Daniel James Macdonnell HEAP

HEAP, Daniel James Macdonnell, B.A., B.D.

Personal Data

Party
New Democratic Party
Constituency
Trinity--Spadina (Ontario)
Birth Date
September 24, 1925
Deceased Date
April 25, 2014
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Heap
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=a03c4e49-6a3d-4810-831e-4e694d169628&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
priest, printer, worker

Parliamentary Career

August 17, 1981 - July 9, 1984
NDP
  Spadina (Ontario)
September 4, 1984 - October 1, 1988
NDP
  Spadina (Ontario)
November 21, 1988 - September 8, 1993
NDP
  Trinity--Spadina (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 376)


May 26, 1993

Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure under Standing Order 36 to present a petition of 725 names. These Canadians are very concerned about the North American free trade agreement because it will result in even greater job loss through trade concessions.

The petitioners point out that it will restrict Canadian governments from serving the Canadian people and protecting the Canadian environment and also point out it cannot be remedied through renegotiation. Canada's Constitution requires a general federal election before January 1, 1994, when the free trade agreement is scheduled to come into effect.

Therefore, they call upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.

Topic:   NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Full View Permalink

May 25, 1993

Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):

Madam Speaker, it is my honour, pleasure and duty under Standing Order 36 to present several petitions all on the same subject from Canadians in Thompson, Makwapeekeeneegun, Sherridon, Flin Flon, Cranberry Portage, Kenville, Bowsman, Swan River, Ethelbert, Miniota, Oakbum, Roblin, Russell, Shoal River, Dauphin, Benito, Cowan, Rorketon, The Pas, Birch River, Creighton, Rossbum, Grandview, Samwood and Irwin River to name a few.

Their point is that the proposed North American free trade agreement will bring great trade restrictions on Canada that will cause us to lose more good jobs and that it will restrict all the governments of Canada, including those of the provinces and territories, from promoting Canadian industry, conserving natural resources for Canadian benefit, and advancing social programs. They point out that it cannot be remedied through renegotiation.

Canada's Constitution requires a federal election this year. The date on which the North American free trade agreement is scheduled to take effect is January 1, 1994. Therefore they call upon this House and all the members in it to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to scrap the U.S.-Can-ada free trade agreement.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   GASOLINE PRICES
Full View Permalink

May 25, 1993

Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have a further chance in this marathon debate to speak against the NAFTA bill which was rammed through Parliament in five days of debate at second reading. A huge long bill which was rammed through the committee in a few days without hearings across the country is now given three days for debate on the amendments and third reading.

I wish to speak now on amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 4, moved by my friend and colleague the member for Esquimau-Juan de Fuca says: "Nothing in this act or the agreement shall be interpreted so as to prohibit a party to the agreement from requiring commercial entities within its sovereign territory to process raw materials or raw resource before exporting such materials or resources".

The point is if Canada is to develop our secondary industries we must have the power to direct our natural

Government Orders

resources so that they can be used by Canadians in Canada to create value added, whether it is for the Canadian domestic market or whether it is for export.

The amendment in this is in the words "commercial entities within its sovereign territory". In other words, it is not enough to ask for an amendment that would require a foreign government such as the United States or Mexico to do this processing. The ones who are in fact conducting the business, the ones who are in fact seeking our cheap raw materials at the lowest price and our labour at the lowest price are not the governments of those countries, but the multinational corporations which control those governments.

Therefore, we have this subamendment to the amendment with the effect of saying that no corporation, no commercial entity can export our raw materials or our natural resource unless they do the value added work in Canada with Canadian labour. That should be required by any government which has any respect for the needs of the Canadian people.

It is fairly obvious in the case of the various minerals that we have that we need to be able to process more of them within Canada. During the last world war and during the Vietnam war Canada did some of that. Much more was done simply to ship it to the United States to build their industries. Now that we are not involved in any war, even indirectly, we should be giving attention to building our long term peace-time industries with those minerals and also with Canadian water. We need a rule that will protect Canadian water as well from being exported and then being subjected to the rule that once we have started exporting we cannot stop it, which is the rule of the free trade agreement.

We also need that rule to protect our oil which we need for many purposes in Canada. Madam Speaker, would you ask the Liberal caucus to conduct its meeting outside, please?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Full View Permalink

May 25, 1993

Mr. Heap:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to speak a little bit about a situation in southern Ontario. It is not a matter of minerals or oil but it is a matter of our agricultural produce. We have plenty of land capable of producing fruits and vegetables in southern Ontario. In the past there were a lot more small local processing stations, processing plants throughout southern Ontario producing preserves, producing jams, producing all kinds of products from our fruits.

What has happened, especially since the free trade agreement was signed, is that mammoth multinationals like Campbell's have been closing their plants in Canada and either ceasing to buy the Canadian product or buying it up only to ship it to the United States to process in their much larger plants there and sell back to Canada.

