Gurmant Grewal

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. I am opposed to the bill not only because the premise is flawed but because its best before date expired 10 years ago.

Following September 11 trends regarding the granting of diplomatic immunity are headed toward restricting access rather than enlarging it. Bill C-35 would extend immunity far beyond what many other countries grant diplomats. Bill C-35 and Bill C-36 clearly contradict one another. Bill C-35 would render foreign diplomats above the law with a minister's permit. Bill C-36 would impose broad limits on the rights of law abiding Canadians.

Bill C-35 would allow the foreign affairs minister to overrule the immigration minister if he believed there was good reason for allowing foreign delegates into the country. This could mean foreign delegates guilty of criminal offences or terrorist attacks would be allowed into the country if the foreign minister thought it would further Canada's interest.

This shows that the government's priorities are confused and contradictory. Like many others I am left wondering where they are going.

Bill C-35 and Bill C-36 show that the government is headed madly off in all directions. Together they illustrate the inconsistency of the government which acts one way internationally and another way domestically. Internationally it promotes the image of Canada as an open society. At home it curtails the freedom of Canadians.

Returning to my first point, the staff of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations pointed out in 1991 that the external affairs minister's orders to extend immunity to delegates at intergovernmental conferences were illegal since these conferences were technically not international organizations. One proposed remedy was to redefine the meaning of international organization to include multilateral conferences.

During a 10 year letter writing campaign the minister in question indicated the willingness of the government to co-operate with the request of the committee in due course. The course was a long and tortured one but the government finally developed the will to act.

Bill C-35 is the result of 10 years' worth of pressure by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. Instead of being too little too late, the bill is too much too late. September 11 irreversibly altered the foundations of foreign policy debate. Viewed through this prism Bill C-35 is no longer appropriate to today's increased security needs.

The DFAIT report issued in May of this year stated that 90 crimes involving foreign diplomats in Canada were reported in the last five years. These included human smuggling, narcotics trafficking, impaired driving and sexual assaults. Bill C-35 would extend the same immunity abused by Knyazev, the Russian diplomat who killed Catherine MacLean while driving drunk, to an unknown number of people. It is still government practice to extend blanket immunity to support staff who are not entitled to it under the Vienna convention.

We are already losing our traditional role of diplomatic leadership in the international arena. For example, American officials have already said Bill C-35 would never fly in their country since it would extend diplomatic immunity further than they would be comfortable with.

We all remember the APEC conference in 1996 where protesters were pepper sprayed to save the Prime Minister from embarrassment. Nor has anyone forgotten how the government tried to make a scapegoat out of an RCMP sergeant for the whole incident. Rather than raise further embarrassment at meetings of the G-8, G-20, IMF, World Bank and so on, the Prime Minister is trying to ram the bill through as quickly as possible.

Bill C-35 would continue the government's habit of passing the buck to law enforcement. Not only has the government slashed its net financial commitment to the nation's police force. It is trying to enshrine in law additional responsibilities for officers who are already overworked and stretched to the limit.

Recently the Canadian Police Association said the government was playing a shell game with the security of Canadians. It said when it comes to security at our borders and airports Canadians should not be lulled into a false sense of security. It said the RCMP must steal from Peter to pay Paul. In countries like Australia and New Zealand the authority of police has been enshrined into the common law. Why not in Canada?

On a number of occasions I have pointed out shady dealings at our foreign missions. In dealing with foreign missions the bill has not addressed fraud and corruption. Our security begins at our foreign missions abroad because they screen people before they enter Canada. They are our first line of defence. However there is nothing in the bill that deals with the issue.

In light of this some RCMP officers and immigration officers who blew the whistle were crucified by the government and the investigation was covered up. Today at 12.30 p.m., about an hour from now, I will be hosting a presentation on whistleblowing in room 200 of the West Block. I invite all members as well as those who are watching to join us.

On another point, the roles of hundreds of international organizations and Canada's membership in them remain unaddressed in the bill. We the opposition members on the foreign affairs committee introduced excellent amendments that would have made it possible for me to support the bill. Some of the amendments sought to insulate the RCMP from political interference, limit the scope of the immunity of delegates and publicize cases where diplomatic immunity was invoked by foreign dignitaries.

