Mark Eyking

[International Trade, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a tremendous record on human rights. Whenever we travel outside the country making deals, like the Prime Minister did when he was in China, we bring up the way we deal with human rights and we expect these other countries to follow suit.

[International Trade, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the minister is in India on a very important trade delegation leading over 65 companies. These are emerging markets. We will be making deals with other countries, so that we increase our trade because we are a trading nation.

[First Nations, Métis and Inuit War Veterans, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the second hour of debate, although I must confess, as I re-read Motion No. 193 in its entirety, I was a little surprised by the words chosen by its sponsor in formulating the motion. On the surface they would seem to reflect a lack of understanding of the history of veterans' compensation. Given a lengthy and substantial debate on this matter in the House and before the standing committee, clearly this is not the case. Nor do I doubt the sincerity of my colleague's intention. What thoughts are we left with?

With respect, the wording of the motion seems simplistic and the subject matter is far from simple. It states a generality on the subject matter that can only be reasonably dealt with by discussing the specifics. It makes assumptions that are not borne out by the facts. It confuses by implying that none of the aboriginal veterans named in the motion received real compensation. I am not sure how the hon. member can define real compensation, but the very phrase suggests something is patently not true. The end result is that serious issues are done a serious disservice.

Let us retrace the ground we have spoken and let us start with some big picture fundamentals.

After demobilization following the wars, every veteran who was honourably discharged was entitled to war service gratuity and a clothing allowance. In addition, they also received a choice of one of three benefits: first, re-establishment credit, that is money in the amount of approximately $450; or second, educational assistance; or third, assistance under the Veterans Land Act. All too often there has been a misconception that non-aboriginal veterans received education assistance, land and money upon their return from the wars and aboriginal veterans did not. This is simply not the case. All veterans could choose only one benefit to the exclusion of others and nobody was given land.

My hon. colleague wishes acknowledgement of what the motion refers to as historic inequality of treatment and compensation for first nations, Métis, and Inuit war veterans. The government has long since acknowledged and spoken about the fact that the administrative process for first nation veterans who returned to reserves was different. In these instances, a veteran could not deal directly with Veterans Affairs, but instead dealt with an Indian agent. This meant that veterans on reserves encountered an extra layer of bureaucracy which may have resulted in some not receiving full benefits.

Following the national round table process that was established jointly with the first nations veterans, the federal government offered payment of $20,000 to each living first nations veteran who returned to a reserve following the war, or to their surviving spouse. The amount of the payment, that is $20,000, is consistent and is reasonable and fair when we compare it to past offers made to the merchant navy veterans, Hong Kong prisoners of war, who suffered the most deplorable conditions in POW camps, and more recent to veterans who participated in chemical warfare experiments.

It is a little perplexing that the motion implies a similar inequality of treatment of Métis and Inuit war veterans. I must point out that the situation was very different for Métis and non-status Indian veterans, so we should not lump all aboriginal veterans together.

It is at this stage of the discussion where I must reaffirm the mandate of the Department of Veterans Affairs. As a matter of law and morality, the department does not distinguish between client groups on the basis of racial and ethnic background. It provides benefits to veterans strictly on the basis of their wartime or eligible service and their individual needs. That is why it has files on individual veterans, who are not then sub-indexed by gender, race, religion or any other sort of categorization. Each file contains information pertaining to an individual's service and subsequent benefit eligibility.

Why do I raise this at this point in the discussion? A motion that suggests a discriminatory treatment of, say, Métis veterans, suggests that we would even have a list of files of groups under a general heading “Métis”. Why would we? To repeat, from the government's point of view, it is about service, not race or lineage.

Nonetheless, the government takes serious any sort of concern about inadequate treatment. That is why separate processes were undertaken with the National Métis Veterans Association and the National Aboriginal Veterans Association to deal with issues concerning Métis and non-status Indian veterans respectively.

Veterans affairs shared its file review findings with the National Métis Veterans Association, and has continued to encourage them to share their names of other veterans and will examine them on a case by case basis. For now, based on reviews, we can say unequivocally that Métis veterans now receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

We continue and encourage those who feel otherwise to come forward and provide us with the names of veterans who they feel did not get the benefits that they were due.

