Pat O'Brien

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Inadvertently or not, the member is certainly misquoting me. I am quoting the EU ministers--

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

Mr. Speaker, after listening very carefully to my colleague's comments, my reaction is that here we go again. The NDP is the sole repository of all truth and virtue and if we do not happen to agree with the New Democratic Party of Canada we are somehow part of some unholy alliance. Well I guess 75% of Canadians are part of this unholy alliance because 75% of Canadians strongly support free trade.

I would like to ask my colleague to react to the comments of Juan Somavia. A few days ago I asked the director general of the ILO whether the ILO supported the inclusion of labour standards within trade agreements. I told him that the Canadian government did not think it was the way to go. Mr. Juan Somavia's answer was, and I quote:

For example, Canada is being very creative in this, through side agreements which are of a promotional nature. There are a number of ways in which the energy that has been behind this trade and labour standards debate can be channelled so we're making things happen.

--we have to run with the ball with the instruments that we have.

Mr. Somavia was very flattering toward Canada. He rejected out of hand the fact that we must enshrine ILO standards into trade agreements. I know the hon. member could not be present for that discussion but I have just quoted Mr. Somavia. I would like to know what the hon. member's reaction to that is.

I would also like to know what the hon. member's reaction is to the EU ministers. We often hear the EU cited by the New Democratic Party. What is his reaction to the EU trade ministers who have said that they reject putting labour agreements into trade deals, that they litter up the trade deals unnecessarily and that it is not the way to go?

Finally, why is the NDP against helping one of the poorest nations in the Caribbean area, a nation that needs trade not aid? Why does it oppose that?

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

Mr. Speaker, surely the member knows that there is a sugar caucus in parliament chaired by my colleague from Etobicoke. The member knows that there have been representations on concerns about the sugar industry in Montreal and other parts of Canada by government members as well. They have been very forceful about that.

The member knows there was an agreement in committee that passed unanimously. It stated that we would pay close regard to the concerns of the sugar industry. There was wide consultation and opportunity to have input at that meeting. Those concerns were listened to and the committee, chaired by my colleague from Ottawa Centre, went out of its way to pass a motion stating that we would pay close regard to the concerns of the sugar industry in all parts of Canada. We attended the same meeting. Is that not the member's recollection of what took place?

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's comments. One is almost at a loss to know where to start, there are so many questions I would like to ask. I will follow up on a couple of brief observations if I might.

I take this opportunity to clarify some comments made by the member for Churchill and to ask my colleague from the Bloc for his opinion on labour agreements. Earlier today I quoted the president of the ILO who said that he supported the use of side agreements on labour and the environment. He not only supported them but applauded Canadian creativity in using that approach.

I referenced the EU ministers who at a meeting I attended a year ago on behalf of the Minister for International Trade indicated that they too did not want to litter up trade agreements unnecessarily by including labour and environment rights. This was the point I sought to make earlier. I believe I was misinterpreted by the member for Churchill but that has been clarified by some of my colleagues.

How does the member feel about labour and environment agreements in trade deals?

I am disappointed to hear my colleague talk about the proposed amendment he put forward in committee. He knows very well that when he put the amendment our side supported it. In fact his amendment was agreed to unanimously.

I will give him a chance to clarify. The next day he came to the committee with a substantially different amendment with no consultation on this side of the House. Obviously we could not support a substantially different amendment from my colleague. We try to deal in good faith so I will give the member a chance to clarify.

I point out that there is no Costa Rican investment to speak of in Canada. Canada has some $400 million of investment in Costa Rica. These are protected by FIPA, a foreign investment protection agreement, which has been in existence since 1999.

I do not understand his fears in this regard. They are misplaced. It saddens me to think that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against a bilateral free trade agreement with a developing nation, one that badly needs it. Does he really mean that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this important bilateral free trade initiative between Canada and Costa Rica on behalf of the Minister for International Trade.

I would like to offer our congratulations to several people: to our colleague from Ottawa Centre, the chair of the trade subcommittee, who held hearings on the bill; to our colleague, the member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore, who is the chair of the sugar caucus as it is called and who had some very important input, along with other colleagues, on the legislation; and, indeed, to all members of SCFAIT, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I, on behalf of the minister, would like to thank both the opposition members and the government members for the good and co-operative spirit in which they worked on the legislation. We were able to move the legislation along at a very good pace. On behalf of the Minister for International Trade, we offer our thanks and appreciation for the work that was well done.

