James Lunney

[Softwood Lumber, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments by my colleague who also is from Vancouver Island.

I want to pick up on something the minister said earlier. Perhaps the member would have a comment on it. It had to do with 1994. We heard the minister talking about how we went to dispute resolution at that time and we won. The Americans were obliged to pay us back $1 billion. That was great.

This is not 1994. British Columbia has been through a terrible economic turmoil since that time, particularly in the forest industry. We still had a very substantial Asian market in the early 1990s but when the Asian flu hit and knocked the socks out of our western forestry exports to the Asian market, suddenly the American market became much more important.

In my riding mills have gone down. A lot of the mills that were there in 1994 have not made the cut. There has been a devastating effect. It has created a new sense of urgency. There are hundreds of mill workers in my riding.

Would my colleague comment on the effects of the Asian flu and what it has done to the B.C. economy?

[Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are to discuss at this time is Bill C-32, free trade between Canada and Costa Rica, a bill that involves a large number of areas of interest. It would provide improvements in market access for over 90% of Canada's dutiable agrifood exports to Costa Rica and would provide overall for immediate elimination of tariffs on 194 of Costa Rica's 653 dutiable agrifood product categories.

An extensive list of products would be involved. Export interests in Canada involve agricultural interests such as chickpeas, canary seed, barley flour, canola seed, maple syrup, wine and whiskey in the immediate tariff elimination category. There is interest in the frozen french fry market and certain dried beans and dried peas in the seven year phase out category. Third, it would involve flour, canola oil, margarine, honey, breakfast cereals and certain dried beans and so on.

The bill certainly would offer some opportunities for Canada but one of our concerns is that there is a very significant trade imbalance between Canada and Costa Rica. Currently Canada imports about $186 million worth of products from Costa Rica compared to only about $86 million worth that Costa Rica receives from Canada. That is about a $100 million trade imbalance.

We recognize that free trade will be a give and take scenario. It always is. However the concerns from our standpoint have to do with the sugar industry in particular and the effect this would have on sugar in Canada. Canada currently has one of the most accessible sugar markets in the world. On refined sugar, we have about 8% duty. The Canadian Alliance promotes free trade and joint elimination of tariffs with our trading partners, but in this respect the bill would impact unfairly on Canada's sugar industry, particularly if it becomes a benchmark for other free trade of the Americas negotiations.

We have one of the most open sugar markets in the world, with an open tariff on raw sugar at zero and a refined sugar tariff at only about 8%. Canada produces almost enough refined sugar for its domestic needs and does so efficiently, as witnessed by our low tariff on refined sugar. U.S. and Latin American tariffs on sugar range from 50% to 160%.

The Canadian domestic sugar industry employs about 2,000 Canadians. It is directly responsible for full time employment for about 1,500 Canadians in refining operations as well as 500 beet growers and numerous seasonal workers.

There have already been extensive changes in the sugar industry. In the last number of years in Canada, the total sugar beet acreage, for instance, dropped from 56,000 acres in 1996 to about 33,000 acres in 1997 and tonnage dropped from about one million tonnes to about 650,000 tonnes. These raw beets are harvested and stored in fields. They are trucked to the factory where they are stockpiled outdoors. They are evaluated for their content, cleaned, sliced and pulped.

The industry has undergone extensive downsizing and reorganizing. The Canadian cane sugar refining and sugar beet processing industries experienced significant corporation consolidation and plant rationalization in the last 20 years. For instance, in 1981 there were five companies operating seven plants across Canada, including two beet processors. Today the industry has evolved into two corporate entities that operate five plants. Of these, only one processes beets. Cane plants are located in Vancouver, Toronto, Saint John and Montreal, port cities largely, for convenience of receiving the raw materials.

There is only one single beet plant, located in Taber, Alberta. Rationalization included the closure of the Winnipeg sugar beet processing plant in 1996 and it appears that the Saint John cane refinery may be shutting down.

