Coline M. CAMPBELL

CAMPBELL, Coline M., B.A., B.Ed., LL.B.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
South West Nova (Nova Scotia)
Birth Date
September 26, 1940
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coline_Campbell
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=1b2d233e-dfb8-493e-ad47-1cce8ffc73b3&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister, lawyer, teacher

Parliamentary Career

July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
LIB
  South Western Nova (Nova Scotia)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (September 15, 1974 - September 14, 1975)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada (October 10, 1975 - September 30, 1976)
February 18, 1980 - July 9, 1984
LIB
  South West Nova (Nova Scotia)
November 21, 1988 - September 8, 1993
LIB
  South West Nova (Nova Scotia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 152)


June 15, 1993

Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):

Chantez.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PENSIONS
Full View Permalink

May 27, 1993

Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):

I have had five minutes?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Full View Permalink

May 27, 1993

Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):

Mr. Speaker, this is not a 10-minute questions and comments period?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Full View Permalink

May 27, 1993

Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):

Mr. Speaker, I could take exception at several things the minister said, particularly when she says that the environment is

May 27, 1993

integrated into the North American free trade agreement.

As Minister of the Environment she should be well aware that the Official Opposition position is that the environment is not protected vis-a-vis jobs. Even President Clinton has asked for a side agreement. I do not know how she dares to stand up and say that it is well integrated.

However, in her other role as minister responsible for women, what does she think is going to happen now that there is no tribunal looking at or defining what we can keep in Canada and about our concerns in terms of not having it interpreted as a subsidy?

I would just say that in terms of business, whether it is a DREE agreement to help women start up a business or whether it is a day care program sponsored by the province, the United States could come back and say that is a subsidy when it is something that is integrated into it. We will not have that protection. We do not have that seven-year tribunal to define what we will not include as a subsidy within our trade agreement with the U.S. It was there but it is no longer there under the NAFTA. We do not have the protection of a seven-year definition for what is not considered a subsidy to trade.

As a minister responsible for women, I think she is putting women at a disadvantage, not only in regional areas like myself, but women right across Canada. Has she any comments?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Full View Permalink

May 27, 1993

Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister who just spoke. Our present free trade agreement with the United States was accepted by many Canadians when it was passed because a commission was given seven years to decide what constituted subsidies. This bill on NAFTA neither responds to the subsidy issue nor defines subsidies.

Does the minister believe that Canada will be granted the same protection with respect to subsidies as under the present agreement, or rather that the United States and Mexico will think that they will benefit from these free trade subsidies between the two countries? In other words, I would like the minister to tell me what is going to happen to programs which are not considered as subsidized in Canada while, in the past, the United States has claimed that some were. The whole issue of subsidies had been referred to a commission at the time, which had been asked to make certain decisions regarding the existing Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. But there is nothing about subsidies in this bill on NAFTA, the new North American free trade agreement, and it goes beyond free trade. There will be no commission to decide the issue.

The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that to make up for that, a definition of what constitutes a subsidy should be included before NAFTA is ratified because this agreement is so important for Canada as the minister just said.

I think it is important to have free trade but what constitutes a subsidy ought to be specified; otherwise our partners could think that our health care and unemployment insurance systems are subsidized and not allowed under free trade.

Could the minister tell us how the subsidy issue will be dealt with in concrete terms?

regretfully she implies that the Canadian health system will be affected because of the subsidies.

Trying to scare Canadians in such a way is not much to the opposition member's credit. This is trying to scare without any regard for Canadians who enjoy the medicare system and the unemployment insurance system, who are familiar with them and used to them. I feel it is a shame that the member tries in this House to relate those two items to NAFTA.

I would also like to point out to her that because of the Canada-U.S. free trade deal, there is a panel with Canadians and Americans in equal numbers, for the first time in the history of both countries, which can and must settle problems as they arise between our two countries. No other country in the world can have such an agreement with the United States. So far, my own area has benefited as a result of this panel's decisions and I hope we will continue to benefit from it.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Full View Permalink