Pat O'Brien

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that answer holds the record for inconsistencies but I will address that at another time.

I am disappointed to have to stand in the House today and address what really is a divisive and rather unreal motion. It is about as unreal and far from reality as the question put to me by the member for Vancouver Island North's last Friday in the House when he was fooled into believing that the WTO was actually disbanding. The motion is not in touch with reality.

Canada and the United States are each other's largest trading partners. About $1.9 billion worth of goods and services move across the border each and every day. In 2001 Canada exported $351 billion in goods to the United States and imported $255 billion in return. Some 85.1% of Canadian merchandise exports is destined for the United States. There can be no doubt that trade with the United States is a key driver of Canada's economic growth and prosperity. Management of this crucial trade relationship is the government's top trade policy priority.

Both sides recognize the importance of keeping trade flowing to our mutual advantage. I heard a member opposite ask if the scope of trade with the United States was a good thing. It is reality. Jobs for many of his constituents, my constituents and the constituents of members throughout the House are dependent on our trade with the United States. The reality is that is the scope of our trade relationship and it bears an overview.

The Canada-U.S. border issues that emerged in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11 underscore the need for a border that operates efficiently and effectively. To further enhance our management of the border, the governments of Canada and the United States signed, on December 1, 2001, a declaration on the creation of a smart border for the 21st century. Through this declaration we have the opportunity to build a smart border that securely facilitates the free trade of people and commerce, and a border that reflects the largest trading relationship in the world.

I digress to point out that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Etobicoke North.

The vast majority of trade between our two countries is dispute free and the trade continues to grow fueled by the increasing integration of our two economies and facilitated by the rules based trade system provided by the WTO and the NAFTA.

It is important to note that only NAFTA countries, Canada and Mexico, enjoy the benefits of preferential access to this huge and important U.S. market, the vast majority of which is trouble free. Yes, we are very upset about the U.S. farm bill and the softwood lumber, but--

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, because the member seemed to be partially behind the motion from his colleague, I would like to ask him if this is really a serious motion expressing non-confidence in the government because it has not single-handedly been able to prevent the U.S. farm bill? Is it a serious motion given the repulsion that countries around the world have expressed about the U.S. farm bill and given the helplessness and anger that many countries are feeling over this American protectionist measure?

Is the member serious in supporting that the government does not have the confidence of the House because it single-handedly has not been able to prevent local politics? As Tip O'Neill said “all politics are local”. This is local politics at work in the United States. Why does the member not understand that? Surely he cannot be serious about this motion.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member said there was not a beat missed. There was also not a question asked in the House of Commons on softwood lumber for weeks and weeks by his party, by him or anybody else. The motion speaks to more than softwood lumber. It speaks of the trade policy. The truth is, and he should explain it to his constituents, that his party went at least two months with no trade critic when it was ripping itself apart over its leadership a year ago.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that we have this motion. It is a divisive motion at a time when industry and the provinces continue to stand with the government. The official opposition is engaging in a rather silly motion.

The member says he asked the government to reassess its policies. That is not what I read. This is a motion of non-confidence in the government. It is because we have not been able to convince the United States to end its protectionist policies.

Could the member tell us if he thinks that should be the case with the U.K. and the other countries of the world which have not been able to convince the United States to end its protectionist policies?

There is regret worldwide about this policy. Allies of the United States are expressing their anger and frustration. Hopefully their governments are not facing such a motion that calls for non-confidence because somehow one country unilaterally has not been able to bring the United States to end its protectionist policies.

Is the member not naive in his assessment of the situation? Perhaps while he is answering that question he could explain to us why, if there is such great interest and concern about international trade in his party, this time a year ago his party went something like two months without even having a trade critic? For some two months it had no one in the House of Commons assigned to specifically monitor and question the government on its trade policies. Is that what he means by a show of interest from the Canadian Alliance?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as the member ought to know by now, the government is pressing its case at the WTO, as it has done in the past. Every time we have been forced to go that route the facts have supported the Canadian argument. They will again.

We have seen statements this week from the American public and the American industry understanding that the problem is south of the border and that the WTO will rule in our favour.

[Criminal Code, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I do not pretend to know the geography of the Fraser River and the valley as well as my colleague, but I have had the opportunity to travel in that very beautiful part of Canada.

I understand the member's concern to some extent and I would encourage him. I will endeavour to ensure the minister is apprised of this exchange this evening. I know my colleague is well aware of his opportunities to raise this with the minister.

What I am informed of is that there are certain legislative constraints on DFO that have to be followed and that there is an assessment underway now which will take some time. When completed, hopefully the appropriate action will be taken expeditiously.

I thank my colleague for raising this and I will endeavour to share the rest of my comments with him.

[Criminal Code, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Dewdney--Alouette noted, I will respond on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans although he is not the minister with whom I normally work.

I understand the importance of the issue the member has raised, certainly the importance to his community. I have a long detailed answer that I will not have time to finish, so I will endeavour now to provide the response to my colleague opposite as no doubt it will be of great interest to him and his constituents. He then can take the appropriate action.