The minister promised to post quarterly reports of crimes by diplomats on the DFAIT website but that has not been done. The Liberals voted against an amendment that would have entrenched the minister's promise into law.

The Liberals also ignored the recommendation of the Hughes report after the APEC inquiry that the independence of the RCMP and its role in providing security at international conferences be clarified in law. The government majority on the committee voted down those amendments.

The amendments would clearly have improved the legislation and could have helped smooth the passage of Bill C-35 through the House. Instead of fixing the hole in the fence or at least closing the gap the government seems determined to make it even bigger.

Bill C-35 would hide and neglect important and significant measures. I therefore register my vote to oppose it.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for shedding some light on some of the issues. However the issue still remains that the only witnesses who appeared before the committee were from the environmental sector. No one from fisheries or from the oil and gas sector appeared before the committee.

The major concern is about the oil and gas sector as well as the fisheries. I am quite positive that my hon. colleague, who is our chief critic on fisheries, will speak on this issue and address the fisheries aspect. That is why I did not discuss it in my speech.

Could the hon. member on the other side name a single witness who appeared before the committee either from fisheries or from oil and gas? I am sure that she cannot name even one witness who appeared.

On another note, the government is getting into a habit of governing through the back door through the regulations. We see time and again that either the contents of a bill are vague or defective and this bill in particular is defective.

I am sure the government is doing it again through the back door by throwing in a big lump of regulations which will never be debated in parliament and people will not have access to making any input in those areas.

I would argue with the parliamentary secretary as well as my friends on the other side that we still have a chance. Let us look at the issues. Let us not kill industries one by one in British Columbia and the west. We still have a chance.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys for allowing me to share her time.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-10, the Liberal government's attempt to create national marine conservation areas, which will have a far reaching impact on the entire coastal region of British Columbia as well as on the Atlantic coast.

The bill started out as a policy initiative of Parks Canada in the 1980s. As I am sure all members of the House know the history of the bill, I will not belabour the point except to say that two previous versions of the bill did not pass in earlier sessions of parliament.

On this point, I have to say that this gravely defective and punitive bill would have passed had it not been for members, particularly my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance, such as the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast. I thank them for their efforts.

Preserving our marine areas and managing them in a sustainable fashion is a laudable goal. However, when we seek to protect marine ecosystems, we need to balance this with the economic interests at stake, as well as the environmental aspect. The bill utterly fails to realize this fact.

At second reading, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that marine conservation areas were designed to be models of sustainable use and that they were administered so as to balance protection and use.

Our coastline holds vast treasures, including a deposit of hydrocarbons, and the legislation would put the future development of these reserves at stake. Should Bill C-10 pass with clause 13 intact, the future of British Columbia's offshore oil and gas industry will most certainly die with the bill.

Why is such a blunt prohibition needed against resource development, so that our companies cannot use their sophisticated drilling equipment and drill under the marine conservation area from a point outside the park?

It would seem that a truly balanced approach would have sought to preserve the integrity of the marine conservation areas and provide a future income for B.C. However, departmental officials tell us that as the bill is currently drafted this is not possible.

My colleagues tried to arrive at a compromise in committee by introducing an amendment that would have allowed directional drilling from a point outside an MCA to a point within an MCA to place the onus of environmental safety on the backs of the oil companies to prove their methods posed no harm to the environment.

The Canadian Alliance heard expert witnesses plead and try to fix the problem but the Liberals, as my previous colleague mentioned, ignored them in the committee.

In fact the government called mostly witnesses representing the environmental side of the issue. It chose to ignore the voices of experts from the oil and gas field, as well as the fisheries.

This is not about opening up marine conservation areas for big businesses. This is about protecting the interests of small fishermen who depend on the sea for their livelihoods, as well as the oil companies, which form the future potential for the province and will be the backbone of our economy, I believe, in the future.

If the areas that are slated for at least one MCA each and the jurisdiction of their waters is currently under dispute by the provincial government, how does this affect the creation of MCAs and the rules laid out in Bill C-10?

