Wayne Easter

[Spirit Drinks Trade Act, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I know how seriously the hon. member takes the issue relative to trade in shrimp with Denmark and some of the other European countries.

Yes, in my past capacity as a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, we did a tour in the Newfoundland and Labrador area. I talked to lots of producers about that very serious issue. I think we made a very good report which went to the Government of Canada.

I can very clearly say that the government, through its international trade department and others, has continued to try to deal with that controversial issue. It is still ongoing.

I gather as well that last week the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was again in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador looking at some of those fisheries issues. I expect the committee will again be putting pressure on the government as a whole on the serious concerns within that province over those 20% tariffs.

This agreement shows what is indeed possible when negotiations go well. We are having difficulty on the other side and admit that. I can say that it is not for lack of effort by the Department of International Trade and the negotiators on many fronts. This agreement will certainly be helpful to rural Canada by opening up markets for our producers, for our wineries. It will give us the kind of protection that we need for those products in an international trading environment.

[Spirit Drinks Trade Act, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill S-38 because it is important to our agriculture and agrifood sector and indeed to all of Canada and all Canadians. The bill would open up possibilities not only for the Canadian spirits drink industries, but for our wine industry and for our growing agri-tourist sector as well.

The bill is about jobs and about the diversification of regional economies. It is about growing Canada's $26 billion a year agriculture and agrifood exports in a manner which is most beneficial to our economy and our jobs.

One might ask how Bill S-38 would do all that. The bill would accomplish that by helping our agrifood sector add more value to our agriculture products, our grains and our grapes here at home so we can keep the dollars and economic prosperity within Canada.

Bill S-38 is also known as the spirit drinks trade act. Basically the bill would bring into full force a bilateral wine and spirits agreement that was signed by Canada and the European Union two years ago. It is this agreement which will benefit Canadian producers in both our domestic and foreign markets in the ways that I have just outlined.

The agreement, signed in September 2003, covers a wide range of wine and spirit trade issues between Canada and the EU. These include updates to an existing bilateral agreement which has been in place for some 15 years.

I will speak first to the technical provisions in the bill regarding spirit drinks which upholds Canada's end of the Canada-EU agreement.

In a nutshell, these provisions protect the identity of certain European drink names such as ouzo from Greece, grappa from Italy, pacharan from Spain and others.

Under Bill S-38, only spirit drinks from those specific countries and nowhere else could carry those names. In other words, a distiller in Niagara could not produce a spirit drink and sell it as a grappa or an ouzo. To be clear, no Canadian producers are doing this now.

Certain wines and spirits which are named after the geographic regions where they come from such as Rheingau and Baden in Germany already are protected in Canada under the Trademarks Act. So are Canadian geographic indicators such as the Okanagan Valley, or the Niagara Peninsula or Canadian rye whisky. Products like grappa and ouzo do not fall into that geographical indication category so they needed the specific protection provided under Bill S-38.

New legislation is needed to house the protections required by the Canada-EU bilateral agreement on wines and spirits. This is because these provisions could not simply fall under the Trademarks Act. It does not cover generic names for goods. Furthermore, it only protects private rights while the agreement calls for state enforced protection of these names.

As well as protecting European spirit drink names, Bill S-38 also would protect a number of North American spirit drink names, including Bourbon whisky from the United States and tequila from Mexico. These provisions fall under Annex 313 of the NAFTA.

Bill S-38 would also incorporate Canada's long-standing protection for the names Scotch whisky, Irish whiskey, cognac and Armagnac. Finally, the bill would provide protection for Caribbean rum under the Caribbean and Canada trade agreement. These existing commitments are currently implemented through provisions in the food and drug regulations, however Justice has advised us that it is not the appropriate home for them or the appropriate legislation for them to be within

I would also note that following consultations with Industry and International Trade Canada, a number of minor amendments were made in the committee in the other place. These amendments were designed to more clearly differentiate between the types of protection that Canada undertook to provide for each spirit drink name.

These are the nuts and bolts of Bill S-38. As I said earlier, while the bill may be viewed as a minor technical matter, Canada's wine and spirits industries regard it as much more than that. For them, Bill S-38 is nothing less than a wide open doorway to new growth and exports and new market development opportunities.

We are talking about is helping an industry that is already a strong contributor to Canada's economy and jobs, particularly in rural Canada where many of our wineries and distilleries are located. Rural Canada, as I have said on a number of occasions, is an important part of our country and the government takes that part very seriously. For urban Canada to be strong, rural Canada must be strong as well. They are not separate entities and they are not separate ideas, and we must support both. Rural Canada is home to one-third of Canadians. It provides one-quarter of all jobs. It contributes 22% to Canada's GDP and 40% of our total exports. Certainly the wines and spirits industry is an important contributor to that output.

