Roy H. Bailey

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic in speaking to the second reading of Bill C-50 that it is the hon. member for Vancouver Island North who should be speaking but guess what? The very qualified member is not with us today simply because it has to do with trade. It has to do with the breakdown in the WTO. I will come back to that later.

To complement what the minister said, whenever a company enters into a trade agreement there are two words that balance it. They both have five letters and they both begin with the letter t . One is trade and the other is trust. The two go together.

Opening up a trade agreement with a country as large as China means a great deal to both countries. It seems very appropriate at this time to recall that Canada does in the neighbourhood of $11 billion worth of trade every year with China. That is about $4 billion more than the total budget of the province in which I live. That gives some idea of what will happen with the implementation of the bill.

I agree with the minister. In the years to come the amount of trade with China will increase. However before we move on to more trade agreements, we are having severe difficulties in this country now with obligations, not Canadian obligations, but with other partners in the WTO and other partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Let us examine the purpose of the bill. The bill will amend the existing Canadian legislation allowing Canada to fully implement safeguards and anti-dumping rights that were agreed to when China came into the WTO. The safeguards will enable Canada to take temporary measures to protect Canadian industries.

Agriculture is one of the biggest industries in Canada. It certainly is the biggest industry where I come from. This industry is no longer protected. It was initially when we entered the WTO. It was 15 years ago. We were guaranteed it was going to be protected.

The other purpose of the bill is that in the event surges of imports from China could cost some industry, there is an agreement between the two countries.

Trade should bring trust. If we are trading with a nation, we must trust that nation. The more we trade with a nation, the more commonality we have in many respects.

Some people will call this simply a housekeeping bill. However the issue of deepening Canadian economic consultations with parliament on Canadian negotiating strategy in forums such as the World Trade Organization and a free trade agreement has not always been adequate. In looking at this bill, I feel that has been accomplished.

Parliament should be involved in ratifying agreements. It is good because it establishes a new economic relationship for Canada. Hopefully we will have new relationships with other countries.

About 15 years ago we in western Canada were told that if we got rid of the Crow rate agreement the other countries in the World Trade Organization would get rid of their subsidies at the same time. Let us make sure that is understood. Western Canadians were told if they gave up the Crow rate agreement on grain transportation which was guaranteed to them in legislation the other countries in the World Trade Organization, NAFTA and all the other agreements would drop their subsidies.

Let us look at what has happened. The industry in western Canada gave up that right. Yes, it was paid to do so. The payment it received was approximately one year's free freight. Since that time, for every bushel of grain produced on the prairies over a third of the price the farmer should get for the bushel has gone to transportation. As if that were not bad enough, the United States and the European common market have so abused the WTO that hundreds of farmers across the west are going broke.

As I mentioned at the outset, my hon. colleague from Vancouver North is not here because of the softwood lumber dispute. Thousands of Canadians are out of work. Negotiations have been going on probably for five years but intensively for six months. What has happened? Our gross national product has gone this way. What has happened as a result of these breakdowns? They have brought a lot of suffering to Canadians and particularly those in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.

There are two important words: trust and trade. I hope the government recognizes it must be vigilant and protect Canadians. Even though we have signed treaties it appears, certainly where I live, that there is no protection whatsoever.

There are three main points in the bill that would establish safeguards in dealing with Chinese imports. First, product specific safeguards could be applied to any goods originating in China that were causing or threatening to cause injury to Canadian industry. That is a good point and it makes up a good portion of the bill.

Second, there is a safeguard in the bill to prevent one market from overflowing and flooding into Canada. That is a good safeguard.

Third, for the textile industry in Canada there are safeguards relating to textiles and clothing.

All these safeguards are built into the bill.

The Minister for International Trade listed some agricultural items while he was speaking but failed to mention one that strikes home with me. He failed to mention the pulse industry which has grown big in western Canada. On the Soo Line, one of Canada's busiest railways which is just north of the city of Estevan, farmers have built a huge pulse terminal which handles lentils, peas and all those things.