I remember when I was growing up in Manitoba that Manitoba sugar beet growing and sugar processing was one of the industries we were aware of in our own community, but the industry has already seen quite a significant downturn. Our concern with this bill is that we are seeing a dropping of Canadian tariffs much more quickly than our neighbouring countries are. There have to be some lessons for us in what has happened in our agricultural sector where Canadian farms saw subsidies withdrawn much more quickly than American farms did. Other competing countries such as those in the EU have left our farm communities high and dry and in many cases struggling for existence.

Our concern is that if this bill as it stands were to become a template for other countries, particularly the other sugar producing countries in Central America, it could become a problem. We understand that currently Costa Rica does not refine sugar and that raw sugar imports are not a problem, but if it should get into sugar refining or if this should become a template for other countries it could become a real problem in sugar imports.

In regard to winners and losers we are concerned for jobs in the agricultural communities. If these tariffs are eliminated as quickly as it appears they would be, the jobs of 2,000 workers and spinoff jobs for thousands of others in the agricultural community could be affected. Of course there is an asset there and there would be a plus for sugar users, largely our big consumers in the cookie, bakery and jam industries, and those who use large quantities such as the soft drink and beverage producers.

However we are concerned about win-win solutions. If we pull down these subsidies or our own tariffs more quickly than other countries do, then we will sabotage our own producers. We have seen a lot of problems coming in where the winners are on one side of the country and the losers are on the other. Frankly what has come to be known as western alienation is a concern to us in this party because we believe in a unified Canada.

Canada is big country with a lot of interests represented. I suppose it is like a big family with 13 children, the 10 provinces and 3 territories. However so often we see favoritism in regard to just some of the members of this family. I remember when I was growing up in Winnipeg that we saw it occur with the Air Canada overhaul base. It was hauled out of Winnipeg and went to Montreal, along with hundreds of high tech jobs. I remember the impact that had on the city when I was only a teenager.

There were others. I remember the instance of Bristol Aerospace Ltd. when Canada's aerospace industry was getting going. Bristol put in a very competitive bid, but it all went to the east, to Montreal. Later, when the Canadarm bid came up, Bristol Aerospace had a very good opportunity but again was turned down in favour of concentrating the aerospace industry in one centre in the east. A little later, just a few years ago, the CF-18 maintenance contract was slated for Winnipeg but got pulled out and sent to the east.

If one side of the family gets favoured repeatedly I do not know how we can expect to keep harmony in the family or keep it functional. Right now in my riding in the softwood lumber industry we have hundreds of workers out and idle because of the current crisis. When people in my riding see what is going on with Bombardier, such as the Canadian government providing big subsidies to Bombardier to produce regional aircraft and giving low interest loans even to American firms to allow Bombardier to supply them with aircraft, they wonder why it is the federal government cannot come up with funds to help out with the bonding issue to keep our mill workers employed, who are idle at present. We see the same thing occurring with farm prices because of drought. Farmers are in need right now and looking for help. They look to the government for some leadership in this area.

While our party is in favour of free trade, we are concerned about tariffs coming down in a manner that exposes our own industry to harm because they are brought down in an unreasonable, quick manner. We are opposed to the sugar components of this bill which would expose our industry to losses.

[Canada-U.S. Meeting, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, we all agree that the horrendous events of September 11 represent a sad and shocking wake up call to a reality we should have been better prepared for. It was a reality and a threat that has been there for many years in warnings we received and events that we have seen in other parts of the world, events that we have now seen within our own borders.

The first message that our Prime Minister should deliver is our shared grief and condolences to the people who have lost a loved one: a sister, a brother, a mother, a father, a son, a daughter, a neighbour or a colleague. Indeed I spoke to someone tonight who knows of at least seven co-workers who died and five more who are unaccounted for at the World Trade Center.