We should never lose sight of the fact that our rural communities, our rural resource base and our rural people are the fabric and backbone of what makes our country strong. Canadians know that rural communities are key to both our social and our economic competitiveness. They are the front lines in building a better quality of life for the entire country. There is no question that wineries and distilleries are good for the rural economy. They generate crop sales for primary producers.

On the winery side, we are seeing a tremendous boom in the whole agri-tourism sector. More and more tourists are flocking from all corners of the globe to take wine tours in the Niagara Peninsula, the Okanagan Valley, Prince Edward County and elsewhere, even the Annapolis Valley as my colleague next to me has indicated, much as they do in the Napa Valley in California or the Loire Valley in France. That influx of tourism brings important economic benefits right throughout the rural economy: the hospitality sector, the restaurant sector, the travel sector and much more.

The Canadian wine and spirits industries are agrifood success stories, to be sure. Our wine sector continues to grow at a steady pace in many parts of Canada, including, if I may add a commercial message, in my own province of Prince Edward Island. Today about 170 wineries across Canada annually sell some $400 million in wines and purchase $75 million in grapes from producers. As for the spirits industry, Canada has 21 distilleries that produce over $1 billion worth of spirit drink products each year. Of that, some $500 million worth is exported.

As we heard in committee in the other place, both the wine and the spirits industries, including the Canadian Vintners Association and Spirits Canada, are in full support of Bill S-38. Why? Because, as I mentioned earlier, it secures the benefits achieved under the 2003 Canada-E.U. agreement. This agreement provides the industry and the Canadian economy with trade rules in the domestic marketplace, with greater access to the E.U. marketplace, and with a framework to manage any potential grievances in a cooperative and collaborative manner. Best of all, this is a balanced agreement that would benefit both sides without causing any disruption in the Canadian marketplace whatsoever.

With this proposed legislation bringing the 2003 Canada-EU agreement into full force, Canadian wines and spirits producers can look forward to improved access to the European market with which the recently expanded membership is now home to almost half a billion potential consumers. That is a considerable marketplace which is now open to more products thanks to this proposed legislation, products of which Canadian producers and the rural economy can take advantage of.

With Bill S-38 in force, wine and spirit producers in both Canada and the EU will have an agreement that would give them access to more trade opportunities and more stable trade rules. As well, consumers in Canada and the EU have access to a greater variety of wines and spirits than they have had in the past.

The Canadian industry is confident that the agreement will help free up some of the market restrictions that they have encountered in the EU market over the years and in doing so, secure greater recognition in the international reputation of the Canadian wines and whiskey.

As members will know, the Canadian wine industry has made great strides in quality over the past decade, due in large part to the development of the VQA , or the Vintners Quality Alliance, application. Today Canadian VQA wines are known and respected in international wine circles. It is interesting, even if we go to the stores around here, we will see people looking for that VQA symbol because that is the wine they like to buy and that is quality.

The next important step will be to make our quality Canadian wines household names right across Europe, to get them into basement wine cellars from Paris to Prague. The bill marks an important step in that direction. In fact, the wine industry believes that on the strength of this agreement, it will be able to grow wine exports from about $1.5 million annually to some $5 million over the next 10 years.

To give a few more specifics of the Canada-EU agreement, it will recognize for the first time Canadian wine-making practices in labelling rules for VQA wines in the EU market. It will provide for simpler certification for VQA exports, giving wine exporters greater certainty of market exports and allowing them to invest in market development. While protecting EU spirit names, it will protect our geographic indicators in the EU, notably Canadian whiskey and rye whiskey.

I must add that Canadian whiskey is an incredibly positive ambassador for Canada in many markets around the world. A full 80% of our production of Canadian whiskey is exported. Formal recognition by the EU of Canadian whiskey and rye whiskey provides the Canadian spirit industry the opportunity to invest and grow their brands, secure in the knowledge that they will not be undermined by cheap imitation knock-off products in the markets that they serve.

Just as important, here at home the Canada-EU agreement permits provincial liquor boards in Ontario and British Columbia to continue to allow producers in those provinces to make direct sales to consumers. Quebec also will be able to maintain its requirement that wine sold in grocery stores be bottled in the province of Quebec.

