Paul Zed

[United States Sugar Import Restrictions Retaliation Act, September 25th, 1995]

moved that Bill C-311, an act to require the Minister for International Trade to retaliate against import restrictions introduced by the United States of America on Canadian refined sugar and sugar containing products, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a private member's bill which the all-party caucus, the sugar caucus, has proposed, Bill C-311.

With six plants in six provinces sugar production is truly a national concern. An equally important statistic is that over the last 10 years four plants have closed and nearly 1,000 Canadian jobs have been lost. Plants are located across the country from Lantic Sugar in Saint John, New Brunswick, to Rogers Sugar in Vancouver. Approximately 90 per cent of Canada's sugar production is refined from sugar cane and sugar beet. The remainder comes from the domestically grown sugar beet market, produced mostly in our western Canadian farms. Whether derived from cane or beet, Canada has an annual sugar production of about 1.1 million tonnes.

The sugar industry is one of significant and historic importance to Atlantic Canada and to the country as a whole. Sugar refining has provided stable employment and regional economic benefits for about 150 years. Given the employment challenges, especially in Atlantic Canada, that we face today, it is of paramount importance that the sugar industry be protected at all costs or more jobs will be lost.

Protecting the jobs of Atlantic Canadian sugar workers and those of the rest of Canada's sugar industry is extremely important to me and to the many members of the House and the other place who are members of our sugar caucus.

The Liberal Party's red book stated more power and opportunity would be given to members of Parliament to create and participate in a process that would benefit Canadians as a whole. I believe the all-party sugar caucus formed to protect our sugar industry from coast to coast is good evidence of this commitment.

Last June sugar caucus members from the three official parties went to Washington to meet with our political counterparts, the House of Representatives ways and means committee, officials from the United States department of agriculture, and representatives from the United States sugar industry to discuss problems that currently plague our sugar industry.

A notably difficult and separate issue from access is the Helms-Burton anti-Cuba legislation.

While the anti-Cuba bills originally proposed to prohibit the importation of sugar, syrups and molasses from any country that does such trade with Cuba, I am very pleased that changes have recently occurred and that the pressure exerted on the United States by our Prime Minister during President Clinton's recent visit and our own sugar caucus has resulted in this deal being struck to remove the sugar provisions from the House version of the bill which was formerly voted on in the House of Representatives on Thursday.

The Senate version remains to be formerly introduced but the redrafted version retains a narrower requirement for certification of origin in respect of sugar, syrups and molasses. It is likely the Senate version will also follow the lead of the House of Representatives in deleting the references to sugar.

During our visit to Washington as a team of members of the House of Commons representing different regions of our country and representing all three major political parties we emphasized to our political counterparts that Canada was being unfairly targeted by the Helms-Burton legislation.

The combined efforts have resulted in significant changes to the legislation. This is viewed by our sugar caucus as a major victory in our fight to protect the jobs of Canada's sugar industry. The sugar caucus is extremely pleased to have contributed to the efforts made

by our ministers of agriculture and agri-food, foreign affairs, and international trade on the anti-Cuba legislation.

However we must continue to fight to protect these jobs. Today the sugar industry in Canada provides 1,400 direct full time jobs across Canada. In the west many more seasonal positions are provided during the annual beet harvest. Aside from the direct number of jobs created, many other regional benefits flow from having a Canadian based sugar industry. The direct employment figures do not account for those employed by sugar containing product industries which have located in Canada to take advantage of Canada's low sugar prices.

Canadian industrial sweetener users employ thousands of people, with annual sales in the billions of dollars. The benefits also extend upstream. By creating demand for inputs the industry supports employment in supplier industries, including packaging and other inputs such as transportation, fuel and electricity.

However the principal problem that still confronts our sugar industry is restricted access to the U.S. market while our American friends enjoy unrestricted access to our market. In Canada, in our open and unprotected sugar market, consumers and industrial sugar users enjoy prices roughly one-half of what they are in our protected markets of the major sugar trading partners.

Canada's traditionally low sugar prices have had some very attractive benefits. Because of that Canada has attracted its processing sector which has benefited refiners, food processors, consumers and generally the economy as a whole. Canadian sugar producers continue to support free trade as being in the best interest of all Canadians. However that trade must be fair. The sugar caucus has proposed a solution to the problem of unfettered access of U.S. sugar to our marketplace.

Bill C-311 is an act to require the Minister for International Trade to retaliate against import restrictions introduced by the United States on Canadian refined sugar and sugar containing products.