In similar fashion, I believe the minister has talked to many hon. members about these issues and has made a personal commitment to have the file thoroughly reviewed so they can be reassured that our veterans have been fairly and appropriately treated.

What is the bottom line here? Surely it is to be fair, equitable and fiscally responsible in the treatment of all veterans, including of course first nations, Métis and non-status Indian veterans. The steps the government has taken to date have met that standard, perhaps not in a perfect way. Redressing any wrongs that might have taken place in the 60 years with a one size fits all solution is difficult, for all the reasons that we have already covered.

Our government recognizes the service and sacrifice aboriginal veterans made during the wars. It has already contributed approximately $500,000 toward the construction and unveiling of the National Aboriginal Veterans Monument here in Ottawa as a tribute to the Canadian aboriginal peoples military service. Contributions of $1.15 million were made to establish the aboriginal veterans scholarship trust fund.

Veterans Affairs has developed its aboriginal outreach strategy aimed at easing and improving communications, and ensuring that aboriginal veterans and their spouses are benefiting from the full range of department programs and services. As part of the strategy a senior officer within the department will be at the first point of contact for the aboriginal veterans spouses and organizations.

I believe the sum of the total of these efforts makes the underlying assumptions made by Motion No. 193 unsupportable. We have offered a package for the first nation veterans and many have accepted the offer. The argument may well get down to how much is enough. With respect to this it is an area where we may have to agree to disagree. I hope that everyone would agree, however, that for consistency and fairness, the amounts should be in line with similar payments offered to other groups that I previously mentioned. We are trying to rectify any double standards, not add to them. What could be fairer than that?

[Softwood Lumber, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have to commend the Prime Minister, President Fox and President Bush on a very successful meeting at the Crawford ranch.

We must commend those leaders for not only working on the security of North America but also on its prosperity. We are in a North American zone and we have to work on economics and prosperity. I commend the Prime Minister on a job well done.

[East Coast Music Awards, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cape Breton—Canso and I, along with other members in the House, had the pleasure of attending the East Coast Music Awards held on Cape Breton Island last weekend.

Cape Breton was all fired up with musical talent from all parts of the east thanks to the organizers and volunteers who helped make it possible.

With options of country, aboriginal, new age and Celtic, there was not a dull moment as Cape Breton rocked the waters. Cape Breton topped the charts with winners such as Natalie MacMaster and J.P. Cormier. Big Pond native, Gordie Sampson, has always been known for his musical versatility but sure proved his talent, walking away with a whopping five ECMAs. I congratulate Gordie.

The highlight of the evening was the Helen Creighton award in recognition of Cape Breton's ambassador, Rita MacNeil. She has put Cape Breton and Big Pond on the map and we, members of Cape Breton, feel the tribute is well deserved.

We welcome all Canadians to stop by her tearoom in Big Pond for a good old Cape Breton cup of tea.

[Veterans, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the passion the hon. member has for this industry and his community. My community suffered a downturn in the steel and coal industries so I know what it is about.

The government is taking a multi-prong approach to this issue. We have put over $350 million into these communities. We are negotiating and pushing hard at both the Prime Minister's level and the minister's level.

We have a customer who has been treating us unfairly. We also have an opportunity to have countervailing measures. We are looking into that to see what industries will be affected when we do that.

We are using every measure we can to keep pressure on the U.S. to give us back our money.

[Veterans, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to respond to the question in the House today from the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni concerning Canada's efforts to resolve the softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. and to secure the return of the duties paid by Canadian lumber exporters and held in the U.S.

As the hon. member may know, the federal government has worked closely with the Canadian lumber industry and with the provinces in seeking a durable resolution to this long-standing dispute. We share a commitment with the provinces and the industry to defend the interests of the people and the communities that depend on this vital industry.

I must commend the hon. member, because he brings up the issues of the industry almost every day, in committee, and we are working to overcome the problems that the industry has.