The history and importance of gravel removal from the Fraser River is important to the communities in the Fraser Valley area. I recognize the concerns of the communities regarding public safety with respect to flood hazard management, which the member mentioned, erosion control and navigational safety. I would also like to recognize that the part of the Fraser River from Abbotsford to Hope, B.C., is rich in fish and fish habitat values, especially salmon spawning and rearing sites, as well as trout and sturgeon habitat.

Gravel plays a significant role by providing the habitat and protection of juvenile fish in that part of the river. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for fish and fish habitat under the Fisheries Act. Subsection 35(1) states that:

No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.

To permit activities which may cause a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, commonly called a HADD, subsection 35(2) permits the minister to authorize such activities under any means or conditions which are deemed necessary. The authorizations follow the department's guiding principle of no net loss of the productive capacity of habit as set out in the DFO policy for management of fish habitat.

Prior to authorizing a HADD, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires that DFO undertake an environmental assessment to assess the environmental effects of a project. During the assessment we consider the effects of the project on the environment as well as, for example in this case, on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons.

Once the assessment is complete, and if it is concluded that there will not be a significant adverse environmental effect, a subsection 35(2) authorization will be prepared with conditions to permit the project to proceed.

For most of the past century gravel has been harvested from this part of the Fraser River for commercial purposes. The gravel has been used to assist in building much of the infrastructure of the lower mainland.

Four years ago federal and provincial scientists, the academic community and the public, raised concerns that too much gravel was being harvested from the Fraser River. This extraction was thought to be having long term adverse effects on the habitat for fisheries resources in the area.

As a result, the department, in partnership with provincial agencies placed a three year moratorium on gravel removal pending completion of a number of scientific studies and development of a comprehensive management plan for this stretch of the Fraser River.

I will provide the rest of this written response to my colleague. I am sure he would like to have it.

[Criminal Code, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, briefly I would again reassure my colleague and thank him for raising this matter. What I meant to say was that it is the view of Canada that in chapter 11 the application of that clause has been stretched. That is what I meant by misinterpreted. Clearly it is being interpreted beyond the scope that was originally intended by the three signatories, hence the need for clarification.

The minister also supports very much the need for greater transparency.

[Criminal Code, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for raising this important matter at this time.

The position of the Government of Canada is that chapter 11 of NAFTA is working reasonably well, but as he correctly noted, there is room for improvement. Chapter 11 needs further clarity and transparency. Canada is committed to this important clarification process.

As an open and dynamic economy with significant international trade and investment flows, Canada has consistently supported a strong rules based system, multilaterally, regionally and bilaterally. We move on those three trade fronts simultaneously. We believe that investment rules can play an important part in providing a stable, transparent and predictable environment for international investment.

The importance of these rules to Canada's prosperity is clear. The value of Canadian direct investment abroad has increased by 400% between 1985 and 2000. This is an increase from $57 billion to $301 billion. In 2000 we benefited from over $291 billion in foreign direct investment in Canada. In turn, this investment generated Canadian jobs and fostered the growth of Canada's gross domestic product.

The growth in foreign investment by Canadian business has increased the demand for improved access and greater protection for Canadian investments abroad. Rules which facilitate a stable, transparent and open environment are an essential component of their success.

In light of such considerations Canada has long advocated a rules based international system and impartial dispute settlement in its trade and investment agreements such as NAFTA.

The NAFTA text was built on a longstanding experience and institutional knowledge of international trade and investment law. NAFTA parties want to ensure that it is understood and used in its proper context. My hon. colleague has cited some examples that could be stated as a misuse of chapter 11. To this end, the agreement provides for the issuance, by the NAFTA free trade commission, of notes of interpretation on provisions of chapter 11.

On July 31, 2001, the commission, which is comprised of NAFTA trade ministers, issued a binding interpretation on article 1105, the minimum standard of treatment provision. The notes of interpretation reaffirm that the standard of treatment set out in article 1105 reflects customary international law concerning the treatment of foreigners or aliens. It confirmed that a purported breach of another NAFTA article, or indeed a provision from another treaty, cannot constitute a breach of article 1105.

This binding interpretation also confirmed that fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security do not create additional obligations beyond those required by customary international law. The issuance of this binding interpretation has thus contributed to a proper understanding of article 1105.

I want to emphasize the importance the government places on the chapter 11 clarification process. The government understands that it is important to have such provisions, but it also understands, as my colleague mentioned, that there have been misinterpretations and that there needs to be greater clarification and transparency. The minister is highly committed to that. It is one of his top priorities.

[Softwood Lumber, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have just seen the problem with the member asking a prepared second question, not having listened to the answer that was just given.

I indicated that for at least one year this government has been very strongly advocating in the United States with the U.S. Congress and with the American Senate and consumer groups. The trade critic for his party is sitting beside him. He knows that. He was part of those delegations.

He talks about a vacuum. The issue of softwood lumber has been raised by the Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister of Canada repeatedly at the highest levels. It is time for the Americans to act.