The federal government does not consider these areas as under disputed jurisdiction. It believes they are the federal governments, period.

Getting back to clause 13, if the federal government can unilaterally place an MCA in an area it believes is within its right to do, and that same area holds an untold amount of reserves of oil and gas, clause 13 prevents, in perpetuity, that area from ever being harvested and explored. This could potentially have a devastating effect on the already poor economies of coastal British Columbia.

We need oil and gas reserves to put our province back on the map. If Bill C-10 goes through the House without clause 13 deleted, B.C. can kiss its future economic potential goodbye. We know what happened to the fisheries and other industries, like mining, tourism and now the softwood lumber industry, all because of mismanagement by the federal government.

Government rhetoric aside, what I see on paper in Bill C-10 is a blank cheque for government to carve out marine conservation areas wherever it pleases, regardless of the cost to local interests.

The people of British Columbia have already been victims of the government's short-sightedness in many industries but most important in the softwood lumber resource. Now we are expected to hand over stewardship of offshore hydrocarbon and sub-seabed mineral and gas exploration to the government as well. I for one do not trust the government's track record enough to hand over such power to the government or its cabinet.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage tipped the government's hand when she said that Bill C-10 would require federal ownership of all lands included in the national marine conservation area, both above and below the water. This would ensure that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has the administration and control over these areas. Even though the member is working very hard, I am concerned about her comments on the issue.

The message the government is sending is that we should trust it because it knows what is best for us. This does not work in British Columbia. British Columbians are sick and tired of this type of wanton paternalism. We watched the government destroy the softwood lumber industry and now we are supposed to watch passively while it destroys British Columbia's future economic prospects.

Communication with all interested stakeholders should have been done prior to the creation and implementation of Bill C-10. This would have ensured a balanced approach and ensured that the legislation was drafted in a manner acceptable to British Columbia, the province with the largest coastline. Since this was not the approach chosen by the government, the bill remains poorly drafted from the preamble to the creation of marine conservation areas to the consultation and regulations.

One of the big concerns is that no one will ever be able to use the natural resources within or below that seabed.

The Liberal government has a defective piece of legislation. Should those MCAs be on disputed lands I am sure the federal government will be looking at constitutional challenges from the province, and likely will be won by the provinces, which is what worries me most. All of this could be avoided if the government would just amend Bill C-10 by deleting clause 13.

I have not focused on the jurisdictional dispute over water in Atlantic Canada but that could also be held hostage if the clause is left in the bill.

In conclusion, the bill is faulty, defective and must be corrected. We still have a chance. We are giving the government a chance to correct this before it puts the lives of many British Columbians and people in Atlantic Canada in jeopardy.

[Committees of the House, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as co-chair, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

[National Security, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, everyone but the government seems to know that Canada's border control measures are a farce. Yesterday we found out just how bad they really are when a number of people snuck into Canada through Halifax harbour despite supposedly stepped up and improved security measures.

The ease with which stowaways walk away from ships is a serious concern. The government must drop the pretence and start taking border control and the security of Canadians seriously. The U.S. examines more than three times as many ship bound containers as we do in Canada.

When will the government start addressing the root causes of our lax border control policies by reinstating the port police and bringing our inspections of containers up to acceptable standards?

[Petitions, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this petition which is signed by many concerned constituents of mine urges media outlets and the CRTC to act together in taking the desires of parents into account and reducing the amount of sexual and violent content in the media.

[Export Development Act, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as always I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central. Today I am taking part in the third reading debate on Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make amendments to other acts.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with the hon. member for Kelowna.

The bill is of a housekeeping nature, simply to update the act. The government did not accept any amendments from the opposition parties during the committee stage.

Since legislation governing the Export Development Corporation requires a ministerial review of the act, a review commenced in 1998 and concluded with a report. It was reviewed and reported by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The results of that report are the amendments in Bill C-31.

If passed, the bill will enable the board to delegate its powers. It will require the EDC to establish a pension plan for its employees. The treasury board policy encourages crown corporations to arrange a comprehensive, independent pension plan for their employees.