President Bush's remarks have been referred to tonight. I will make reference to something that the president said in his remarks about the response of the American people to the tragedy. He said that they have seen the state of the union and the endurance of rescuers working past exhaustion. They have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, and the saying of prayers in English, Hebrew and Arabic. They have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who have made the grief of strangers their own, and perhaps that refers to us. As we know, many Canadians have grieved.

We have seen the demonstrations where thousands of Canadians have gathered. Over one hundred thousand gathered on the lawns of our parliament. We even had a service today, as members of parliament gathered to mourn the loss of our close neighbours in the United States.

As we discuss how the Prime Minister should respond, I must reiterate that the Canadian Alliance has been calling upon the government to address issues of border security, the integrity of our immigration and refugee systems and the need for more resources for our military. We have been calling on the government to bring in a strong and stringent response: terrorism legislation modelled after the British terrorism act.

For example, if Canada needs an order to deal with this event, we need to take it seriously. We must adopt similar legislation, legislation that will name and ban terrorist organizations, that will prohibit fundraising for these groups wherever they are, on Canadian soil or overseas. We need legislation similar to the U.S. anti-terrorism legislation, an effective death penalty act, of 1996. We need legislation that will identify and ban terrorist organizations and all of their fundraising and support activities on Canadian soil, not a mere taking away of their tax exempt status. Heaven help us if this is considered a significant response to the threat.

Legislation is needed to change our laws regarding the detention and deportation of suspected terrorists. Terrorism knows no borders. We cannot allow Canada to become a safe haven for those who would rely on the humanitarian compassion of Canadian laws to avoid justice in their own countries or in countries where they commit their crimes.

This week NATO invoked article 5 of the charter and Canada joined with our allies in declaring that this attack on the United States was also an attack on us, the first such declaration in the 50 year history of NATO. It is not just an American struggle; it is a struggle of all free nations of the world. It means that Canada must mobilize with reasonable and augmented resources.

The Prime Minister's message should be that Canada will commit to: toughening up our borders; scrutinizing our immigration policies and procedures; weeding out bogus refugee claims; prosecuting persons who commit crimes while their refugee or immigration status is pending; and extraditing those with proven terrorist links and those who commit crimes in other jurisdictions and then seek refuge within our borders.

We need to commit to tightening up the North American perimeter by improving our entry and exit security. Our walls must be reinforced.

If we do not take measures to increase our security, I fear what will happen to our borders. The U.S. is certainly going to be scrutinizing it closer. I fear for what will happen to our own citizens trying to cross the border and for international trade that we depend on so much.

Canada achieved a level and a standard of living that until recently has been second to none. Our reputation as the most fortunate people on earth has been an attraction for terrorists and others who want to take advantage of our liberty. However, our standard of living, our economy and the secure and peaceful society that we have become accustomed to has sadly been eroded.

We have an obligation to protect our heritage. We sing “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee” as we did today at the memorial service. It is time that the government and members of parliament on all sides take this responsibility more seriously.

The Prime Minister needs to demonstrate, and we as parties need to unite and agree, that we will do what it takes to secure our borders and protect our citizens. The Prime Minister's message to the president should say that he has a mandate from all members to increase defence spending, as well as RCMP and CSIS funding, so that these organizations can fulfill the role that they are required to do on our behalf.

We need to acknowledge that we have taken our security for granted and have relied too much on the vigilance of our neighbour to protect our interests. Our failure to do due vigilance has also exposed our neighbour to hostile forces that have abused our generosity. Our message needs to be that we will commit to renewed vigour and vigilance.

Canada has played a role both in the development of the convention on safety of the United Nations and associated personnel and the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings. We need to follow through on our commitments.

Canada needs to say that we will take our international obligations seriously as well as our obligation to protect the security of our citizens, to our neighbours and to our role of standing with our allies against international terrorism wherever it is found.

