37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 029
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 15, 2001
1005
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CHARITIES REGISTRATION (SECURITY INFORMATION) ACT
|
| Bill C-16. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997 AND FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
|
| Bill C-17. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1010
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-18. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-300. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| PETITIONS
|
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| Educational Institutions
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1015
| Canada Post
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Rights of the Unborn
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted day—softwood lumber
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1020
1025
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
1030
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1035
1040
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1045
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1050
1055
1100
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1105
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1110
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1115
1120
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1125
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1130
1135
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
1140
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1145
1150
1155
1200
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1205
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1210
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1215
1220
1225
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1230
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1235
1240
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1245
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1250
1255
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1300
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1305
1310
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1315
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1320
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1325
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1330
| Mr. Stephen Owen |
1335
1340
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1345
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE OLYMPICS
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1400
| NURSING
|
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| JUNO AWARDS
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| JEAN BESRÉ
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| VIOLENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1405
| MUSLIM COMMUNITY
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| HUMAN CLONING
|
| Ms. Pauline Picard |
| MEMBER FOR SASKATOON—HUMBOLDT
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| JEAN BESRÉ
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| BILL C-286
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1410
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| JEAN BESRÉ
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| SOFTWOOD LUMBER
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| WILLIAM NEEDLES
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
1415
| HAYLEY WICKENHEISER
|
| Mr. David Anderson |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1425
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| FOOD INSPECTION
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1440
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1445
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1450
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1455
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1500
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Statements by members
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Standing Orders—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1510
1515
1520
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Softwood Lumber
|
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1525
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1530
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1535
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1540
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
1545
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1550
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Joe Comuzzi |
1555
1600
1605
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1610
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
1615
1620
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
1625
1630
| Mr. John McKay |
1635
1640
| Mr. Richard Harris |
1645
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
1650
1655
| Mr. Richard Harris |
1700
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1705
1710
1715
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| PARLIAMENTARIANS' CODE OF CONDUCT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Motion
|
1720
1725
1730
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1735
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1740
1745
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1750
1755
1800
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1805
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1810
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1815
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Ethics Counsellor
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1820
| Mr. Derek Lee |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 029
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 15, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent for the following motion that I intend to offer
to the House and to have adopted. I move, seconded by the hon.
member for Calgary Southwest:
That, when Orders of the Day are reached on Wednesday, March 21,
2001, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons shall
propose the following motion:
That a special committee of the House be appointed to consider
and make recommendations on the modernization and improvement of
the procedures of the House of Commons;
That the members of the committee shall be the Deputy Speaker
and the House Leaders of each of the officially recognized
parties, provided that substitutions may be made from time to
time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order
114(2);
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the Chair of the
committee shall be the Deputy Speaker and the Vice-Chairs shall
be Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the House
Leader of the Official Opposition;
That the committee shall have all of the powers granted to
Standing Committees in Standing Order 108;
That the committee shall not adopt any report without the
unanimous agreement of all the Members of the committee;
That the committee may recommend to the House texts of new or
amended Standing Orders;
That the committee may make recommendations for changes to
relevant statutes and, if it does so, such recommendations shall
be deemed to have been made pursuant to an Order adopted pursuant
to Standing Order 68(4);
That the committee shall present its final report no later than
Friday, June 1, 2001.
That the motion shall be disposed of in the following manner:
(1) After a representative of each recognized party has spoken,
no Member may speak for more than ten minutes, with a five minute
period for questions and comments;
(2) No proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall be taken
up and the House shall continue to sit after the ordinary time of
daily adjournment to consider the motion, provided that, after
6.30 p.m., the Chair shall not receive any quorum calls, dilatory
motions or requests for unanimous consent to propose any motion;
(3) No amendment to the motion shall be permitted;
(4) When no Member rises to speak, the motion shall be deemed to
have been adopted and the House shall adjourn to the next sitting
day; and
(5) That the debate on the motion shall be deemed to satisfy the
requirements of Standing Order 51.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion
proposed by the government House leader. Does the hon.
government House leader have unanimous consent of the House to
propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
[English]
CHARITIES REGISTRATION (SECURITY INFORMATION) ACT
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-16, an act
respecting the registration of charities and security information
and to amend the Income Tax Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997 AND FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
ACT
Hon. Elinor Caplan (for Minister of Finance) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-17, an act to amend the Budget Implementation
Act, 1997 and the Financial Administration Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
[English]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
Hon. Elinor Caplan (for the Minister of Finance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-18, an act to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-300, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(wearing of war decorations).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to present the
bill. It has taken four years of development. The process was
very lengthy because of the involvement of a great number of
players at various levels, from the highest level to the
community level, in composing, rectifying and making the
necessary changes to the bill.
It is a bill insofar as intent is concerned is very similar to
one that was presented earlier this week in the House. However
the legislative legal clerks of the House of Commons have
indicated that the bill I am presenting is far more comprehensive
and all encompassing and has some very unique characteristics.
Therefore I am presenting it today.
The purpose of this enactment is to allow relatives of deceased
or incapacitated veterans to wear on Remembrance Day at a public
function or ceremony commemorating veterans, or in a circumstance
prescribed by cabinet, any order, decoration or medal listed in
the Canadian orders, declaration and medals directive of October
25, 1990, that is awarded to such veterans for war services,
without facing criminal sanctions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
VIA RAIL
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again I rise in the House of Commons, as I have
many times in the past seven and a half years, to present a
petition pertaining to the restoration of VIA service from
Toronto through to Sudbury along the beautiful north shores of
Lake Superior, through Thunder Bay, Kenora and Dryden, and on to
Winnipeg on the CPR line. Those communities where the vast
majority of people in northwestern Ontario live do not have
railway passenger service.
Today I am presenting hundreds and hundreds of signatures from a
variety of communities along the north shore of Lake Superior, as
well as Thunder Bay. They are asking the Canadian government to
work in a co-operative spirit with VIA and CPR to reintroduce
passenger service along that line as quickly as possible.
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my next petition pertains to the development of a free
standing unique medical school in northwestern Ontario.
I have the signatures of petitioners from a multitude of
communities in northwestern Ontario who are asking the Canadian
government, through Health Canada, the Ministry of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development and other ministries and agencies as
parliament shall direct, to provide adequate funding and support
to create a northern rural medical school in the centre of
Canada.
1015
CANADA POST
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present two
petitions.
The first petition is on behalf of citizens in Sudbury,
Val-Caron, Guelph and Kitchener. They call upon parliament to
protect rural route mail couriers and allow them to have
collective bargaining rights.
RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is on behalf of citizens of the town
of Wallaceburg in the riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. They
call upon parliament to extend all protection to the unborn child
by amending the criminal code to respect the sanctity of human
life.
CANADA POST
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have before me a petition put
forward by petitioners from the Timmins area.
They allege that rural mail couriers often earn less than
minimum wage and have working conditions reminiscent of another
era. They also allege that our RRMCs have not been allowed to
bargain collectively to improve their wages and working
conditions like all other workers. They also allege that
subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits
RRMCs from having collective bargaining rights.
They are petitioning the Parliament of Canada to repeal
subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) moved:
That this House support the government's will in its efforts to
restore free trade agreement rules for lumber and inform the
United States that it rejects any obstacle to that free trade
process.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wish to inform you that throughout the day Bloc
Quebecois members will split their allotted time of 20 minutes
into two 10 minute periods.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
connection with today's debate I think you would find consent for
the following motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's
Opposition Motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this
motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and
deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders
on Tuesday, March 20, 2001.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to move a
motion in the House today calling on it to take a stand in the
dispute over lumber between the industries in Canada and The
United States
The motion reads:
That this House support the government's will in its efforts to
restore free trade agreement rules for lumber and inform the
United States that it rejects any obstacle to that free trade
process.
In bringing forward this motion through me, the Bloc Quebecois
is once again acting as the defender of the rights of Quebec.
However, in the case of lumber, and in this rare instance, it is
clear that the interests of Quebec and of Canada converge, as we
face our American partners.
On April 1, at the end of the current agreement, free trade in
this sector must be reinstated. Part of the U.S. lumber industry
must stop its harassment
of the lumber industry in Quebec and Canada.
In Canada, some 130,000 jobs are linked to the lumber industry.
In Quebec, the figure is over 30,000. Quebec is the second
largest producer of lumber in Canada, with 25.5% of production.
1020
Quebec produces approximately 7 billion board feet annually.
The industry injects over $4 billion a year into the Quebec
economy.
The lumber industry is found in various regions of Quebec
Over 250 Quebec municipalities have sprung up around wood
processing. In some of these municipalities, all of the jobs
are related to this industry.
My colleagues will have an opportunity today to speak of this
industry's importance to the development of jobs and the economy
in their riding.
The U.S. market is a major outlet, as 51.4% of Quebec exports go
to the United States, while 47.6% of U.S. products are exported
to Canada.
The value of Quebec exports to the United States is about $2
billion annually, while the total value of Canadian lumber
exports to the United States is $10 to $11 billion annually.
This clearly illustrates how important this industry is and how
important it is to revert to a normal free trade situation with
the Americans, as provided for in the North American free trade
agreement.
Members certainly know that the U.S. industry, or a part of the
U.S. lumber industry, has long been complaining about
competition from the Canadian industry. The dispute has been
going on for almost 20 years.
In fact, we have to go back to 1982 to see the first forms of
harassment by the U.S. industry.
Every time complaints have been filed, Canadian and Quebec
producers have been able to demonstrate that there were no
subsidies in Canada and any of the Canadian provinces, and that
their trade practices were fully in accordance with the
agreements with our American neighbours and with multilateral
agreements.
I am convinced that once again the Canadian industry will be
able to demonstrate that it is not subsidized, that the logging
price is established according to market rules and that there is
dumping whatsoever. We should not delude ourselves. The 1996
Canada-U.S.A. softwood lumber agreement had no foundation as far
as trade practices are concerned.
Quebec producers paid a countervailing duty of 6.51%, yet they
were not subsidized. Quebec exporters who are not subsidized
bore the cost of quotas, yet they should have been exempted. All
in all, duties of more than 16% were unjustly collected.
I think we realize today that we would be better off appealing
to various tribunals than making a deal that needlessly puts
Canada and Quebec at a disadvantage, particularly since the
World Trade Organization now has rules.
On September 11, for example, Canadian and Quebec lumber
producers won another battle, when the World Trade Organization
accepted Canada's request to create a select panel to examine
the legality of the U.S. position on the countervailing duty
issue.
In this House we all know that for the U.S. industry
subsidies and the Canadian industry are not the problem. The
problem is that the U.S. industry has not invested much to renew
its technology and organizational practices, while the Canadian
industry generally made major investments. This is the only
reason the U.S. industry is less competitive than the Canadian
industry.
The consensus in the Canadian industry is that we should simply
return to free trade for lumber. The industry expects, and
rightly so, that the Canadian government will support it in this
regard. The Bloc Quebecois has tried repeatedly to ensure that
the federal government is supporting this consensus.
I must say that at times we have felt the Minister for
International Trade was being soft. On February 22, during the
same question period, the minister spoke twice about a
transition toward free trade. I remind the House that this was
on February 22. To a question from the Canadian Alliance, the
minister replied:
On the same day the minister answered the following to a question
from the Bloc Quebecois:
If there is talk of a transition, I think we can reasonably
assume that there will be some transitional measures, something
both our party and the industry oppose.
1025
The following day, on February 23, the parliamentary secretary
talked about returning to free trade in the long term. The Bloc
Quebecois asked a question and this is what he said:
The long range goal of Canada is very clear in softwood lumber.
It is to have free trade in softwood lumber with the United
States.
When they start talking about transitional measures and about a
long range goal, I think there is reason for concern about the
firmness of the government's position on returning to pure and
simple free trade in softwood lumber.
I believe that the statement made yesterday by the Prime
Minister in response to a question from the Bloc Quebecois has
clarified, definitively I hope, the position of the federal
government:
I believe it is time now for all members of all parties in the
House to speak out, not only in support of the position of the
government, the Prime Minister and the industry, but also to let
the Americans know that we will not allow ourselves to be
intimidated by the harassment of one part of the lumber
industry.
The necessity for MPs to speak out in this House is all the
greater since the announcement a few days ago by U.S. Senators
and members of the house of representatives of their support for
the portion of their lumber industry that is continuing to
harass the Canadian industry.
I am therefore calling upon all members of all parties to join
forces with the industry by adopting the motion I am introducing
this morning.
[English]
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by saying that I
agree 100% with what the member from the Bloc said, except, of
course, in his references to Canada and Quebec. The last time I
looked, Quebec was still part of Canada. We welcome it to stay,
by the way.
The western producers, particularly in the provinces of B.C. and
Alberta which is my domain, because of quota restrictions to
small and medium sized mills, were able to cut far more than
their quota would allow. The end result, because of the extra
wood, was they had to basically sell at a bargain basement price
to domestic users.