These farmers were rejoicing about Bill C-50 because it meant there would be more freedom to trade with China, one of their biggest customers. Canola farmers were excited about it because they would have an open market to their product from western Canada.

The United States has a farm bill before congress. If my understanding of the bill is correct, the pulse producers of western Canada would get it big time as have the wheat and barley producers.

I am not sure producers where I come from are that concerned about Bill C-50. We on this side of the House and in my party feel it is a good bill because its safeguards are prudent. The problem in Canada is more on the other side of the House.

I am not saying Canada can match the subsidy levels of Great Britain or Washington. However what has the government done in the last five years to honour its agreements to settle issues in the World Trade Organization and NAFTA and protect Canadian industries? That is the question. The answer is absolutely zero.

We in my party support the bill and think it is good. More bills like it should be written and expanded to other countries. However it still comes back to two words: trust and trade. Softwood lumber producers and other producers in western Canada no longer trust the government to go to bat for them so they too can have livelihoods.

I will read from the Canadian Alliance policy statement:

We support a foreign policy that protects Canada's sovereignty and independence, promotes our national interests (political, economic and strategic), contributes to collective security and defence, promotes democratic principles and human rights--

Knowing the history of China, particularly in the last 50 years, let us hope for the sake of millions of people that this trade policy would result in an expansion of human rights in that great nation.

The policy statement continues:

We will pay particular attention to maintaining good bilateral relations with our most significant trading partners.

When I mentioned at the outset that the bill would mean about $11 billion a year, we must be cognizant that close to $2 billion a day goes between Canada and the United States. We are being strangled in Canada today because our neighbours to the south have chosen confrontation rather than co-operation in trade agreements.

As the minister pointed out, China once had one of the biggest and fastest growing economies in the world. It could again be the biggest within a few short years. We on this side of the House would join with the government in welcoming China into the WTO.

It is significant that the trade agreement with China would not hinder in one way or another the trade we currently have with Taiwan. That is a blessing. Although it cannot officially be a member of the WTO, Taiwan co-exists within its framework. Trade between Taiwan and mainland China grows each year.

We in my party are pleased to support the bill. However I am deeply disturbed, as are my colleagues on this side of the House, at the government's lack of attention to the softwood lumber issue in the last 5 years and to western agriculture in the last 15 years. These two industries have been vitally hurt by the government. I hope the government can see fit to do something within its power to bring back the original agreements of the WTO.

[Cenotaphs, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Fundy--Royal for moving the motion.

Perhaps no other province or constituency in Canada needs this motion as much as the province and constituency I represent. The demographics are changing so quickly in my area that legion branches are closing almost every year. With that comes the cenotaphs and with that comes the maintenance.

This issue is very timely and needs to be addressed. I thank the parliamentary secretary and the member for Fundy--Royal for mentioning that.

Perhaps the most touching incident in my work as a member of parliament dealt with a cenotaph and two gravesites. I am referring to the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border town of Moosomin. Immigrants moved from the east to the west and Moosomin is one of the oldest towns in Saskatchewan. I have learned from a veteran of World War II living in Moosomin what that legion branch has done since World War II.

Following World War I, not one but two Victoria Cross soldiers were buried there. It is amazing that two Victoria Cross soldiers would be buried that closely together in the same community. At that time obviously there was no cenotaph. One tombstone was located virtually on a road allowance which was abandoned. To see it, one would have to walk from the highway, especially in the wintertime. The other one was being used as a brace on a fence.

As no relatives were to be found, the members of the Royal Canadian Legion in both Wapella and Moosomin took it upon themselves to move the stones. They were moved to the cenotaph area. One was moved to a graveyard in the neighbouring town.

As a result, someone in provincial government, not federal, brought disdain upon these people for preserving these tombstones. They would have been lost forever and people would never be able to visit them because it was all vacated land. I salute those people for what they have done. I will certainly be on their side if they have any further quarrels with any officials.