We are now in the final stage of debate on the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement implementation act. I welcome the opportunity to address the House on this important matter.

However, before I get to the matter at hand, I would first like to say a few words about the impact of the terrible events of September 11.

Many Canadians find it difficult to believe there are those who claim that our country can return to business as usual. Our economy and the entire global economic system has been severely shaken by the tremendous human and economic losses we experienced last month.

As members know, many sectors have felt an immediate impact. The air transport, hospitality and communications industries, for instance, have been hit by a dramatic and sudden reduction in consumer demand. However, as you will no doubt recall, Mr. Speaker, in 1991 there was an economic slowdown related to concerns about international political instability. This was quickly followed by a decade of very strong growth.

Today there are also reasons to have faith in the future. Governments of the free world, including our government, are taking unprecedented steps to combat global terrorism and improve security within their own borders. Economically, we know that our markets are resilient and that difficulties such as those experienced at the Canada-U.S. border crossing are starting to ease.

Together we can overcome the inertia of fear or worry and establish a new standard of normalcy now strengthened with a renewed sense of purpose.

While it may not be business as usual, we are certainly taking care of the usual business for the good of all Canadians. The free trade agreement we are discussing today is certainly an integral part of our efforts in that direction.

I would like to turn now to the benefits of the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement.

The agreement in question would give Canadian businesses barrier free access to the small but dynamic Costa Rican market. We will see the immediate elimination of tariffs on most industrial products upon implementation. This includes some key Canadian export sectors, including automotive goods, environmental goods, prefabricated buildings and some construction products, such as steel products. The advantages do not stop there. In fact people right across the country will benefit from the agreement.

Some 94% of Canada's current agriculture and agrifood exports to Costa Rica would realize market access benefits. Significant gains would be realized for products such as french fries, peas, beans, lentils and other pulses, greens, fresh fruits and vegetables and processed food products.

While on the subject of agriculture and agrifood, it is worth noting that supply managed dairy, poultry and egg products are exempted from tariff reductions.

Tariffs on the remainder of goods would be gradually phased out over a period of either 7 or 14 years, depending on the type of product.

As a result Canadian exporters will gain an important advantage over their principal competitors in the Costa Rican market, including the United States, European and Asian suppliers. At the same time Canada will achieve a level playing field with Costa Rica's other preferential trade partners such as Mexico and Chile.

This really represents a win-win scenario in the best sense of the word. Of course Costa Rica also stands to gain under this agreement. One of the most important benefits for this small country is the asymmetrical treatment that the Canada-Costa Rican free trade agreement provides for.

As members know, this means that to take into account the difference in the levels of development and the size of the two economies, Canada will liberalize its market more quickly than Costa Rica. We sincerely believe that the government will demonstrate conclusively that free trade agreements can be negotiated between larger and smaller economies.

Clearly this will also serve to advance the debate taking place in the FTAA and how the interests of larger and smaller economies in the region can best be reconciled. As a result, the asymmetrical aspect of the agreement serves the broader interest of our country.

This is an important point because Canada's continued engagement within regional free trade agreements, such as the FTAA and the NAFTA, is critical to our collective economic prosperity and social well-being. After all, with a population of 800 million, the Americas is one of the fastest growing markets in the world in terms of consumers and growth in per capita income. Latin America and the Caribbean collectively boast a total population of nearly 500 million people and the region produces a GDP of approximately $3 trillion.

The FTAA will create the conditions for greater prosperity for all participants. This widespread prosperity will in turn provide the poorer countries of the hemisphere with the resources to address such problems as poverty, crime, environmental degradation, threats to democracy and human rights.

In the end our efforts to liberalize trade on a multilateral, regional and, as in the case of Costa Rica, bilateral level all lead to the same goal: a more open rules based trading system. It is absolutely fundamental to the success of our economy that with a relatively small population in terms of our trading partners we have an open rules based trading system. This helps to promote such a system.

While the elimination of tariffs is at the heart of any free trade deal, the agreement between Canada and Costa Rica goes further in a number of key areas. For example, the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is the first bilateral free trade agreement including innovative stand alone procedures on trade facilitation which will reduce costs and red tape for Canadian businesses at the border.

