John Cannis

[Department of International Trade Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my presentation, I would like to respond to the previous speaker when he said that it is a fait accompli, that it has been done in the back rooms. That is not the case. As we saw, he was on his feet a minute ago expressing his views. I am on my feet expressing my opinion. Yesterday we were debating Bill C-31. The Minister of International Trade and the parliamentary secretary a couple of days ago were doing the same thing. I refuse to accept the comment that this is being done behind the scenes.

Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 will be voted on in this House. We all know the numbers. We do not have a majority government but we certainly know that if we present good legislation, the opposition members would not dare not vote in favour of it, because in essence, they would be telling Canadians that they do not want to do what is good for the country. Nothing is being done in the back rooms. Everything is above board and transparent. That is why I take this opportunity to talk about Bill C-31 at second reading.

Bill C-31 establishes the Department of International Trade. I have said before and I will say again that I support this initiative, which was introduced back in December by the Minister of International Trade and the Prime Minister, to create this new department. It enhances our ability to improve our trade and economic position nationally and internationally, but mostly it addresses some of the concerns that were expressed by the previous speaker and other members.

The government's decision to establish a separate Department of International Trade and to add to it the investment functions from Industry Canada is a recognition of the importance that these two functions work in close collaboration with each other in shaping a strong 21st century economy for Canada.

One of the key priorities of the new department and this government is to continue to further secure and enhance our access to the United States. Most of my comments will be primarily as our trade activities relate to the U.S. and Mexico. Of course, as we have heard repeatedly from other speakers, the United States is our major trading partner and I want to reflect that in my comments. At the same time I want to add some comments on how the Minister of International Trade is very proactive in trying to expand our horizons and secure future opportunities for Canada.

Canada and the United States share a unique and vital relationship which is driven not only by our social and cultural similarities with respect to our history, but also our economies primarily are intertwined. This serves as a model to the entire world. The importance of this relationship can never be overstated. We have heard that stated repeatedly. Earlier today in the House of Commons there were questions about our beef industry, our softwood lumber industry, energy, and the list goes on.

Canada and the United States share the largest bilateral flow of goods, services, people and capital between two countries in the entire world. Approximately $1.8 or $1.9 billion worth of goods and services move across the border each day. Canada and the United States are each other's largest customers and biggest suppliers. For example, in 2003 Canada exported $330 billion in goods to the United States and imported $240 billion in return. When members do the adding and subtracting, they will see where we stand.

The largest and most reliable source of energy was exported from Canada to the U.S. in 2003. The value of this exported energy was $42 billion U.S. The relationship is very important to Canada because over 80% of Canadian goods and services exports are destined for the United States. These exports represent approximately 30% of the value of our GDP.

Canada is the number one foreign market for 37 of the 50 states in the United States of America. Although the U.S. buys more goods from Canada than from any other country in the world, its exports to Canada represent only 1.8% of its GDP. When we compare the numbers, the percentage of GDP, 30% to 1.8%, we can see why we try to do our best to maintain an excellent relationship.

Earlier today we heard in the House that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is meeting with his counterparts in the United States. This government and the Prime Minister have been continuously working hard with the President of the United States to make sure that we have access to that market with respect to our beef industry. While trade is highly integrated and mutually dependent, the fact that we depend more on the U.S. market than the U.S. does on us is very clear.

NAFTA is the cornerstone of our trading relationship with the United States and Mexico and has served us extremely well. Under NAFTA and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Canada has expanded two-way merchandise trade with the United States by over 8% annually.

NAFTA was a visionary trade agreement when it was signed and is still a model for the world. It has succeeded in stimulating growth, raising standards of living and delivering competitive prices for customers. Most of all it has created jobs and growth for Canadians right across our country. Our enterprises have been embraced. The new opportunities created by the NAFTA market have become stronger, more competitive and more export driven.

