Bradley Trost

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 15th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, today we discuss a matter that not only involves Canada's economic and trade policy with Colombia, but is also a general statement of our general orientation of our general foreign policy.

This government has looked out to the world. We are not a government whose foreign policy is inward looking. We are a government that wants to engage and to reach out, to follow-up on the proud Canadian history of reaching out to the entire world. This is entirely appropriate since Canada is made up of individuals and families. Our history comes from all over the world. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is very much a part of that history. It is part of our government's willingness to engage and to reach out.

Under this government, Canada has become, and will continue into the future to be, a large player on the international stage. We do not do that by just reaching out to the high profile missions around the world such as Afghanistan and some of the UN peacekeeping missions. We do that by engaging the entire world, including places such as Latin America, Colombia, Peru, Panama, places where we are reaching out to engage in free trade, to engage with these countries to build Canada's economy, to build their economy, to build closer ties on an economic and cultural basis.

It is entirely appropriate that this government and all Canadian governments continue to build on free trade agreements and to engage in free trade throughout the world.

Canada's history is fundamentally that of a trading nation. We think of the schooners, like the Bluenose from Nova Scotia, that traded with the Caribbean, along the coasts of the Americas and my region of western Canada, the grain basket of the continent. We reach out and we trade with the whole world.

Canadian wheat is well known around the world as are our lumber and our mineral exports. The whole reason that Canada was settled had to do with trade, the fur trade, the Hudson's Bay Company, the courier du bois, the northwesterners. We are a country that was fundamentally built on trade.

To continue our success, to continue our history of prosperity, we need to continue that history of trade. We need to continue that pattern. We need to continue it wherever we go in the world.

When we look at the fundamentals of the trade deal with Colombia, we see opportunities for Canada. Again, concentrating on my region, we can look at some of the agriculture products for which Colombia is looking to Canada. Saskatchewan pulse growers have been very successful marketing to Colombia and they are looking forward to greater success.

One of the things that Colombians are most looking for and reaching out to Canada for is our agriculture technology for its pork industry, which it is looking to expand. Colombia is reaching out for Canada's agriculture technology for its beef and cattle producers. It is looking to have secure Canadian breeding and technology to expand its industries.

We look at the opportunities for Canadian natural resource producers, and not only the mining companies that go there, extract the minerals and bring the profits to Canada after putting in resources, investment and creating jobs down there.

We are also looking to take our natural gas and oil technology to Colombia because Canada has some of the greatest technology in the whole world.

This agreement is not only fundamentally good for Canada, but it is fundamentally good for Colombia. Free trade in and of itself is good everywhere, all the time. It has been an economic principle established throughout history.

As Europe and the broader world began to pull back from mercantilism and progressed onward to capitalism and free trade, we saw the unprecedented growth of prosperity. The industrial revolution was allowed to flourish.

Colombia is looking forward to expanding its exports to Canada. While currently Colombia concentrates on such products as coal and fresh cut flowers, and we all know about Colombian coffee, there are many other areas where the Colombian government and the Colombian people and businesses are looking forward to expanding.

Colombians are particularly looking forward to Canadian investment. They are looking to expand their biofuel industry and other industries that require the ingenuity and technology from other countries. Colombia is looking to do this because it desires a better economy, a better society for its people.

Some members of the House have been criticizing the agreement because of what it will do to the Colombian people, but they should look at some of the elements of the agreement. Colombia has to demonstrate to Canada and improve in certain areas, and there are agreements within the agreement on free association, collective bargaining, labour and labour rights, important things to help raise the standards for the Colombian people.

It should be stated these are not things that are being imposed from the outside. These are things that Colombia itself wants to do. Colombia knows it has had a challenging history and knows it needs to demonstrate to the rest of the world that it is important for Colombians to change perceptions of their country.

Let me deal with some of the questions and comments that have come from the opposition members who are opposed to this, and try to understand their logic and demonstrate why it is not appropriate in this debate. Essentially they are saying that we should not go forward with this agreement because President Uribe and his regime have been opposed to supporting the increase of human rights.