Could the member tell me what it was like in the province of
Quebec with the domestic mills? Did they have a surplus of wood
which they had to dump on their own domestic market, thus driving
the price of lumber down? Was it the same situation there as it
was out in B.C.?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question and the support I sensed behind it.
I believe that the entire American industry is experiencing a
depression in softwood lumber prices. One of the reasons for
this is that since our access to the American market is limited,
our domestic supply is too great, particularly since there has
been a general increase in the North American production
capacity.
It must be kept in mind that a lumber industry has developed in
the southern United States as a replacement for the Canadian
industry. In my opinion, a very important factor in the drop in
lumber prices is the fact that there is a downturn in the United
States, and there is a risk of its spreading to Canada.
It is therefore extremely important that the rules of free trade
be restored effective April 1 to the softwood lumber industry,
so that pricing will reflect market realities and not the ideas
of certain American producers.
[English]
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my riding of Sault Ste. Marie is one riding which relies
heavily on softwood lumber. It is partly a resources based
economy. What I have to say applies to the other cities which
comprise the region of northern Ontario.
Softwood lumber is very important to that region and, indeed, it
is important to the country. I thank the member for his
excellent representations and indicate that this motion is likely
to have very strong support.
1030
Why is softwood lumber so important? Why is this one of the
most important trade issues that the country faces? I will tell
the House why. Softwood lumber is Canada's largest industry. It
is an important issue because one in sixteen Canadians work in
the forest sector. It is important because 337 communities are
more than 50% dependent on forestry for economic survival.
It is important because Canada has 20% of the world market and
34% of the United States market. Goods worth $10.7 billion were
exported to the United States market in 1999 alone.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon.
member is supporting the motion. It is important that everything
be extremely clear.
In terms of the commercial practices of Canada or one of the
Canadian provinces, there is no reason for countervailing
duties. That is why all members should be supportive of this
industry, which is extremely important, like the hon. member
said. We will have the opportunity to vote on this motion, and I
encourage members of all parties to support it.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in the debate on the motion by my hon. colleague.
The Charlevoix riding depends largely on the development of the
Charlevoix and north shore forests. In Quebec we have more than
30,000 workers in the forest industry.
The motion before us during this opposition day will no doubt
get the unanimous support of the government and opposition
parties. All regions of Canada, the ten provinces and two
territories, have a forest industry producing lumber.
Our forest is a natural resource on which many workers depend
for employment. In the past these workers were often referred
to as lumberjacks and considered as second class workers. Today
we have to make a special effort to recruit and train people to
work in our forestry industry.
This motion and the amendment must receive the approval of the
House of Commons in the vote to come because it is vital for our
economy. We accepted the free trade agreement in Canada.
This agreement has had advantages but also disadvantages.
The issue was on the agenda of a meeting between the Canadian
Prime Minister and the U.S. president. They discussed free trade
in softwood lumber. I hope that discussion was preparing the way
for the summit of the Americas to be held in Quebec City, where
free trade in softwood lumber, among other things, will be
discussed thoroughly and extensively.
Why did they limit Canada's trade in softwood lumber on
international markets by imposing quotas on Canadian and Quebec
lumber producers? We have a high quality product, and we have
the workers and resources necessary.
The U.S. senate and even Americans in general were afraid that
we might flood their market because Canadian softwood lumber is
produced in larger volumes and at a better cost. That is when
they introduced quotas. They said to Canada: “This is your
yearly quota”. I think it was in the 1996 agreement.
Strangely enough in the free trade agreement the United States
accepted that Canada export as much electricity and agricultural
products as they wanted to meet their needs. However, if we
consider another product traded under the free trade agreement,
textile for example, we find that the FTA was not so good for us
in Quebec, especially in Montreal. As we know, immediately after
we opened up our market to textiles from other countries under
FTA several productive textile firms in Montreal went belly up.
1035
We could have done like the U.S. and say that we would allow
imports to Quebec and Canada once we have taken stock of our
needs.
Forest products like softwood lumber come from natural
resources. Why are we penalizing the softwood lumber industry
and not the mining companies, for instance, or those who produce
iron on the north shore? It is because we know that there is a demand
for the iron produced on the north shore, that the doors are
already wide open and that we need this product.
Softwood lumber producers are overregulated and
overlegislated. Even before they can access the international
market lumber producers in Quebec and Canada have obligations to
fulfil. They have to worry about the environment. Clear-cutting
is no longer an option and forest workers have stopped
harvesting without worrying about the impact of their
operations.
Lumber producers must learn to share the resources. They must
work in partnership with the people who live on the land they
want to develop. They also have to work with native communities
who have some land reserved to them. They have to take into
account resort areas in some parts of the country and even
protected areas in parks near rivers and lakes, as well as areas
where the department of energy and resources has set quotas.
They must live and work in partnership with the aboriginal
communities and the people they share the land with.
Note that we no longer do clear cutting but rather a very
selective type of logging in order to promote forest
regeneration. Moreover, considering our climate and the rugged
terrain in certain areas where it is not easy for the producer
to harvest lumber using very specialised equipment, we must make
sure this regeneration is possible. I will indicate you in a moment
about the cost of lumber on the international market.
Also often at its expense the logging industry must build access
roads which are used as well by vacationers and others who use
the land. Lumber producers must also meet environmental
standards.
Today it is well known that lumber producers get their licences
or logging quotas after a feasibility and yield study has been
made. They must also determine how the lumber will be harvested
and moved. Will noise or water pollution standards be met?
Likewise studies will be made on the habitat of the moose, deer
and other species living on the land. Their habitats are in
these forests.
Lumber producers must also conform to the Canadian legislation
regarding the quota system as well as to the provincial
legislation.
In Quebec, as in other provinces, there are quotas for
exporting, harvesting and renewal. This causes certain
problems.
However if we want the resource to be there for the next 50 or 100
years, we must make sure that it is harvested in a civilized
manner and that it is allowed to grow back. With our climate on
the north shore, a spruce tree planted in 2001 cannot be
harvested in 2010 when it has reached a diameter of six inches.
It will be another generation, maybe two, after us that will
reap the benefits.
Account must also be taken of the cost to producers of
transportation. The more we log, the more the forest recedes,
and the further the lumber must be transported. In addition to
the costs of transportation and logging, there are processing
costs. Recently there has been a terrible increase in the
price of diesel and gasoline,
but truckers have not been compensated by the mills or the
producers. These are often individual operators with a firm
contract who have had to absorb the increase in gasoline and
diesel prices.
1040
There are also the roads, which often deteriorate during frosts
and thaws and which have weight restrictions. At this time of
the year the trucks are either half full or half empty,
depending on whether one is an optimist or a pessimist.
Consideration must also be given to the costs of processing,
investment, equipment and manpower training. Today logging
requires more than a saw and an axe. It requires specialized
equipment and very expensive tools. In my riding there are
more than six sawmills.
It is sometimes difficult to see the forest for the trees.
We are asking the Prime Minister, at the summit of the Americas,
to allow Quebecers to have free trade and to maintain their
position on the logging and processing of softwood lumber.
In closing I wish to move an amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended by adding after the word “process”
the following:
“for example the establishment of quotas or tariff barriers.”
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The amendment is in order.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the Bloc for
their presentations and the motion this morning. I would make a
comment and ask a question.
The official opposition members are free traders and agree that
the government should make every effort to secure free trade in
softwood lumber and resist the U.S. protectionist interests.
I point out that western Canadians have supported free trade
since prior to confederation, but it was central Canada that
supported protectionism. It was only when Quebec business
interests persuaded Mr. Mulroney to pursue the free trade
agreement that we got the free trade with which the motion deals.
I might say there was a strategic alliance between Quebecers and
western Canadians to secure free trade which makes this motion
work.
To win any trade dispute with the Americans, is it not true that
Canadian producers need to hang together, that Canadian provinces
need to hang together and that Canada needs to hang together?
Does the member not believe that the bargaining power of a united
Canada with the United States is greater than the bargaining
power of a separate Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the
Canadian Alliance will support the amendment and the motion to
allow the free trade of a product such as lumber.
As long as Quebec remains part of the Canadian federation, as
long as Quebecers continue to be dependent on the goods and
services tax and on personal income taxes, we must work as one
to let foreign countries know that Canadian products are good.
These issues are not mutually exclusive.
1045
If the past is any indication of what the future holds, then the
Liberals missed their turn in various negotiation processes and
I am not sure that they have adequately protected Quebec's
interests.
If the hon. member for Joliette in his capacity as the Bloc
Quebecois critic on international issues is using this
opposition day to propose a motion, it is because Quebecers are
once again adversely affected by the free trade agreement that
the federal government negotiated while allowing them to impose
quotas on us.
Who is most affected? Quebec for one and Quebecers.
Bloc Quebecois members represent Quebecers and wish to take
advantage of this opposition day and say “As long as we are in
this situation, we will be asking the government and the Prime
Minister to be our spokespersons at the Summit of the Americas”.
We are also asking them to have the Minister of Foreign Affairs
negotiate so that lumber is recognized in the free trade
agreement and so that we are not adversely affected by quotas.
However these two issues would not be mutually exclusive.
When Quebec becomes a sovereign country, it will be a partner
under the free trade agreement and we will be negotiating for
ourselves.
[English]
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member opposite mentioned that forests must be
harvested in a civilized way. We would all agree with that
comment. That is certainly the case in Canada.
Canada is a world leader in forestry management practices. It
is not Canadian forestry management programs that confer any
countervailing subsidies, and that needs to be understood
clearly.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my brief
remarks, I would have had much more to say.
Softwood lumber is a chief resource of the north shore and the
Charlevoix area, and many workers draw their income from it. The
generations that preceded us also drew the bulk of their income
from forestry.
If we are talking about civilized wood cutting today, it is
because at one point in time logging companies were given
access to the forest and allowed to do whatever they wanted with
it. Today we are talking about selective cutting and the need
to protect habitats and the environment, and there is a better
framework for operations.
The hon. member certainly noticed, like me, that we have had
uncontrolled forest harvesting because clear cutting was
allowed.
Today we have to bear the consequences of that.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the first
opportunity I have had to congratulate you on your appointment to
the chair, so congratulations to you.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the House
today on a matter of great importance to all Canadians. I say to
all Canadians that the softwood lumber business is Canada's
largest industry, as has been noted by one of my colleagues, and
that it touches people in every province, including the province
of Quebec.
One in sixteen Canadians work in the forest sector and hundreds
of communities across Canada rely on forestry for their economic
survival.
A healthy lumber industry is critical for Canada. To guarantee
the health of our industry we need access to our largest market.
The United States is by far our largest market. Canadian exports
account for one-third of the U.S. softwood lumber market. That
33% share is the crux of the matter.
With the softwood lumber agreement due to expire on March 31, it
is very important to shed some light on what is really behind the
United States' position in this longstanding dispute.
Let us be very clear on this. The United States' position on
softwood lumber is not based on any legitimate claim of unfair
practices by Canada. It is based on protectionism, pure and
simple. That has always been the case and, unfortunately, it
appears it may well continue to be the case.
1050
For over a century, U.S. softwood lumber producers have been
trying to restrict Canadian exports. For over a century, they
have wanted protection from Canadian competition. For over a
century, they have stopped at nothing to hold on to market share.
The first U.S. duties were applied to Canadian exports of
softwood lumber way back in 1930. The duty was $1 per thousand
board feet and rose to $4 by 1935 before we successfully
negotiated it back down to $1. Two years later, in 1937, lumber
producers in Oregon and Washington petitioned the U.S. government
for protection from unfair Canadian competition. At least that
time they failed.
As time moved on and the number of Canadian imports into the
United States increased, U.S. producers became increasingly
agitated and sought protection. However, despite the fact that
the U.S. lumberman's economic survival committee was able to
prompt both congressional hearings and the formation of a White
House task force on the issue, the U.S. trade commission chose
not to impose any restrictions on Canadian lumber imports.
In the past 20 years the protectionist actions have continued
and intensified. There have been three countervailing duty
investigations in those 20 years and not once have the U.S.
claims of subsidy been sustained.
We had a memorandum of understanding that allowed provinces to
adjust their forestry practices. When these adjustments
effectively eliminated the export charges it made no difference.
Still, the subsidy claims persisted.
Now we are in the dying days of a softwood lumber agreement that
was never intended to address the subsidy issue because clearly
subsidies were never the issue. What the U.S. industry has
always sought is to protect its market share. That is what this
is all about.
It is true that Canada does well in this regard. We do well
because we produce an excellent product at modern, efficient
mills and follow practices that ensure sustainability. We do
well because we deserve to do well, not because of unfair trade
practices as the U.S. industry would have us believe.
In 1999 Canadian softwood lumber exports accounted for 33% of
the U.S. market, an increase of 8% since 1990. The lion's share
of our exports, some 47%, come from British Columbia. Twenty-one
per cent come from Quebec, 9% from Ontario and 7% from Alberta.