One hundred thousand Canadians have spilled their blood in over 40 countries around the world. As my hon. colleagues have mentioned, there are over 6,000 cenotaphs. In my area, where there used to be five legion branches, there is one. That is about the average across the southern part of my constituency.

This is a very timely motion. I want to assure members that the motion will get full support from my province. Make no mistake about that.

If we have a will to do something, we will very quickly find a way to do it. We can talk about that later. There is a way we can do it with each one of the sites. With support from the government and support from local communities, we can get the people interested and they will support this. I am very pleased that the member has done just that.

There are so many things that have been left undone which we must do for our veterans. This is a request that has come to me many times.

I am glad that eventually I will be able to answer the people who phone my office asking if there is anything they can do. I hope that before too long I will be able to proudly say that yes there is something that can be done because the Government of Canada is going to set up something, maybe not in totality, for the communities scattered across this great country.

I am extremely proud of the motion that the member for Fundy--Royal has moved. I was proud to hear the parliamentary secretary to the minister make the declaration. With that, let us hope this is a speedy event. Let us hope that we can move quickly so that as summer comes along some of the work which needs to be done will get done across my constituency, across my province and across the country.

[Species at Risk Act, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, one casualty of a huge dimension accompanied this bill. That casualty will probably do more harm than the government can ever do by passing this legislation. I am talking about the casualty that was brought upon the committee that worked on the bill.

I volunteered to sit on the committee. Many people will say that members of parliament should never volunteer for anything because that always means a lot of work. However I volunteered to be on the committee because this bill will have huge ramifications where I live. I wanted to make sure that I could act in the best interests and seek the best solutions for my constituents.

The committee was chaired by an outstanding member of parliament. He is a very wise man and a man who has the respect of the entire committee. I also had the honour of working with my party's chief critic, the member for Red Deer. He knows the bill and knows what we are talking about. He has spoken many times in the House.

It was one of the few committees where I saw members on both sides working for the common good. Members worked to make sure the bill would be accepted by the government and the bill with our amendments would be welcomed and accepted across Canada.

It is true that some 127 very qualified witnesses appeared before the committee. We gave them our undivided attention. In their profession as scientists we listened carefully to their suggestions and drafted many of the amendments based on their attendance. There were some 300 amendments.

The casualty came after the break. There were all these outstanding people, from the chairman to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. People on both sides of the House just slumped down in their seats when they saw what happened. It was my hope, after all the committees I have sat on, that the valuable work of a committee would finally be realized. I really thought that for the first time I would see something produced in the nature of amendments that would fulfill the dream of Canadians from ocean to ocean to ocean. That did not take place.

It seems very strange that somehow the Minister of the Environment can put his hand in his hat and flick out $45 million as a cost for the operation of this bill. We have no idea where he got that number. There is no study. We presented no papers. He just said $45 million. The minister simply cannot do that and make it acceptable to the House.

The government has slashed our amendments and the bill as it is now is a total insult to the scientific community in Canada. The last time the scientific community was completely ignored in Canada was when the scientists told us that we were going too far and that we had better stop the reaping of the cod.

The politicians said they did not have to listen. They did their own business and the fishery on the east coast did its own.

Scientists made it clear that we cannot develop the bill with an open door policy. Having an open door policy on a bill of this magnitude is like having an open door to one's house. The heat and cold can come in. The pets can go out or the kids can come in. Anything can happen with an open door policy.

The government would want all of the power of the bill to remain in cabinet. It would ignore the scientists, witnesses and those who have studied habitat. It wants to take complete control. Scientists want to do science but the government wants to do it its way. These decisions should not be left to cabinet alone. There is too much proof in our history of what happens when cabinet alone makes decisions. We need to listen to scientists.

In committee we heard from various people who would be affected by the legislation, people in industry, people who own private property, aboriginal property, crown land, provincial and federal land. We now find in the bill that there would be some exemptions.