As a result we are becoming dependent on a foreign country for our food. When I grew up in this country I thought I was growing up in an agricultural country which also had manufacturing and commerce. It never occurred to me that we might ever approach the point where Canadian land would not feed Canadian people, where Canadian people would not be able to control the production of food and the processing of food in our own country. But in fact that is the prospect we are now facing with the NAFTA accord. We will be prevented from restoring the food processing industries in Canada by being told that any aid that the government gives is an unfair subsidy.

We have to protect the right, not so much of governments but sometimes with the help of governments, of people in any small town or any rural community elfectively to generate their own further employment by producing a cannery or a bottling plant or a jam factory, whatever you have, produce it and sell it locally without being swamped by cheap exports from the United States or Mexico. The United States blatantly violates the general principles of GATT with its export enhancement program. They can undersell any competitor in Canada and drive it out of business if we do not use our only defence against it which is the sovereign Government of Canada.

The same applies to Ontario's forest products industries. I worked for 18 years in one small branch of it, the production of corrugated paper boxes. I now learn that plants are being shut down in Canada because the boxes can be shipped in from the United States to serve the Canadian market. Some of those boxes are made with pulp produced in Canada, formerly used in Canada to make the boxes, now sent to the United States by the multinationals down there which control that part of the Canadian source and that part of the Canadian market.

Unemployment in cities as well as in the small rural towns is growing on account of the effective rule of the multinational corporations. It is killing local communities. It is causing people to move desperately into our larger cities, especially the three great metropolises, but not only those, and to empty and break up the fabric of rural communities in the countryside.

We need a chance to enable people in those places not only to grow food but to process it locally. That is why we need this subamendment. Without this amendment, NAFTA will continue to wipe out the food processing industry. It will block the possibility of creating new ones because of the multinationals flooding our market.

The general goal of the free trade agreement and the general goal of the North American free trade agreement, the so-called economic constitution for North America, is clearly to give the biggest companies the freest access to the cheapest materials and low wages or for some people, no wages.

The Tory government slogan of promoting this agreement about four or five years ago was: "Do not explain the agreement to the public; just sell it".

Also, the intention of the Tories was to do no studies ol the impact or to withhold any impact studies so that Canadians would not know the results to be expected. Their decision was to prohibit hearings across the country, except in a few places. They missed the two largest metropolises in Canada which with the regions around them represent about a quarter of the Canadian people. There were absolutely no hearings there.

May 25, 1993

It is therefore necessary that the people understand what is being done by this government to the people who entrusted it with this responsibility.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Full View Permalink

May 25, 1993

Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal particularly with Motions Nos. 2 and 5 in this debate, a debate in which the New Democratic Party is the only party solidly opposing the North American free trade agreement.

I want to point out that Motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca would have us insert into the law a protection of Canadian law. The protection is there in American law. It is already there in the North American free trade agreement which is carried forward. In the North American free trade agreement it says: "No provision of this agreement nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance which is in conflict with any law of the United States shall have effect." We want the same provision, an equal provision to say that no provisions of this agreement nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance which is in conflict with any law of Canada shall have effect.

It is very important that this kind of amendment be put forward and adopted. Any act of Parliament or any act of the Ontario legislature or any other legislature in Canada or any decision of a city council or even of a hospital board under the North American free trade agreement can be struck down or made of no effect if it is in conflict with some act of any legislature in the United States. We want the same right to be applied to any act of any legislative body in Canada.

We should have the right to acquire food quality. Food imported from the United States or food imported from Mexico should meet Canadian food standards. We should have the right to control the entry of food into Canada in which there is undue presence, for example, of pesticide residue. We have the right to make those laws now without the interference of the North American free agreement. When this is put into effect, if Canada says you cannot import vegetables that have been poisoned by the pollution of the land and the water that is used to produce those vegetables in Mexico or in parts of the United States, the producers of those would be able to use the North American free trade agreement to strike down that prohibition.

May 25, 1993

Government Orders

In the same way if we said, as for example Toronto city council does, that we will not accept a certain product because it is produced by child labour or because it is produced by labour which is not free to organize a union as is required by the International Labour Organization in its conventions, we have the right as a sovereign nation to prohibit the entry of that product into Canada. If we want to have production of goods produced under fair labour conditions or goods that are produced under healthy environmental conditions, we have that right as a sovereign nation. That right will be endangered or even destroyed by this North American free trade agreement because it does not respect laws of Canada as it respects laws of the United States.

If we let this North American free trade agreement go through without this amendment, we are destroying the chance for Canadian producers of food or Canadian producers of equipment for our hospitals, Canadian producers of bed sheets for our publicly owned and publicly operated senior citizens homes, anything like that. If they are produced under unfair or unsanitary conditions we would lose the right to prohibit their import into Canada.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Full View Permalink