This has special significance far beyond this particular agreement. Within the World Trade Organization, Canada has long been a leading proponent for binding rules and disciplines on trade facilitation. This agreement also includes a precedent setting framework for competition policy which could serve as a model for the region in the context of the free trade area of the Americas.

In fact, as a country that draws great benefit from foreign trade, Canada is working very hard to strengthen the rules based international trading system. That is why we strongly support the launch of a new WTO negotiation round. We are working closely with our trading partners, including the United States, the EU, Japan and key developing countries, to build support for new negotiations.

In this respect I have to note that when I represented our colleague, the Minister for International Trade, in Shanghai last June, I saw how highly respected he is personally by the trading partners in APEC in the leadership that he has shown. That leadership deserves to be recognized here today.

WTO members have many difficult issues left to resolve before the meeting scheduled to take place in Doha, but I believe that with political will on all sides we can make good progress in bridging the differences among members. A key to success in this area is to demonstrate to smaller countries that they stand to benefit from liberalized trade. Agreements like the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement do just that.

To digress from my text for a moment, I know that in discussion with many groups in my own riding and in other parts of Canada, the support for free trade in this country is quite strong. It is in the order of some 70% to 75%. Much of it is based on the fact that Canadians expect that there will not be losers in free trade. The basic fairness of Canadians comes into play here when they say that they are for free trade. Most, with their eyes open, understand how it has benefited our economy. However, they expect that it will also benefit the economies of the developing countries of the world. I think that is the Canadian basic sense of fair play. Much of their support is contingent on us doing everything possible to ensure that, and that is exactly what we are working toward as a country.

If I could turn now to the somewhat contentious issue of side agreements in the areas of environment and labour. Until now I have only addressed some of the many economic benefits of this free trade agreement. While they are of course central, they are not the only advantages that flow from this agreement. After all, while pursuing the goal of liberalized trade, we owe it to future generations to ensure that this increased economic activity is also sustainable.

At the same time, as a progressive and democratic society we have a special responsibility to foster improved environment and labour standards in those countries where we do business. I am pleased to note that parallel agreements in both these key areas were also negotiated.

In light of the growing economic, environmental and social links between our two countries, both agreed that a commitment to environmental and labour co-operation, along with the effective enforcement of domestic laws, should go hand in hand with free trade. These parallel agreements will ensure that we not only reap economic benefits but important social benefits as well.

In fact, Mr. Juan Somaria, the director general of the International Labour Organization, recently stated in Ottawa that he supported side agreements and that Canada had been very creative in using these side agreements.

At a meeting of the trade subcommittee, I personally had an opportunity to explore this with the director general of the ILO. Some of our colleagues, specifically those in the New Democratic Party, are saying that we must have these environmental and labour agreements right in the text of our trade deals. Therefore, I put the question to the director of the ILO as to whether he supported that. Quite frankly, he said no. He said he supported and congratulated Canada very effusively for its creative use of side agreements. He said that we take what tools we have and make progress that way. I think it came as a bit of an eye-opener for the NDP members at that particular meeting.

On this same issue, I had an opportunity to attend a conference representing my colleague the Minister for International Trade where we talked about trade and the benefits to less developed countries.

Again, there are colleagues in this House who talk about EU and cite it as a very advanced organization in its trade and other practices. EU ministers are adamant that we not litter up trade deals by trying to include environmental and labour standards in those trade deals. It is best done in side agreements.

That is the view I believe of all parties in this House, save and except for the NDP. It is certainly the view of this government. It is the view expressed earlier this week by the director general of the ILO. It is important that his support and congratulation for Canada be noted.

For example, the Canada-Costa Rica environmental co-operation agreement includes obligations which provide for high levels of environmental quality and effective enforcement of environmental laws which promote open, transparent and equitable, judicial and administrative procedures. It provides for public accountability for those commitments to effectively enforce environmental laws. It will also seek to involve the public, as appropriate, in all aspects of the implementation of the agreement.

On the labour front, the two countries have signed the Canada-Costa Rica agreement on labour co-operation.

The main elements of this agreement include: coverage of industrial relations; employment standards and occupational safety and health; a mechanism allowing the public to raise concerns about the application of labour law in the other country; and development assistance to help the Costa Rican department of labour and social welfare improve its institutional capacity.