Those are the four provinces covered under the SLA.
In addition, the Atlantic provinces export softwood lumber to
the United States, as does Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the
territories.
This is a trade dispute that affects all Canada.
Today, with the market in a downturn, the United States is
eyeing Canadian market share and does not like what it sees. It
does not like the fact that so many consumers rely on Canadian
softwood lumber. It does not like the fact that so many of our
mills are efficient and modern compared with its mills. It
certainly does not like the thought of how much more of the
market we might get if we really had free trade.
The United States is clamouring once again for protection and
threatening costly countervail duty and anti-dumping action
against Canadian producers. However, rest assured, as the
Minister for International Trade has stated repeatedly in and
outside the House, the Canadian government will vigorously defend
Canadian interests on behalf of all the provinces of Canada.
The temptation to restrict imports can be strong for those
looking to protect a domestic industry that cannot always
compete. However, in today's rules based trading system, that is
no longer acceptable. Let us not forget that it is the United
States that has led the charge away from protectionism and toward
free trade.
The argument that open markets are in our greater economic
interest and must be created and maintained is a sound argument.
This is the driving principle behind the WTO and the NAFTA. This
is the argument the United States is making again in favour of
more market liberalization.
1055
Let us not forget that it is not just Canadian producers who are
looking for free trade in softwood lumber. American home
builders and other consumers of softwood lumber are calling for
an end to protectionism. They do not like the fact that they are
being asked to unfairly subsidize U.S. companies with higher
prices simply because those companies cannot or do not want to
compete. That is unacceptable.
The United States is not self-sufficient in lumber. It needs
our Canadian exports. Mr. Speaker, you know that very well with
the riding you represent. Only the market should be allowed to
determine how much Canadian softwood lumber enters the United
States. The market should decide, not American congressmen or
senators who are under political pressure. That is not the job
of the coalition for fair lumber imports. It is not the job for
Senators Trent Lott, Max Baucus or Olympia Snowe, and it is not
the job of U.S. trade representative Zoellick.
We are committed to responding to protectionist threats from the
United States and we will do so in consultation with the
provinces, the industry and other stakeholders. Such
consultation has already been very extensive by the minister and
that will continue.
We have proposed that impartial envoys from Canada and the
United States be appointed to explore the issue from all sides
and to consult with stakeholders and bring forward non-binding
proposals for resolving this longstanding dispute. We must be
creative and constructive if we are to achieve our goal of free
trade in softwood lumber.
I am pleased to indicate my support for the motion and our firm
intention to pursue Canada's goal of free trade in softwood
lumber.
I will turn now to some allegations made recently by certain
U.S. senators and address and elucidate those with a few facts
that they do not seem to have at their disposal or which they
choose to ignore.
On March 1, 2001, 51 U.S. senators alleged that Canadian lumber
was subsidized and that its stumpage fees were less than the
market value. The reality is that Canadian provinces do not
subsidize the lumber industry. Timber pricing by provincial
governments in Canada has been the subject of three U.S.
countervailing duty investigations in the past 20 years and not
once have these challenges been successful.
In a recent report from the U.S. congress it is stated that:
Evidence to demonstrate this possible disparity between U.S. and
Canada stumpage fees, is widespread, but inconclusive.
That comes from a congressional research service report for
congress, “Softwood Lumber Imports from Canada: History and
Analysis of the Dispute”, dated February 2, 2001.
The second allegation by senators was that Canadian lumber
producers derive an unfair advantage from subsidized rail rates.
This is rubbish. The United States department of commerce has
been unable to sustain a subsidy finding on any government
program. Canada's two national railways are privately owned and
operated. There is absolutely no basis for this subsidy
allegation.
The senators' third allegation stated that log export restraints
by Canada are unfair. The United States was unable to sustain a
subsidy with respect to log export restraints in the last
countervailing duty investigation.
The U.S. has changed its law regarding the treatment of export
restraints in any future investigation relative to CVD. Canada
has challenged this provision of U.S. law in the WTO dispute
settlement mechanism. It is worth noting that the United States
also maintains restrictions on the export of logs.
1100
The fourth allegation states that a flood of Canadian lumber is
the cause of mill closures in the United States. Lumber imports
from Canada are not the cause of any closures of lumber mills in
the United States. Closures are currently occurring on both
sides of the border.
It is a cyclical industry which is primarily driven by market
demand. The latest available data from the United States forest
service indicate that in recent years more than 50% of mill
closures in the U.S. and Canada occurred in the province of B.C.
alone. It is not a phenomenon that is unique to the United
States as we all know.
Fortunately there are other U.S. voices involved in the debate
and I would like to address them briefly. Senator Craig noted
that there were other U.S. opinions to be heard. This point
ought not to be forgotten in the debate over softwood lumber.
United States senators and representatives have recently
introduced two resolutions before the house and the senate
calling for a return to free trade. Representing the interests
of U.S. lumber consumers, the resolutions underlined that the
1996 Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement had a negative impact
on housing affordability and jobs south of the border and
excluded many Americans from home ownership. It is not something
any administration in the United States would be proud of.
The United States census bureau estimates that the fees on
additional shipments are equivalent to more than $1,000 U.S. for
the lumber in an average new home. That is simply unacceptable.
I conclude my comments on these unfounded allegations of U.S.
senators by stating that there is simply no basis in fact for
them. They have never stood up to any objective analysis and
they will not stand up to any future analysis.
The Minister for International Trade has repeatedly stated
inside and outside the House that the government desires free
trade in softwood lumber. It will vigorously defend the
interests of the province of Quebec, the province of B.C. and of
all other Canadian provinces. It will vigorously defend the
interests of the whole country. The goal is clear: it is free
trade in softwood lumber.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
U.S. Senator Max Baucus, one of the 51 senators and
representatives who expressed support for part of the American
industry, the best solution would be for Canada to levy a tax on
its softwood lumber exports.
I would like to know what the parliamentary secretary thinks
about this suggestion made by the U.S. senator.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I did not fully understand
the question from the member.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, this U.S. senator
suggested that to
resolve the softwood lumber dispute Canada should levy a tax on
its softwood lumber exports.
How does the parliamentary secretary react to such a suggestion?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I heard the member's
question and appreciate his clarification. I think he was citing
Senator Max Baucus.
Senator Baucus is only a free trader when it serves his
interests and it does not serve his interest in softwood lumber.
It cannot work that way. It is fine for him to propose that we
agree on an export charge, or whatever, to limit exports of our
lumber products to the United States. Does his government agree
with that? Categorically no. That is not the goal whatsoever.
We want the U.S. to live up to what it says it is and to what we
signed on to: free trade.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Bloc's motion
today and the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for International Trade.
I represent a northern Ontario riding as do you, Mr. Speaker, my
colleague from Sault Ste. Marie and numerous other members from
northern Ontario. When 99% of the production in softwood lumber
is from northern Ontario, it is critical to our fellow northern
Ontarians that this issue be resolved and that we have free trade
in softwood lumber.
1105
The government's efforts in this area are laudable. It is very
important to remind the House and those who are listening that
there are victims of the political posturing we are seeing in the
U.S. They could be workers and companies in my riding, in your
riding, Mr. Speaker, in the riding of the member from the Soo
and elsewhere in northern Ontario. Victims whose livelihoods are
at stake for no other reason but politics.
Communities, all too often single industry communities, depend
upon the forestry sector. They turn the lights off sometimes
when the political posturing in the U.S. requires that their
industry or factory be closed down or work hours be reduced.
Would the parliamentary secretary comment on how his efforts and
the efforts of his minister will help bring some certainty to the
livelihoods of the small and big businesses and the workers that
maintain our very important softwood lumber sector?
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question. Having served with him in the House for some
years, I well know what a vigorous defender he is of the
interests of his constituents and of those in the Canadian lumber
industry.
He is exactly correct when he says there is a lot at stake here.
There is an unfairness in what is being proposed by U.S. senators
to our own producers, to the jobs of those producers, to the
companies and to their valid profits. I am very pleased that the
parliamentary secretary raised the issue, but I repeat for the
record that some U.S. senators and representatives have recently
introduced two motions in the house and the senate calling for a
return to free trade in softwood lumber in the United States..
Why did they do that? They cited the fact that U.S. jobs were
being unfairly injured and that housing affordability in the
United States was being affected. To put it bluntly, consumers
are being ripped off in the United States to the tune of $1,000
U.S., on average, for a home because the United States refuses to
be what it says it is, free traders when it comes to softwood
lumber.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary
for his presentation and congratulate him on his current
appointment.
The minister asked rhetorically what was behind the U.S.
position on softwood lumber. His answer was U.S. protectionism.
We agree but we would add that Liberal and Conservative
governments ought to understand the subject since they have
practised protectionism for over 100 years.
I will ask the minister a cluster of questions around the same
issue. What is behind the lack of vigour behind the government's
efforts to fight U.S. protectionism? Is it that the government
still has philosophical reservations about free trade? After
all, the Liberals opposed free trade in 1988.
Why is the government so slow to use the dispute settling
mechanisms in the free trade agreement? It always has to be
pushed into using them. It never seems to charge in that
direction.
Is the real reason behind the Liberal government's weakness in
fighting U.S. protectionism that the government still wants to
practise protectionism in certain other areas such as supply
management and cultural industries?
In other words, is this not the real reason Liberal efforts to
fight U.S. protectionism are so weak and inefficient? Is it
because it wants to practise protectionism in some other areas
and this weakens its fight against U.S. protectionism in this
area?
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for his questions and his kind remarks. Let me say it is very
good to see him back in the House and looking so well.
Having said that, I have to disagree with him. I know he is a
student of Canadian history, and so am I. Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
the first great French Canadian prime minister of the country,
was a free trader.
He was not always successful in convincing Canadians that it was
the way to go. In fact, it cost him severely at the polls. A
quick read of Canadian history tells us that Sir Wilfrid Laurier
was the leader of the Liberal Party and the first French Canadian
prime minister of Canada. He was an inveterate free trader. I
say that just to help a bit with Canadian history in this regard.
1110
I am not sure as to why the lack of vigour. I understand the
member is on that side of the House and I am over here. As the
hon. member knows, the government has made representations on the
issue. The Prime Minister raised it personally with the new
president of the United States, President Bush. The minister
raised it personally with the U.S. trade representative Bob
Zoellick. The representations on behalf of our softwood lumber
industry by the government has been consistent. I think vigorous
would be the right word to use.
The hon. member asked why we are slow to move into the dispute
settlement on this issue. Let me clarify. As we all know the
current agreement ends at the end of the month. At that point
free trade takes over. Canada just says fine, that is great. Now
that the current deal is over, if everybody lives up to what they
say they are on both sides of the border, free trade becomes the
norm. End of problem.
Hence my point that it is the United States and its senators in
their protectionist mode who will take it to a different level.
Our government need do nothing but live up to the free trade
agreement that both countries signed. It is they who will cause
the dispute. Unfortunately they have made it clear they have
every intention of doing that.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate today. I will
be splitting my time with the member for Lethbridge.
The forestry industry is very important in Canada. Last year we
exported about $10 billion of lumber to the United States. It
creates thousands of jobs. This makes it critically important
that the government pursue the issue with vigour and that it push
the Americans as hard as it can to ensure that we have a free
trade deal.
Unfortunately, however, I agree with my colleague from Calgary
Southwest, sometimes the government sends the completely wrong
message when it comes to the issue of free trade. Canada does
not always practise what it preaches. There are a number of
sectors where we do not have free trade, precisely because the
government has decided that it wants to protect certain
industries for political reasons. That is regrettable, because
in the end it undermines our case for free trade. Frankly it
leaves Canada less well off.
I make the argument that Canada needs to practise what it
preaches. Before I do that, I should like to talk for a moment
about why free trade in general is a good idea. Canada is an
exporting nation. We rely on exports for much of our prosperity.
About 43% of Canada's total prosperity comes from trade. This is
critical to us and we have to continue to push for the idea of
rules based trade.
I am saddened and it concerns me every time I see a country that
says on the one hand that it is committed to free trade but on
the other hand finds ways to circumvent it every time it
perceives its interests being threatened. I think the Americans
are guilty of that in this case.
As has been mentioned, there have been three previous
investigations into the lumber issue. Canada has won each and
every one of them. Yet the Americans insist on pushing it.
Canada has not helped itself either. I argue that the government
has not always done a very good job of pursuing our interests
when it comes to free trade and the softwood lumber dispute.
I point to the remarks of the industry minister who said not
very long ago that he thought some kind of quota system, some
kind of mixture of the softwood lumber agreement and free trade,
would be the final result of a negotiation after the current SLA
comes up for renewal at the end of March. That is regrettable,
because we also have the trade minister arguing that we should
have free trade in lumber, which is certainly the position of the
Canadian Alliance.
1115
Meanwhile, we have the Prime Minister saying, I think it was
just yesterday, that there should be linkages between lumber and
other industries when it comes to free trade, which is contrary
to the position the trade minister has taken. I happen to think
that the Prime Minister might be a little more correct on this
than the trade minister. Nevertheless, people are confused when
the government is saying different things on this issue and it
does not help our case at all.