Finally, I believe it is unfortunate that the hour is late and some of our colleagues may not get a chance to speak tonight. It is unfortunate that colleagues who have waited a long time to speak will unfortunately be denied that because there is no opportunity to extend the debate tonight.

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hour is waxing on and we have heard a lot of discussion regarding the bill, but in case we have people tuning in at this late hour I will review some of the aspects of the bill that we are discussing.

It is a multifaceted bill, a broad brush touching on a wide range of issues in at least eight and possibly more different areas of law, many of them totally unrelated, as has been mentioned time and again by members on both sides of the House.

The omnibus bill covers measures such as adding offences and other measures that are intended to protect children from sexual exploitation, especially over the Internet. It would increase the maximum penalty for criminal harassment. It would make home invasions an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing. It would add the offence of disarming or attempting to disarm a police officer. It increases maximum penalties for animal cruelty offences. It would revise the application process to the Minister of Justice for miscarriages of justice. It would reform the process for preliminary inquiries and other criminal procedures. It would add administrative provisions to the Firearms Act and things as far fetched and wide ranging as making amendments to the National Defence Act and the National Capital Act.

As has been mentioned time and again in the House, for the government to bring forth such a wide ranging array of issues under one bill is not only unpalatable but many would argue that it violates the very basis of the democratic principle and spirit that the House purports to represent.

I believe there are many issues in the bill on which members would agree almost immediately. I will talk about some of those issues but there are other issues in the bill that are very controversial and that do need to be discussed.

I think many members on both sides of the House will have difficulty voting on the bill because it causes a fundamental conflict of interest in very clear issues that we can support and other issues that we cannot support. By lumping so many different and controversial issues together under one bill, the government has actually taken away the opportunity for members to represent their own integrity on the issues and also constituents we represent. I would like to talk about some of those issues. The new legislation would create an offence for luring a child by means of a computer system.

This is good stuff. I think all parties are in agreement that this type of luring of children is not acceptable. It is an offence to all of us that this technology, which has been a blessing and a help for communication purposes and for transmissions in many other ways in our society, has been used in such a demeaning manner to abuse our children.

However the legislation brings in penalties that are consistent with other levels of crime in determining the age of the victims and so on; 18 years old for prostitution and child pornography, sexual assault and incest or, where the accused is in a position of trust, sexual touching; 16 years old for abducting an unmarried child from his or her parents; 14 years old for sexual interference or invitation to sexual touching, bestiality in the person's presence, exposure or harbouring.

The bill would also create an offence for transmitting, making available or exporting child pornography through a computer system with a maximum penalty of 10 years. The bill would prohibit a person from intentionally accessing child pornography on the Internet with a maximum penalty of five years.

The material is not clear how the courts would determine whether someone had intentionally viewed child pornography or with what objectives the person had viewed it. There are some challenges in relation to this. Furthermore, it is not clear which websites the law would apply to.

For example, if a Canadian viewed a website based outside Canada, what jurisdiction, if any, would the courts have over the person?

This part of the bill has many very good and commendable aspects to it but we are sure it will create some problems in administration.

The maximum sentence for criminal harassment would be increased from 5 years to 10 years. We think this is a very commendable issue. I am sure there would be a broad consensus among all parties for bringing in tougher penalties for criminal harassment. In order to maintain a secure society, it is necessary that we tighten up in this area.

I think we all know persons who have been injured by criminal harassment and have not had the adequate protection of the law to this point. I am aware of people in my own riding who have been stalked, which has caused them tremendous fear. Some have been followed night after night or have been threatened but no action has been taken. The police have trouble pressing charges until an act is actually committed.

We therefore applaud changes that will toughen up the penalties for stalking and for criminal harassment.

The bill also deals with animal cruelty offences. Many people in my riding and elsewhere applaud the changes in terms of animal cruelty. We have all known of instances where animals are abused and most of us own pets. In my case, we have a large number of animals of various varieties on our hobby farm in British Columbia. We have horses, dogs and cats. We have had turkeys and other animals.