This of course has helped Canadians reach a very high level in the G-8. Today among the G-8 proudly I say we are looked at as the number one country in terms of no deficit, tremendous growth and job creation. That is not to say, of course, that we have been over the past many years recognized continuously as the best country in the world in which to live. That does not happen and people do not say that without a reason.

Since January 1, 1998 virtually all Canada-U.S. trade has been tariff free, fostering increased trade and investment among the various partners. Between 1993 and 2003, two-way trade in goods increased an average of 7.6% per year. Canada receives about 11% of the total stock of U.S. direct investment abroad, which amounted to $192 billion U.S. in 2003.

In turn, Canadian companies have also invested in the United States. In 2003 they invested approximately $127 billion U.S., accounting for 41% of Canadian direct investment abroad and employing 534,000 people in the United States. In economic terms we are truly integrated and vital to each other's economy and of course security.

We built on the already strong foundation of the Canada-U.S. relationship during President Bush's visit to Canada last November. During that visit the Prime Minister and the president committed to deepening cooperation in North America and the world as a whole. They agreed to work bilaterally to address Canada-U.S. priorities and to continue close cooperation with Mexico on issues of trilateral importance. They also announced the new partnership to lay out an agenda designed to increase the security, prosperity and quality of life of citizens on all sides of the borders.

Through the new partnership, Canada and the United States committed to continuing joint efforts on the smart borders accord to secure the safe movement of people and goods in North America. FAST, which stands for free and secure trade, and NEXUS are two examples of joint Canada-U.S. programs which have been expanded under the smart borders initiative. It has often been said that post 9/11 not just our country and the United States have changed, but the world as a whole has changed and is still changing.

That is why in cooperation with our neighbours to the south, the United States, we have been working to find the means, ways and systems not only to move goods and services expeditiously but more so to move goods and people in a secure way. FAST and NEXUS are the two systems that have been implemented to facilitate that.

The FAST initiative is designed to make cross-border commercial shipments simpler, cheaper and subject to fewer delays. Something we have been hearing about continuously is how to eliminate delays, how to expedite, how to prevent pile-ups at the border, at the Windsor crossing for example, while being cognizant of the fact that we must maintain security. FAST is currently operational at 12 land border crossings. It is anticipated that all land border crossings will be FAST capable in the near future.

The NEXUS program facilitates the movement of pre-approved travellers moving between Canada and the United States. As much as I talked about our goods moving across borders by trucks for example, we also must keep in mind that there is a tremendous number of people who frequently fly to different destinations in Canada and the U.S. for pleasure or for business, daily or on a weekly basis. The NEXUS program helps to alleviate some of the anxieties and delays that people have experienced in the past. I am sure that even now people are experiencing some.

Through this new partnership we have also committed to secure the borders through a land preclearance initiative, and make strategic investments in border infrastructure at key crossings, such as Detroit-Windsor, to ensure that physical limitations do not hamper the flow of North American commerce. Our goal is to strike the right balance between ensuring effective border security while facilitating the cross-border flow of low risk goods and services. In support of this our government has already announced more than $1 billion in border infrastructure improvements.

The North American economy is already highly integrated. We need to ensure that our policies, particularly standards and regulations, reflect and complement that integration. Through the new partnership the government has committed to pursuing joint approaches to partnerships, consensus standards and smarter regulations to promote greater efficiency and competitiveness while enhancing health and safety.

In addition we have agreed to accelerate efforts on rules of origin liberalization to help reduce export related transaction costs. NAFTA rules of origin, which determine whether a product is entitled to be shipped tariff free within the continent, and other customs formalities are often complex and impose a costly regulatory burden on business.

At the July 2004 NAFTA commission meeting, ministers endorsed a rules of origin liberalization package covering a broad range of foods, consumer and industrial products affecting approximately $20 billion U.S. in trilateral trade which was implemented by Canada and the United States last month. This is significant. Work is already well under way trilaterally to explore the scope for agreement on a second group of liberalized rules of origin to be implemented in January 2006 in sectors such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics and rubber, and motor vehicles. Through this working group we can use the NAFTA framework to further enhance and strengthen our trade and commerce relations with the United States.