To sum up, Bill S-38 is about jobs. It is about regional diversification in rural Canada. It is about growing Canada's exports and adding value to those exports to keep more prosperity and more economic benefits here at home and to continue to build rural Canada. Bill S-38 is about Canada living up to our international trade obligations. We take these commitments very seriously and we expect no less from our trading partners. Canada is a trading nation and a rules-based trading system is fundamental to the global economic competitiveness of Canadian industries.

It is for these reasons that I would urge my hon. colleagues on all sides of the House to lend this important bill their full support. I would note that Canada agreed to provide protection for these names by June 2006, so it is important that we move forward with this bill rather quickly.

We must pass this legislation because it gives Canada a legal mechanism enabling it to meet the trade obligations we have so carefully negotiated. In the context of the discussions which led to the renewed agreement on spirit drinks and wines, Canada has succeeded in obtaining many benefits from the EU which Canadian producers and consumers can enjoy. However, to retain those benefits, we must ensure we are in a position to honour our obligations to our trading partners.

The provinces, the members of the wine and spirits industries in Canada and the federal government have worked hard together in negotiating the Canada-EU agreement on wines and spirits. The bill we have before us is the end result.

I would also like to recognize the contribution, hard work and collaboration of a number of federal departments including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, International Trade, Justice, Industry, and others. This is a significant accord that ensures Canadian wine and spirit drinks producers will have increased access to markets in the European Union in the years to come.

Again, I urge members to support the timely passage of this legislation.

[Queensway Carleton Hospital, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I prefer to lay out the five principles that the minister has laid out for the consultations. First, the department's national investment in science will be maintained at its current level or better. Second, research and development activities will be generally maintained in all provinces at current levels. Third, science undertaken will meet the needs of industry and take into account regional variances. Fourth, departmental initiatives will be integrated with the research and development planning and delivery done by government partners, universities and industry in Canada and abroad. Fifth, departmental initiatives will work to ensure synergy between researchers and to create state of the art facilities.

By pooling our resources with other research partners, we will be able to focus and increase the actual level of research activities with similar dollars. The minister's initiative is to move forward and do a better job of doing research.

[Queensway Carleton Hospital, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we will provide information later on where we believe we should go with our research. The member opposite continues to refer to documents that relate to opinions, analysis and possible scenarios that were developed to explore possible directions for the department's science activities, but they do not represent the final decisions made by the department.

In his remarks the member opposite congratulated the minister for putting in place a moratorium on the four research stations mentioned, and that is to the member's credit.

The facts are these. In February the department, as part of the expenditure review initiative, announced that it would be closing four research locations in Nappan, Nova Scotia, St. John's, Newfoundland, Kapuskasing, Ontario and Winnipeg, Manitoba. However, the minister decided, after feedback from many across the country, including the member opposite, to put in place a moratorium. That moratorium has been put on those closures and those locations will continue to operate until all consultations about their future are completed and evaluated.

The government is committed to ensuring that Canada is a world leader in agriculture. To achieve that goal we must be a world leader in science and innovation. On September 22 the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced a series of cross-country consultations and a national symposium as the next phase in the development of our science strategy. We will be working with communities, stakeholders, industry, universities and provincial representatives to determine research priorities for agriculture and we will be endeavouring to ensure that public funds are spent wisely in doing so.

During the cross-country consultations that I held on the farm income problems, it was made very clear to me at every location that research at the primary production level was extremely important. There is a view among producers that research has shifted away from primary agriculture to the industry value-added side and they want that dealt with.

In part these consultations are all about that. They are to hear the industry so the government can develop a policy and that moratorium will remain in place until such time as those discussions are over and the federal government can announce its science research and science policy for the Department of Agriculture.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore talked about the history of lighthouses and how important they were as a beacon of hope. There is no question that is absolutely correct.

The bill before us is Bill S-14, an act to protect heritage lighthouses. We must ask ourselves, can we, or do we even want to, save every single lighthouse, or is there a way to save heritage sites that could be more fiscally responsible than Bill S-14 sets out?

The intention of Bill S-14 is to protect heritage lighthouses within the legislative authority of Parliament by, first, providing a means for their designation as heritage lighthouses; second, providing an opportunity for public consultation before authorization is given for the removal, alteration, destruction, sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of a designated heritage lighthouse; third, requiring that the designated heritage lighthouses be reasonably maintained.

More specifically, Bill S-14 calls for the designation of heritage lighthouses by the governor-in-council on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment and provides for public petitions to trigger the designation process.

At the minister's request, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada would be responsible for considering such lighthouses for recommendation to the minister. With the board involved, it would be obligated to give all interested persons a reasonable opportunity to make representations concerning the designation.

