Bill Casey

[Softwood Lumber, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for over a year now the Minister for International Trade has assured Atlantic Canada its exemption in the softwood lumber export tax would be protected.

On Friday, just a few days before the WTO decision, the lead negotiator for Canada gave to the United States department of commerce a proposal that removed that exemption. There was no notice to and no consultation with Atlantic Canada.

The Department for International Trade acted as an agent for a handful of big companies to drive their agenda, even though it harmed smaller companies across the country, especially in Atlantic Canada.

Will the minister assure Atlantic Canada and her small mills that this proposal will be withdrawn immediately?

[Softwood Lumber, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, once again this government has sold Atlantic Canada down the river.

For over a year the Minister for International Trade promised to find a made in Canada solution, a long term solution, to the softwood lumber deal, but now the minister has put on the table a proposed two year solution in which Atlantic Canada loses its exemption from export taxes.

Just last February the Minister for International Trade stood in the House and said, “...let us be very clear. We are not going to renegotiate the situation of Atlantic Canada that has been exempted”.

We are now learning that on Friday they made a proposal which gives that exemption away.

For years the Maritime Lumber Bureau in Atlantic Canada negotiated the softwood lumber exemption, and incredibly, the Department of International Trade has now offered to give it away. This sets a dangerous precedent and I ask the minister to move quickly to withdraw the proposal that gives up the Atlantic Canada exemption on softwood lumber.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I cannot speak on behalf of China but I acknowledge its effort, and it was a good effort. However perhaps China could sponsor Taiwan to become part of the WHO, which would have much more impact.

I would encourage and I think the Government of Canada should encourage China to allow Taiwan to be granted observer status in the WHO.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, there is no misunderstanding about what observer status means. There are all kinds of precedents of other entities with observer status. As I mentioned in my previous comments, the Vatican has observer status and yet it is not a country.The Palestinian National Council has observer status.

Everybody knows what observer status means. It gives countries access to information and allows them to have input into health issues that affect the entire world. Now that the world has experienced this incredible SARS situation, it makes it more essential that this health issue, and it is a health issue, should be addressed and Taiwan should be granted observer status.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I do agree with that position. SARS does raise the focus of the situation and the prospect of Taiwan having observer status at the WHO.

In April this issue came before the standing committee and almost the same motion was presented. I believe 10 members were in favour of it and three were against it. Members from all parties voted in favour of urging the Government of Canada to lobby in favour of Taiwan being granted observer status at the WHO. I am sure if that vote were taken now maybe those three Liberals who voted against it would vote in favour of it as well and make it unanimous.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this issue. I have spoken on it a number of times. Many members have been involved in this debate here in the House, on questions or comments, during question period and in committee.

Taiwan has been trying for several years to join the World Health Organization and we in the Progressive Conservative Party support that. We supported it before the SARS outbreak and the SARS outbreak has made it even more evident how essential it is that Taiwan be allowed observer status at the WHO.

We are not alone in our support. The United States, Japan and the EU all support Taiwan's bid for observer status and why would they not. The mandate of the WHO is a health mandate, “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health”. Health, as defined in the WHO constitution, is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

Why would we not support the endorsement of observer status for Taiwan at the WHO considering that it is all based on health, not politics, not economics, not competition, not military and not security. It is health. We have been made very clearly aware of how essential Taiwan's observer status is with the outbreak of SARS.

Taiwan has a population of 21 million. It is the 14th most active or most powerful in world trade and the 12th in foreign investment. It is quite amazing. It has the second highest foreign currency deposits in the world. Yet it is not allowed to have observer status. Not only is it not allowed to have membership, but it is not even allowed to have observer status at the WHO. We certainly support the motion. We support the concept of Taiwan being granted observer status at the WHO.

The same motion effectively came before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. It was passed by a vote of ten to three. As the member for Scarborough East mentioned a minute ago, there were Liberals who supported the motion and three who did not. I believe the three who voted against it were Liberal parliamentary secretaries; I am not sure about that, but I think they were at the time. It reflects the non-partisan approach to this whole question in the House that members from all parties voted in favour of it, including the Liberals, but three parliamentary secretaries voted against it.

