Nina Grewal

[Petitions, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood--Port Kells to present a petition concerning dangerous offenders. The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. Specifically, they ask parliamentarians to expedite the passage of Bill C-27, on reverse onus for dangerous offenders, so that corrective action can be taken against convicted criminals who continue to pose a danger to the health and safety of Canadian families.

[Conservative Party of Canada, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it has been two years since Canadians chose change and elected a Conservative government. We can take pride that we have kept our word and delivered the goods.

We made it a priority to clean up government. That is why we delivered the strongest clean government law in history.

We made it a priority to help parents. We are providing families with $100 a month for every child under six years.

We have cut the GST from 7% to 5%, reduced income taxes, slashed the right of the landing fee in half, helped seniors with pension income splitting and gotten tough on crime.

We made it a priority to improve infrastructure, which is why we have increased funding for the Asia-Pacific gateway, and we have introduced responsible environmental policies.

As a result of these priorities, Canada is getting stronger and the government is more accountable. The economy's fundamentals have been strengthened and the country is more united.

Our government is going to continue to deliver real results to Canadians in the months ahead.

[Special Import Measures Act, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to take part in today's debate on Bill C-411. It gives me great pleasure to be responding on behalf of the Minister of International Trade and specifically to support the comments of my colleague regarding the proposed amendment to Canada's trade remedy legislation.

The bill, introduced by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, raises issues that are at the heart of any discussion of Canada's competitiveness in the ever changing global economy. The Government of Canada is well aware of the opportunities and the challenges that international development presents for Canadian trade and investment interests.

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the government's approach and plans in this regard. Let me start with a few words regarding the international framework that underpins Canada's international commercial relations in general and specifically Canada's anti-dumping regime.

The World Trade Organization provides the rules that govern trade relations among the organization's 150 members. The membership includes Canada, plus all of our most significant trading partners.

The WTO framework consists of a series of agreements that are specific to particular areas of international trade policy. The agreement pertinent to today's debate is the agreement governing anti-dumping measures. While the WTO aims at equal treatment and a smooth flow of trade among its members, it also permits certain exceptions. Anti-dumping measures are one of these exceptions.

For those who are watching this debate, dumping occurs when a company exports a product at a price that is lower than the price it normally charges in its home market. The WTO rules spell out the circumstances in which a member may take measures against dump imports from another WTO member and the procedure for applying such measures.

Canada has implemented our rights and obligations under this agreement by means of Canada's Special Import Measures Act. This act falls under the Minister of Finance and its implementation falls under the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

I observe that Canada's anti-dumping framework involves a transparent, quasi-judicial process for the review of complaints by Canadian companies regarding dumping by foreign competitors. The process provides for a balanced and impartial review of the legitimate concerns of domestic industries in Canada and the evidence provided by foreign suppliers and their Canadian customers.

In announcing the introduction of this bill, the hon. member indicated that goods from China are a target of the proposal. Allow me to speak for a few moments about Canada's trade with China.

China is Canada's fourth largest export market and our second largest trading partner. Last year, our bilateral trade totalled over $40 billion. In Canada's case, this meant $7.7 billion in exports of goods alone. These indicators point to a strong and growing trade relationship with China, with tremendous benefits for both sides. One need only observe the accomplishments for Canadian firms in China, for example, in the engineering, financial, transportation and communication sectors, to see how strongly Canadian firms can compete in the dynamic Chinese market.

This is just part of the picture. There is another message that the statistics tell, the fact that imports from China are over four times our exports to China. Canadian consumers benefit from such imports in terms of price and choice.

We have also heard the concerns of certain Canadian producers regarding the growth in imports from China. Some of these complaints allege that these imports are being dumped in the Canadian market or that they benefit from subsidy programs in China.

Canada has 11 anti-dumping measures in place regarding imports from China. In three cases where the products were found to be subsidized, the goods are also subject to countervail measures. These actions demonstrate that Canada's trade remedy system is working.

Canadian firms have made use of the system by formally registering complaints regarding certain imports from China. Trade remedy measures have been applied to these imports where such measures were found by Canadian investigators to be warranted.

While it is useful to remind ourselves of Canada's current trade remedy actions against imports from China, the trade remedy system is not the mechanism we should be looking to in terms of addressing the broader issue of Canada's competitiveness in China and other key markets.

The government monitors our trading partners to ensure that they are living up to their WTO commitments. This includes China. In most cases China has implemented the commitments it took on when it joined the WTO in 2001.

There are exceptions however. Last year Canada filed a challenge against China at the WTO regarding China's tariff treatment of imported auto parts.

Canada has a strong interest in the auto parts sector. Last year Canadian manufacturers supplied over $370 million in auto parts to China's growing auto sector.

Furthermore, the government has recently decided to join other WTO members in formal WTO consultations with China. These are consultations that focus on China's enforcement of intellectual property rights and on certain Chinese subsidy programs.

The consultations will provide opportunities for Canada to relay the concerns of Canadian stakeholders to Chinese authorities and to assess China's latest steps in both areas to bring its regime into compliance with its WTO obligations.