The CPP managed by the federal government earns even less interest than a bank savings account. That is how expert the government is in mismanaging the employee and employer funds.

The surplus funds from the inefficiently managed CPP were grabbed by the Liberal government. The chief actuary of the CPP was fired for being forthright and not yielding to the Liberals' pressure.

Prior to these amendments, there were no legislated environmental review requirements of the EDC. If the bill is passed, it will require the EDC to determine if a project is likely to have adverse environmental effects and whether it would be justified for the EDC to enter into a transaction.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will not apply to the EDC's reviews so that Canadian environment standards and laws are not imposed on other sovereign nations. That is what the government says. Or perhaps the government can further its own agenda under the guise of environmental protection evasion.

The objective of the substantive environmental amendment is to strike a balance between trade competitiveness and concern for the potential environmental impacts of projects supported by the EDC.

My opposition to the bill also stems largely from questions surrounding EDC's lack of environmental accountability under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

In 1996 Candu reactors were sold to China at a cost of $2.5 billion. To sweeten the deal, the Canadian government financed the sale with EDC facilitating the deal.

Ordinarily, the deal would have required an environmental assessment to deal with questions such as whether the area around Qinshan was prone to earthquakes, floods and the like. Issues like these are of vital importance in determining if nuclear reactors are a danger or not. Had an environmental assessment been done at that time, it would have helped put these concerns to rest.

We now know that since the government did not like the rules of the game, it changed them, even though there is a lawsuit by the Sierra Club of Canada. This is another example of how the government failed to do its homework and tried to circumvent due process by altering the rules of the game to suit its purposes.

We all witnessed the alarming and tragic consequences of the nuclear tragedy in Chernobyl. The loss of life directly attributable to that disaster is truly staggering.

Years later, cancer rates in the area remain alarmingly high. Imagine the effect of such a disaster in China where the population is much greater. The death toll from radiation poisoning and cancer would be enormous.

Environmental assessment in highly populated areas, flood prone areas and earthquake prone areas was probably very important, but the government thought it was better to stay quiet about such issues rather than jeopardize the deal.

In general, this weak government's record on environment is very weak. It has let the legislation on the protection of endangered species die a few times on the order paper. It has signed international treaties, including those from Kyoto, Beijing and Rio, for example, with no intentions whatsoever of carrying out its commitments. The government made those commitments without consulting Canadians, parliament and the provinces. The government has made political decisions about matters that require scientific decisions, logic and reasoning.

The auditor general recommended that most international financial institutions, including export credit agencies, have environmental policies and procedures. A consensus emerged on the elements of good practice that an international financial institution should adopt to ensure that the projects it supports are environmentally and socially responsible. Industrialized G-8 countries and OECD countries developed common environmental guidelines for export credit agencies but the government is trying to circumvent them.

To strengthen the framework's implementation, the EDC should concentrate on the tools that identify environmental risks in the screening process and on monitoring to ensure that the framework is operating efficiently and effectively. To strengthen EDC's environmental review process, EDC needs to make changes in both the design and the operation of the framework. To close the gaps in the framework's design, EDC should focus on enhancing transparency through public consultation and disclosure.

Another problem with the bill is that EDC is being used by the Liberal government, no surprise, for political favours, in addition to other crown corporations and agencies being used, such as CIDA, HRDC, WD, ACOA and many others.

Patronage appointments in crown corporations are rampant. Most recently, Mr. Bernard Boudreau, a short term senator and cabinet member who unsuccessfully ran for the Liberals in the last election, was appointed to the board of EDC. The bill does not address the issue of patronage appointments at all.

The Canadian Alliance recognizes the essential part financial institutions play in the everyday lives of Canadians. We would protect the best interests of consumers by fostering competition and ensuring that the financial services sector is adequately regulated, without impairing stability or opportunity for success and growth in these institutions.

Most of the services provided by the EDC, such as short and medium term export insurance and financing, should be privatized. The rest of the EDC services should become a division of DFAIT and should be directly accountable to parliament. This division could provide occasional loan guarantees and other services that are beyond the scope of the private sector, such as long term insurance, political risk reassurance and projects that are not commercially viable but are deemed to be in the national interest. In 1991 the United Kingdom privatized its equivalent export agency, the Export Credits Guarantee Department. We can learn from that.