Bill S-14 also provides for a system in which any person can object to proposed alterations or to disposal of a designated lighthouse. If this were to occur, the Minister of the Environment, with the advice of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, would have to decide whether or not to authorize this action.

The principles on which the bill is based, that is to protect significant examples of Canada's built heritage and to encourage a culture of conservation in this country, are important. I salute the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's for engaging the House in debate on this matter and for bringing it forward from the Senate.

However, the bill requires amendments in order to make it more fiscally responsible and to bring the processes and the policy foundation more closely into line with existing designation programs. There are currently three heritage designation programs which, like Bill S-14, relate to built heritage. These are the national historic sites program, the federal heritage buildings program and the heritage railway stations program.

The national program of historic commemoration identifies places, persons and events of national historical significance. This is done through the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, which advises the Minister of the Environment on the designation of these subjects.

The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada was established in 1919 to evaluate and provide advice regarding subjects of national historic significance. It continues its important work to this day, receiving more than 2,200 inquiries each year from Canadians about possible designations. Over 80% of the subjects considered by the board are brought forward through submissions from the public.

I can vouch for that because a number of sites from my home province of Prince Edward Island have been considered by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and been designated as historic sites. They are definitely an important part of our heritage.

The Parks Canada agency supplies the research support for the program and also the board's secretariat. It installs commemorate plaques and monuments, and Parks Canada administers about one in six of the more than 900 national historic sites.

Some 13 lighthouses have been designated as national historic sites. Of these, eight are administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and five by the Parks Canada agency. Those which are administered by Parks Canada are protected for all time in accordance with the Historic Sites and Monuments Act and the Parks Canada Act, and are among Canada's most important and treasured lighthouses.

Examples of these crown jewels include the Cape Spear National Historic Site of Canada, which is located along Newfoundland's coastline at the most easterly point of land in North America. A second example would be British Columbia's Fisgard Lighthouse National Historic Site of Canada, the first lighthouse on Canada's west coast. These are true national treasures and deserve the highest level of protection and care.

If the national historic sites program and that which is proposed for heritage lighthouses are compared, several important differences emerge. National historic sites represent the very best of what Canada has to offer. They are national treasures. The designation process is selective and sets a high standard for inclusion. By contract, Bill S-14 does not specify designation criteria. The intention is clearly to include more lighthouses than the 13 which have been designated as national historic sites thus far.

Bill S-14 would provide statutory protection for designated lighthouses. For national historic sites, currently only those which are administered by Parks Canada enjoy that level of protection. There is a strong legislative basis for that level of protection, not only for the lighthouses that are there now but for all historic sites. This was identified by the Auditor General in her 2004 report on the protection of cultural heritage in the federal government.

Parks Canada is working toward legislation that would address this problem. If Bill S-14 were passed in the absence of this historic places legislation, then Canada would be in the peculiar position of protecting many lighthouses while not protecting its most precious built heritage sites, the national historic sites.

The Historic Sites and Monuments Act sets the legislative framework under which sites are designated and establishes the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Bill S-14 proposes that this body, composed of experts on Canadian history, would be pressed into service in administering the heritage lighthouse system. This would distract their efforts from their primary task which is to make recommendations to the minister on matters of national historic significance. I do not disagree that the lighthouse issue is extremely important, but is each and every one of national historic significance?

The second existing built heritage program addresses the protection of federal heritage buildings. It comprises a two level designation process carried out under the Treasury Board's heritage buildings policy. Under the policy, buildings owned by the federal government which are more than 40 years old are evaluated and can be designated at the highest level as classified or recognized, which is the next level.

The Parks Canada agency is responsible for providing the research and for administering the policy through a secretariat known as the federal heritage buildings review office. Its purpose and mandate is to protect the heritage character of buildings while a property is within federal jurisdiction and to ensure appropriate measures are taken to protect heritage when such buildings are sold outside the federal inventory. There are currently 266 classified and 1,048 recognized federal heritage buildings. When the federal heritage buildings program is compared with Bill S-14, several important differences are evident.

The federal heritage buildings program is based on the premise that the department which administers a building is responsible for decisions about its care. For many lighthouses, for example, Fisheries and Oceans Canada makes judgments about how to best use and maintain them. When they have come to the end of their useful lives, it then sells or transfers the buildings in its care.

Bill S-14, by contrast, endows the minister responsible for the bill with the power to make decisions about work to be done on a heritage lighthouse and when it can be sold.