I live very close to the 49th parallel. I watch white tail deer go back and forth. They do not know whether they are in Canada or the United States. Rare species do not know when they arrive at the border. An animal does not know when it is moving from a protected area to a non-protected area.

The government has put restrictions based on racial groups within this bill. That simply will not work. Everyone in committee said that would not work so that was thrown out. The government came back with a better decision.

I do not know why the minister wants to have everything left up to him and cabinet, exclusive of the biologists and those who have studied habitat, especially after we have worked so hard on the bill in committee.

If the government had paid attention to the recommendations of the committee that studied this issue Canadians from coast to coast would be relieved of all the apprehension and all the worry they presently have with the bill. With the slashing of amendments people from coast to coast have more apprehension than ever. I know people in my area have more apprehension than ever.

If we put this bill with Bill C-15, the cruelty to animals bill, and the Kyoto agreement, we have more mistrust than we need.

A great bunch of people worked in committee. I say that in all honesty. The people I feel most sorry for are not those of us who sat in the opposition chairs in committee, but the fine chairman and the people on the government side of the House who watched their dreams and aspirations go down the drain. They put in hundreds of hours and listened to hundreds of witnesses. That should never happen in a democratic society.

[Remembrance Day National Flag Act, February 25th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-432, an act requiring the national flag of Canada to be flown at half-mast on Remembrance Day.

Mr. Speaker, in the environment of what is happening in the south and the great thrill that we have been talking about as Canadians, we should remember that 100,000 Canadians have spilled their blood across the world. The purpose of the bill is to remember and honour those 100,000 people by having the national flag of Canada flown at half-mast on all government buildings every November 11.

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

[Ken Mackenzie, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great man and a true friend. Ken MacKenzie was not great in the way our world measures greatness but he was a great man in the hearts of thousands of people.

From his beloved summer home of Turtle Lake, Saskatchewan to the U.S. border, Ken MacKenzie was a friend to thousands along the entire west side of Saskatchewan. It was obvious that Ken was born with a unique talent to accomplish his mission in life. That mission was to bring happiness to everyone, to make people feel good about themselves and to make people believe in themselves. Ken was still carrying on his life mission even when he was confined to hospital care.

Elrose, Saskatchewan and indeed the western side of Saskatchewan will always remember the man who personified the song “When you're smiling, the whole world smiles with you”. Ken taught us to “Look for the silver lining whene'er a cloud appears in the blue. Remember somewhere the sun is shining”.

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin the debate by focusing on one item: We need co-operation and not confrontation with the provinces, farmers and ranchers. However in light of past examples demonstrated by the House I have great fears. On Thursday afternoon last week I addressed a group of people who had selected a topic for me called “Regulating agriculture: can farmers cope?” In each instance farmers were not properly dealt with but had to cope with regulations imposed from the top down.

I will tell the House an even bigger fish story than the one the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake told. Early one morning last summer the fax machine buzzed. The fax was from the Rural Municipality of Scott, about 20 miles northwest of Weyburn on the flat Soo Lines. The fax said the municipality was having trouble with the DFO. I thought wait a minute, not the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I phoned and they told me to get up there. They had built a ditch years ago to help drain the land which drops about one to two feet every mile and finally makes up the headwaters to the Souris River. If any water runs down there this year it could probably be bailed out with a scoop.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans did a study on the possibility of fish moving upstream. The rural municipality of Scott was billed $42,000 for the study. In the bill DFO says we should trust them. We talk about visible and invisible minorities. The prairies would be the invisible minority. They are being billed $42,000. The size of the fish or anything that looks like fish would not be enough to supply bait for the people downstream.

We need co-operation. I am sure the rural municipality would have co-operated but that is not the whole story. It was left with a bunch of regulations governing what it could do along the side of the ditch now and in the future.

