is that the trade agreements do not entitle the U.S. to our water. I would like to

address these two arguments. I will speak about the second argument first, which is the Canadian government's official position.

Water was never mentioned during the free trade negotiations. The free trade agreements are commercial agreements, which deal with traded goods and services. Of course bottled water is a traded good, but water in rivers and lakes is by no stretch of the imagination a traded commodity, so what is the big fuss?

Furthermore, the Canadian government amended the implementing legislation to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement by stating that none of the free trade agreement provisions, such as the proportional sharing agreement, applied to natural surface or ground water, other than article 401, which deals with tariff elimination.

It would seem that our water is secure. Just to make triple sure there is no room for misunderstanding or legal manoeuvres by the Americans, in December of 1993 the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States put out a joint statement, which states that "NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any party to the agreement. Unless water in any form has entered into commerce and has become a good or product, it is not covered by the provisions of any trade agreement, including NAFTA. Nothing in the NAFTA agreement would oblige any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use or begin exporting water in any form. Water in its natural state in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers, water basins and the like is not a good or product and is not traded and therefore is not and never has been subject to the terms of any trade agreement."

The official argument goes even further, to state that international rights and obligations respecting water in its natural state are contained in separate treaties and agreements negotiated for that purpose. Examples are the United States-Canada boundary waters treaty of 1909 and the 1944 boundary waters treaty between Mexico and the United States.

It would seem that any reasonable person would be completely satisfied that all the t 's had been crossed and the i 's dotted. But of course we are not all lawyers. Lawyers can find tiny holes and drive trucks through them. Before we know it, water could be making its way south of the border.

Let me give some mention of the other argument, the one that says we have goofed and we have allowed the trade agreements to be finalized without specifically exempting water in our rivers and lakes.

The argument could be made that water is a good under the free trade agreement and NAFTA. This is because both trade agreements state that a good is one that is understood to be a good in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Sure enough, the GATT tariff schedule has a heading for water, which is very broad. The heading, numbered 22.01, is reserved for waters, including natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated waters, not containing sugar or any other sweetener matter for flavouring, plus ice or snow.

With that kind of a description, it would seem that natural water of all kinds, other than sea water, could be classified as a good. Since the trade agreement says we must allow all parties to the agreement the same rights in respect of trade in goods and services, we could be forced to give the United States and Mexico the same rights to our water resources that we now enjoy.

Fancy lawyers notwithstanding, I would like to think that the side agreement signed by all three governments carries a lot of weight. Even though the free trade agreement and NAFTA were never changed to include clarification about Canada's sovereignty over its water resource-which is a mistake we could rectify if we have a chance to open this agreement again to allow a new country in-I believe we still are protected and can never be forced to sell our water to our neighbours in the drier climates.

Of course our final safeguard is that we can always opt out of NAFTA or the free trade agreement. That is our bottom line: if we are not happy with what we are expected to deliver, we have the right to opt out. All we have to do is provide our neighbours with written notification six months in advance.

Let me get back to the bill under debate. I agree fully with its contents and intent. I do not think that any party in Canada, no matter what its political stripe, would support the exporting of water by interbasin transfer. Apart from a threat to our sovereignty, water exports also carry ecological risks. Interbasin water transfers can introduce parasites and other organisms to new environments, which could have a very negative effect. A good example of this is the introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes by ocean-going vessels.

Other problems occur when the flow of fresh water is reduced in estuaries where sea water and river water mix. This upsets the saline balance of the water and has detrimental effects to the birds and fish that depend on that particular ecosystem. It is also reported that dams can cause a change in weather patterns and climate and can cause mercury contamination in the food chain.

I would agree with the hon. member for Kamloops that more research could be done into the effects of interbasin transfer. To that end, I would agree to sending Bill C-202 to committee for further study.

I support this bill, although I am not entirely sure that it is necessary or that we are not sufficiently protected already. However, if there is any concern at all that we are not, let us pass this bill. It can be added as a further safeguard we can take to protect our very valuable water supply.

[Nafta, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Americans subsidize their dairy farmers to the tune of $3.6 billion, yet they are challenging our high tariffs on dairy and other supply managed products. They have asked for a NAFTA panel to rule in their favour.

If the Americans win, our supply managed farmers will face open competition overnight and Canadian dairy and poultry producers may be devastated. Two billion dollars' worth of dairy quotas will become worthless, thousands of farmers could be forced out of business, and many rural communities would be severely affected.

I ask the Minister of International Trade to be proactive rather than reactive and initiate a negotiated settlement, point out the sky high American subsidies and offer to reduce some of our tariffs in return for subsidy reduction in the United States.

I ask the government to negotiate, because too much is at stake to play at winner take all. It is entirely possible that the NAFTA panel may say "Canada, you lose".

[Small Business Loans Act, November 28th, 1995]

It was the first time.

[Trade, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should realize that this is a winner take all dispute. It is a very important question for Canada's supply managed farmers.

Why is the government playing Russian roulette with our farmers? If Canada loses the dispute, our supply managed sector will see open borders almost overnight. Thousands of farmers will go broke. Why is the minister not offering partial tariff reduction in exchange for fair access to the U.S. market?