We have had cases of abuse in our community where animals have not been adequately cared for and where people have not adequately provided for food for their animals, where animals have been left chained for long periods of time and where animals have given birth but no one was in attendance. We do not need to go on with horror stories. We have seen instances where animals have been left in the fields with a calf partly birthed and crows having picked the eyes out of the calf and the young heifer is left there on the verge of death. These kinds of things cause a terrible angst in the community as people become aware of these issues. We need to see measures brought in to toughen up cruelty to animals, and most of us would support that.

There are problems with the legislation because of the way it is defined. There seems to be some confusion between animal welfare and animal rights. While these measures are applauded by people who have seen horrors and animal abuse, there are those who use animals in other traditional ways. From the beginning of recorded history, mankind has hunted animals and fished for food. Those who have been involved in the animal agriculture and animal husbandry are raising some very serious concerns as to how their treatment of animals will be perceived under this legislation.

In my riding people have called me to say that they want to see Bill C-15 passed because they have seen horrors in their communities of people who have been negligent in looking after their animals. They want to know why it has been held up. We have had to time and again explain to people that the way the legislation is written and the definitions leave big questions.

We do not take a lot of comfort from the notion that the justice minister has declared that when the bill is passed things will continue and that what was legal before will remain legal afterwards. With these definitions being as they are, we wonder whether her word will stand or, if she is replaced as justice minister and another justice minister takes her place, whether this will be interpreted in the same way, or will the minister be there to explain to the courts what was really meant when the language is as confusing or as loose as it is.

There are some very serious issues that need to be clarified on behalf of our agriculture community and those who are traditional hunters.

Examples were mentioned earlier of routine animal husbandry procedures, such as punching a tag in a cow's ear. This could be perceived under this legislation as causing injury. I believe the definition states that anything which causes pain to all animals having the capacity to feel pain, includes non-human vertebrates. We might wonder what a salmon feels when it is hooked on its way in to being caught and how we might interpret that.

I see that my time is winding up. As opposition members there are many aspects of the bill that we would like and which I would personally like to support. However, because of the confusing, contradictory and controversial areas that we cannot support, there is a conflict and we are not able to support the bill as it is written.

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, September 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I think there is a surprising measure of agreement here among those of us on this side of the House and I know there is agreement among many on the other side of the House. I had a member from the other side agree with many of the issues that were raised just now.

In my riding people are very concerned about certain aspects of the bill. When we talk about Internet pornography and luring children with the Internet, there is a big measure of concern. Canadians across the country are very concerned about this aspect. They are wondering why the bill has been held up and why it has not gone forward. The issues we have had to bring up again and again in the House are being well illustrated.

We have had terrible examples of home invasions in our own area and I am sure across the country where there is brutality, especially with elderly people who are victimized in their own homes. I think aspects of the bill would find unanimous consent and would pass very quickly in the House, as is well evidenced by speeches on the bill today and earlier.

Disarming of a police officer or attempting to disarm and allegations of miscarriage of justice are all areas worthy of support.

However, as has been mentioned by the hon. member, and I would like to reiterate, concerns have been raised in my riding about animal abuse. We live in a rural community and we have seen some terrible examples of animal abuse by people who are negligent and have not fed their animals or have not looked after pregnant animals. I have seen animals just down the road from where we live that have been neglected. The whole community has been concerned about it. We need to see action to protect the animals. People in my riding have wondered why the legislation has been delayed.

However, when we talk about equating responsibility for animal welfare with animal rights, people in the agriculture industry and in the hunting, farming and fishing communities have a lot of legitimate concerns. The legitimate use of animals is put into question because of questionable wording in the bill and because of the linking of the bill to the Firearms Act and so on.

We agree with a large part of the arguments presented by the hon. member from the Bloc and others in the House that this putting together of so many unrelated issues is just not acceptable for members who cannot vote with good conscience on this issue and support the bill, although there are other aspects that we would wholeheartedly support.