Among the numerous legal challenges that Canada is undertaking, the NAFTA and WTO proceedings on threat of injury are critical cases. Without a determination that imports of Canadian softwood lumber threaten to injure the U.S. lumber industry, the U.S. has no legal basis for its countervailing and anti-dumping duties. The WTO ruling of March 2004, which found in Canada's favour that imports of Canadian lumber to the U.S. do not threaten to harm the U.S. lumber industry, was a major victory for us here in Canada.

Notwithstanding these very positive results from both the NAFTA and the WTO injury cases, we are not yet at the end of our litigation process. As the hon. member will know, the U.S. requested the establishment of an extraordinary challenge committee in November to review the proceedings of the panel in the NAFTA injury case. Our government believes that the U.S. allegations before this extraordinary challenge committee are without foundation and we are working with the industry to mount a strong defence of Canadian interests in this case. If we are successful, the U.S. will be required under its own law to revoke the duty orders and refund the duties with interest.

The U.S. has legal obligations under both U.S. law and NAFTA to refund those duties. In every previous FTA and NAFTA case, from pork to swine to red raspberries to steel, the U.S. has refunded duties when the underlying order has been found by FTA and NAFTA panels to be inconsistent with U.S. law.

The United States also routinely refunds duties in cases before U.S. courts when the U.S. courts strike down these duty measures. The U.S. argument that it has no legal obligation to refund lumber duties would apply only to NAFTA partners. This would mean, in effect, that every other country in the world could expect to receive better treatment than Canada and Mexico.

I can tell the House that Canada would not have negotiated an agreement that would give us worse treatment than we would receive in U.S. courts.

The government is fighting hard to get those duties back for Canadian producers, not only through litigation but also through high level representation. For example, in June the Minister of International Trade wrote a strongly worded letter to the U.S. commerce secretary outlining our concerns. The minister urged the commerce department to uphold U.S. law and its international trade obligations. Most recently, on January 26, in response to the commerce claims that the U.S. is not obliged to refund the duties, the minister released a public statement repudiating these claims.

In the meantime, the government uses every opportunity to raise Canadian concerns over the U.S. trade actions with the U.S. administration. Our Prime Minister raised the issue with President Bush when he was here, most recently during the president's visit to Ottawa on November 30--

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is stretching it a bit. It is a known fact that Canada has the best job record in the western world.

Yes, we do have communities that are going through challenges. His community is doing well with this global economy. The resource industry is doing well. It is not going to be easy because there will be ups and downs but we have to adjust to this new economy.

How is that going to happen? Canada is a trading nation. One in four jobs here relies on trade. We have to do business with the rest of the world. Yes, we do have to watch human rights and we do have to watch the deals we make, but at the end of the day the member's riding will benefit from this global economy. His riding will benefit from the division of this department and be more proactive in regions where his products will be sold worldwide.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are facing a new challenge this century when it comes to trade and how our companies will adapt to it.

We bring up the issue of human rights with other governments when we attend bilateral meetings.

However we have to look at how our companies will adapt and how they will do in other regions. I used Husky Equipment as an example. Its head office is in Ontario and it has four plants worldwide. We visited its plant in Shanghai, which is one of the most modern factories. The company treats its employees properly and has been example for the whole region on how to treat workers and how to give them benefits.

We were also in Yemen where we visited Nexen, a company also located in the hon. member's riding of Calgary East. This company is making money and it is also impressing upon these countries workers' rights. It is being a good corporate citizen.

We cannot sit here and hope the world will be a better place. We have to get out there and do business. We can also show foreign countries the practices we have here in Canada, whether it is with respect to human rights, workers' rights or working with the community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Calgary East and compliment him on his scarf. He makes a great choice in clothing and it is good to see in the House.

The hon. member is a well travelled person. He has seen it in other countries and knows the competition we have. Whether it is competition from Australia or France, when we are dealing with these emerging markets or others, we need our trade department to stand on its own. We need to give it the wings to fly. That does not mean that we cannot have a whole government approach, where we work with CIDA, Foreign Affairs, and maybe with National Defence, on how we deal with regions. We can work in silos, but we can work together.

This century is going to be a lot different than the last one. China is emerging and we have to adapt to it. The United States will be a main player for our trade. With these emerging markets and global trends, we must be prepared as a government. We must be able to work with the business community to create policies and make things happen.