We cannot preserve and protect endangered species without looking at the natural environment. The farmers south of Guelph told me on Thursday they could not cope with the provincial regulations. What about on the prairies? What about prairie towns such as the one I where was born? A creek goes through the town. It is called Long Creek. The creek makes its way to the southeast and ends up at the Boundary Dam in Estevan. If all the land 40 feet from the creek were declared habitat for endangered species about 20 to 30 farmers and ranchers would be cut off from the water supply for their cattle.

We must go through these things in a co-operative way. They cannot come from the top down.

I would like to read this:

The government must do more for property owners, farmers and others who feel their livelihoods or prosperity may be affected. It must not simply say “trust us”. It must stipulate that a commitment to protecting endangered species would be cost effective and respect the economic interests of Canadians.

I could quote many others that I am really concerned about. We know that we cannot protect endangered species without protecting their habitats. The two go together. One can think historically about the passenger pigeons. Two things happened. They were good shooting as they were big birds, flew slowly and were easy prey to knock down. When settlement came and people settled the land, they destroyed the trees which provided the pigeons with habitat and food.

If we are going to set aside land for habitat for the endangered species, we must enter into agreements with the people involved.

Voluntary agreements, recovering strategies, action plans and management plans for the preservation of endangered species and their habitats are important. We on this side of the House, and certainly those on the environment committee, respect that. Clearly co-operative agreements between the government and the landowners are the best way, and I might say they are the only way, to do just that.

The bill was written to allow the minister to enter into agreements with governments, environmental organizations and wildlife management boards, but it does not, I repeat it does not, specify the possibility of agreements with landowners and others who have an interest in the land. That is wrong. It is the wrong way to go. If we can enter into co-operative agreements with industry and the big players, we can also enter into co-operative agreements with those who are not such big players.

We presented an amendment that the minister had to give 30 days public notice. We would be in big trouble with a “trust us” approach. I have seen too many things happen on the prairies before my very eyes. There are so many things that I do not think we cannot proceed on the basis of “trust us”.

There is a rapid demographic change. The number of rural people is going down, including in Ontario. We are going to become the endangered species pretty soon. Not too far from where I live, in Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota, a huge chunk of land has been protected for all time. They had to or it would have been completely destroyed.

In southwest Saskatchewan where my colleague from Cypress Hills--Grasslands comes from, Grasslands National Park has been established. Without any consultation, no grazing has been allowed. That has caused a real problem because the prairie land was meant to be grazed. As a result, most of the runoff does not penetrate the sides of the hills, which is necessary. Further, the deer and the antelope always grazed after others that had already grazed the land. They are having a tough time pawing away at the long grass which lays straight down.

I want to underline the following statement. Is it fair to convict people of a serious criminal offence when they may have had no idea that they were even coming close to committing one? We have to have a lot of co-operation. We made changes at committee. They have been slashed and I am disappointed. We cannot support the bill as it is right now.

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when listening to the debate today one would think that the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development was a terrible place, with members chattering back and forth and not getting along with one another when debating these issues. But let me assure the House that it was one of the best committees I ever served on. I volunteered for it. The hon. member for Davenport is the chairman. The committee could not have found a better chairman. My party could not have chosen a more astute person than my colleague who is the Alliance environment critic.

Contrary to what the public may think, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development has done a tremendous job. The committee worked so long and hard with so many amendments, I was surprised and disappointed to learn of what we are dealing with today. It is disappointing.

I wish we had had Bill C-5 when I was a boy. Had there been legislation like this when I was a boy, many of the animals that once roamed the plains would still be there. There would still be such animals as the kit fox.

Canadians have completely changed the demographics of where they live. When most Canadians look out their windows they see a huge urban area. A very small percentage of Canadians see a huge rural area. It is natural when we look at legislation such as Bill C-5 to envisage different sights and different things. This is a big problem for Canadians.

I can recall one incident. I have presented many petitions about the poison for the Richardson's ground squirrel or the gopher. The issue went on and on intentionally. We wanted to change the potency so that it would kill the gophers. One evening I received a phone call in my office. The gentleman said he did not know why we were trying to get rid of all the gophers because they aerate the soil. He said that they were good for the soil. I asked him where he was calling from. He was calling from Vancouver. He did not quite understand.