[Trade, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the United States has initiated a trade action against Canada's tariffs on supply managed farm products.

Will the Minister of International Trade use this dispute as an opportunity to negotiate a reduction in American subsidies, subsidies which restrict Canada's ability to export dairy and poultry products south of the border?

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak about the so-called agreement in Bill C-88 on internal trade barriers.

This bill is a total sham and should never have been introduced in the House. It has nothing to add to internal trade that is not already in place in the BNA act. It does not even maintain the same standard. Let me quote from section 121 of the BNA act. This is what we had before: "All articles of growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall be admitted free into each of the other provinces".

What do we have now under article 101 of this provincial trade agreement? It states that the objective of the agreement is to reduce and eliminate, to the extent possible, barriers to the free movement of goods and services.

Is that not somewhat less than section 121 of the BNA act which says shall be admitted free? Obviously it is. I am concerned that the bill is like a Hollywood movie set. It looks good on the outside but there is nothing behind it. There are no teeth in this agreement and I have good reason to say that.

I tested the bill. A company in my riding has a contract with CN Rail to move its workers from Grand Prairie, Alberta into the Dawson Creek area of B.C., some 60 miles away. What did the company find? It cannot get a permit to go into B.C. It is being restricted even though it has a contract to move its cabs into that area.

We decided to test the new internal trade agreement. We asked the Department of Industry and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to get involved to see what they could do to help this company resolve the problem. They can do absolutely nothing.

This so-called trade agreement is nothing. It is just a loose agreement of empty words. It certainly will not do anything to address the problem of internal trade barriers which cost Canada between $8 billion and $10 billion a year. We simply cannot afford these kinds of costs. We are in a very competitive global trading environment and we have to give our companies the ability to build some economies of scale here at home before they launch into international business.

Let us talk about international business for a moment. Canada has signed some very good trade agreements internationally. We have signed the new GATT agreement, the Uruguay round. We have signed the NAFTA and previous to that the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. We have better international agreements for trade than we have agreements for trade between the provinces. It is absolutely ludicrous. To pretend that this bill addresses the problem is just misleading the Canadian public.

The European Economic Community is now 15 member countries. There are fewer barriers to trade between those 15 countries in the European Union than we have between the provinces. Some decentralized federation. We need a workable agreement between the provinces and the federal government has to show leadership. That is what it involves. It must show leadership and broker the kind of agreement that is necessary. Obviously Bill C-88 does not do that.

Whole segments of the economy are not addressed in this bill. It does not include agriculture. It does not include certain government procurements or regional development. Those are all very significant barriers to trade.

A good example of how silly the trade gets within this country and the barriers we meet can be told in one simple example. A trucking company in Alberta had a gravel contract nine miles from the British Columbia border. It was working well within the province of Alberta, but at the end of the day the drivers wanted to drive their trucks into the nearest town to stay overnight in a hotel and eat in the restaurants. They were not allowed to do so. Why not? Because their trucks did not meet the requirements for the regulations in British Columbia. They had to have different axle spacings, an empty truck, certain permits they could not get without considerable expense. They had to bring in a special vehicle to take the workers into British Columbia to the hotel. That is how ludicrous this gets.

I suggest this is the type of situation there was in Russia some 10 years ago under communism. Surely we have to move beyond that if we are going to be effective in the world economy.

Nothing has been resolved in the area of natural resources and energy, all key areas of trade in Canada. The cost is estimated to be $8 billion per year. We cannot afford those costs. We must have a government that shows leadership and we certainly did not get it here.

The Prime Minister said that this was a modest proposal. Modest indeed. Most Canadians would see it as a complete waste of time and money. I am appalled that the Minister of Industry would bring this forward in the guise of a bill that is going to address the problems of trade restrictions.

I would ask him to go back to the drawing board. Bring the provincial premiers together. Bring the industry players together and show them what is the cost to our society. Show them what is the cost to their own industry. We can do much better. I challenge this minister to do so.

[Excise Tax Act, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 4 deletes the cut off date which qualifies Sports Illustrated from issuing split run decisions in Canada but allows others like Reader's Digest to continue. It is ironic that the government is bringing in legislation to cut off Sports Illustrated but it is going to let Readers Digest continue with the same thing. Obviously Sports Illustrated is being unfairly targeted.

Changing the date of the grandfathering provision allows Sports Illustrated to escape the provisions of the bill and averts the trade war that could result if Sports Illustrated is suddenly prevented from issuing split run editions.

It is true that Canadian culture was exempted under NAFTA's trade rules, but the Americans did retain the right to retaliate in kind if they so wished. The government believes that the Americans cannot and will not do that because the bill uses a roundabout way to protect Canadian periodicals. I think the government is wrong. Americans can make life very miserable for Canadian exporters in all kinds of ways and we may see that retaliation. They can do that whether it is justified or not, but in this case they definitely have the right to retaliate. Some other industry is going to bear the brunt of this ill conceived policy.

This bill should raise a red flag for the government. Even if the government does not have problems with the idea of this bill, it should at least recognize it as a provocation for a trade dispute and realize that the timing is all wrong. All we need is to get hit in another industry with retaliation because of what is happening with this ill conceived bill.

I support my colleague's amendment.