To serve exporters better, there should be true competition in the export business and financing business. They should have the opportunity to deal directly with their own banks or insurance brokers to have their exports financed and insured. If the banks got into the business, exporters might receive 100% financing in addition to speedier and personalized services.

In conclusion, the bill does not address the concerns that I have highlighted. I ask the government to address these issues and make appropriate amendments to the bill, which they have not done so far. Otherwise I will be left with no choice but to vote against the bill.

[Privilege, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to the failure of the Minister of Justice to respect the tabling requirements, enacted for the benefit of this House by the Parliament of Canada, in section 119 of the Firearms Act and chapter 39 of the Statutes of Canada, 1995.

Section 117 of the Firearms Act confers on the governor in council extensive regulation making powers in recognition of the significant impact which the exercise of those powers can have on Canadians. Parliament also adopted a provision requiring the Minister of Justice to table any proposed regulation before both houses for referral to an appropriate committee of each house before the regulation can be enacted by the governor in council.

Section 118 of the act precludes the adoption of any proposed regulation before the expiry of certain deadlines to ensure that members of both houses have an adequate opportunity to examine and report on the appropriateness of the regulation under the Firearms Act.

This background information makes clear that parliament attaches a great deal of importance to members being fully informed and involved before the governor in council is allowed to make a regulation under section 117. It is against this background that the exceptions to the rule must be assessed.

Section 119 of the Firearms Act provides for two cases in which the governor in council is allowed to make a regulation without the Minister of Justice having first tabled the text of the proposed regulation before both houses. The first exception is where the minister is of the opinion that the changes made by the regulation to an existing regulation are immaterial or insubstantial.

The second exception applies only to regulations made under certain specific paragraphs of section 117 and where the minister is of the opinion that the making of the regulation is so urgent that the requirement in section 118 should not apply.

In both these instances subsection 119(4) of the act provides that where the Minister of Justice forms the opinion that a regulation should not be tabled in draft form, the minister shall have a statement of the reasons he or she formed that opinion laid before each house of parliament.

It has come to my attention that between September 16, 1998, and December 13, 2000, a number of proposed amendments to regulations made under the Firearms Act have not been tabled before parliament as required by section 118 of the act.

The relevant instruments are those registered under the designation SOR/98-468 to SOR/98-471, SOR/99-109 to SOR/99-111, SOR/99-453, SOR/2000-224, SOR/2000-225, SOR/2000-259, SOR/2000-385, and SOR/2001-9 to SOR/2001-12.

In four of these sixteen instances the reason for which the amendment was not tabled was that the Minister of Justice formed an opinion that the regulation was so urgent that section 118 should not apply. In the other twelve cases the regulations were not tabled pursuant to section 118 because the minister formed the opinion that the changes made were immaterial or insubstantial.

As far as I could determine from the records of the House, the minister has not complied in those 16 cases with the duty imposed upon her by subsection 119(4) of the act to table a statement of reasons supporting her opinion that the section 118 requirement should not apply.

On October 17, 2001, my colleague, the member for Yorkton--Melville, rose on a point of order to request that the same minister observe the statutory tabling requirement in the case of yet another regulation which was registered as SOR/2001-336.

There is a fundamental distinction between the point of order raised by my colleague and the question of privilege I raise today. It is my contention that the minister's failure to table the required statements in relation to the instruments I have identified is a breach of the privileges of the House. This conclusion would not change even if the minister were to table the required statements today, tomorrow or the day after.

In failing to table the required statements the minister is not only breaching an order of the House as expressed in its statute but has also deprived members of their ability to verify that her reasons for exempting these regulations from the application of section 118 are sound and proper.

There can be no excuse for the minister's cavalier disregard of the statutory duty she owes to the House. Each of the regulations in question states in its preamble that the minister will lay a statement of reasons before each house as she is required to do by section 119 of the act. This is not a case where the minister was unaware of her duty.

