Rose-Marie Ur

[Petitions, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of constituents living in Grand Bend in the riding of Lambton--Kent--Middlesex.

They call on parliament to protect the health of seniors, children and the environment by banning the gas additive MMT. The use of MMT in gasoline results in significantly higher smog producing hydrocarbon emissions and enhances global warming.

[Remembrance Day, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this coming Sunday is Remembrance Day. Each year on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month Canadians take a moment to remember those who fought and defended Canada in many battles to ensure our security and freedom.

We remember the battles in World War I, World War II, the Korean and gulf wars, and countless other battles and peacekeeping missions in which our military and navy personnel took part. Our veterans fought to ensure our protection and liberty. This came at a cost of thousands of lives in the process.

This Remembrance Day is especially meaningful as our troops prepare and leave to join the war in Afghanistan to ensure once again our freedom and security.

In the wake of the attacks on the United States we are reminded of how important our military and navy personnel are during these times. It is important to recognize the efforts of veterans who fought in past wars and to take a moment to reflect on how their hard work has improved the quality of life of all Canadians.

That is why we stop on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month to remember the cost of freedom and to honour those who have paid the price.

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I thank my hon. colleague for his eloquent statement and his question. Not to agree with him would be wrong. What he has indicated in his remarks was exactly what I had stated in my speech.

When we have 142 countries at the table and 142 guidelines, it is pretty hard to get 2 or 3 countries to have a consensus, let alone 142.

As the hon. member has said, it is very important to have a set of rules in place that all 142 countries live by, not 142 guidelines. I think that is where our weaknesses have been in the past when we have gone to negotiations and such, that each country has its own principles and its own guidelines but when push comes to shove at the end there has to be a basic set of rules that each country has to adhere to so that we can come to a consensus using a set of rules.

My hon. colleague insisted on transparency. I guess that was very well illustrated after the Seattle conference where the Maude Barlows of the world were saying that there was not a transparency and enough input. I know for sure that the agriculture committee met with several groups that were well received. I was also privilege to some information about it being vital that transparency be a part of these negotiations.

What came out of those discussions was the de-restricting and public release of working papers and agendas, the public release of submissions in dispute settlement cases, an increase in WTO consultation with NGOs, regular meetings of WTO member parliamentarians and the creation of ad hoc expert advisory boards.

With all those things being incorporated, I think it perhaps will dispel any myths that this is all done in seclusion. Everyone does have a way of participating. I think it will be a benefit in the end.

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, the World Trade Organization ministerial meeting scheduled for Qatar on November 9 to 13 is an event of great significance. In light of the current economic and security uncertainties it is vital a strong signal comes out of Qatar that the world is resuming business. The multilateral trading system embodied in the WTO has contributed significantly to economic growth, development and employment throughout the past 50 years.

We are determined, particularly in light of the global slowdown, to maintain the process of reform of trade policies to ensure that the system plays its full part in promoting recovery, growth and development. The 142 countries involved must send a signal that the failure of Seattle is behind us and we are now moving forward. It will not be easy. It will not be without its tough negotiations. It will not be without compromises.

Having said that, I note that Canada must enter these discussions with absolute resolve. Canada must insist that other countries match what we committed to and lived up to in regard to Geneva in 1993. Canada must ensure that it levels the playing field for its businesses and farmers before offering anything more on the table.

I am particularly concerned about agriculture. It is important that Canada reinstate its position in regard to global trade and demonstrate that Canada has lived up to its obligations and insist others do the same. As a major agricultural exporter-importer, Canada has a fundamental interest in further strengthening the international rules governing agricultural trade, eliminating trade subsidies and significantly improving market access opportunities. Further, agricultural trade reform will provide Canadian producers and processors with a more level international playing field and encourage a more rules based, stable, predictable and secure environment within which they can compete.

Canada needs to continue to fight for the elimination of all export subsidies as quickly as possible, for maximum possible reduction or elimination in domestic support that distorts trade or production, for real and substantial improvements in market access for all agriculture and food products and for securing new disciplines on export taxes and export restrictions. Trade distorting subsidies create difficulties for the agriculture and agrifood sector.