It has been suggested that restricting Taiwan from observer status is a direct violation of the universality principle expressed in the WHO constitution. We agree that it totally contradicts the constitution.

The arguments against it are that it is not a country. Currently there are many other entities that are not countries that are observers at the WHO. In fact the PLO was granted observer status in 1974. It is not recognized internationally as a country. Hopefully it will be soon, but it is not right now. Several NGOs, including the Holy See, the Vatican, have been granted observer status at the WHO. It seems unreasonable that Taiwan is not being granted observer status. It is not asking a lot, it seems to me.

The international community does not consider Taiwan to be a country, but this still does not prevent it from gaining observer status. We would support the motion to achieve that goal.

Madam Speaker, I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's West.

In any case the Progressive Conservative Party supports Taiwan's bid for observer status at the WHO. Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization should be limited, but it should at least have observer status.

The issue that really brings it home is the SARS crisis. Here we have a world health situation, a world crisis in health that we have not seen before or anything exactly like it. Here we have Taiwan with 21 million people who are affected by this. In fact it is one of the key areas of new SARS cases and it does not even have observer status at the WHO. We are trying as a world to reduce health risks and improve health, yet those 21 million people are not represented at the WHO and are not even allowed to observe or have comments at WHO.

The WHO has said that Taiwan has not yet reached its peak of SARS cases. This brings home how important this motion is and how important it is that Taiwan be given observer status.

Taiwan is the third largest infected area after China and Hong Kong. More than 12,000 people have been quarantined in Taiwan. As of today Taiwan has had 72 deaths from SARS and there are 570 known cases, and yet it is not being allowed observer status at the WHO which could help it fight its problems in its own entity. It would also help the rest of us in countries that have been affected by SARS to fight off this disease as well.

We support the motion. We supported it before SARS, now with SARS and we will support it after SARS.

[Softwood Lumber, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber industry in Atlantic Canada has managed to maintain an exemption from countervail charges and from export taxes for years but now the department is sending out mixed signals and the industry is getting very nervous in Atlantic Canada.

Will the government assure the Atlantic Canadian industry that it will maintain its exemption from any export tax that it is now negotiating with the United States?

[Firearms Registry, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announced that Canadians now have a new venue to describe their problems in registering their firearms with the gun registry. This is through a new website just launched at www.gunregistry.ca.

Although the registry system has cost over a billion dollars, it still does not work. We want to hear about the problems people are having registering their firearms.

Earlier this month the Solicitor General said, “We want to talk directly to those people who have problems and we want to fix those problems”. We are here to help the Solicitor General. Since the gun registry site was launched we have already had a lot of response. We are hearing from Canadians who registered one gun and received four registrations or who registered five guns and received two registrations or none at all.

We urge Canadians who have experienced problems to log on to www.gunregistry.ca and outline their experiences. We will bring all of these issues raised by frustrated Canadians to the attention of the Solicitor General.

We in the PC Party intend to hold him to his word and ensure that these issues brought to his attention are addressed.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I did not denigrate the action of the standing committee or its functions. Not at all. It serves a great purpose. I am talking about Parliament.

Parliament has been left out of the loop and the parliamentary secretary said that she was really glad we were here debating this. The only reason we are debating it is because the opposition moved the motion.

The government should move the motion and it should be votable but it is not. At least the opposition took the opportunity to have a debate. If it were not for the opposition, there would be no debate in Parliament.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, those are excellent points and I am glad the member raised them.

The parliamentary secretary said that we were not asked to make a decision on this but that is not true. The Prime Minister stood in the House and said that this could be debated on an opposition day and then we could decide whether or not to support it. We are doing what the Prime Minister told us to do. We are debating it. He challenged us to debate this on an opposition day and that is exactly what we are doing today.The government cannot say that we have not been asked to participate in it because we have been asked to participate.

The Bloc has asked for unanimous support to make this motion votable. Why would the government turn that down? Why would it not let Parliament vote on this motion? What is it scared of? Is it scared that some of its members would not support it and it would fail?