When we look at the statistics and the trend regarding murders, kidnappings and things that have been going on in Colombia, we see the trend is in a positive direction. The government has been doing its best to curb the violence, to solve the civil war. We should also note that it is in the government's and the president's interest to make this agreement work, to have human rights be more successful, because this is an agreement that is not only important for Colombia's relationship with Canada, but it is important for Colombia's relationship with the entire world. This agreement will demonstrate, particularly to the United States, that Colombia has made progress in areas in which it has been criticized. This is important to Colombians for what they can achieve not just with us but with the broader world. Therefore, they are motivated to continue the successes of the last few years.

It should also be remembered that this agreement is not merely with a president who, even if he is re-elected next year as the polls show is very possible, will move on in another five years. This is an agreement that has the support of Colombia's lower house and its senate. It is supported by members of different political parties and, as has been noted here, it is also supported by the private sector trade unions.

Considering the debate in this House has been about protection of labour rights, the protection of union leaders, it is important to note that private sector unions in Colombia have, by and large, been supportive of it.

We should also note that the logic of not pursuing a trade deal because of certain human rights criticisms does not hold, based on history or behaviour, to other nations. The question is not so much: Is everything perfect in a country? We know everything is not perfect in Canada. We know everything is not perfect with many of our trade partners. The question fundamentally should be the direction and desire of the people and the government of the country. The direction and desire of the people of Colombia is to improve their human rights situation, to improve their labour standards to make a better, more peaceful, more prosperous country.

If we applied the same rigorous standard of perfection to Canada, in Canada's history, no one would have had a trade deal with Canada. We have been a country that has been at the forefront of human rights, reaching out to the rest of the world, looking forward to improve and make our own country a better place. But in Canadian history, we have not been perfect; we know that and we understand that. If we desire and demand perfection from other countries, we are effectively saying we are hypocritical in not demanding other countries asking for it from us.

I ask hon. members of the House to support the agreement because it is good for Canada. It will increase our trade. It will increase our prosperity. We ask hon. members to support it because it is good for the people of Colombia. It will increase their trade and their prosperity. If we allow the perfect to be the opponent of the good, we will never progress.

This is an agreement which stands on its own merits. It stands in historical Canadian tradition of promoting human rights, promoting democracy and promoting trade. I am very proud to support it. I am very proud that my government has reached out to enter into this agreement with Colombia. I will be proud to vote for this agreement when it comes to a final vote.

[Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, September 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not want an election. They want politicians to put their differences aside and focus on economic recovery. Two recent polls make that point very clear.

A Canadian Press Harris/Decima survey shows 73% of Canadians are against having an election. An EKOS poll shows more than 70% of Canadians are against a fall election, yet the Leader of the Opposition is intent on forcing one.

Our economic action plan is working and forcing an election would interrupt our work on the economy. We cannot risk our progress and our recovery with an unnecessary election now. The international consensus is that no country should get sidetracked on its stimulus plans.

The government wants to fight the recession. The Leader of the Opposition wants to fight the recovery. This just proves that he is not in it for Canadians. He is in it for himself.

[Employment Insurance Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-280.

In the current economic situation, our government is taking unprecedented action to help Canadians adjust to the changing economy and acquire the skills required for the jobs of tomorrow, as seen by our government's economic action plan.

One of the things we are doing to help and protect Canadians during the economic downturn is investing $8.3 billion to the Canadian skills and transition strategy. We are providing unprecedented support for workers to train and acquire new skills. Our plan will invest an additional $1 billion in funding over the next two years for training delivered under the EI program through existing labour market development agreements. This funding will help the provinces and the territories train an additional 100,000 EI eligible claimants.

To help Canadian workers who are not EI eligible, we are also providing $500 million to establish the strategic training and transition fund to support their training needs. To help workers while they are looking for work and who have been unemployed for longer periods, our plan provides nationally an extra five weeks of EI benefits. That was offered as part of a pilot project that had previously only been provided in regions with high unemployment. We have also increased the maximum duration of benefits available under the EI program by five weeks, raising it from 45 to 50 weeks.