How do we make the best possible case that we can to have free
trade in the softwood lumber industry between Canada and the
United States? First, we need to speak with one voice. I have
just made the case that government is saying different things on
this.
Second, sometimes we have to examine the words of the Americans
themselves and throw them back at them. When President Bush was
campaigning for the presidency and since he has become president
he has said at various times that free trade was a priority for
him. Later in April, President Bush and other leaders from the
Americas will be in Quebec City at the summit of the Americas.
One item on the agenda will be a free trade agreement of the
Americas. President Bush has made it very clear that he wants to
pursue free trade in the Americas, and I think Canada does as
well. Trade is good for Canada. There is a powerful case to be
made for free trade.
I do not think President Bush will have the credibility that he
would like to have if on the one hand he is pushing for a free
trade agreement of the Americas and on the other hand he is not
standing up to his own senators who are pushing for a
continuation of the softwood lumber agreement. In other words,
they are pushing for more barriers to trade, and that is
completely inconsistent with what President Bush has stated.
Not very long ago I was in Washington and had a chance to sit
down with Vice-President Cheney. Vice-President Cheney made it
very clear that he believed in free trade when it came to energy.
President Bush has spoken of the North American energy policy.
Free trade would be great, and we agree. We think that is a
great idea.
Why would people in the energy industry go to great expense to
build extra generating capacity to send energy to the United
States, knowing that the Americans could at any point put in
place barriers and tariffs the moment their own industries were
being threatened because Canadian producers are so efficient?
The Americans have to ask themselves why they would have any
credibility at all on pushing a free trade agreement of the
Americas or a North American energy grid when they are being
protectionist on softwood lumber. They simply will not have
credibility and our own people will not invest billions of
dollars in extra generating capacity when they know there is a
possibility that these barriers could be thrown up.
Canada has to do a much better job of selling the benefits of
free trade in the United States. My colleague from across the
way just pointed out that the coalition for affordable housing in
the United States has made the case that the current softwood
lumber deal actually adds about $1,000 U.S. to the price of every
home in the United States.
That is an important fact that Canada really needs to push. I
do not think we have done a very good job of promoting in the
United States the fact that the softwood lumber agreement is
actually an extra tax on consumers in the United States.
President Bush on one hand is pushing his $1.6 trillion tax cut,
a fine idea for the United States. We should have tax relief in
Canada as well. On the other hand the U.S. is effectively
raising taxes through the softwood lumber agreement, $1,000 U.S.
on every new home, because of that agreement. We need to
forcefully make that case to the American public.
My friend has also pointed out that there have been a couple of
resolutions passed in the U.S. congress calling on congress and
the senate to repeal the softwood deal because of its impact on
homes. We should remind senators and congressmen that not
everybody feels the same.
1120
We met with Senator Craig from Idaho, the chair of the forestry
subcommittee in the U.S. senate. He comes from a state where
they produce softwood lumber. He made the point that there were
other voices speaking on the issue and that not everyone agreed
with the softwood lumber agreement.
We need to make the case that U.S. Senator Craig is making, that
congressmen are making and that home builders in the U.S. are
making, that this is a cost to American consumers. It actually
costs jobs as well for people engaged in the home building
industry in the United States.
We have not done a good job of that. We need to do a far better
job of making the case so that the public starts to put pressure
on the senators to urge them to back away from another softwood
lumber agreement and instead embrace the idea of free trade in
the lumber industry.
We need to make the case to the public in the United States, I
have touched on this already, that the U.S. government's
protectionism on the issue will ultimately hurt jobs there
because it undermines its credibility when it pursues other free
trade agreements which ultimately lead to prosperity. We urge
the government to do a better job of making that case.
I will simply conclude by saying that Canada has to do a better
job of vigorously attacking positions which oppose free trade. We
put tremendous effort into all kinds of other things when it
comes to our foreign affairs policy. The previous foreign
affairs minister spent a lot of time globe trotting, pursuing
noble sounding causes, but he simply did not get down to
business.
We have a new foreign affairs minister now. We urge him to put
extra effort into reinvigorating our relationship with the United
States and reinvigorating the case for free trade, something that
has not happened at this point. Because of that it is costing
Canadians jobs and prosperity. We simply urge members across the
way to put their resources and their time into reinvigorating the
whole discussion over free trade that will ultimately benefit
Canada.
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank members opposite for their comments on the
issue, in particular the comments made by the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Trade.
These comments drive home clearly that the softwood lumber
problem is not a problem between east and west and the provinces
of Canada. This is plain and simple a north-south problem
involving the United States and $10 billion of annual trade in
that commodity. I thank the parliamentary secretary because it
is important to our area that the stated goal is free trade in
this commodity.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is
right that this is a dispute between north and south and not east
and west, but it continues to raise questions. My friend really
did not address this point, but it continues to raise the
question of why Canada is not more aggressive in practising what
it preaches.
My friend is on the government side, but he knows very well that
there are still all kinds of restrictions in place in Canada on
imports of textiles, for instance. It is hard to make the case
that we should be asking other countries to engage in free trade
when we have protectionist measures in place.
On the issue of restrictions on textiles, for instance, it is
something that hurts third world countries. It is odd that
Canada sends aid to third world countries to help them out, to
give them a helping hand, but maintains restrictions on textiles
which makes it impossible for them to ever develop an economy. It
is when we are involved in that kind of double dealing that we
undermine our own ability to make the case for free trade.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure my colleague would agree that when we look at overall trade
between Canada and the U.S. this issue or this irritant
constitutes less than 3% of all trade between Canada and the
United States. Some 97% of all trade between the two countries
is going well, but we will continue to see those irritants from
time to time.
It is imperative for us to use the existing mechanism to resolve
those issues.
1125
Would my colleague agree that the course undertaken by the
minister of going to an alternative dispute settlement mechanism,
as well as venues such as the World Trade Organization dispute
mechanism and the NAFTA dispute resolution mechanism, is proper?
Also he might want to comment on whether or not the whole issue
deals with efficiencies. The lumber industry is a cyclical
industry. When the market is not there for lumber, producers on
both sides of the equation raise concerns.
We are seeing closures on both sides of the border between
Canada and the United States. In Canada over 50% of our mills
have closed as a result of the market. I wanted to hear from my
colleague, because he is probably quite aware given his area,
whether or not those comments constitute the facts.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's
comments, but in Medicine Had we do not have a tremendous amount
of lumber. In fact it is hard to find a tree.
My first point is while we understand the need for rules based
trade and the need for dispute settlement mechanisms, the best
solution is not to get to that point in the first place.
We have had five years since the SLA was put in place. It
became obvious fairly early on that it was not working in the
interests of Canadian producers. Over the last five years we
should have arrived at the point with the Americans where we
could have gone into the end of this agreement with an agreement
that we would pursue free trade.
Ultimately we will go into it now and probably get a ruling in
our favour, but it will cost the industry billions and billions
of dollars. That is regrettable. We are at that point now. Yes,
we have to use the mechanisms that are there. Rules based trade
is the key.
My friend's point about the economy turning down or the lumber
industry being a cyclical industry is correct. If we are heading
for a recession it will raise tensions on both sides and make the
situation more difficult down the road. That makes my point that
we should have had an agreement earlier than today.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion brought forward
by our Bloc colleagues. The Canadian Alliance certainly supports
the motion as it supports free trade.
What is wrong with what is happening is that the agreement
expires at the end of the month. We have no clear indication
from the government of what angle it will take. We have
conflicting reports from the Prime Minister. He thinks we should
have it all linked together with other issues. The trade
minister says that it will be negotiated on its own. We have to
speed up the government or get it interested in the issue to have
some resolution of it.
Previous to the softwood lumber agreement there were challenges
against our trade with the U.S. in softwood lumber. Every time a
challenge has been brought forward we have won. It has been
proven that there is no subsidy issue which would allow the
Americans a countervail tariff against our industry.
I know very well how hurtful a countervail tariff can be. It
happened in my area of the country last year, when a challenge
was brought by R-CALF in the United States against our cattle
industry. Canadian producers had to post bonds at the border
while this challenge was ongoing. Money was taken off all cattle
that went across the line; a proportion of the amount was taken
away.
In the end after months of investigation they actually came into
the offices of feeders and went through their books. It was an
horrendous process. It cost not only the amount of money that
was taken in tariff, but millions of dollars to fight the issue
that could have been better used. We won in the end. The tariff
money that was taken was given back.
What is wrong is that the U.S. passed a law last year to say
that if there were a challenge, a countervail put against our
lumber, it gets to keep any money taken, even if Canada wins in
the end.
It could cost our industry billions of dollars, and that is
totally unfair. That is an unjust law and the trade minister
should have straightened it out by now. If we are talking about
free trade with the United States, let us talk about free trade.
Let us make it free, fair and rules based trade that we can all
live by.
1130
Here we are a few weeks away from the expiration of this
agreement and we do not have the rules in place to move on.
One thing on which we have to be absolutely certain is that we
do not do this alone. If only four or five provinces sign on to
the deal then we are lost. We cannot be separated on this. We
must hang in together. If the trade minister can keep us
together as a country, then I am sure his leverage and power
would create a fair package for our softwood lumber industry.
The softwood lumber industry is huge and, as has been pointed
out by members opposite, it is important to Canada. It needs to
have the government's full focus.
I feel that in many ways we have let down certain sectors of our
country. Certainly one that I want to bring into the debate is
our grain and oilseed sector. Because of some of the agreements
the government has made with reducing tariffs and support to our
producers, they have been put in a hole that I cannot figure out
how they will get out of unless we support them ourselves.
We need to be more aggressive when we fight the Americans and
the European Union on subsidies. We need to beat down the unfair
subsidies that distort markets and production. We need to use
more force. We do not think enough effort has been put forward
by Canada.
We trade a lot of goods and we are a good trading partner.
Trading partners can count on us to have good quality products
that will be delivered on time and at a fair price. When we have
those kinds of deals and that kind of reputation, why are we not
using that as a bigger hammer when we go into these negotiations
with the European Union and the United States?
The other challenges that have been brought forward in the past
against the softwood lumber industry have crashed. The United
States has done everything it can to try to point out that our
industry is being unfairly subsidized, and it is not. If it does
go to a challenge, let us use the present systems of WTO and
NAFTA to deal with that. I am sure we would be successful.
However the thing that is really scaring the industry is the law
that the United States has passed that says that any tariff
collected would be kept. I cannot understand how on earth that
would work but that is what it has done.
I had the opportunity in the last parliament to meet with some
U.S. senators in Montana: Senator Craig, Senator Thomas and
Senator Burns from Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. We were only able
to meet for a morning but it was good to be able to do that. I
think five or six of my colleagues attended the meeting in Great
Falls. My realization from that meeting was that we need to have
more open discussion.
There were many issues at that time but the one that was
important to me concerned cattle. A lot of the stories on both
sides of the border were not true, were mistruths or were
misunderstandings. Even for the couple of hours that we sat down
and went over a few issues we were dumbfounded on both sides by
the number of things being said that were just absolutely untrue.
Opening a line of communication and debate is very important.
Just a few hours spent on one morning was very helpful on a lot
of issues.
A coalition of senators has come together to lobby the United
States government to protect its softwood lumber industry. It is
a big and an important issue to them and we have to be aware that
there is very strong lobby in the United States to protect its
industry, unfairly we think. Getting back to open, free and rules
based trade is absolutely essential, not only in this area but in
others.
We have seen it in other sectors of our society where some of
these agreements have really hurt certain parts of Canada's
industry and we cannot be doing that.
1135
The other issue is that of messaging to the people of the United
States that these tariffs are increasing the cost of a home in
the United States by $1,000 U.S. We have to make sure that we
have coalitions built with people there that the message gets out
that their own people are being hurt by these countervailing
duties.
The importance of one stance from coast to coast to coast in
this country on this issue cannot be overemphasized. I believe
we have to appear united on it because in the end it will be far
better for all if we can do that than to hive off separate
provinces and separate parts of the industry to different
programs.
It makes me a little nervous that the trade minister and the
Prime Minister are not on the same page as of yesterday. We need
to be absolutely certain that this will become a bigger priority
at the cabinet table and that we do take a united position on
this. If the Prime Minister is talking to the vice-president of
the United States saying one thing and our international trade
minister is at negotiations saying another thing, then the
Americans know we are not being cohesive and they can split us
apart and make a better deal for themselves.
My colleague, the member for Vancouver Island North, could not
be here today to speak to this but he has let me know about all
the work that he has done on this file. He is getting together
with a bunch of folks on the west coast to talk about west coast
issues, and I am sure this will be at the top of the list on
their agenda. He has done a tremendous amount of work on this
deserves some credit as far as keeping his colleagues on this
side of the House informed of what is going on.