My question for the hon. member is with regard to calls that I have been receiving in my own riding from people who have seen animal abuse and want to know why we have not taken action, and from people who have been concerned about Internet pornography and wonder why we have not taken action. I wonder if in his riding his office has received as many calls as mine and I am sure other members in the House?

[Terrorism, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Nanaimo--Alberni we have been dealing with a crisis caused by the lapsed softwood lumber agreement. Hundreds of idle mill workers are looking for a speedy resolution.

However the events of the past week have caused all Canadians to take a sober look at the realities of national security in the face of international terrorism.

Canadians want assurance that known terrorist organizations will not ride into Canada on a red carpet. They want a complete ban on terrorist fundraising activities within our borders. They want to know that persons with known terrorist links will be prosecuted or extradited. They want to know that our national security services, the RCMP, CSIS and the armed forces, have sufficient funding to provide the protection Canadians require to live in peace.

We call on the government to commit immediately to comprehensive anti-terrorist legislation for the protection and security of Canadians and our neighbours.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments tonight. I have been following the debate with some interest. I am sure every member who spoke in the House today and all who have remained late into the evening wish there were some other reason we were here tonight.

I join with my colleagues and all Canadians of good will in expressing my outrage at the horrific destruction that took place in New York and at the Pentagon this past week. It is something none of us will ever forget. As others have already said, Tuesday, September 11, 2001 is a day that many of us who are old enough to understand consequences will always remember. I would liken it to another date, as perhaps others have as well. On November 22, 1963 another event shook the world. Many of us remember where we were and what transpired at that time in our lives. It was a day when the values of the world changed.

Last week the atrocities that we saw, the death of people in New York, and the heroic intervention of the firefighters and policemen who tragically died were all things we were struck and impressed by.

The member painted two scenarios for us. He suggested that one scenario is the U.S. destroying terrorist cells through high tech means. The second is that somehow we would find the answers to all of our global problems and address the root causes of global hatred and racial tensions. Does the member really believe that solving the world's problems this way is an achievable goal in such a short time?

[Volunteerism, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to pay tribute to some fine Canadians today. The story involves the struggle of a young man from Victoria named Andy Horn. Andy suffered much of his life battling cystic fibrosis. He needed a new pair of lungs and it became necessary for him to relocate to Toronto to improve his chances of finding a donor.

The Victoria community really took Andy's case to heart. To help with expenses, community and professional organizations including several Lions Clubs and hundreds of caring Canadians donated thousands of dollars.

When Andy made the difficult move to Toronto with his mother and fiancée, his uncle called on his Canadian navy family for assistance. Bob Dalgleish was quick to answer the call, going above and beyond the call of duty in hosting Andy and his family.

I am saddened to report that although Andy survived the surgery, he succumbed to related infections on June 2. Nonetheless the surgery and the hope it offered were made possible by the generosity of many. In this Year of the Volunteer we extend special thanks to Bob Dalgleish and the many citizens of Victoria for showing that they care.

[Health, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada actively denied knowledge of the facts until confronted with the evidence.

There seems to be a culture of cover-up in the government, in the PMO, in national defence and now in the health ministry. Last month the cover-up was mercury in tuna and swordfish. Now, dangerous substances in the residues of pesticides may well be consumed in food.

What other toxic substances are Canadians consuming that the health minister does not think we need to know about?

[Health, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a disturbing story this weekend has Canadians alarmed. A whole host of noxious substances, including known carcinogens, are found and routinely used in pesticides.

These formulants have been considered non-active ingredients and therefore are not listed on the packaging. Such residues may remain and be consumed in food products. The list includes formaldehyde, also used in embalming, and methyl chloride, also used as paint stripper.

Why are these toxic compounds not listed on the packaging? If they are truly non-active, why are they permitted at all?