Unfortunately, time does not allow me to catalogue all the benefits of our free trade agreement. However I believe it is clear from the examples I have outlined today, as well as from the comments from many other members who took part in this debate on both sides of the House, that the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is another step in the right direction for Canada. Like other free trade agreements that came before, this one will contribute to Canada's long term prosperity as well as help us achieve our broader goal for international trade liberalization.

Finally, it represents a symbol of our faith in the future. The Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is a definitive response to those who seek to sever the lines of communication between nations and retreat into a medieval isolation. Canada will never find itself among those timid souls. Free trade is as much about ideas and values as it is about goods and services. Let us increase such exchanges.

It has been an honour for me to speak on the debate today and to congratulate and thank those who participated on both sides of the House on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for International Trade. I welcome the support of all members of the House who surely must see the undeniable benefits of the agreement.

[Northern Ireland, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, an historic step has been taken in the Northern Ireland peace process. The IRA's decommissioning of weapons is a decisive move toward a just and lasting peace.

Canada fully supports this move. In fact Canada has been instrumental in the peace process as well as the decommissioning process. Retired Canadian General John de Chastelain is head of the commission and he will be responsible for ensuring that the handing in of weapons is carried out.

I congratulate the leadership of Sinn Fein for its political contribution in working for peace. I also reiterate that Canada will continue to play its part in the Northern Ireland peace process as we continue to encourage both communities to work toward a true and lasting peace.

[Trade, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, at APEC this past weekend in Shanghai, Singapore's Prime Minister Goh and the Prime Minister of Canada announced the intention of our two countries to begin negotiations on a bilateral trade agreement. Such an agreement would be the latest in a series of ongoing bilateral agreements that Canada has successfully negotiated. It would give us market access via Singapore to a very important region of the world. We look forward to an early conclusion to these negotiations.

[Softwood Lumber, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the only irresponsible personal attack we have heard against the Minister for International Trade has come from the official opposition, which was so interested in the file that it went weeks without a trade critic.

There is an ongoing series of discussions taking place. At those discussions there are federal and provincial representatives. It is very important that we discuss forestry practices at those discussions. It is a series of ongoing meetings of officials. It is not negotiations in any sense of the word.

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely dumbfounded to hear any member of parliament, but particularly one from the province of Quebec, tell me that he has no recollection of terrorist activities in Canada except for those of the RCMP. That is absolutely incredible.

I would suggest that the hon. member talk to the family of the Hon. Pierre Laporte and hear what their views are about the absolutely incredible statement he just made. I cannot believe it. I will not go into a full explanation of the 1970 FLQ crisis and the murder of Pierre Laporte. I do not need to do that, although I certainly could. I am afraid I would probably become quite annoyed if I did that.

I want to answer the hon. member's question. He is proposing a built-in sunset clause or a clause that would automatically cause the bill to no longer be in effect at the end of three years. I do not think that is a very good idea at all. It is unnecessary.

First of all, the Parliament of Canada, which the hon. member was elected to and is a part of, can achieve that in any number of other ways that are already in existence. The bill can be revoked.

The Prime Minister in his speech last night very clearly indicated that although the bill calls for a parliamentary review automatically at three years, the government is open to a review sooner if it is deemed wise by parliament to do that. There is no intention of having some never ending bill that cannot be reviewed.

I invite the hon. member to come over and have a discussion. I will tell him the rest of the story about the FLQ crisis which he conveniently ignored.

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Sarnia--Lambton gave us a pretty good explanation of this legislation. I enjoyed listening to his comments. I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C-36, which will put the government's anti-terrorism plan into place.

Quite clearly the bill is aimed at terrorist organizations and it seeks to strengthen the investigation, prosecution and prevention of terrorist activities at home and abroad. The bill has two primary objectives: to stop terrorists from getting into Canada and to protect Canadians from terrorist acts.

Canada has been fortunate to have a very peaceful history, unlike our neighbour to the south. September 11 is one more horrible example of that, but it has probably made Canadians question if we will continue to have a peaceful history without threat. We know now that Canada is in a position of being threatened. Our safety and security as a nation and as individual citizens of this nation have been threatened. It is important that the bill be in place to help protect Canadians from any possible terrorist acts.

