Peter Julian

[Auditor General's Report, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General made it crystal clear in her report today that the government is hiding from the Auditor General unaccountable foundation money.

Eleven recommendations were made by her and seven were rejected by the government. So much for working with Sheila.

We have seen the sponsorship scandal. Instead of allowing the Auditor General to protect Canadians in all areas of federal funding, the government is stonewalling.

Will the Prime Minister commit today to end the flim-flam and make these foundations fully accountable to the Auditor General, to Parliament and to the Canadian people?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver East for a very eloquent presentation on the reasons why Bill C-31 is inappropriate. I thought some of her comments were very pertinent to the debate.

Being a fellow member of Parliament from British Columbia, the hon. member and I have seen the actions of the B.C. Liberal government over the last four years with a constant restructuring, pulling apart and tossing together of ministries. I would like her to comment on that.

Another comment she made that was extremely relevant and pertinent had to do with the outsourcing of jobs. She mentioned the member for Timmins—James Bay who brought forward the Canadian flag lapel pins that were being manufactured offshore.

We heard the Minister of International Trade this week actually encouraging corporations to employ people outside the country. He said that we would not weep if there were lost Canadian jobs. However a member of the government earlier in the debate said that he thought, in some sort of weird physics lesson, that for every action there was an equal and opposite reaction.

If that were the case we would not have seen the 40,000 lost jobs in the textile and clothing industry under the Liberal government's watch. We would not have seen the 20,000 lost jobs in the softwood lumber industry under the Liberal government's watch. We would not have seen the constant degradation in the quality of jobs that we have seen in this country over the past 12 years where there are fewer and fewer workers having access to pension benefits and fewer people having full time jobs. Jobs are becoming increasingly temporary.

I would like the hon. member to comment on those two things, the administrative chaos that she has lived through as a member representing British Columbia with the provincial government, and second, the comment that somehow jobs are not being lost when we know for a fact that they are.

[Patent Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, without taking all the time remaining to me, I would like to get to my conclusion.

In my speech on this important bill, I mentioned all the contributions made by the hon. member for Windsor West to the former Bill C-9. It is a very important act, which, as we know, is affected by Bill C-29.

Bill C-29, an act to amend the Patent Act does speak to pharmaceutical patents, but in addition—and that is unfortunate—it amends former the Bill C-9, to which the hon. member for Windsor West contributed so much. As we know, Bill C-9 deals with the entire question of AIDS, which is rampant in Africa and causing a crisis all across it.

What is so unfortunate about Bill C-29? It modifies former Bill C-9 and the government is, in a way, eliminating the fact that representatives of the Senate can sit on the advisory committee that will, in fact, be making decisions about which pharmaceuticals will be on the list of drugs available for export.

Because of that, we are somewhat hesitant to give our support to Bill C-29. It is unfortunate because the primary goal of the bill as it now appears, was not to make these changes to the former Bill C-9.

At the same time, it is very important to emphasize that we consider former Bill C-9 extremely useful in resolving or beginning to resolve the crisis in Africa. Since the regulations will not come into force for several years—and even though Africa cannot wait—we must wait in order to be able to help Africans to the fullest.

For this reason we will support Bill C-29 only bring about the implementation of the regulations of former Bill C-9 as quickly as possible, so that we will finally be able to help the people of Africa, who need it so much.

[Patent Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-29.

I will start by coming back to the work that the member for Windsor West did on the initial legislation. The initial regulations were badly flawed, I think it is fair to say, in the original bill that was proposed. The member for Windsor West, who is a member of the NDP caucus, submitted over 100 amendments and was instrumental in improving the bill. We can take some comfort in that many of the worst aspects in the original legislation have been improved.

The government was forced to present substantial amendments to the bill. The amendments eliminated the first right of refusal clause and extended eligibility to other developing countries. Amendments by the member for Windsor West also forced the establishment of an advisory committee; placed humanitarian reasons before economic considerations in an appeal of the royalty rate; added a key fixed dose combination drug for the treatment of tuberculosis; and added East Timor to the list of eligible countries. These were all passed.