In other words, the all-party sugar caucus wants to continue to fight to protect the jobs of Atlantic Canadians, western Canadians, sugar workers and the workers across this great nation by imposing the same restrictions on American sugar exports as those which have been imposed on ours.

The arguments for the actions outlined in Bill C-311 are very strong. I invite my colleagues from all parties to speak on this extremely important issue. The workers of Lantic Sugar in Saint John and the workers from the rest of our sugar industry are anxiously watching the debate to see what we as elected representatives will do to address the most important problem they are facing, tackling the unrestricted access to our market which the U.S. sugar industry is basking in.

[Committees Of The House, June 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry relating to Bill C-91, an act to continue the Federal Business Development Bank under the name the Business Development Bank of Canada, with amendments.

The main change will be in the suggestion that the name of the bank be changed to the Small Business Bank of Canada.

[Committees Of The House, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Industry concerning the order of reference dated Tuesday, February 28, 1995 relating to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996.

[Port Of Saint John, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, records fell as the port of Saint John reached new levels of throughput in many of the major commodities handled at the port, such as petroleum, potash, salt and sugar. Cruise ship passenger volumes increased dramatically in 1994 due to calls by Carnival and Princess cruise lines. Significant traffic gains and expanded shipping services were realized at the port by shipping lines like Star, Kent and National Shipping of Saudi Arabia.

Two million dollars has been spent on facilities development at the port of Saint John. Its strengthened financial performance has resulted in improved revenues.

The men and women who work at the port of Saint John look forward to challenges and opportunities ahead. Working with its stakeholders the port of Saint John has confidence in its collective ability to take advantage of new opportunities.

As we celebrate Transportation Week, let us remember that the port of Saint John continues to play a major role in supporting Canada's international trade and making a significant-

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have to remind my colleagues from the third party and the official opposition that I believe my comments do direct the larger issue. The larger issue is that at committee our colleagues in the Bloc and in the Reform had an opportunity to propose their amendments during that process.

On balance, I have listened very carefully to the suggestions that have been made by my colleagues, and, with the greatest of respect, I believe our new process has worked very well. Also, while I understand the suggestions and amendments our colleagues proposed, I believe we listened very carefully and made some significant amendments, in fact 13 in total.

I would respectfully suggest that we decline supporting those Reform and Bloc suggestions for the reasons I outlined earlier.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I had the great honour to report back to Parliament an amended Bill C-43. I think it represented a most historic moment in Canadian parliamentary democracy. I believe it has improved parliamentary democracy. The process we adopted in this particular bill improved democracy greatly.

Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, was tabled by the Minister of Industry on June 14, 1994. As members know, it was immediately referred to our subcommittee, before second reading. That is before agreement in the House on the principles of the bill. I believe it was one of the first bills in Canadian history that has taken advantage of this new parliamentary procedure.

These new procedures have allowed a committee of backbench members of Parliament, including opposition members, to take a government sponsored bill and amend it to its liking with basically no restrictions on how far members of Parliament could change the tabled legislation. All the members of Parliament really tested the new procedure.

As chairman of the committee, I am very proud of the report we used and the powers we were given. Some of my colleagues feel they want more power. They wanted a greater opportunity to make changes. We listened very carefully. We worked as a team. I believe we produced a very good report.

I was very impressed by the wide-ranging and open discussions of the various views expressed by all members of Parliament. We had over 75 witnesses who testified before our committee last fall and into the winter. We had some very lively debates. We had more than 50 individuals and organizations who also submitted briefs before our committee. At the end of the day, I believe a majority of the committee enthusiastically subscribed to some of the important amendments brought forward by some of our colleagues in the opposition ranks.

I also believe that some of the opposition members came to accept some important improvements proposed by the government side. That is precisely what democracy is about and that is precisely what the new procedures were intended to achieve.

In summary, I believe the experience was very valuable. I encourage the government to continue to use this new committee procedure as often as possible. I believe it can only result in better legislation. By giving members of Parliament a more proactive role in drafting legislation, it can only further the people's confidence in our democratic institutions. I think that fostering people's faith in their government is very much what this process is all about. But as the report was entitled, it is rebuilding trust in our institutions. It presumes that over the course of the last eight or ten years some cynicism has crept into the system by virtue of activities of certain members of Parliament over the course of the last Parliament.

I see the members of our committee here today, and I am very impressed that all members are very committed to making those changes. We listened very carefully to members of both the official opposition and the third party when they put suggestions forward.