Consultation are the first step in the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism. If consultations do not succeed in resolving the matter under discussion, Canada, like other WTO members, has the option of requesting a WTO panel to adjudicate the issue.

Canada's new government recognizes that many Canadian manufacturers are facing intensified competition and are adjusting to fast-changing global realities.

The government has recognized that Canada needs a more competitive business climate and is committed to government policies that encourage investment and job creation.

The Minister of Finance's economic statement last fall presented a road map of policy directions, “Advantage Canada”.

“Advantage Canada” includes a plan, the government's global commerce strategy, to more aggressively engage the world beyond our borders. For instance, the government is committed to reinvigorating our trade policy while we continue to work toward a meaningful result in the Doha round of multilateral negotiations.

We are also committed to stepping up the negotiation of bilateral trade agreements, ranging from free trade agreements to improved relations and investment accords.

In the case of China a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement is a priority. In today's global market, investment drives trade and investment is the essential catalyst for technology transfer and the development of supply chain links.

We therefore see significant benefits for Canada from an investment agreement with China. As well, our plan is about showing the world that Canada is moving up the value chain.

We are getting the message out that Canada is a leader in science and technology, and a great place to anchor North American commercial platforms, particularly where science, technology and innovation links are key. The government's strategy is also about stepping up our presence on the ground in key--

[Status of Women, December 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not fooled by the empty Liberal rhetoric. For more than a dozen years, that party failed to address the pressing issues facing women. Its time in office represented lost years for the advancement of women as successive Liberal governments undermined women's safety and opportunity for economic advancement.

Whether it is the fight against violent crime, protection of the environment or elimination of poverty, the Liberals did not get it done.

On that side of the House, things have not improved. Under the current Liberal leader, high profile female MPs are leaving politics. Others are demoted in favour of men. Prominent female candidates have been pushed aside and the Liberals continue to hold annual “no women allowed” parties.

Actions speak louder than words. Liberals make promises but they never deliver. Canadian women are not buying what Liberals are selling.

[Food and Drugs Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in the debate on Bill C-378.

The bill has been proposed as a response to developments in the United States. I think it is important that we understand the U.S. situation before deciding how to address it.

This proposed U.S. legislation to legalize drug imports is motivated by shortcomings in the American health care system. These deficiencies have left a sizeable number of Americans exposed to unmanageable prescription drug costs.

As Canadians, we value social supports and health care that seeks to be inclusive of all Canadians. So, while we are not unsympathetic to the issue of Americans without drug insurance, I think we can agree that importation of Canadian sourced drugs is simply not an adequate solution.

I would like to talk about the important role that prescription drugs play in our health care system.

There can be no denying that drugs have brought tremendous health care advances that benefit all Canadians. However, in addition to protecting an adequate supply for Canadians, we must also be vigilant in ensuring that costs remain manageable.

In recent years, drug costs have accounted for an increasingly large portion of expenditures in the Canadian health care system, with expenditures growing faster than any other component of health care. Drugs are now the second largest expenditure in our health care system.

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, total expenditures on prescribed and non-prescribed drugs in Canada is estimated to have exceeded $35 billion in 2006. This includes public and private insurance, as well as out of pocket expenditures. Spending on prescribed drugs in 2006 was estimated at more than $21 billion. This represents almost 84% of total drug expenditure and is nearly 20% more than in 1985. Spending on all drugs in 2006 amounted to an estimated 17% of total health expenditures in Canada, outstripping what we spend on doctors.

That said, Canadian patented prescription drug prices are in line with other major industrialized countries, except--

[Petitions, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition signed by thousands of my constituents.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to halt the deportation of Laibar Singh due to his fragile health and to allow him to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Mr. Singh is paralyzed by an aneurysm and has the support of many politicians of all political stripes, 13 independent doctors and over 50 organizations, including employees' unions, human rights groups and Christian, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh religious organizations.

[Human Trafficking, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Future Group called on our government to take concrete steps to address the issue of human trafficking in light of the upcoming 2010 Winter Olympics.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please inform the House what steps we have taken to address the issue of human trafficking while assisting the victims of these terrible crimes?

[Foreign Credentials, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal government just did not get it done on foreign credentials. They made promise after promise but delivered nothing. Unlike the Liberals, we are getting the job done on foreign credentials.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please inform the House how our government is assisting foreign trained individuals and new Canadians to access what they need to become accredited here in Canada?

[Petitions, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table this petition signed by my constituents. I am told that 31,000 people have signed the petition calling upon Parliament to halt the deportation of Laibar Singh due to his fragile health and to allow him to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Mr. Singh is paralyzed by an aneurysm and has the support of many politicians of all political stripes and levels, 13 independent doctors, and over 50 organizations including: employees, unions, human rights groups and Christian, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh religious organizations.

[Justice, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, fighting crime is a priority of all governments because safer communities are a priority for Canadians. I know this because I hear concerns from my constituents about violent criminals, auto theft and drug dealers.

According to a recent survey two-thirds of Canadians support our government's approach to criminal justice. Could the Minister of Justice tell the House how our justice agenda will help make our communities safer?