The bottom line is we need to do this in a fiscally responsible way. Yes, keep our most important treasures, but it has to be done without abusing the taxpayers of the nation as well.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. Obviously we are talking history. If he cannot read his own policy statement, he obviously cannot read the budget either because he does not know what it says.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Madam Chair, I am pleased to see the member for the Bloc this evening. I am glad he is supportive of the Canadian national supply management system, which has done so much for the province of Quebec.

Supply management alone for the province grosses $2.277 billion, so it is a major economic driver in the province of Quebec, and we know that producers are strongly supportive of it.

I find it remarkably strange why the party opposite, though, wants to continue to talk about separation when the whole system itself is based on a national system of supply management, which is so productive for Quebec producers.

My question really relates to the point the member made on article XXVIII. I do not know whether the member heard the minister speak earlier. The Minister of Agriculture certainly has not ruled out article XXVIII. He said clearly that we have to look at utilizing that article strategically. We do not want to use it in a way as to jeopardize the benefit to the total industry as a whole, including beef producers in Quebec, potato producers in Quebec, and producers of other commodities.

Would the member not agree that it is important to not just use threats but to be strategic in terms of how we use the various tools that are available to us in our talks at the World Trade Organization?

I do not think he would be suggesting that we utilize article XXVIII too soon so as really to jeopardize our total position at the talks. I would hope that would not be his position.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the member for Provencher talked about there being no action. I really find it interesting to listen to the members opposite here tonight. Maybe if they rub shoulders with the Liberals long enough they will have a conversion, because we are seeing a conversion here tonight. They are beginning to see the light in terms of supply management.

I do have to take issue with the member opposite in terms of what he called lack of action and moving away from the farm community. Would the member really agree with his own statement when the fact is that in 2003 we had record payments of $4.8 billion, between the federal and provincial governments, and $4.9 billion in 2004? We recognized the farm crisis out there. That is action: putting money in farmers' pockets. During that whole time we have consistently stood with the supply management industry and have done so for 35 years.

I am pleased to see tonight that they are at least coming along a little bit. I do not quite trust them yet, I will admit that, but at least we are seeing a little conversion from members opposite. Rubbing shoulders with us long enough, maybe they will see the light and eventually really support us. Maybe we could even get the leader of the party to support supply management. That would be something.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I listened closely to the remarks by the member opposite. The member really tried to avoid saying much about the Conservative Party position on supply management. She talked about policies and actions.

I can tell that member this: it was the Liberal Party that brought in supply management and it is the Liberal Party that has stood behind supply management for 35 years.

Let us talk about the supply management policy of the Conservative Party. I will be really interested tonight to see if there are any former Alliance members not from Ontario who come here to speak on supply management, because I believe that the Alliance Party really controls that party over there.

We will look at its policy. I will read out the Conservative Party's policy statement of February 4 of last year and I ask members to listen closely:

A Conservative government will ensure that any agreement which impacts supply management gives our producers guaranteed access to foreign markets, and that there will be a significant transition period in any move towards a market-driven environment.

That, I believe, is the real agenda of that party over there, although it is trying to cover it up a bit with its new policy statement of this year, which really says that supply management remains viable and it will support supply management and its goal “to deliver a high quality product to consumers for a fair price with a reasonable return to the producer”.

Does that party really stand behind the pillars of supply management? That is my question to the member opposite. Does she really stand behind the policies? Does she have the support of her leader in doing that? And which policy of the Conservative Party opposite really exists? I believe it is the one which will really mean at the end of the day that there will be a “significant transition period in any move toward a market-driven environment”, because that is the real objective.

I am really very interested in seeing if any of the former Alliance members who are not from Ontario will be speaking in support of supply management here tonight.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened to a fair bit of the member's remarks and I have to lay this on the line. He said that we should hang our heads in shame. I will tell members who should hang their heads in shame. It is those members over there who use the privileges of this House to take allegations and substantiate them as if they are facts.

First, the member who just spoke is a lawyer. Will he answer me this question? Does he see that kind of operation, in which members use allegations with the benefit of parliamentary privilege, as due process of law in terms of what he learned in law school?

Second, I stand here proud to be a member of this government. I am a proud Liberal, one who was in the government when we took this country, which was almost bankrupt, according to the New York Stock Exchange, a country that had a $42 billion annual deficit, and turned it around.

We have had eight surplus budgets. The previous prime minister and this Prime Minister, the then finance minister, should be congratulated for their fiscal management in terms of managing this country in the way it ought to be managed, in terms of creating jobs, the $100 billion in tax cuts, and this budget, the best budget we have seen in a century.

I will tell members that I stand here as a proud member of the government and I am willing to go to the polls at any time on this budget. I guarantee that we will be back here as the government so we can continue to manage responsibly and fiscally properly.