We need to level the playing field. However, international subsidies are preventing this from happening. There are major differences between countries and between commodities in the provision of market access opportunities, the level and type of domestic support and the use and magnitude of export assistance.

Global trade distortions have had and continue to have a major impact on Canadian farm incomes and the profitability of the food processing sector. Whereas Canada in 1993 converted its article XI protections to declining tariff rate quotas, other countries with simple quotas saw them remain the same. This must be addressed in this round. Those with simple tariffs should be required to provide the same 5% minimum access as Canadian agriculture and that access should be a zero tariff, as is ours.

Export subsidies must go. It is not good enough to agree to a formula reduction. They must disappear entirely if we are to make it a fair trading environment. For too long the EU and U.S. have bought market share with their export subsidies at the cost of Canadian producers. We can no longer afford to put our producers at risk to the benefit of their competitors.

I urge the ministers of international trade and agriculture to remain firm, to enter these negotiations with resolve and to seek and receive an advantage for Canadians from these negotiations.

Globalization has reduced the size of this planet we co-inhabit. Goods and people move more freely than ever before. Recent events such as the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Europe provide clear evidence that we cannot and must not let globalization be a free-for-all. We must as a nation retain the right to protect our people and our industry. We must enshrine our right to err on the side of caution in matters related to health and safety.

Certainly it will be difficult in the circumstances to even get a launch to this round. If, however, the price to pay to get a launch is too costly then it is better for our government to acknowledge this fact. From Canada's perspective relative to agriculture this round must be viewed as a catch up round for others. Canada must put first things first and ensure its market access measures up to what it has already provided before going any further.

Canada has not gained a reputation as a tough negotiator. Qatar gives us the opportunity to demonstrate that we are. It gives the government an opportunity to display its resolve, to hold firm until others match us and to demonstrate to our producers here at home that government holds their welfare paramount. Therefore it is very important to develop and implement clear enforceable trade rules applying equally to all countries, which will work toward levelling the playing field.

The current state of agriculture in Canada is dismal. Therefore Canada should maintain a strong position and not commit to any trade-offs with other countries at the WTO meeting. We need to protect our farmers and in order to do that we must ensure that rules apply to all countries equally. The beauty of rules is that all countries must follow them while guidelines, on the other hand, permit individual interpretation. This is what has happened. The creative interpretation of the guidelines by the U.S. and EU introduced a new concept now known as dirty tariffication and dirty access offers. What countries actually agreed to was what they respectively submitted in their schedules, whether or not it reflected the application of the guidelines.

The issue, therefore, is not that the countries do not meet their commitments. They do. The real issue is that the commitments of the various countries are unequal, inequitable and unfair. Therefore we must insist that rules are in place that require all countries to meet the same commitments in order to eliminate the possibility of further misinterpretation.

I will use the example of the establishment of minimum access for dairy products under the tariff rate quota system. Minimum access commitments were to be established according to the guidelines at a level representing 3% of domestic consumption based on the period from 1986 to 1988 and to grow to 5% of domestic consumption by the end of the implementation year 2000.

The United States interpreted the guidelines in a manner which resulted in a market access significantly lower than the 3% to 5% levels. The U.S. did not consider offering minimum access on a tariff line basis or product by product. Rather, it invented a mechanism to measure the butterfat and solids/not-fat components of each dairy product in order to estimate the total amount of imports necessary to fill a 3% access for component.

This methodology, which could in itself lead to years of debate on the adequacy of each conversion factor used, indicated a deficiency in butterfat which the U.S. compensated by providing increased access, mostly to frozen cream. This was only one aspect of the U.S. approach which was unique to the U.S. offer. The end result of this approach was an access commitment which was significantly lower than the 3% to 5% guideline.

The European Union took a different approach. It considered the 3% to 5% access as a commitment to allow a certain level of imports into its markets independent of tariff conditions applicable to such imports. It therefore assumed that to meet its 3% commitment it only had to offer additional access necessary to reach that level. In the case of dairy products it measured this access commitment only for butter, skim milk powder and cheese, as if all other dairy products were more or less irrelevant. What this approach did was prevent any changes in the conditions that prevailed on historical imports.