This government is pursuing a broad-based labour market approach aimed at helping Canadians through this economic downturn. We are doing this by helping them upgrade their skills to get new jobs, while injecting significant economic stimulus into the economy.

With respect to the bill that we have before us today, there are, however, many problems. First, this legislation fails to consider how changes being proposed would impact the EI program as a whole. It fails to consider what the impact would be upon labour markets, and it fails to consider how much it would cost, a particularly important consideration during tough economic times.

Any responsible proposal that seeks to make permanent changes to the EI program needs to consider how the proposed changes would be paid for, who would pay for them and how these changes would help Canadians get back to work so they can provide for their families.

As mentioned earlier in remarks, our government is doing many things to help those in need, but what it will not do is implement the Liberal-NDP 360 hour, 45 work days a year idea. This is what this bill seeks to implement.

We are not the only ones who believe this bill is an ill-conceived idea. On April 3 of this year the Scarborough Mirror reported that the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood said he was “hesitant” on the 360 hour threshold, saying that nine weeks of work seemed “low” Commenting on the impact that this legislation would have on the labour market, here is what Jack Mintz said in the National Post:

--shortening drastically the qualification period would encourage greater turnover of workers, result in a permanent rise in the unemployment rate and impose a high economic cost.

Mr. Mintz also addressed the opposition's position on EI, saying:

But, one should be careful not to come to quick conclusions about access to EI.

He then referred to a study by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development that said:

...shows that eligibility is not a problem for many hardworking Canadians who have recently lost a long-term job.

The fact of the matter is hard-working people who have just lost a long-term job and who have paid EI for years are some of the people who are hurting most right now. This proposed legislation does absolutely nothing to help them.

Commenting on the Liberal-NDP 45 day work year proposal, this is what a Vancouver Sun columnist said:

The Liberal option not only seems illogical but it would raise the federal deficit--and probably taxes--while doing nothing to address the fact that many of the jobs that have been lost are not coming back. The Conservative government is right to reject it....

The federal government is on the right track with investment in skills training and transition programs...

The fact of the matter is that this proposal would result in a massive job-killing payroll tax that would hurt workers and businesses at a time when they can least afford it. It would do nothing to help workers get new skills and new jobs.

The hon. members of this place should understand that the people who will be most directly impacted by this payroll tax hike will be the working poor, people earning between $15,000 and $40,000 a year, people who work for minimum wage. Many members of this House have not worked for minimum wage month after month. I have. It is those people most of all, along with small businesses, who need to be protected from this cash-grab payroll tax hike the opposition is proposing.

It should also be noted that this bill will make the proposed changes permanent. There are no temporary measures here. Let us not be fooled in this regard. On one hand, they say that temporary changes are favoured, and on the other hand they say they support this bill that would make a 45-day work year permanent. The Liberals cannot keep their stories straight. Let us take a trip through some of their flip-flops.

The NDP sponsor of this bill, herself, said in the StarPhoenix on June 1, “A payroll tax increase may be necessary”. The Liberals, however, realized this back in October, and they said so. They said the NDP plan would result in an employment insurance premium hike. I guess this is one of the ways the Liberals will have to raise taxes. Now the Liberals will deny that they will need to raise EI taxes on lower income workers. Well, which is it?

I know the Liberal member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and the official opposition EI critic had much to say on this issue. He continues to ask why we are sticking with the regional rates and are not implementing this Liberal-NDP job-killing 45-day work year idea.

Well, I can tell members by using the words of the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour from April 1, 2008 in committee,

It's my view that if you get rid of the regional rates and there are changes forced on our EI system because of the economic circumstances, those in the regions will be hurt disproportionately.

He also said that the “cost is pretty significant” to do this 360-hour, 45-day work year idea. He said that we should, “keep the regional rates. This is to protect those people in high unemployment areas”. He said that barely a year ago.

On May 13, 2005, the former Liberal government also said in its response to the human resources committee:

--significantly reducing entrance requirements...is not likely to equate to substantially increased EI coverage, particularly for the long-term unemployed.

Now they do not seem to agree with themselves.