Effectively he presented a series of amendments that helped to improve the basic legislation. Some amendments were not accepted, such as the amendments on alpacas and others. The basic issue is that a bill that was presented to the House was improved through the actions of a member who was able to bring in improvements at the committee level and also push the government to improve it.

That is the role we play in this Parliament. As a minority Parliament members have perhaps more input than they would normally have. Very clearly in this case a single member was able to force improvements to the legislation. What has happened here is perhaps one of the better sides of how a minority Parliament can work effectively. Members have now been working together since the beginning of October when this session of Parliament opened. Members from all sides have been able to contribute to the debate.

In this particular case, we are talking about an amendment that deals in the longer term with the crisis in Africa and helps to provide the HIV-AIDS drugs to people who sorely need them. We know the crisis that exists. Many of us have seen the devastation of HIV-AIDS in villages in Africa.

Stephen Lewis, a former NDP leader In Ontario, has spoken on this subject extremely eloquently. He has spoken about the devastation in communities. He has spoken of the orphans in villages. Their parents have passed away and there are millions of orphans as a result of this pandemic. It is crucial that we start to flow drugs to those individuals, the villages, communities and countries that have been affected by the pandemic.

[Patent Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Churchill for her intervention which as always was very succinct, to the point and effective. I know she is aware that there were significant amendments brought forward by the member for Windsor West who improved what was a badly flawed bill in the beginning. Does she have any comments about the role that the member for Windsor West played in the improvement of the original bill?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 10th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the comments by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan in this extremely important debate on the future of health care were very thoughtful. I was particularly touched by her comments around the possibility of big box, credit card, for profit health care coming to Canada given that the Liberal government has not applied for a WTO exemption on health care.

We already know that a number of the more right wing provincial governments, such as what we have seen in British Columbia, are moving in that direction. We have also seen the tragic consequences of this in the United States. The most expensive health care system in the world leaves 60 million Americans with no health care coverage at all. As we know from a study just last week, more than half the bankruptcies in the United States are caused by this lack of having a solid public medicare system.

My question to the member is the following given that Canadians are very concerned about this and given that, as in most areas, the Liberal government has not responded to Canadians' interests but has been more interested in Bay Street's interests than main street interests. Now that the member is the new health critic for the New Democratic Party, has she seen any movement from the government to actually respect Canadians' wishes to maintain a strong and viable public health care system?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins--James Bay is absolutely right. There is a direction and that direction is south and offshore. The direction is loss of jobs. The direction is not respecting human rights and not pushing or having any sort of evaluation of foreign purchase of Canadian companies. We have seen 11,000 companies in Canada absorbed over the past 15 years, and they have been absorbed without any debate, without any sort of verification of whether it is in the interest of Canadians.

This is the sellout of Canada. He is absolutely right. There seems to be a direction, the selling out of jobs, the selling out of our resources, the selling out of our companies, and this has to stop. We will continue to raise these issues in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Joliette for his question. There is a definite problem with the present structure. In my opinion, however, things would be even worse if changes were made or these two departments were divided, which is precisely what the bill is about.

The problem is that NGOs do not seem to get any hearing from the government, even if they do ask for help, and that is a pity. WIth a minority government, however, there is more chance of getting our opinions across, but the reality is that when human rights and the environment are on the agenda, not only in Canada but elsewhere, both international trade and foreign policy are involved.

We cannot have two different departments going in two different directions. WIth such a division, it would be even harder for the NGOs to make themselves heard.

Issues relating to human rights, the environment and social development involve aspects that are extremely important and ought to be looked at as a whole as far as foreign policy is concerned.