I will finish by saying that we need to have this free trade in
softwood lumber and it has to be coast to coast. It also has to
be pushed with the emphasis that it deserves because of the
importance it has to Canada.
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an
expression “Don't look back unless you want to go there”. I
think that certainly applies to this situation.
The people of northern Ontario, and indeed those involved in the
softwood industry across this country, do not want to look back
on that softwood lumber agreement because they do not want to go
there.
I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister for
International Trade who made it very clear that the objective of
the government is to work toward free trade in softwood lumber.
We are seeking solutions to this trade dispute. We will
vigorously enforce our rights under international trade
agreements at the same time. That should be clear to all of the
members of the House.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that is clear
to all members of the House. I want to bring in one aspect that
I was not able to bring in in my previous remarks. A couple of
weeks ago we had the pleasure of hosting the British prime
minister, Tony Blair, who gave what I felt was a very good
presentation. I will quote Mr. Blair who is the leader of the
British labour socialist party. He said:
Finally on trade—. It is time I think that we started to
argue vigorously and clearly as to why free trade is right. It
is the key to jobs for our people, to prosperity and actually to
development in the poorest parts of the world. The case against
it is misguided and, worse, unfair. However sincere the
protests, they cannot be allowed to stand in the way of rational
argument. We should start to make this case with force and
determination.
On the day Mr. Blair was here, I had the opportunity to sit in
the front row with the hope of talking to him before he left, and
I did. I was able to shake his hand and thank him for his
comments, but I was also, in the few moments I had, able to
remind him that the subsidies the European Union was giving its
agricultural producers were really causing a lot of pain in our
country. I asked him if it would be possible to reduce those
subsidies to take some of the pain away from our people.
I want to get back to the issue of being more forceful at the
negotiating table.
I know there have been reports lately, and I am slipping back to
agriculture, that the agriculture minister was in Europe. He
suggested to the Europeans that their subsidies were hurting our
producers. They told him that he could go to the hell because
that was the way it was and will continue to be.
1140
Over a billion dollars worth of business goes back and forth
across our borders with the U.S. That has to be worth some kind
of lever when we sit down and start negotiating an important
agreement like the softwood lumber agreement.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the forest industry is very important in my riding
of Dewdney—Alouette. We have many mills there. The shingle
industry is very important. It provides a lot of jobs in the
community for many people.
I want to pursue the notion of the quota aspect of the
agreement. It really limits individuals from being able to
maximize the potential of the industry. It excludes others from
becoming involved in the industry. It has, in many ways, hurt a
lot of different individuals and has had ripple effects
throughout the community within my riding.
What does my colleague think is the problem with the
government's response to vigorously pursuing the notion of free
trade, particularly in the area of softwood lumber?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, the whole quota system gave
an advantage to some and not to others. It was not right. I
even became aware of it in my riding in southern Alberta. We do
not have a lot of forest, but there was a gentleman with a small
mill who was shipping lumber across the border. One day he took
a load across and was told that he did not have a quota.
Probably not being in the mainstream of business but trying to
make a few bucks shipping logs across the border, he came to me,
which was when I really became aware of what was happening.
The whole issue has to be dealt with openly and has to be rules
based fair trade.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise in debate on this very important motion.
[Translation]
First, I congratulate the member for Joliette for having brought
forward this motion on behalf of his party. This is a very
important issue and I wonder why we have waited until today, 15
or 16 days before the expiration of the softwood lumber
agreement, to finally hold a debate on this issue, which is so
important for Quebec and Canada.
[English]
I find it extraordinary and unacceptable that it is literally on
the eve of the expiry of the softwood agreement that we are now
having a serious debate in the House. As I said, I congratulate
the hon. member for Joliette for having tabled this very
important motion.
I need to ask the representatives of the government why it is
only now, and it is coming from an opposition member, that there
is this kind of opportunity for debate. Why did the government
not bring this forward for debate much earlier in the process,
well before the date of expiry?
We all knew that this five year agreement was coming up for
renewal when it expired at the end of this month. Why did the
government not take the initiative to invite all Canadians
affected by this agreement, such as the unions, the workers, the
environmentalists and others, to make representations and to make
their views known about the impact of the softwood lumber
agreement? Why did it not to find out their proposals for what
should take place when it expires on March 31?
The government has completely failed to show any leadership
whatsoever on this very important question.
Others have already pointed out the importance of this industry.
I do not have to repeat that. I am a British Columbia member of
parliament and the forestry industry is absolutely critical for
the people and the communities of British Columbia. We want to
do whatever we can to strengthen and support that industry and to
ensure that there is even more value added from the products that
are produced from that industry.
We have to take a look at exactly what is happening in this
industry.
1145
The fact of the matter is we were sold a bill of goods when the
Canada-U.S. free trade agreement was brought in in 1988 and
replaced in 1994 by NAFTA. What we were told at the time this
came in, and I remember because I was in the House, was that the
free trade agreement would get rid of the barriers that existed
with Canadian products entering the U.S. market. This did not
happen.
We know very well that when it comes to lumber the United States
has always been the bully. It does not accept free trade at all.
It is an illusion. Time and again when the U.S. has challenged
Canadian practises, it has been told to forget it. Whether it
was on countervail, or dumping or other provisions, it lost.
The United States is not at all serious when it talks about free
trade and in its approach to free trade. It wants to prevent any
meaningful access by Canada to that market. We all know that is
what led to the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement which
affects the four key provinces of British Columbia, Quebec,
Alberta and Ontario as producers.
Sometimes we overlook the fact that it does not affect the
Atlantic provinces, which have done very well over the course of
the past few years in the absence of any restrictions whatsoever.
We are going to want to hear from Atlantic representatives. My
colleagues from the Atlantic are concerned that in any new regime
the significant benefits that have accrued to the Atlantic
provinces not be lost.
The options we face on the eve of the expiry of the softwood
lumber agreement are basically threefold.
The first option is to renew the agreement. We could agree once
again with the United States to accept a ceiling, whether it is
$14.7 billion square feet of lumber a year beyond which quotas
are applied, or some other form of ceiling. Basically we could
renew the agreement. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I
want to be very clear that is not an option for us. The current
agreement must be allowed to expire. I think there is unanimity
in the House on that point.
The second option, which is the proposal of the Bloc Quebecois,
is to throw softwood lumber wide open to free trade without any
kind of restriction whatsoever. This would come under the WTO,
NAFTA and ultimately under the FTAA, if the FTAA is negotiated in
2003 or 2005.
That is the position the Bloc is putting before us today. It
wants to scrap the current SLA and not renew it. We agree with
it on that. However, the Bloc motion goes on to say clearly,
unequivocally and categorically to throw it open to free trade
with no restrictions whatsoever.
I want to suggest that there is another option and a very
important alternative that we as New Democrats want the
government to look at.
The government has to recognize that the current agreement must
not be renewed. It must be scraped. It clearly has not worked
in the best interests of Canadians, particularly those in British
Columbia and the provinces that are affected by the agreement.
The market is not gone. The other alternative is to replace the
softwood lumber agreement with a fair trade agreement that gives
Canadians some ability to ensure that some very important factors
are taken into consideration in the area of forestry policy. Any
trade agreement on softwood lumber should allow the Canadian
government, as well as the British Columbia government and le
gouvernement du Quebec, to do a number of things.
First, it should maintain employment and community stability,
set strong environment protection regulations and develop
policies to promote value added production in the forestry
industry. Those are the kind of objectives that surely we do not
want to give up as Canadians, as the people who own this precious
and magnificent resource. That is precisely what the Bloc would
do.
1150
[Translation]
I am surprised to hear the member for Joliette, for whom I have
a lot of respect, suggest that we are losing our sovereignty,
the sovereignty of Quebec and of Canada, by adopting, for
example, environmental regulations on the right of the province
of Quebec, of my province, British Columbia, and of Atlantic
provinces to set environmental standards.
This is precisely what the member for the Bloc is proposing. For
this reason, NDP members will vote against this motion.
[English]
I find it extraordinary that a party that has spoken out, and I
respect the position it has taken, strongly about the right of
the people of Quebec to determine their own future should be
prepared to throw away that right to make decisions on something
as absolutely fundamental as forestry policy, particularly
environmental regulation. However that is what it is doing. I
am going to show in a couple of minutes exactly why that has
happened.
Yes, we say that the current agreement must be allowed to
expire. We recognize that there have been many problems with
that agreement. The fact is that the way the quotas were
originally set was according to 1994-95 exports to the U.S.,
so-called experience ratings. What that meant was that some
companies in some regions were penalized because, quite frankly,
they were not concentrating on the U.S. market at that time. Yet
they were locked in to those provisions.
Coastal British Columbia, for example, was particularly focusing
on selling products to Japan. Because of the quota system there
was no flexibility to shift into the United States market. This
was simply because they did not have any quota. It was not
because they were not competitive or efficient enough to
penetrate that market. The current agreement clearly is unfair
in that respect.
There is another very serious concern with respect to the issue
of raw log exports. This has been a profound concern in the
province of British Columbia where we have seen a huge increase
in the last couple of years in the export of raw logs. Most of
those logs were harvested on private lands on Vancouver Island.
The companies that do that are constantly lobbying the federal
government to reduce even the weak current restrictions on log
exports so they might export even more raw logs.
In 1997 a little over 100,000 cubic metres of raw logs were
exported from British Columbia. The average between 1992 and
1998 was around 300,000. Last year the estimates were somewhere
between 1.8 million and 2.4 million cubic metres. That is
totally unacceptable.
Under the existing provisions of the SLA, the softwood lumber
agreement, we know that the restrictions or the ban on raw log
exports in some cases is considered a subsidy. Clearly that as
well is quite unacceptable. Ironically lumber exports from third
countries outside Canada and the United States enter the U.S.
duty free.
We do not dispute the position taken by the Bloc or other
parties in the House that the current agreement has not worked
for Canadians and that it must be allowed to lapse when it
expires at the end of this month. We want fair and open access
to the U.S. market. We want a level playing field for all
Canadian lumber producers.
The question is how do we achieve that. Why not just move to
free trade without any restrictions whatsoever, as the Bloc has
suggested? This does not particularly surprise me.
[Translation]
I remember quite well that in 1988-89 and the following years,
Bloc Quebecois members supported NAFTA. They supported NAFTA,
saying that it was good for Quebec and for Canada. Now, after
seven years with NAFTA, can we really say that it was in the
best interests of the people of Quebec and Canada? I do not
believe that.
1155
[English]
What the Bloc is suggesting with this motion is that we should
effectively throw ourselves on the mercy of the great free market
under NAFTA. Under NAFTA there is no free market. The reality
is that under NAFTA more and more power is being taken away from
governments. Power is being taken away from the governments of
Canada, British Columbia and Quebec to make decisions, as
democratically elected representatives, about our future.
Look at some of the cases that have been brought under chapter
11 of NAFTA, such as the investor state provision. We know
Mexico, for example, has recently been told by a secret tribunal
that it has no power to ensure that a toxic waste dump is not put
into a small community of Guadalcazar in Mexico. It said it did
not want it.
If we were to accept the Bloc motion, we would be effectively
surrendering our sovereign right as Canadians, as Quebecers, as
British Columbians and as Atlantic Canadians to say that we want
to ensure that we have the opportunity to enforce tough
environmental standards. We want to ensure more value added in
our forests. We want to ensure that communities and workers are
respected in the decisions that are made about the forest
industry. Under this proposal that would not be possible, so we
say no to that proposal.
Look at the Pope & Talbot challenge. This is an American
company that is challenging the current provisions of the
softwood lumber agreement. It is the ultimate in irony. It is
saying that, due to the regional disparities which exist, it is
somehow being treated unfairly. An American company is
challenging the softwood lumber agreement, which was pushed by
the United States, because it cannot make enough money out of it.
That is the regime that the Bloc wants to take us into. We as
New Democrats say no. That is clearly not acceptable to us.
We have to do far more in terms of value added. We also have to
recognize that there are some serious changes that have to be
made in the way we conduct forestry. We do not want to have our
hands tied as we attempt to make those changes.
Recently in British Columbia, we learned that some of the
biggest multinational forest companies have been using what is
called grade setting, which is a practice of harvesting only low
grade timber to set the grade for huge cut blocks. That means
their appraisal is very low for their stumpage payments. Then
they switch to harvesting high grade timber but pay the low grade
stumpage rates. That kind of abuse of B.C. forests has to stop.
We have to look very seriously at alternatives. Many of us,
certainly my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, and many
environmentalists are concerned about a number of the current
practices that are the norm in too many parts of British Columbia
and elsewhere in Canada.
Instead of this kind of race to the bottom approach that the
Bloc is supporting, and apparently other parties in the House are
supporting, maybe it is time we looked at tough effective
environmental standards that would affect all of the countries
that are producing. This includes the United States, Canada and
other competitors.