Mr. Speaker, your predecessor was called upon in 1993 to rule on a similar question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River. The issue at that time concerned the failure of the minister of finance to table an order made under the Customs Act as it was his statutory duty to do. The member for Scarborough--Rouge River stated that he entertained no doubt that:

--the minister's failure to table a document required to be tabled by this House, whether intentional or accidental, tends to diminish the authority of the House of Commons and is something that might reasonably be held to constitute contempt by this House.

Speaker Fraser ruled on April 19, 1993, that a prima facie case of breach of privilege had been made and allowed the member to move a motion referring the matter to the Standing Committee on House Management. In his ruling Speaker Fraser reiterated that:

The requirements contained in our rules and statutory laws have been agreed upon by this House and constitute an agreement which I think all of us realize must be respected. Members cannot function if they do not have access to the material they need for their work and if our rules are being ignored and even statutory instruments are being disregarded.

The Speaker said he found it particularly disheartening that the government failed to table documents within the prescribed time and did not do so until after the matter was raised in the House. The Speaker noted that the tabling was a statutory requirement and quoted the member's comment:

It is difficult to conceive of any command of this House that could have more legitimacy than one contained in a law passed by this House.

The Speaker also agreed that disregard of a legislative command, even if unintentional, was an affront to the authority and dignity of parliament as a whole and the House in particular.

It should be noted that the statute in this case does not specify a particular time within which the minister must table a statement of reasons before both houses when a regulation is made without having first been laid in draft form before the House.

Does this mean that tabling of such a statement may be made at any time? Can it be years after the making of a regulation? The answer to both questions is no. In the absence of a specific tabling deadline the obligation of the minister must be understood to be an obligation to table her statement of reasons within a reasonable time following the enactment of the regulation made in reliance on subsections 119(2) or 119(3) of the Firearms Act.

It may be that reasonable people might disagree on whether a particular delay in tabling is reasonable or not in the circumstances. However, it is equally certain that no reasonable person would consider that a delay of two or three years is reasonable or was contemplated by the statute.

In any event the questions of whether or not a particular delay in fulfilling a tabling requirement was reasonable and whether there has in fact been a breach of the statutory duty imposed by subsection 119(4) are clearly at the heart of this question of privilege.

These are questions that the House itself will deal with in reaching a decision on the question of privilege.

At this stage, we are not concerned with a substantive determination of the question of privilege but only with a determination of whether or not the facts I have laid before the Speaker appear to give rise to a legitimate question of privilege. That is the only issue before the Speaker and, based on the ruling by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the House should be allowed to deal with the substantive issue of privilege.

In closing, I believe that a review of this precedent will show that the repeated failure of the Minister of Justice, whom, by the way, I have given a notice to today, to table a statement of reasons in 16 instances for a period of over two years, beginning some three years ago, constitutes a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion but I will seek advice from you. Should I table the motion today or later on when you so desire?

[Terrorism, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the nuclear propulsion reactor in Nanoose, B.C. is about 40 kilometres or one to two minutes by jet from the Vancouver International Airport. This floating nuclear reactor operates at a high power density, uses more enriched uranium nuclear fuel, almost weapon grade and has smaller meltdown margins than land reactors.

In the sea there are no concrete walls or steel walls. What procedures are in place in B.C. to protect against a terrorist attack on a nuclear propulsion reactor?

[Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary East for allowing me to share his time. I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-32 regarding the proposed free trade agreement between Canada and Costa Rica.

The free trade agreement implementation act tries to lay out the terms for a free trade agreement between our two countries by gradually eliminating trade barriers in goods and services. The bill follows the free trade agreement with Chile in 1997 as well as NAFTA in 1994. One of its stated purposes is to promote regional integration through an instrument that contributes to the establishment of the free trade area of the Americas, commonly called FTAA. It could be the first of several of these agreements with the other countries of South and Central America.

Eighty per cent of what Costa Rica already exports to Canada enters Canada duty free. Already our bilateral trade with Costa Rica has had an annual growth of 6% in the last five years with a 7% increase in exports and a 5% increase in imports. The agreement would further accelerate that growth. Canada is looking to expand its market for goods and services, many of which currently face high tariffs when exported to Costa Rica.