I am loath to quote Liberal members opposite who now seem bent on implementing irresponsible and ill-conceived policies, but I must say that on past occasions they did occasionally talk some common sense. But where has that sense gone?

If we are trying to help others, I think the Liberals, especially the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, should try to help themselves. They should listen to what they themselves had to say in the past. They might learn a few things.

While the opposition continues to propose irresponsible and ill-conceived ideas that will only increase taxes by billions of dollars, Canadians can rest assured that our government has taken unprecedented and effective action to support workers to get through these difficult economic times.

This government will not raise payroll taxes on working Canadians, on low income Canadians. We will not target small business and the workers of this country.

The proposals in Bill C-280 would result in a massive increase in a job-killing payroll tax that would hurt workers and businesses at a time when they can least afford it. These proposals would also do nothing to help hard-working Canadians who have paid into EI for years and years, and have just lost their job.

It is for these reasons and the reasons I mentioned earlier that I cannot, and I will not, support Bill C-280.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 27th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend's remarks.

First, does she realize that the compensation as set out in the bill is for victims and not to repair everything that may possibly happen in a nuclear accident?

Second, does she not realize that it is not only commercial nuclear reactors with which we have to be concerned? There are smaller accidents as well.

Saskatoon, for example, has a nuclear reactor, which is experimental and is used for research. We have to be concerned about those, and there are many others across the country.

Third, does the hon. member realizes that if we do not pass the bill, the limits will remain lower than they are? I can understand the hon. member wanting the limits to be higher, but if the legislation is defeated, the limits would stay low instead of rise to give more compensation.

Could the hon. member comment on those three points?

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 27th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask about the relevance of my hon. colleague's remarks. This important legislation. He is dealing with all aspects of the nuclear industry and this legislation is about nuclear liability.

[D-Day, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in a little less than two weeks, Canadians will commemorate the 65th anniversary of D-Day, the day when allied troops began the final push to free Europe from Hitler's tyranny. Sixty-five years ago, 15,000 young Canadians swept ashore at Juno Beach to give their all for their country.

When Canadian forces hit the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944, they did not know if victory was assured. They did not know what the next day would bring. They only knew that they must go forward. They only knew that they must fight on. They only knew of their need for courage.

Canadians have long been willing to fight for their freedom and that day they did us proud. Believing in a cause greater than themselves, many sacrificed their all for a country they loved.

Over the next 11 days, I ask all Canadians to take some time to remember the battle, to remember the cause and to remember those who fought.

[Renewable Energy, May 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this motion, presented to the House by the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

We need to be strategic and prudent in our decisions about how to invest most effectively in the development of renewable energy both at home and abroad. The agency that the hon. member proposes we join, the International Renewable Energy Agency, or IRENA, has programs with the potential to duplicate others that Canada is already a part of.

Canada is already a major player in the international effort to develop renewable energy sources. It is a member of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, or REEEP, which is funded by Canada and other governments such as Australia, Austria, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union.

Canada already belongs to and financially supports the Global Bioenergy Partnership, which currently has 25 international members and an additional 21 participating observer nations and organizations. Canada belongs to and supports the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate along with Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and the United States.

It also belongs to the International Energy Agency, with 28 member countries. The IEA pursues a number of renewable and clean energy initiatives in its overall work program. Moreover, Canada participates in eight IEA implementing agreements. Specifically, they are bioenergy, ocean energy, photovoltaics, renewable technologies, solar, wind and hydropower. These provide concrete and practical examples of leveraging tight resources and advancing renewable technologies.

In addition, organizations to which Canada has been a long-standing member, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, Energy Working Group and the United Nations Environment Programme, have also increased their activities on renewable energy.

There are a number of reasons why Canada did not join the International Renewable Energy Agency being promoted by the hon. member. The hon. member knows well that much has evolved in this field since IRENA was first proposed in 2004. There have been many initiatives and Canada is participating in those where we see value added for Canada. There is now a real risk of duplication and the overlapping of programs with IRENA being added to the long list of organizations that Canada is already active in.