We should be looking at protection for endangered species
habitat, biological diversity, fish habitat, water quality and
sustainable logging practices. Why not call for a global
approach to sustainable forestry that would involve input from
communities, workers, aboriginal groups and others? Why not do
far more to promote value added and to push for bans on raw log
exports which are a direct export of jobs from British Columbia?
I mentioned concerns about clear cut logging. I am pleased to
note that more companies are moving away from that. We have to
look at other reforms as well, which may very well be deemed to
be trade barriers. Under the terms the Bloc is suggesting we
would not be able to undertake them.
There is no question that we have to look at tenure reform in
the forestry area. We have to look at how we protect the long
term ecological health of our forests, how we maintain that
biodiversity that I spoke of earlier and how we provide a stream
of sustainable benefits to communities, including non-timber
benefits. At the same time we must recognize that workers in the
forest industry, who are concerned about their futures, should be
directly involved in these decisions.
1200
We have to look more at moving tenure away from the big
multinational logging companies and locating more community based
opportunities such as community forests, locally controlled
woodlots, expanded small business forestry programs, licences for
small processors and processing co-ops.
I know my time is limited, but the concern I have with the
motion is that unfortunately it is in a sense replacing one bad
deal with another. As New Democrats, we say there is that other
option and that is what we want to put forward in the debate
today, an option which would allow us to ensure that we can in
fact respect environmental standards, that we can respect the
rights of communities and workers to determine their own future,
that we are not locked in to this investor state provision, and
that in fact we can make decisions as the representatives of the
people of this country, as the representatives of the provinces
we live in, about the future of this very precious resource.
I hope the government will recognize that we must move toward a
much fairer trade system in lumber. I hope it will consider the
recommendation of the B.C. forest minister, Gordon Wilson, who
recently called on the federal government to send a special envoy
to Washington to try to negotiate a newer and better softwood
lumber agreement. He points out, in fact, that if we do not do
so we will once again be into this endless cycle of countervail,
threats of countervail and dumping. We now have a threat that
there may not even be any retroactivity if we lose at
countervail, that again under the WTO.
In closing, it is important that we recognize, as I said
earlier, that the market is not God, that the forests should
belong to the people of this country, the people of British
Columbia, the people of Quebec, the people of the Atlantic
provinces and the people all across Canada. We must not have our
hands tied in how we approach those forests. For that reason we
say no to the renewal of the softwood lumber agreement and no as
well to the unrestricted proposal of the Bloc Quebecois for free
trade.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the member for Burnaby—Douglas. It was
as usual a very thoughtful speech on this issue.
However, I am kind of curious about the fact that the member for
Burnaby—Douglas, who marshalls his facts so well and understands
the legal niceties so well, seems to be able to distort the facts
in a way that is quite astonishing and to come to conclusions
that are so inconsistent with his own party's position.
The member for Burnaby—Douglas knows very well that the
minister and the government have been consulting on this issue
for the last couple of years. He started his speech by saying
there has been no consultation and asking why this is so last
minute. The minister has travelled across the country. He has
met with stakeholders from every group. He has met with all
provincial governments. The government has initialled two WTO
challenges to U.S. legislation. In the WTO we are consulting on
dumping duties. We have actually challenged their legislation on
log exports. The minister has met with the predecessor of Mr.
Zoellick and is meeting now with Mr. Zoellick. The Prime
Minister is now discussing this issue with Vice-President Cheney.
We have organized a coalition of consumers groups in the United
States that support the Canadian position because they understand
the need to have lumber at a price that is reasonable and they
understand that their own logging industry is driving up prices,
which will suppress building in the United States.
All of this work did not happen in the last 20 minutes. This
has been happening for a long time, so why is the member taking
that position when he knows it is not true? Second, why is he so
opposed, then, to the summit of the Americas?
If the hon. member believes in a fair trade agreement, if he
believes in an opportunity to get these issues of environment,
human rights and all the issues he is talking about on the table,
why is he going to protest the summit of the Americas? That is
exactly what we will be discussing there. Those are exactly the
issues we will have an opportunity to discuss, but the hon.
member wants to stymie that negotiation. He wants to kill it
before it starts. Where is the consistency in his position?
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, let us cut through the
rhetoric and the nonsense here. The member asks why I am going
to Quebec City and why I am opposed to the proposals of the
government. I will tell hon. members something: we do not even
know what the proposals of the government are because it refuses
to make public the texts that are being negotiated. It is the
height of sophistry for the Liberals to say “trust us, it will
be good for Canadian people”.
I have great respect for the member, who chairs the foreign
affairs committee, but it is absolutely absurd to ask the
Canadian people to simply trust our government to negotiate a
good deal even though we still cannot see the text that is being
negotiated.
1205
That summit is coming up in a little over a month from now. What
we were told by the Minister for International Trade in one
memorable declaration was that there is no problem, that these
trade deals all look like one another anyway, so if they all look
the same and are basically the same idea, what is the big deal if
they cannot show us this particular text. That is our concern.
I ask the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale this: if in
fact this trade deal is going to look like the other trade deals,
does that mean there is going to be an investor state provision
in it? Does that mean we are going to give corporations like
Metalclad, Ethyl Corporation, Methanex and others the right to
challenge the decisions that we as democratically elected
representatives make? We do not know. We do not know because
the government has refused to allow us to know. It will not make
those texts public.
I want to say one other thing, and that is with respect to the
point I made initially about the consultation with members of the
House.
[Translation]
As I said, I congratulate the member for Joliette because I
believe, though I may be mistaken, that this is the first serious
debate we have in the House of Commons on this issue. And it is
taking place two weeks before the expiration of the agreement.
This is unacceptable. The Minister may have done some
consulting here and there, but what have we done here, in the
highest forum of Canadian democracy, where the country's elected
representatives meet? Absolutely nothing. And this is
unacceptable.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the member for
Burnaby—Douglas talks a great game. I think that both he and I
would agree that we certainly want to support our local
industries and that from what we see in the larger context the
results are not fair.
Besides calling the U.S. some names and not hiding his
anti-Americanism and philosophical opposition to trade deals and
processes that were not particularly his party's ideas, I am
pleased that, first of all, he agrees with the Canadian Alliance
that a return to the old formula, the old SLA, is not a preferred
course.
To try to clarify his options, what is he really suggesting? Is
it more socialism? He says the market is not God. Then who is?
Is he saying that a wise bureaucrat somewhere in a ministry is
going to solve it? Who will decide? Will it be top down
government control in the name of these laudable objectives? Let
him spell out how the old style of bureaucratic control, the
failures of the past, would work in today's reality. He talks
about fair and open access. Is that through a socialist
bureaucracy, through departmental mandarins, through replacing
markets with edicts and decrees from the czar? Is that what he
is talking about?
He talks about standards and sovereignty. We do not get those
things through coercion. We get them through co-operation and
negotiation. We can make friendly deals and put limits on our
behaviour. When we make a trade deal with someone we may decide
not to go to war with someone. That means we are limiting our
sovereignty or our choice not to go to war because it is of
mutual benefit to both of us.
His solution is old style socialism, which is a failure and will
not bring us the results he is talking about.
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers
to edicts and decrees from the czar. What we are saying is that
we are tired of secret, unaccountable tribunals telling us as
elected representatives what we can do about our own future.
Those are the real edicts and the real decrees the member should
be concerned with.
More and more we are losing democracy and sovereignty to the
hands of multinational corporations, which have the ability,
under these so-called trade deals, to challenge environmental
policies and to challenge our policies with respect to social
programs, cultural programs and other programs. My colleague
from Dartmouth can certainly speak eloquently to the concern that
we have in the cultural sphere with issues like split run
magazines and so on. That is the concern.
1210
We are not saying that there is not an important role for rules
in international trade. Of course there is, but we are saying
that those rules should be set democratically by elected
representatives of the people who consult with the communities
they represent. They certainly should not be set by
multinational corporations whose sole interest is the bottom
line.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while I share
the member's concerns with respect to the weaknesses of the
North American Free Trade Agreement, I would point out that the
Bloc Quebecois position is clearly known. We are in favour of
including social clauses in free trade agreements precisely
because we have seen the results of previous agreements. We
know that they have an impact socially and culturally. I
therefore share his concerns.
However this is not the question. The question is which rules
will govern softwood lumber trade between Canada and the United
States on April 1.
Will it be NAFTA, with all the amendments that would require
but which has been signed by both countries, or will we have an
arbitrary decision by the Americans imposed on us?
Will the member tell us how voting against the Bloc Quebecois
motion will help producers and workers in British Columbia on
April 1?
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in fact we are speaking on
behalf of communities, workers, and the environment in British
Columbia and in Quebec.
If we were to accept the Bloc Quebecois' motion, we would not
have an opportunity to challenge the provisions. For instance,
we would not be able to oppose the American challenge to our
environmental practices and to our practice of not having raw
logs exported from Canada.
It is precisely because we wish to speak on behalf of
communities, of the environment and of workers that we are
rejecting these NAFTA rules, particularly the infamous chapter
11.
It seems to be fine with the member for Joliette if the big
corporations are allowed to challenge provisions of the
agreement, whether in Quebec, in Canada or in British Columbia.
We, as members of parliament, and the representatives of the
government in power would have no opportunity to say no. That
is what the Bloc Quebecois is proposing and we do not agree.
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak on this issue because it is a critical
issue to my party, my region and my country. It is the number
one issue that has occupied our attention for the last little
while. It is not a simple issue and there will probably not be a
simple solution.
For one thing, people should understand that it is a very unique
situation, where the United States government deals with Canada
under three different sets of rules. One is the softwood lumber
agreement, which includes the four provinces of Quebec, Ontario,
Alberta and British Columbia. Then there are four provinces
under the maritime accord, the four Atlantic provinces of New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland. Then there are
Saskatchewan and Manitoba, perhaps the most important provinces.
In any case, it is an aberration in international trade when one
country deals with another country under three different sets of
circumstances. It does cause a lot of trouble, but there are
reasons for the different approaches in these three different
areas.
In the case of the four provinces under the softwood lumber
agreement, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, the
American industry and the American government perceive that they
have subsidy under the program of supplying stumpage or softwood
resources from crown land. The Americans have said that they
will consider that a subsidy and they want quotas, taxes or some
kind of tariff on those four provinces.
In Atlantic Canada, there is a completely different situation.
In 1995 when the SLA was negotiated, 61% of all the softwood
exports from Atlantic Canada came from private woodlots, much the
same as the lumber industry in the United States. The American
industry said the four provinces in Atlantic Canada operated the
same way as it did, so it said it did not require a quota and
would not impose taxes or tariffs.
In fact, over the last five or six years those provinces have
increased that percentage from 61% to 74.5% in order to address
the concerns of the American industry and maintain their
position, because under the maritime accord the four Atlantic
provinces have, they virtually have total free trade, exactly as
this bill calls for. It is free trade and protection from
litigation, which perhaps is actually even better than free trade
because of the protection part of it.
1215
The Atlantic provinces are adamant that they keep the same
criteria they have now under the maritime accord, which is total
free trade.
Manitoba and Saskatchewan somehow evaded the net that was cast
by the American industry and government and are under no
obligations or restrictions at all. They are not part of the
maritime accord or of the SLA, but they are there and do ship
smaller quantities of lumber but of an excellent quality,
especially from Manitoba.
We would certainly agree with the motion, which reads:
That this House support the government's efforts to restore free
trade agreement rules for lumber and inform the United States
that it rejects any obstacle to the free trade process.
We would also agree with the amendment, which reads “by
establishing quotas and trade barriers”. We are against quotas.
We are against trade barriers of any kind, and that includes an
export tax imposed by the Canadian government.
We are free traders as a party. We are the party that brought
free trade to the country and to the North American continent.
As a region we are free traders now in the softwood lumber
business. I am from the maritimes and our region is a free
trading region. We have free trade now under the maritime accord.
The provinces are adamant that they keep that free trade
agreement in place.
The Atlantic provinces are very concerned that, under the
current scenario of negotiations and all the things that are
going on behind the curtains which we do not know about, the
government may be trading away some of these things because we
really do not know what it is saying.
My biggest fault with the government on the issue is that it has
not gained consensus in the country. It has pitted the west
against the east. We have two completely different positions and
then another one in the middle. I believe that in any
negotiation we must get all our ducks in a row on our own side
before we can start negotiating with the other side. The
government has made little or no effort to reconcile these
differences.
The western provinces under the SLA want to do away with the SLA
and establish free trade. The maritimes are already under the
maritime accord, which is total free trade. It is a different
position. There has been no attempt that I know of to try to
reconcile these positions.
Meanwhile the B.C. Lumber Trade Council comes to Ottawa to give
its side of the position and lobbies hard for it. The Maritime
Lumber Bureau comes from Atlantic Canada with Diana Blenkhorn,
the chairman and CEO of the Maritime Lumber Bureau, and presents
its side. Bob Plecas comes from British Columbia and presents
his side. The problem is that we are going into the negotiations
divided. The government does not have a clear mandate on what to
do because it has not got consensus from the provinces.