All these steps reflect the reality of the North American economy. Increasingly our companies, our entrepreneurs, whether they are Canadian, American or Mexican, operate continent-wide supply chains and distribution systems. Approximately one-third of Canada-U.S. trade is intra-firm, that is, between two branches of the same corporation.

Considering many Canadian production and service hubs are located closer to U.S. markets than some American sites, and are within an hour and a half drive of the U.S., it would seem natural that companies would take advantage of strong Canada-U.S. relations to examine and maximize their business potential. We are committed to doing what we can and taking the necessary steps to facilitate and foster these trading relationships as they are of benefit to all Canadians.

Canada and the U.S. have one of the most prosperous and dispute free economic relationships in the world. There have been a few bugs here and there, but the mechanism is continuously being applied, seeking through those means to ensure that we are treated fairly. Softwood lumber is one area where on many occasions the WTO has ruled in favour of Canada. The government has continuously been at the plate, ensuring that our position, without any ambiguity, is known. The rulings speak for themselves.

As I have already mentioned, Canada and the United States have highly integrated economies, and this adds to the prosperity of both nations. This has been shown over the past 11 years that I have been here. Back in 1993 our unemployment rate was around 12.7%. In 2004 over three million jobs were created, and the economy is stable.

We eliminated the deficit many years ago. We have provided surpluses over the past several years along with balanced budgets. This has allowed the government to reinvest in the economy, whether it be in health care, social programs, research chairs, et cetera. Part of that is the result of the excellent cooperation we have with the United States.

I have said repeatedly that it is important that Bill C-31 be debated in the House so everyone has the opportunity to express their views. Just as important, Bill C-31 must be passed in the House. I encourage all members to consider why we are looking at Bill C-31 and Bill C-32. Bill C-31 is important legislation that would allow the Minister of International Trade to focus on trade.

Before I went into politics, I used to run an employment agency. One department specialized in information technology. Another specialized in the medical industry. Others specialized in the legal industry and the technical and engineering industries. I used to tell my staff that if they spread themselves too thin, they would not be effective. Consultants who worked in the IT area strictly focused in that area. The same was true for the consultants who worked in the legal area and those who worked in the medical area. They would focus on those areas only. They did not cover all ground at any given time.

Once Bill C-31 is passed, it will provide the framework for the minister of trade to focus on trade and economic activity and to generate more commerce for Canadian companies and Canadians. The end result will be revenue, employment and reinvestment in our country.

I covered more so the relationship we have with the U.S. and partially the relationship we have Mexico. That is very important. We should continue to enhance that relationship. At the same time, it is incumbent upon us as the government and with the help of all members in the House to promote new partnerships, grow economies, or as they are also termed emerging economies, whether that be China or Brazil. We cannot overlook Europe and some of the new countries unfolding as well. That will broaden the opportunity to work with the U.S. and yet create other options.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my good friend. He said that by splitting the department, it would weaken it.

By splitting the department, as Bill C-31 outlines, does he not see that it will allow trade to focus on trade and foreign affairs to focus on foreign affairs policy per se? Does he not see that it will allow the department to focus on the areas about which he has expressed concern, like labour abuse, child abuse, labour laws being strengthened, et cetera? This will enhance the department's position and ability to address those concerns.

[Sport Canada, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the ancient Greeks had a saying that goes like this: A healthy body is a healthy mind.

My question is for the Minister of State for Sport. What is the Government of Canada doing to encourage and promote physical activity among Canadian children and youth?

[Department of International Trade Act, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the comments made by the member for Skeena on that issue, but first I will make a comment before I ask a question.

We have been around this honourable House for well over a decade. We know very well that companies in other countries have come to Canada to invest, acquire, merge, or whatever. We know very well that there are provisions to make sure that investment does not jeopardize, impede or hurt us here in Canada. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we live in a global economy and these things happen.