Costa Rica is not the problem, but the main risk is if this provision is extended to the CA-4 countries, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras. That is where I see a threat because of their refining capacity and because of the subsidies given by the governments in those countries. The domestic sugar industry has been asked to make representation at the House of Commons committee and to offer amendments to the proposed legislation.

After the bill was debated in committee some of our concerns were addressed. I opposed the bill at second reading. I commend some of the improvements made at committee because of the pressure from the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance members.

The bill now appears to support the Canadian Alliance policy regarding free trade. Reduction of tariffs should be done in stages, in step with other countries and not unilaterally. Canada reduced its tariffs prematurely on grain and this created many problems, as all of us know.

There is a concern that the government is putting our sugar industry at risk in order to reduce completely unjustified high Costa Rican tariffs on french fries and selected other exports.

We have one of the most open sugar markets in the world, with an import tariff on raw sugar at just zero and a tariff on refined sugar at only 8%. United States and Latin American tariffs on sugar range from 50% to 160%. For our domestic needs Canada produces enough refined sugar. In terms of exports, our only really viable market is the United States, which imposes strict quotas of 12,000 tonnes of sugar per year.

Other countries like Costa Rica hit us with very hefty tariffs when we export sugar to their countries. For example, Guatemala has a 160% tariff on sugar imports.

Canada currently has three sugar refineries to process raw sugar which, by the way, is down from seven 20 years ago. The Canadian domestic sugar industry employs about 2,000 Canadians. A 111 year old company, Rogers Sugar, in B.C., supports the livelihoods of 650 people and stands a chance that it will lose under this agreement.

As a footnote to the debate, the people of British Columbia have already been hurt through the government's bungling of softwood lumber, tomato dumping, the mining industry, fisheries, tourism, the film industry and some others.

Also losing may be some 450 farmers producing 140,000 tonnes of sugar each year, and we know that our farmers are already in desperate shape.

Rogers Sugar currently injects close to $100 million into the Canadian economy through its operations in Vancouver and Taber, Alberta, providing high quality employment to their employees. Some people from my constituency are employed there as well.

Costa Rica does not currently use refined sugar so there is no possible benefit to Canada on this score.

There are some concerns that this agreement may stifle the operation of market forces by giving Costa Rica more access to Canada than Canada gets to Costa Rica. Trade should not only be free but also fair.

As we all know, a balanced free trade agreement usually helps to raise the standard of living for both partners through increased competitiveness and lower prices. Free trade, when done right, leads to lower prices for consumers. Who benefits? It is the consumer who benefits. Free trade must provide our firms with a level playing field in bilateral trading relationships with Costa Rica. Markets work best where government intervenes least. When the government does intervene, it must try to promote fairness and look at the whole web of Canada's trade relations with other countries. We cannot afford to be shortsighted. We must look at the big picture.

As I mentioned, though, the agreement does more than open the door for the exchange of goods and services with Costa Rica. It may act as a model for the whole FTAA framework. Regional trade agreements such as the FTAA should not conflict with our WTO agreements.

Despite the bill hurting our sugar industry somewhat, this agreement seems to be a step forward on several other levels. It includes some side agreements on the environment and labour. It demonstrates that free trade agreements can be negotiated between larger and smaller economies.

Canada has about $500 million invested in Costa Rica. The improved access that we hope to gain with this FTA will give Canadian businesses an edge over foreign competitors who do not have preferential access to the Costa Rican market. We are getting access to the market. This market access will benefit about 90% of Canada's current agriculture and agrifood exports, so that is a big benefit.

Also, Canada exports goods and services of close to 45% of our GDP, which is almost half of our GDP. This is a high proportion in comparison to our major trading partners, so our success in international trade is important to sustain our Canadian economy, particularly during this time. Many SMEs, small and medium sized enterprises, in Canada depend on trade and the foreign market for their success and growth.

Therefore I look forward to the bill and I will be supporting Bill C-32 at this stage.