The maritime provinces have tried hard to address the concerns
of their customer, the American market. They have dealt with the
private woodlot sector. They have increased their percentage of
production from private woodlots. In my view the maritimes have
earned free trade, deserve free trade, have free trade now and
should keep free trade as the motion prescribes.
However, this is the motion. The efforts of the government are
not clear because the rumours are that the government is
negotiating or considering imposing an export tax. One of the
rumours is that some of the western provinces' industry
representatives are down in the U.S. lobbying them to pressure
Canada to apply an export tax. There is even a tentative formula
floating around of 10% next year for an export tax, 5% the next
year and 0% the next.
There is yet another concern in this whole environment that the
government is rushing into something to try to avoid any dispute
as the free trade agreement of the Americas approaches. It does
not want outstanding issues with our number one trading partner.
If we cannot resolve issues with our number one trading partner
how can we expand to free trade of the Americas?
We are very much afraid that the government will not get a
consensus or an agreement from all the provinces, and that it
will dive into something just for the purpose of coming up with a
tentative temporary deal to overcome the embarrassment of going
into the free trade agreement of the Americas without an
agreement with our number one trading partner.
We have just gone through the Brazilian beef issue, which I and
most Canadians do not think was handled well. It seemed to be a
knee-jerk reaction to another industry's situation completely but
the government applied it to Brazilian beef and banned Brazilian
beef.
However, an hour after the U.S. lifted its ban, Canada was forced
to lift its ban. This shows that there is total mismanagement
and a total lack of thought and planning.
1220
This agreement and all trade agreements are critical for the
whole country but we are afraid the government will take the same
knee-jerk reaction approach that it took on the beef and apply it
to the softwood lumber issue in order to avoid embarrassment at
the free trade agreement of the Americas.
There are so many rumours and proposals floating around now that
it is very disconcerting to all of us. Every day in the House,
when members ask the trade minister, the Prime Minister or the
parliamentary secretary about free trade, whoever stands to
answer says that nobody in Canada wants to go back to the
previous arrangements and the previous agreements. We take
exception to that because it is not exactly right. Four Atlantic
premiers, that is four out of six provinces, have written and
signed letters to the Prime Minister saying:
Failure to continue the current agreement and arrangements would
have a devastating impact on our region's softwood lumber
industry.
The four premiers go on to say:
We respectfully request Canada take the steps to—ensure no
lapse in this important and strategic arrangement.
The parliamentary secretary, the minister and even the Prime
Minister continue to stand and say that nobody in the country
wants the agreement extended. There has been no effort to try to
reconcile the differences between the different ends of the
country. The Atlantic provinces clearly want the maritime accord
renewed and continued, yet the minister stands and says that
nobody wants the arrangement restored and continued.
I put the responsibility totally on the Minister for
International Trade for not reconciling these differences before
he goes into trade negotiations with another country. We have a
split in Canada that has not been reconciled. I do not know how
we can go into a debate with another country without having all
our own country's industries onside and going in one direction.
There is no leadership.
When we talk about free trade, Atlantic Canada has had free
trade with the United States in softwood lumber since 1842. Under
the Webster—Ashburton treaty signed in 1842 we have had free
access to that market. Atlantic Canada has always had free
access to that market. When the dust settles at the end of the
little negotiation we are about to enter, we will still want free
trade with the United States. We want the rest of the country to
have free trade as well.
We do not want an export tax in Canada. We do not want to be
subject to countervail. We do not want to be subject to
anti-dumping. All these are possibilities if the government does
not take action and at least get the Canadian side organized and
get some consensus so that we can negotiate from a position of
strength.
The issue is absolutely critical to the Conservative Party.
Atlantic Canada delivers about $1 billion worth of softwood
lumber a year to the U.S., with a total market from Canada of $11
billion. It is a very important market to Atlantic Canada. It
is absolutely critical to us. It is critical that Atlantic
Canada keep the free trade arrangement it has now. It is
important that the rest of the country establish free trade with
the United States as well, but not at the jeopardy of the area
that already has free trade.
The Conservative Party is not satisfied that the government even
recognizes the differences in the two parts of the country. We
are not sure the government understands how the maritime accord
even works. Government members never acknowledge it when they
answer questions in the House. The bottom line is that they have
never reconciled the differences between the two parts of the
country.
We have all heard the expression, united we stand, divided we
fall, and right now we are already divided before we go into the
negotiations.
My party supports the motion to honour and respect the rules of
free trade. We do not want quotas or trade barriers but we also
do not want an export tax charged by Canada on softwood exports
to the U.S. Many of us feel the government is leaning that way,
providing a tax against our softwood lumber exports to the United
States in order to avoid embarrassment at the free trade
agreement of the Americas.
1225
The Government of Canada should stand up for free trade but it
should not bargain away our right to ship softwood lumber to the
U.S. by saying that we will have a 10% export tax now, a 5%
export tax next year and a 0% export tax the next year. Some
have even suggested that it may be 20% to 22%, which would be
absolutely unacceptable.
I call on the government, before it even starts negotiations,
which it probably already has started, to pull the industry
together in Canada and get a consensus before it tries to
negotiate in the U.S. If not, we will have a hodgepodge of
agreements again as we do now. We have three different
agreements in Canada. It makes no sense. It is very difficult
to monitor and even difficult to explain.
In conclusion, my party will be supporting the motion, as
amended, which would avoid any trade barriers or quotas and would
extend the rules of free trade in the softwood lumber industry.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have been listening to the hon. member talk about the case as it
affects the Atlantic provinces. It is called the maritime
agreement but it is understood that it also includes
Newfoundland. When we refer to the four provinces, we locally
call them the Atlantic provinces, but in this case all four fall
under the maritime agreement.
The member talked about perhaps renewing the maritime agreement
or that we should have complete free trade. Would the member
give us an example of the difference, if there is a difference,
between what the maritime agreement provides now for the people
in that area and what free trade across the board would do?
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague asked an
interesting question about the maritime accord and where the name
came from.
The name came from the United States. The United States
considers anything east of Quebec in Canada to be the maritimes.
However the maritimes consists only of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick
and P.E.I. The Atlantic provinces include Newfoundland. In this
case there is an aberration where the maritime accord refers to
all four Atlantic provinces.
The maritime accord provides the maritimes, the four Atlantic
provinces, with total free trade and access to the U.S. There are
no quotas, no tariffs and no limit. Not only that, it provides
protection against litigation for anti-dumping and countervail
charges which could be brought by the American industry.
It is an excellent agreement. It provides access to the
American market for Atlantic Canada. It provides thousands of
jobs in Atlantic Canada. It has allowed for a vibrant, strong
industry that can compete next to American lumber producers head
to head under the same circumstances. As I said earlier, 74.5%
of our softwood lumber exports come from private woodlots, quite
similar to the experience in the United States.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
first, I congratulate the member for Cumberland—Colchester. He
has been a very effective voice on this issue in the House. He
has, on numerous occasions, tried to draw out of the government
the position it is trying to put forward with respect to the
softwood lumber agreement but he has not been successful. He
indicated today in his speech that not all the provinces believe
what the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade
have been saying.
However, I will pose a question to the hon. member. We
recognize that the position the hon. member has taken is that
there should be open borders, free trade, no excise taxes and no
quota systems. We all seem to feel that the right way for trade
within North America is free trade across an open border between
the United States and Canada.
Who is the major lobby group in opposition to this free trade,
in the United States particularly? Who is opposing this open
borders concept? Who will this have an impact on should an
excise tax be placed on softwood lumber going across the border?
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, those are good questions.
He is obviously a very intelligent and thoughtful member from
Manitoba where there is a lot of clear, cold air.
1230
Who is opposing the free trade agreement in the United States?
The industry in the U.S. is opposing it. The system in the U.S.
is guaranteed to have opposition from the U.S. industry. If the
U.S. industry is successful on April 2, which I think it will be,
it will lobby its government to charge Canada or the Canadian
industry both countervail duties and anti-dumping charges.
If the U.S. government is successful in imposing those
countervail duties and anti-dumping charges, all the money will
go to the industry that filed the complaint in the first place.
Why would the industry not file a complaint against Canada if we
go into free trade? We strongly believe that on April 2 they
will file the application for countervail duties and anti-dumping
charges unless the Canadian government comes up with some kind of
interim agreement.
It is so unfair. The industry in the U.S. has a tremendous
incentive to apply for countervail duties and anti-dumping
charges. It will get the benefit if the charges are levied.
An hon. member: Who is being impacted?
Mr. Bill Casey: A lot of people are being impacted. In
the U.S. consumers are now starting to complain because they like
Canada's softwood lumber. They like the quality, the price and
the availability of it. If Canadian lumber is restricted then it
will drive up the price of all American building products and
will have an impact on U.S. consumers.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak today on an issue that is extremely important of course
for a region like mine, the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region, but
also for the whole province of Quebec and for a number of
regions across Canada.
Canada is a major exporter of lumber. Lumber ranks among our
greatest resources.
We have been engaged in a trade dispute with the United States
for some 20 years. Given the escalation in the means used,
we should clarify this whole issue once and for all and support
our industry to the end, so that this sector like many others
is covered by a true free trade policy.
The Bloc Quebecois is proposing the motion today to show
solidarity with an industry that has succeeded in building a
very strong coalition, which shows that people are prepared for
comprehensive and global free trade. These people are prepared
to begin to play, on April 1, by rules that should have been in
place for quite some time.
I will not review the whole history of this issue, but since
1982 the Americans have challenged on a number of occasions
the fact that the Canadian industry was subsidized, using all
kinds of recourses in the process. This situation was primarily
due to a different approach, since in Canada large areas of
forest and land are publicly owned, while in the United States
they are privately owned. The Americans have always felt that
stumpage fees were perhaps too low and they have used that
argument to claim that our industry was thus being subsidized.
They have made that claim wherever they could, including in the
United States, but not exclusively. They won a number of cases
internally, but when the time came to clarify the matter before
organizations other than those pressured by the American lobby
or by the U.S. industry, their claims were never validated.
For a variety of reasons, this led the Government of Canada to
sign agreements on two occasions with the American government,
the protocols of which included acceptance of a system limiting
our ability to sell our products freely on the U.S. market. The
first of these was in 1991 and the second in 1996. It was to
run for five years, terminating on March 31.
For the past five years, the current system has included quotas.
Of course, even if the government wanted to recognize past
production, a quota system creates problems for us in that it is
too discretionary as to who has or does not have the right of
production. Some benefit from the quotas on what we are
entitled to produce, without falling victim to the drastic
American measures.
1235
I do not know how many members have had this experience, but I
and many others have heard complaints from people in our regions
that they did not have a big enough quota or were not given any
at all. This creates problems for new players in the market.
Lacking quotas, they are at a disadvantage compared to those who
do have one.
As a result, we end up with an economic system in which highly
arbitrary choices influence the capacity of certain industries
to develop and prevent others from developing.
The time has come for the government to stand up and vigorously
defend Canadian and Quebec producers. Just to remind the House
briefly, so we understand what we are talking about, the
industry in Quebec produces about 25% of Canada's output. I am
giving figures for Quebec, but you will no doubt hear members
from other areas during the day telling you how important this
industry is for their region.
The industry in Quebec produces seven billion board feet.
Production is measured in board feet. There are over 30,000
jobs linked to the lumber industry in Quebec. The sawmill
industry accounts for 20,000 jobs and the forestry industry,
10,000. This industry is important in a number of
municipalities, as we can see from the figures given this
morning.
There are 250 municipalities in Quebec where all of the
manufacturing sector jobs are related to this sector. There are
250 municipalities. We are therefore talking about something
really important to many communities throughout Quebec, and I am
sure that this is true in many other regions in Canada. It is
very common to have a lumber business as the major activity in a
village with, of course, a few other economic activities about.
But the manufacturing sector is where we have to keep improving.
Our ability to export lumber does not excuse us from other
issues, such as better processing our products, producing more
value added products or better using our natural resource. All
of this is an extremely important issue we must not lose sight
of. But trade rules must be the same for everyone.
I remember that, when I was first elected in 1993, I had the
opportunity to have discussions with Tembec Inc., a major player
in that industry back home. On the general topic of free trade,
officials from that company said “Yes, this is one way free
trade. The Americans really like having access to our market,
while it is very difficult for us to have access to theirs”.
They were referring to all these problems they were experiencing
in their industry or foreseeing because of the complex situation
and the numerous challenges by the Americans.
Americans are very good at extolling the virtues of free trade.
They will do exactly that at the Summit of the Americas. They
will make great speeches in support of a market covering all the
Americas. But it is another story when they are confronted to
realities like the one where part of their industrial sector
could be threatened by the very productive companies we have
here.
Incidentally, we always talk about productivity gaps
between Canadians and Americans, but there are sectors, like
mining and logging, where our productivity rates are excellent.