What is more, and this is something that ought to make all members here and all Canadians feel ashamed: yesterday 29,000 children died from disease, starvation and the lack of safe drinking water. Today, another 29,000 will die, as will that same number again tomorrow. This is a huge problem, and Canadians have a duty to set things in motion to improve this situation.

I believe that it will be harder to do this if there are two different departments going into two different directions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. It was very nice of her. The matter is very clear to us. This division does not make any sense because foreign policy and the overall administration of foreign affairs are currently being reviewed. That does not make sense.

Also, since there has been no consultation with those more familiar with the community, it is clear that we are opposed.

In the area of international trade, the minister says that it is great, that it is fun, that it is appropriate to create jobs outside Canada. Clearly, there is a lack of consistency on the part of this government in its international trade policies and in its administration per se. We have seen this in several areas, including at the Treasury Board.

There are regulations which are supposed to prevent the squandering of public money. Still, it is allowed to go on, and we have cited several instances.

While the government ran a $9 billion surplus, the number of children living in poverty and of homeless families in Canada still grew. Government policies lack consistency. Bill C-31 provides another example of the government's inability to improve the quality of life of Canadians.

As critic for my party, I oppose this bill, as does the NDP caucus. Debating this bill while foreign affairs is undergoing a review makes no sense. It also makes no sense for the minister to say that it is good to create international trade jobs outside Canada. It is very clear that there is a problem there, and it has to be resolved.

For all these reasons, we are opposed to the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, as planned and agreed to by the leaders of the parties in the House, I will take the few minutes that were granted to the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to continue my presentation, which was interrupted by adjournment on Monday.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-31 and continue the intervention that I started on Monday. In giving a bit of the history around the bill at that time, I mentioned the fact that in 1982 Canada's Trade Commissioner Service was integrated into what was then called the Department of External Affairs. It took about 15 years for that integration to actually be effective.

In the mid-1990s that integration succeeded after both Conservative and Liberal administrations had some difficulty with the integration. That is why we were surprised when we saw Bill C-31 being presented. After integration having finally succeeded after a 15 year period, we are now wrenching apart those two ministries.

I mentioned at the time that a number of comments, questions and concerns had been raised in the community by people who understand vividly the importance of having an integration of international trade and other aspects of foreign affairs.

I would like to quote for the record from a number of interventions that have taken place and thus make sure that we as parliamentarians are all aware of legitimate concerns that have been raised about the bill and about the direction in which the government is going.

Previous speakers, as I did in my previous intervention in the House, have underlined the fact that we are now undergoing a review of the very structure of foreign affairs in this government. At the same time that we are undergoing this review, the government has already decided to wrench apart the two ministries and make one international trade and the other foreign affairs. It makes no sense that while the review is going on these two important functions would be wrenched apart. As previous speakers have mentioned, it also makes no sense to have international trade separated from important issues such as human rights, properly the focus of foreign affairs.

I want to quote what Bill Clarke, former ambassador to the Baltic Republics and Brazil said about this in Diplomat and International Canada in the January-February 2005 issue. As the federal government celebrated the one year anniversary of the announcement that the portfolios of foreign affairs and international trade would be split and henceforth go in two different directions, Bill Clarke said that “no one seems to know who made the decision--nor do they know why”. He said, “Many observers are wondering why”, adding that it is “questionable whether a good, open discussion was held”.

Bill Clarke is one of the most distinguished diplomats in the Canadian diplomatic corps. He raises very legitimate concerns about the direction in which the government was going, about the why of splitting these two ministries in half, and about whether or not there were any legitimate and appropriate consultations. He raises very legitimate concerns about this entire process.

It is important to quote for the record remarks that were made by the president of the Retired Heads of Mission Association, a group of distinguished ex-diplomats, people who have been heads of missions and understand the function of foreign affairs and the function of international trade.