I relate that story simply because of the difficulties in bringing about this legislation. We are trying to protect endangered species which requires certain laws and that certain criteria be placed on areas where the endangered species exist.

The endangered species exist on the property where about 7% of the population is involved. Therefore the worries of that 7% are sometimes overshadowed by the other 93% of the population.

When the committee reconvenes, it should look at some of the environmental groups. For example, just the other day the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation hired a youth director to get more young people interested in bills such as Bill C-5, to make people more cognizant of the environment. We need to do that, but from a very practical point of view.

There is one thing we must do. With respect to those people who are currently engaged in conservation and protection of the species, we must ensure there is federal money available to assist them.

Most of our problems have come from the compensation area. I will agree that we did not agree on that. We came down very solidly saying they shall be compensated, not may be compensated. That is a bigger area of misunderstanding than one may think. I will give a classic example.

A man not too far from where I live owns title to a section of land. All of the land surrounding his section of land is provincial. The section of land which he owns is worth just about zero without all the government land around it. Let us suppose that most of the land around him was designated as animal habitat. Therein lies the problem. That problem would have to be negotiated in fairer terms than the actual value of the land because his whole livelihood could be destroyed.

I have reason to believe that the government, having listened, would have a more positive attitude toward compensation because Canadians are more cognizant of the value of conserving endangered species and wildlife than they have ever been in our history. There is no question about that. We need to look at this issue carefully and steadily. It is an ongoing issue. We cannot just put it away for a month. We cannot draft legislation and say it will never change. That is nonsense. It changes as requirements change. I expect the government has word of that.

I want to make my last point abundantly clear to both sides of the House. Provincial governments own land. The federal government owns land. Industries own land. Private individuals own land. Natives own land. The hon. member opposite stated that animals do not know when they have come to the end of protected land, which is true.

In order for the act to have the real potency it needs, it must be all inclusive. If a certain species is protected and it has been deemed by scientists that it needs protection, then it must cross over all lands and all people must comply. I do not understand how this would work unless it was all inclusive. I understand that there are provisions for exclusions in the bill.

I look forward to discussing these points further at committee because we are not finished yet. This is a big problem and the Minister of the Environment knows it. As long as the people of Canada know that 7% the population will be making the sacrifices and not the other 93%, then maybe they will take into consideration that we too have a heart and understand firsthand what endangered species mean to us.

[Bill Barclay, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Bill Barclay, dominion president of the Royal Canadian Legion, who passed away on February 11, 2002. This past Friday roughly 1,000 people showed up for the funeral in his hometown of Coleville, Saskatchewan, which only has a population of 300.

Bill Barclay assumed the office of dominion president on May 27, 2000, after the sudden death of then president Chuck Murphy. During his tenure, Mr. Barclay oversaw the legion's 75th anniversary, the continuance of progress in the ongoing fight for veterans' benefits, the growth in Canada's commitments to remembrance and the teaching of history in Canada's school systems.

He did his country and fellow veterans a great service and I am proud to stand today to give him honour and respect which he well deserved. Bill Barclay served this country with distinction.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that I never in my life made a cheap shot of that nature in the House and I did not do it with this issue.

Let me quickly respond. If what we have presently is the answer, why do the police continue to say that they want a quicker response, that they want the registration to be this way or that way? The hon. member would know that in her province the police support the provincial registry. It is not something that only we are saying. It is being said across Canada.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I do not think the government really wants to have the half a billion dollars and growing in the gun registry connected with what we are trying to do here. I can assure the hon. member that the cost of doing what we want to do with this registry would make the expense of the gun registry look like a Sunday school collection. I would do that without any hesitation of the cost of the national registry we are talking about.

The police say that they are pleased to lend their collective voices in support of a national sex offender registry. That is what they are saying across Canada.