Moreover, Canada supports an integrated approach to energy issues. It does not advocate creating or spinning off organizations focused on specific elements of a much larger picture as IRENA does. Canada's preferred approach is to continue our engagement with renewable energy initiatives within organizations to which we already belong. We believe in doing our part to make the integrated approach of these organizations as effective as possible, not joining new organizations with new assessed annual contributions, regional offices and secretariats. More is not always better.

We are not alone in this view. I would like to point out that key G8 partners, specifically countries such as the United States, Japan and Russia, have not joined IRENA. Significant emerging economies such as Brazil and China have not joined IRENA either. The motion before us also proposes greater investment here at home in Canada's renewable energy sector. This government has invested in renewable energy strategically in ways that leverage and optimize the effectiveness of public investments, as we have in our other priorities of importance to Canadians.

Energy is the backbone of Canada's economy. Its production has long contributed to the quality of life of Canadians and it will do so in the future. Before the current economic downturn, the energy production of our country alone approached $100 billion annually.

Canada, with its large land mass and diversified geography, has substantial renewable resources that can be used to produce energy. These resources include: moving water, biomass, wind, solar, geothermal and ocean energy. Canada is a world leader in the production and use of energy from renewable resources.

The Government of Canada's eco-energy initiatives have been very successful, especially in the area of renewable energy. The eco-energy for renewable power program is investing nearly $1.5 billion to develop clean renewable energy sources. To date, this program has committed about $934 million, representing over 2,884 megawatts of clean renewable electricity.

There is still $498 million to be allocated through eco-energy for renewable power, with numerous applications still being considered. It is our expectation that this initiative will produce 14.3 terawatt hours of new electricity from renewable sources.

To further support Canada's leadership in clean energy, budget 2009 provides $1 billion over five years to support clean technologies. This includes $150 million over five years for research, $850 million over five years for the development and demonstration of promising technologies, including large-scale carbon capture and storage projects. This support is expected to generate a total investment in clean technologies of at least $2.5 billion over the next five years.

In closing, it is clear that there is no compelling reason why Canada should join yet another international body committed to the development of renewable energies. The Government of Canada is maximizing successful investments already made among other priorities of importance to Canadians. This government is getting the job done.

[Pork Industry, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, jobs in my riding depend on the pork industry which is why the Government of Canada is standing up for pork producers on the international stage by encouraging Canadian families to support struggling hog producers by picking up some pork next time they go to the grocery store.

We know that Canadian pork is safe. We appreciate the countries who have acknowledged this fact and kept the borders open and trade flowing. We will do everything we can to fight for our producers and industry.

That is why the Minister of Agriculture, along with the Canadian Pork Council are hosting a barbecue tomorrow. We would like to invite all members, staff and media to a barbecue in the East Block courtyard tomorrow at noon to enjoy some top quality Canadian pork.

We have invited ambassadors from around the world as well so that they will get the message that our Canadian pork is safe. See everyone there tomorrow.

[Firearms Registry, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP MPs who all campaigned passionately against the long gun registry failed their constituents last week.

For example, NDP members representing the Western Arctic and Timmins—James Bay say that they want to end the gun registry when they are back home but here in Ottawa they cannot help but feel the pressure of their own NDP leader and colleagues and decided to sit on their hands and continue punishing rural Canadians, duck hunters and farmers.

Canadians should know that these MPs tell their constituencies what they want to hear when in their constituencies and then come to Ottawa and do the exact opposite.

NDP members for the Western Arctic and Timmins—James Bay may have avoided the wrath of their party leader but now their constituents know that on issues that matter their MPs cannot be counted on to stand up and vote.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member to know, and maybe it was a mistake in the translation, that we do not register our tractors out in Saskatchewan, and perhaps in the rest of the country.

I also want to make a point about his insinuation that high gun ownership rates automatically lead to high crime. The province which has the lowest crime rate in Canada is Newfoundland. The province which has the highest gun ownership rate in Canada is Newfoundland. I was wondering if the hon. member would comment and explain why Newfoundland, with the highest gun ownership rate in the country, has the lowest murder rate, the lowest violent crime rate, and the lowest crime rate period?