The association is composed of about 270 former Canadian ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls general. They are deeply concerned about the future of the Canadian foreign service. In the letter of December 8 that I will be quoting from, which was sent to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the association's distinguished former ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls general said the following:

Recently, we have had to come reluctantly to the conclusion that our Foreign Service is being gradually dismantled. One clear manifestation of this happening is the recent decision to split the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). As former diplomats and officials of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Commerce, Immigration and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), our members have personally experienced difficulties of integrating coherently these two crucial sectors of Canada's foreign policy. Thus, we believe that the decision to partition DFAIT is unfortunate and a step backwards.

They go on to mention other concerns about the foreign service and they say that unless these developments are reversed Canada will lose an essential tool of government. At the end of the letter, the Retired Heads of Mission Association, or RHOMA, requests permission to present its concerns and recommendations to members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade at the earliest opportunity.

Therefore, we can see that concerns have been raised very widely about this particular approach, with people asking why the decision on splitting up these two ministries was made at this time when an ongoing review of foreign affairs is taking place. Why is it happening without broad consultation with people who understand the issue, who understand the essential linkage and integration between international trade and foreign policy?

The Retired Heads of Mission Association also mentioned in a previous letter that the separation of international trade from foreign affairs is another example of a measure which can only weaken the foreign service and make its management more incoherent.

An observer would wonder why the government is proceeding at this time. As previously quoted and as speakers have mentioned, it does not make sense at this time to proceed with this particular measure. To many observers who understand the situation, it does not make sense that this division, separation or partition is taking place between these two functions.

I think it is very important to underline that there is an incoherence, both when it comes to foreign policy and even more so when it comes to the direction that international trade has taken. We saw just this very morning some of the comments made by the Minister of International Trade.

I will read just brief excerpts of some of the headlines from newspapers across the country. From The Telegram in St. John's, Newfoundland: “No tears; Liberals won't complain if business sends more Canadian jobs overseas”. From the Windsor Star : “Job export is good: Minister”. From the Edmonton Sun : “Job losses to offshore labour fine: trade minister”.

Across the country, including such areas as here in Ottawa where the headline read “Grits Urge Biz to Offshore Jobs”, we have seen Canadians waking up to the fact that the international trade minister, and in fact the international trade component of our national government, is now encouraging businesses to do this. The Minister of International Trade was quoted as saying that “businesses should feel free to send work offshore to wherever it can be done most cheaply, to help boost their bottom lines”.

We have from the Minister of International Trade very clear direction that it is time to off-load jobs, that it is open season on Canadian workers and that jobs can be exported offshore. Just last week in the House, we saw the member for Timmins—James Bay raise the crucial question of the offshore manufacturing of our proudest national symbol, our Canadian flag lapel pins, which were actually being made offshore, thus off-loading Canadian jobs.

We are very proud that the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay raised that issue because this is increasingly the case. We have an international trade minister who is encouraging businesses to send jobs elsewhere. We have seen, as we did yesterday, debates in the House about the textile and clothing industry where there was a loss of 40,000 jobs. With softwood, we saw the loss of 20,000 jobs. In industry after industry we are seeing good jobs being exported, and as the Statistics Canada report from a couple of weeks ago clearly mentioned, the jobs replacing them are becoming more and more temporary or part time without pension benefits. For newer workers, those jobs are paying less and less in wages.

In this bizarre and inappropriate attempt to split up these two ministries, in this bizarre and inappropriate attempt of the trade minister to tell businesses to send their work offshore, to export those jobs and in this incoherence, this bizarre indecision and dithering of the government perhaps a pattern emerges. That pattern is: what is irresponsible is what is put forward; what is incoherent becomes government policy. It does not make sense for the main streets across the country who after 12 years of living with a Liberal government have more debt per individual family and less on their paycheque. In real terms, for most Canadian workers, their salary has slipped 60¢ an hour over the past 10 years. There are fewer social programs and fewer hospitals.

For that reason, this incoherence, this inappropriate decision and proposal will meet with opposition from this caucus. We will be voting against the bill.