My hon. colleague spoke so eloquently on this issue. There are trouble spots in some countries with child labour, labour laws being abused, human rights abuses and whatnot. Being aware from what we know and read that something like that exists in particular countries, is it wise to stay away, avoid the issue and turn a blind eye, or does it make sense that we do the best we can to engage with the countries? Knowing the wonderful society we have built here, we can build on that by being there and showing others that there is a better way to perform in society.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to add a comment and ask a question of my colleague from Peace River, whose comments were very constructively critical. I know of the interest he has shown in this area over the years.

He kept referring to the considerable amount of work that needs to be done, and we agree. He said that “Canada is not taking the leadership that it needs to on the international trade side”. He referred to the work that needs to be done under NAFTA, on the taxation side and on investment.

He is absolutely right. Maybe that is why this initiative is so important, and also given what happened globally after 9/11. We have had the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We can look at other nations and see how they have in essence had separate departments, with the trade and investment side and of course foreign affairs setting a foreign affairs policy per se.

This is a very important move. I also listened very carefully when the member for Newmarket—Aurora spoke and referred to 20 years ago, the Trudeau era, and then today's era with the current Prime Minister. Surely, I would say to my colleagues, we know that the way things were done 20 years is not the way they are being done today. Things must change in order for us to be competitive. That is why Bill C-31 is so important.

My colleague from Peace River is probably aware that there is a subcommittee on international trade and investment that is working very hard. We are addressing our NAFTA and emerging market concerns and the BSE and softwood lumber issues that are very important to us. The subcommittee is focusing on this issue while the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is focused not on this issue but on other foreign affairs issues. Does he think this subcommittee should become a full standing committee in the House of Commons today?

[Tsunami Relief, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and pleasure that I stand today to commend all Canadians and our government for their generous contributions, individually and collectively, to the relief effort for all those people affected by the tsunami disaster. I am truly impressed by Canadians, young and old, from all sectors who have reached out to help through donations and fundraisers among other efforts. This shows once again what Canadians are all about.

The job ahead will take years. Our government is committed of course to work diligently and responsibly, also in coordination with our international partners, toward the comprehensive recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance programs. Therefore, it is important that these generous contributions from everyone be distributed to all tsunami-affected areas suitably and effectively, with fairness and transparency.

Once again let me recognize all Canadians for their extraordinary compassion, generosity and efforts toward these most difficult times. Bravo and congratulations.

[Textile Industry, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I have never heard more nonsense in my life than from the member for Cambridge, new as he is to the House. Maybe that is why he does not know. I would like to take this opportunity to bring the member up to date.

First, for years many Liberal members, myself included, have been staying on top of this issue year after year and have made great progress. Now this member has the audacity to say that nothing has been done.

I say to him that when we brought the textile and the garment people here to committee, he was nowhere to be found. That is the party that stands up week after week and month after month and talks about corporate welfare, that we cannot subsidize, that we cannot help and then has the audacity to stand and complain when we brought the industry before committee to talk to us and tell us what it was going to take. We asked the industry how we could help and what adjustments we could make.

Today the minister and all the members on this side feel they have made progress. They have sent the right kind of signal out by putting the money where their mouth is.

I encourage the member to do his homework. Maybe he should go back a couple of years and then he could congratulate the government for making a bold move, for supporting the industry and for sending the right kind of signal.

He comes from Cambridge which has the auto industry. The previous member who represented that riding, Janko Peric, proudly fought in the House continuously as the chair of the auto caucus to support that industry so those jobs could be maintained and sustained--

[Credit Cards, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, in the past--and again I refer to the fact of your long stay here and I wish you many more years--it was the gasoline pricing. They talked about capping the gasoline prices. We all remember that. Over the years we have had those debates. Of course it is a provincial jurisdiction and there were provinces in Canada that tried to regulate gas pricing. We all know what happened. The prices skyrocketed. Other provinces chose not to go that way.