Let me summarize some of the key elements. In fact there were 13 specific amendments that I believe the government has accepted for this bill. Bill C-43 as it was originally tabled had improved certain amendments on the lobbyists registration. I believe that our committee made some additional improvements. We significantly enhanced the transparency, which is so crucial in breaking the cynicism that has been associated with the lobby industry. We have significantly strengthened the powers of the ethics counsellor. All lobbyists, for example, are going to have to indicate if they intend to use grassroots lobbying in their attempt to influence the government. This was not in Bill C-43 as it was originally proposed.

Consultant lobbyists will have to indicate if they are paid on a contingency fee basis. This is over and above the ban on contingency fees for lobbying on government contracts. Any organization that lobbies the government will have to reveal any amount they receive from any government. That is an important change.

The ethics counsellor, as part as of an investigation, will have the power to disclose information on fees and disbursements associated with any lobbying activity, not only on government contracts. I am particularly proud of this amendment because I think it gives a significantly enhanced new power to the important role of our ethics counsellor.

The ethics counsellor will not only have to report on the results of his investigations of a breach of the lobbyists code of conduct, but he will have to include the investigative findings, conclusions and reasons for the conclusions. That came out of the spirit of one of our colleagues from the opposition ranks.

Finally, the ethics counsellor will have to make a separate report once a year, which will be submitted to Parliament, on his activities with respect to lobbying.

Our committee has also amended Bill C-43 significantly as far as the lobbyists code of conduct-

[Sugar Industry, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, two shocking and extremely dangerous pieces of legislation have been introduced in the U.S. Congress that could devastate the Canadian sugar industry.

Senator Jesse Helms and Congressman Dan Burton have each introduced legislation that would tighten the economic sanctions against Cuba by imposing sanctions against any country

that trades with Cuba. This would bar Canadian exports of sugar and related sugar products and would eliminate over $500 million in exports to the U.S. market.

These bills have been co-sponsored by presidential candidates Dole and Gramm and Senators D'Amato, Thurmond and others. Yesterday the Washington Post stated that this bill enjoys broad bipartisan support and is likely to pass after hearings this spring.

In the name of Canadian sovereignty, I call on all parties to continue our work together and support any government attempts to stop these dangerous pieces of legislation dead in their tracks.

[Trade, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a number of members from all parties and from all regions of Canada have come together to form a sugar caucus to address the issue of restrictions placed on Canadian sugar exports to the United States.

Revenue Canada today announced that it is investigating unfair trading practices of sugar exporters in the United States, Europe and Korea. I am sponsoring legislation to address the problems facing Canadian sugar workers and producers. All members are pleased that the minister has launched this action.

Can the minister explain to the House the basis for the investigation into the dumping and subsidization of sugar imports and the benefits which the sugar producers can expect to receive from this important action?

[Committees Of The House, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third and fourth reports of the Standing Committee on Industry, pursuant to the order of reference on Wednesday, June 15, 1994.

Your committee has considered Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Your committee has agreed also to report it with amendments and to provide as well a substantive report which explains the amendments being reported and why other possible changes were not adopted.

I would also like to point out that the third report, which provides explanations and supplementary recommendations, breaks new ground for committees reviewing bills. Your committee felt that such a report was necessary, given that Bill C-43 was referred before second reading, thus broadening considerably the scope of the review that was undertaken.

The 13 amendments that have been set out in the fourth report would, in the view of your committee, significantly strengthen an already good bill.

I would like to thank members of the committee for working together to meet the new responsibilities involved in considering a bill before second reading. The results I believe speak for themselves and deserve serious consideration by all sides of the House.

[United States Sugar Import Restrictions Retaliation Act, February 24th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-311, an act to require the Minister for International Trade to retaliate against import restrictions introduced by the United States of America on Canadian refined sugar and sugar containing products.

Mr. Speaker, the name of this act is known as the United States Sugar Import Restrictions Retaliation Act.

In 1994 Canada and the United States and over 100 countries signed a new GATT agreement aimed at reducing trade barriers and increasing market access over time. However, in the face of this global trade liberalization the United States preserved its own protectionist, high priced sugar program and took the opportunity to further reduce Canada's access for sugar and sugar containing products.

On January 1, 1995 Canada's exports of refined sugar and sugar containing products were forcibly reduced to a trickle. The sugar industry estimates that this will result in a $90 million loss in export trade accompanied by substantial job losses in Canada's refining and food processing industries.

Imports from the United States are unrestricted and continue to rise as Canadian tariffs on U.S. sugar and sugar containing products decline under NAFTA.

This is one way free trade and will result in millions of dollars of lost revenue, countless job losses and the reallocation of plants producing sugar containing products to the United States.

In conclusion, our Prime Minister yesterday quoted that the Americans are our best friends whether we like it or not. Let us resolve this issue quickly as friends.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)