All variable levies were converted to high tariff equivalents. Therefore if a product was historically imported into the EU under a specific quota allocation and subject to a most favoured nation tariff, these conditions remained under the Uruguay round. However, if these historical imports were made subject to the variable levy system they became subject to a high tariff equivalent even though they were part of the EU minimum access offer. In the end, the EU may be the only trading partner subjecting imports within its access commitments to over quota tariffs, giving a whole new meaning to tariff rate quotas.

Roughly estimated, using the different countries' interpretations, the imports of total dairy products at the end of the implementation period represented on a butterfat basis about 2.75% for the U.S., 3% for the EU and 4% for Canada. This is not a level playing field and negatively impacts on Canadian farmers and producers.

This is a good example of why the level of commitment achieved during the Uruguay round cannot be the basis for further increases. A uniform methodology, one set of rules to be followed by all countries, is necessary for future considerations. This should be Canada's goal at this year's WTO meeting and we should not downgrade this position.

[Petitions, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present this petition on behalf of constituents living in Grand Bend and Forest in the riding of Lambton--Kent--Middlesex.

The petitioners call upon parliament to protect the health of seniors, children and the environment by banning the gas additive MMT. The use of MMT in gasoline results in significantly higher smog producing hydrocarbon emissions and enhances global warming.

[National 4-H Week, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this week is National 4-H Week. The historical roots of the Canadian 4-H program are solidly grounded in rural Canada.

The program originated for the purposes of improving agriculture, increasing and bettering production, and enriching rural life. Its beginnings were inspired by energetic and idealistic agricultural officials, dedicated school teachers, and others committed to ensuring that young rural Canadians learned important skills to succeed on and off the farm.

Today's programs continue to serve primarily rural communities but they do not have to live on a farm to join. Open to all youths, male and female between the ages of 8 and 21, 4-H focuses on developing well rounded responsible and independent citizens.

Members participate in technical skills development projects as well as other fun activities. There are 2,600 4-H clubs across Canada with over 35,000 members completing 53,000 projects yearly.

I congratulate 4-H members and their leaders throughout Canada for all the hard work they do and recognize the importance of their organization.

[Petitions, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of constituents living in Grand Bend in the riding of Lambton--Kent--Middlesex who call upon parliament to protect the health of seniors and children and the environment by abandoning the disputed gas additive MMT.

The use of MMT in gasoline results in significantly higher smog producing hydrocarbon emissions and enhances global warming.

[LandMines, October 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the global landmine crisis is one of the most pervasive problems facing the world today. It is estimated that there are between 60 million and 70 million landmines in at least 70 countries. Landmines maim or kill approximately 26,000 civilians each year, including 8,000 to 10,000 children.

On Friday, November 30, 2001, the Canadian Landmine Foundation and our partner, the United Nations Association of the United States of America, are calling on our friends to host a dinner for a dozen or so of their friends, clients and neighbours. People from all walks of life in countries all over the world will join in the massive event which they are calling “Night of a Thousand Dinners”.

Funds raised at the dinner will be matched by CIDA in Canada. All money raised will go directly to clearing mines in the most heavily mine affected countries in the world. There has been enthusiastic support from Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Sir Paul McCartney, to name a few.

It will be easy to host a dinner on November 30. People can simply visit the 1000 dinners.com website and sign up or contact the Canadian Landmine Foundation.

[Terrorism, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Lambton--Kent--Middlesex and my family, I express sincere condolences to the victims and their families in the United States and Canada who have been affected by the tragic events that took place in the United States. Our thoughts and our prayers are with the American people as they deal with this tragedy and work to rebuild not only their city but their lives.

September 11, 2001, is a day we will never forget. The rippling effects will continue for years to come. This has been a difficult time for everyone and we must grow from this experience.

The attack was not just an attack on the United States. It was an attack on Canada and other civilized countries throughout the world. We therefore must work together with other countries in the fight against terrorism.

I also recognize the efforts of thousands of firefighters, police officers, rescue workers, ambulance attendants, and volunteers from both Canada and the United States that have been working around the clock in the search for victims.

Although we may never again feel invincible, invulnerable or impenetrable, the hope for a secure future is not gone.

[Petitions, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of citizens of Burlington and Hamilton.

They call upon parliament to protect the health of seniors and children and save our environment by banning the disputed gas additive MMT, as it creates smog and enhances global warming.