If we apply the same principle to this industry to regulate it, I believe we are going to have the same outcome. The key here, in response to the parliamentary secretary, is to give people choices, to say that here is a credit card with all the bells and whistles and here is a credit card that offers nothing but maybe a minimal charge, because of course for every service provided there is a charge.

In this case I am responding to the parliamentary secretary by saying that in my view the answer is to provide choices for people. The first choice is if they want to use these credit cards. The second choice is in the types of charges that they are going to be charged on the debt they carry. And if we leave it at that, then I truly believe we live in a democratic society.

[Credit Cards, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I will answer the hon. member's two very important questions. I will start with the expenditure in terms of comparing it with the gun registry.

It really saddens me that we use this special time of the year as we head into the Christmas season and use the parallel of the gun registry. The only simple answer I have for the hon. member, who has good intentions, is this. Why does he not ask the police association who have told us “do it, support it”? If he can convince them to tell me as a member of Parliament and all others to scrap it, then I would be glad to stand by his side and say that we will scrap it. I ask him to speak to the police association. Therein lies his answer.

On the second question, my hon. colleague asks why do we not charge them for identity fraud for making these cards. Let us say that somebody stands outside a store and says he is going to rob that store. We live in a civil country. The presumption of innocence is there. Until that person actually goes into that store and commits that crime, the authorities cannot and should not arrest this individual. They can arrest upon action. If the individual goes in and robs that store, then they have the right under the law to arrest this individual.

How do we say this to somebody? I used to work with Popular Mechanics and made a few things at home. Maybe sometimes that was infringing on violation of patents, but I did not go out and sell the things. Let us say that I was making a stereo in my house or something. Maybe that was a violation, but if I had gone out to market it, thus violating somebody's patent right, then I should have been charged with a criminal act. In this case I say to my hon. colleague, how do we do that? The intent to do wrong is there, yes, but on intent alone we cannot charge the individual. The moment they use these new gadgets, yes, we should charge them.

Here is what I have found, and I will close with this. Industry, government and banks--and we have tried it with our passports, for example--are continuing to upgrade the system to make sure that fraud does not occur, but we have heard this over the decade or so we have been here that as much as we upgrade the technology, someone will come along and try to beat the system. Unfortunately, that is society, and it is incumbent upon us to make sure that we invest money properly to beat them as well as they try to beat us.

[Credit Cards, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate on an issue that probably takes place in every household between students and families. There can be no question that credit cards today are an integral part of our lives. Every household from coast to coast to coast uses credit cards or charge cards.

The Canadian credit card market is one of the most competitive in the world, with more than 600 varieties of cards. Banks, credit unions and retailers, as was mentioned earlier, are the principal users offering a variety of products to meet the credit and transaction needs of its customers. Convenient payment options and low borrowing rates are offered. Point programs, insurance coverage and retail discounts are also among the various services that are offered. Year end bonuses accumulated based on usage over the year are given back to customers.

Credit cards are a flexible and convenient tool today as our society has changed. Visa cards and MasterCards are accepted at an estimated 650,000 outlets in Canada and more than 30 million locations worldwide. In 2003 it was estimated there were 74.3 million credit cards circulating in Canada, 50.4 million Visa or MasterCards and 23.9 million American Express cards, Diner Club cards and merchant issued credit cards from places like The Bay, Canadian Tire, and the list goes on.

These statistics leave no doubt that Canadians are active users of credit cards and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. As I said to my colleague earlier and have mentioned in years past, this is an option somebody could take on. Nobody has forced me or you, Mr. Speaker, or anyone else to take the card and use it. It is our choice. If I wish to respond to the marketing of a certain credit card company, I will take on that responsibility.

When we were facing this issue 10 years ago we felt that the consumer was not being informed. We felt that there should have been more options to the consumer and I was pleased. I recall that you and I, Mr. Speaker, were on Parliament Hill together after the 1993 election and there were issues that were very important to us. It was not the party affiliation that brought us together. On the contrary, it was issues like this because we cared for the average Canadian.