The bill brings forward the tools necessary to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. As my colleague from Sarnia--Lambton noted, the bill seeks to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage or under threat by terrorists, which would have a very deleterious effect on the Canadian economy.

Since I have been working with the Minister for International Trade, this brings home much more clearly the importance of the Canadian--American border in our trading relationship. We see that nowhere more clearly than in southwestern Ontario.

In my home community of London, Ontario, people regularly cross the American border either at Sarnia Port Huron or Windsor-Detroit. It is as simple as going to see a ball game or a hockey game and returning that same evening. Thousands of people cross the border daily to go to work. There is also an enormous amount of trade across those two border points.

We need to reflect on the fact that the twoway trade between Canada and the United States now stands at $1.4 billion every day of the year. We need to reflect on the fact that there are some 250 million crossings at the border by individuals, be it for recreational purpose or work.

It is very important the legislation be in place to restore the confidence that has been somewhat shaken in Canadians and Americans. They want to continue to live in a society that has been free and open. The openness of our border is a good example of that.

Therefore it is very important that all these steps be taken to re-establish the confidence that we normally have had between our two countries, where individuals can travel and move safely across the borders and where business can continue in an unhindered way. The statistics I just mentioned show the enormity of this two way trade. Something like 87% of our exports go to the United States.

The bill creates a situation whereby Canada will be working with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and to address the root causes of such hatred. In that regard I want to put forward a suggestion for the minister's consideration and I intend to take this up with her individually.

This suggestion comes from leaders in my own community, particularly Muslim leaders in London, Ontario, who consistently condemn the terrorist attacks of September 11. They have proposed the idea that perhaps Canada is an ideal country to host an international forum on terrorism. Perhaps we are the perfect country to say that we should, as an international community, gather and discuss the terrorist threat and discuss very basic questions like who is a terrorist and what is the proper definition of a terrorist. There have been some very famous people in history who have been considered terrorists. Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist in his own country and he went on to lead his nation. He is obviously one of the outstanding individuals in history in recent times. This suggestion has some merit. Perhaps Canada would be well advised to take a lead in looking at the whole issue of terrorism and working with our international partners. I am happy to put that suggestion on the record and I will pursue it individually with the appropriate persons.

The proposed anti-terrorism act includes measures to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. These include: defining and designating terrorist groups and activities to make it easier to prosecute terrorists and those who support them; making it an offence to knowingly participate in or contribute to or facilitate the activities of terrorist groups or to instruct anyone in how to do any of those activities; making it an offence to knowingly harbour a terrorist; creating tougher sentences and parole provisions for terrorist offences; cutting off the financial support of terrorist groups; making it an offence to knowingly collect funds for or contribute funds to any such group. It would also ratify the two UN anti-terrorism conventions, the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism and the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings, as well as the safety of United Nations and associated personnel convention.

I believe Canadians overwhelmingly support the legislation and the need for it. Some valid concerns have been raised. Certainly they have been raised with me, about the fact that we do not slip in a draconian series of measures that would somehow infringe unnecessarily on our rights as individuals. I think the bill strikes the proper balance between the need to fight terrorism and the need to protect of our civil liberties.

The bill has several safeguards which I will mention briefly. There will be a parliamentary review of the anti-terrorism legislation in three years. As the Prime Minister noted in his speech last night, the minister is committed to requesting and supporting such a review sooner if it is deemed to be warranted.

Clearly defining provisions so that they are targeted at terrorists and terrorist groups would allow obviously legitimate political activism and protest which are so much a part of our democracy and which we witness every day outside on the steps and the lawns of parliament. I am very proud as a Canadian that I see those groups. I do not see them as a nuisance. They are here demonstrating peacefully about causes that are important to them. They cover everything from an individual priest here day after day expressing his strong pro-life views to groups like the Falun Gong. They have been out there recently demonstrating about activities they feel are discriminating against them in China.

It is very important that we have this balance and that the safeguards are there. They are important and good safeguards. The burden of proof, the onus, is on the state, as it should be. In other words an individual would still be innocent until proven guilty even if he or she is accused of a terrorist activity. That is fundamental to our democracy.

There are other safeguards built into the legislation that I do not have time to enumerate right now. Suffice it to say that I think the bill is very important.

I know that my constituents overwhelmingly support the bill. My constituents have some concerns about not having this legislation go too far. The bill addresses those concerns very well and I am pleased to support it.