I remember that there was no party separation on these issues. We worked together on this issue to make sure that the providers of charge cards pointed out the information, that there were flexible terms available and that there was not just one card that was offering all the bells and whistles, insurance, points, et cetera. There were the pared down charge cards that offered literally nothing except the opportunity to use the card if people did not have cash in their pockets or they were short one week. They would pay the service charge on whatever was purchased the following week or at the end of the month.

I am pleased to fast forward to 12 years or so down the road and say that the providers of these charge cards have indeed put out information telling consumers that they can have option A, option B or option C. I have said repeatedly that I believe we are a pretty smart and informed society but that it is incumbent upon us to pick up the information and read it. With the access we have today to the Internet, we have information at the snap of our fingers.

When other members talk about capping interest rates on credit cards at 5% above prime, I wonder why I should pay 5% above prime if I have an option of paying 2% over prime. It does not make sense, does it?

Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier in my questions and comments, with all this in mind, the government's financial sector decided to create the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, an agency that was established to consolidate and strengthen the oversight of consumer protection measures in the federally regulated financial sector and to expand consumer education, which is what I have been talking about.

The FCAC's creation was one in a series of initiatives resulting from an extensive period of study and public consultation on the financial sector reform initiative. As I said, we consulted with Canadians. We went out and talked to Canadians. We asked for their input. As a result, we formed the FCAC.

As a government, our vision is to establish and maintain a fair and competitive financial marketplace in which Canadians can easily obtain reliable, objective information to help them make informed financial decisions.

We also believe in the marketplace where financial institutions meet their obligations to consumers, where transparency is the rule rather than the exception and where non-compliance is dealt with swiftly and effectively. This is where the FCAC does come in, and of course there are stats to prove, in terms of the consumer who now has an outlet, that they can go to this body and make their complaint. It is incumbent upon the FCAC to move forward to make sure that these institutions, these card providers or whoever, are complying with the legislation, maintaining the code of conduct and respecting the public commitment it made to protect the interests of consumers.

The FCAC opened 1,437 compliance cases in the past which resulted in 22 cases of non-compliance to voluntary code of conduct and public commitments. There were 39 violations of the consumer provisions leading to 20 cases where compliance measures were taken. Some of the measures taken were three notices of violations and monetary penalties of $10,000, $5,000 and $50,000 were applied. If an organization such as this was not there who would the consumer have been able to go to in order to make a complaint about not being fairly treated? All of a sudden the FCAC is there. That is really what I want to talk about.

Yes, we can get into the interest rates, the charges and the percentages which I think is part of the debate as well. The agency also does something that we talked about back in 1994-95. The agency distributed well over 300,000 copies of publications and brochures just in 2003 and in 2004.

Part of its mandate is to inform the consumer and to make sure the consumer is aware of what is happening. Consumers need to know that it is there if they have a problem, a question or if they feel they have been mistreated or cheated. The organization was established by the government to make sure that consumers are not abused.

The agency has also been mandated to expand consumer awareness on financial issues such as credit cards, but more so, it gives me great pleasure to know that the FCAC publishes a semi-annual report entitled, “Credit Cards and You”. I visited high schools, because we talked about our youth, with the Canadian Bankers' Association to talk about a program called, “Managing Your Money”. I am pleased that the banks and the institutions have taken the initiative to go out to the community, to go right into the high schools and talk to students.

With respect to the interest rates charged, certainly today some of these figures are exuberant percentages. I first want to say that I do not agree with these exuberant overcharges. However I am also mature and well educated enough to know that if I do not want to use a credit card I simply will not use it. Why would I create debt? Yes, I might go and use it knowing very well that I could make my monthly payment and knowing very well there is an 18%, 17%, 16%, 2% or 4% charge, whatever type of card I have. I have the option at the end of the month to pay the $200 that I used the previous month and with no interest charge. I look forward to any questions.