We too often forget to mention that. Whatever we may think and
despite the fact that traditional economy has been run down and
called “old economy”, there have been massive investments in
the natural resources sector. Such sectors are often among the
most productive in the Quebec and Canadian economy.
People in these sectors want access to the U.S. market just as
much as the Americans want free access to ours.
That is what free trade is all about. But we are familiar with
this tendency of the Americans to say one thing and, in practice,
to block free trade. This is one area where the Government of
Canada will have to stand behind an industry. There are major
legal battles on the horizon.
Certain provinces are being accused of dumping. There is again
talk of challenges because this industry is subsidized. The
government must not abdicate its responsibilities towards the
industry in this battle. It must not negotiate any sort of
transitional agreement whatsoever. This is one thing that
worries us.
1240
The government clarified its position, but there was a
suggestion of hesitation when it said there would be a transition
towards free trade. No transition is necessary. On April 1, we
will be in a free trade position. This means that businesses
will be in a new phase; admittedly, some will have a transition
to make, but we do not want a transitional agreement. We want
full free trade and we want the government to mount a strong
defence of our industry in these battles, to be there for us and
to take the lead, so that we do not find ourselves in the
situation we have been in for several years now. The result of
arbitrary decisions has been that some companies have been able
to grow while others have not, and some have been limited in what
they could do.
This is an excellent test of the effectiveness of the Minister
for International Trade. We will see whether or not he is up to
the task. He has everything he needs to succeed. The industry
is strong and parliament will be very solidly behind him, I am
sure, with the Bloc Quebecois motion moved today. He has a
responsibility to succeed. The Government of Canada must
succeed because this industry is extremely important to our
economy.
Of course things will be heated for a while, because the
Americans will make all sorts of threats, but we must follow
through so that we do not find ourselves having to make this same
argument every five years. We must resolve this once and for all,
clarify the situation, and enter fully into free trade.
We have every confidence that our industry will do well in these
circumstances and that our economy will be able to grow further.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I compliment the Bloc member on his
speech. He described many of the problems Quebec has in the same
terms that I would describe the problems in British Columbia.
Half of the $11 billion trade in Canadian wood comes from British
Columbia.
In addition to what the member said, it seems to me, though,
that the main problem is simply the inability of Americans to
want to compete with us on fair ground and the inability of the
Canadian government to handle a consistent and well thought out
trade position.
I think of the farming communities that we represented on the
streets in Ottawa yesterday. Their lifeblood is being drained
away trying to compete against subsidies. I think of the dumping
of apples in British Columbia. I think of the recent Brazilian
meat kerfuffle and a poorly thought out position by the Canadian
government.
Canada has perhaps the highest efficiency lumber mills in the
world. These mills do not only put out a train car of lumber a
day. Medium size mills put out a trainload of lumber and know
the value of every stick on the train as well.
We are told that we have difficulty with stumpage. This lie is
being propagated by those who do not wish to compete on a fair
playing field. There is no advantage in stumpages for our
producers.
We have long roads over high mountains and deep swamps. We have
the high costs of getting the raw materials to our mills. We
have a situation now where mills are faced with an unfortunate
choice because the weight restrictions are already on roads in
British Columbia. The mills have yards full of logs and the
unfortunate choice of having to mill them at a loss or leaving
them stacked in the mill yards and swallowing the costs of
getting them there. No one is making money in this regard.
I call upon the government to think about what it is doing and
to understand that the issue is competition. It is hard to
compete against people who benefit. It is not hard to understand
how they avoid wanting to compete when the duties that Canada
pays go as cash into their pockets.
In conclusion, what specific proposals would the member have for
Quebec? They may be reminiscent of what we would need in
British Columbia. What specific proposals would he have for the
federal government as it talks to our U.S. trading partners about
the issue?
1245
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by answering the
question, and then I will make comments. The answer is simple.
What we are asking the federal government is nothing
complicated: true free trade and nothing else. It is the basis
for the best solution.
I will pick up on some of the points raised by the
Canadian Alliance member. The lumber industry is a highly
productive industry, both in Quebec and in British Columbia. I
am pleased to be able to repeat this. There has been much talk
of the new economy over the past 10 years or so, but our
traditional resource sectors are now consumers of new
technologies.
These are highly productive sectors and perhaps among the best
adapted to the integration of these modern new development
concepts.
These are, therefore, highly productive sectors. It is not our
problem that the Americans cannot compete with us. In the case
of Quebec, we know that the figure was, if I remember correctly,
0.01%, the last time we checked the industry subsidy. We are
talking of something that is marginal to say the least.
If our prices are lower, it is not because of a subsidy but
because of our efficiency. The federal government needs to tell
the American government now that there will be no more
foolishness of signing agreements right and left, and thus
hindering trade in this area.
I remember how the Minister of Industry took pride in
announcing, in connection with a trade dispute with Brazil, that
it was high time that Canada stopped acting like a Boy Scout in
the conflict between Bombardier and Embraer.
It is the same in this case also. It is time for
Canada to start acting like a true partner to the industry, to
move to true free trade once and for all, and not to bow to the
pressures exerted by the Americans during the period of
turbulence that is coming when there will be but one objective:
for free trade to start up on April 1 and just keep on going and
going.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like my
colleague, I congratulate the member for
Joliette, for initiating this debate today.
I am also scandalized, a bit like the member for Burnaby—Douglas
earlier, that an issue as important as this is being raised
today, two weeks before the end of the agreement, two weeks
before free trade resumes and by the opposition.
Such an important matter as this should have been given special
attention by the House, debated and treated with something
besides arrogance on the part of the government when we ask
questions about it. It should have been responded to in a way
that at least gives impression the issue is being addressed, if
forestry workers are not given full satisfaction.
When we asked questions on lumber in the House, we had the
impression the issue was a bit embarrassing or that it did not
concern us.
This morning, thanks to my colleague from Joliette, we are
having an indepth debate and we can show just how important this
matter is. It is important for Quebec and for the
rest of Canada. As we have just said, what does it mean
for Quebec? It means 30,000 jobs, including 10,000 in the
forest. This matter is doubly important for my
riding of Champlain.
This year we will be celebrating the 350th anniversary of the
city and the region of Cap-de-la-Madeleine. We are at the start.
The forest is part of our culture, part of our past and will be
part of our future if properly handled. My riding includes the
city of La Tuque, in the north.
Each time there is talk of American dissatisfaction over lumber,
I can say the workers around La Tuque are not particularly happy
with the situation. They do not like it a whole lot.
1250
Last week I travelled around that region. They begged me to
press the minister to do his best to defend this cause. He
should stop saying in the House that he has everything under
control if he is to come back after a meeting with the Americans
and say that he is a bit discouraged by the whole issue.
The Mauricie region depends on the wood industry, on softwood
lumber. Our industries have managed to adapt. Our industries are
financially viable. As my colleague said earlier, perhaps the
Americans are afraid because we adapted a bit quicker than they
did. However we must now have the opportunity to compete
freely. We can be replaced.
Sources say that the wood industry in general, especially the
softwood lumber industry which is the object of today's debate,
involves some 250 communities in the province of Quebec. Most of
the 27 communities in my riding are concerned by the softwood
lumber issue. I hope the minister will understand. Even if we do
not obtain unanimous consent from the House, I hope we will give
the minister a clear enough mandate for him to stand up and
avoid weakening his position. To this end there is nothing else
to do but to come back to free trade as of April 1.
I will read again the motion of the member
for Joliette:
I wish to underline the word will, because I was wondering if
the will was there. I have faith in the Prime Minister who
seemed to be saying yesterday that the will was there.
The motion goes on:
The motion before us is extremely important. In the riding of
Champlain and in the Mauricie region, history is closely related
to the forest. I remember the fight that I personally led in the
late seventies, as a member of the national assembly, regarding
the closure of pulp and paper mills. At the time, Trois-Rivières
was considered the world capital of pulp and paper. We held our
ground and we modernized the plants, thanks to René Lévesque,
who believed in the importance of unconditional government
support.
Mr. Lévesque used to say that the broadest possible consensus
was needed to protect such an important industry. When we ask
the minister about this issue, I would appreciate it if we could
get answers other than those that we were given yesterday, and I
am not only referring to this specific issue.
Yesterday, when we put questions to one minister, another would
reply. Then, when we would ask a question to the second
minister, the first one would provide the answer. We were
treated as if we had no right to speak in the House, as if
democracy did not exist. Today's motion seeks to strengthen the
minister's resolve.
We had a great poet, Félix Leclerc, who was born in La Tuque and
spent his childhood there. Another great performer, Sol, our
national hobo, did a show to pay tribute to Félix Leclerc, after
he had passed away. Sol ended his show by saying “This great and
extraordinary poet of ours finally made us realize one thing: to
become a giant, one has to stand up”.
I am asking the minister to stand up and to protect our lumber
industry with all his energy. This morning, we are giving him
our support, so that the people in La Tuque, Saint-Tite, the
Mauricie and all of Quebec will know that everything will be
done to protect their jobs in the lumber industry, and that the
Americans will realize that, as of April 1, it is free trade and
nothing else.
1255
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my Bloc
Quebecois colleague for his speech. It reminds me again that so
many of the difficulties that Quebec experiences with the federal
government are the same difficulties that we in British Columbia
experience.
He spoke of 27 communities in his constituency, a majority of
which depend upon the wood industry. I am not competing with him
in any sense, but in my constituency which is more than 120,000
square kilometres in size with 36 communities, there is not one
of us who does not depend upon the forest industry. This is an
extremely important issue for us.
In our minds it is an issue of fair competition. We believe
that we have taken up the challenge of competing fairly and now
we are being castigated because we have outdone our competitors
in the United States. We have the most efficient mills in the
world not because they came cheaply or easily, but because of the
kind of wood we have in the forests and because of the kind of
difficulties with which we have to compete. This includes the
kind of equipment that we have and the kind of personnel we have
to recruit, train and employ. We are able to compete very well.
To say we are not competing fairly is more than wrong. It is a
falsehood being promoted by people who would rather make profits
by making false accusations than competing fairly. We have
mountains called Pike's Peak. To bring in the lumber, truckers
go up one mountain they call Heaven because it is so far away and
so difficult to get to. Those are the kind of difficulties we
have overcome.
We have come through a period of softwood quotas where some of
the major companies have made it through fairly well but not
easily. There is no room for expansion for those who would like
to grow. We have had a very difficult time. Now we are coming
to a period where we are talking about countervailing duties and
anti-dumping penalties that will make it even more difficult for
those who are already losing money. This is the difficulty we
face. We need fair competition and free trade so that we can
compete fairly.
In the presence of the foreign trade minister who is in the
House today, what recommendations would my colleague make so our
foreign trade people can take to Washington a consistent, clear
and urgent message that free trade with Canada depends not only
upon wood, but upon the whole spectrum of free trade?
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. When he talks about the competitiveness of the workers
of his province, and the same goes for Quebec workers, he is
right to say that some industries are able to face competition.
In this sense, this is why free trade is beneficial for us.
As I said in my speech, one must have the energy, the
willingness and the strength to succeed. To my knowledge this
strength is also to be found in parliament.
Ministers who have such issues to contend with should submit
them to us for discussion, to obtain the support of parliament
and make use of its strength, so that they can meet with the
Americans and tell them that we are almost unanimously in favour
of free trade. There must be free trade because this has been
negotiated. It has to happen now. No barrier is acceptable.
1300
[English]
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member
for Vancouver Quadra whose contributions to this very difficult
file have helped the government a lot. I thank him for his work
on this file.
[Translation]
I am pleased to rise in the House today and to respond to the
opposition day motion brought forward by the hon. member for
Joliette. Since the beginning of the 37th
parliament the member and his party have often brought up the
issue of softwood lumber in the House of Commons.
I have already given an overview of Canada's position on lumber
during oral question period in the House and from time to
time to the media, but I am very glad to know that today all
parliamentarians will have the opportunity to discuss one of the
most important business issues for Canada, one that touches
hundreds of communities across the country.
Canadian softwood lumber products are the largest group of
products exported from Canada to the United States. In fact one
out of every sixteen Canadians works in our forestry industry
and is dependent, for his or her income, on the production and
export of our forest products.
Across Canada, from British Columbia to Newfoundland, at least
half of the economic well-being of over 330 communities is
dependent on the forest products industry.
Canada's role in the production and export of lumber is unique.
It represents 20% of lumber exports worldwide and 34% of lumber
exports to the growing U.S. market. Our plants not only employ
64,000 Canadians. They also provide housing to millions of people
on this continent and around the world.
In fact last year we exported $10 billion worth of lumber to
the United States, which is no small feat.
The agreement has had its good sides for our industry, but after
five years we have come to realize that it also had its
weaknesses. The industry in Canada and the U.S. have now agreed
not to renew the 1996 agreement.
It is time to move away from managed trade in this industry and
to turn toward what should already have been in place for a long
time: free trade in softwood lumber.
[English]
This is what Canadians want and deserve. Regrettably it is also
what the United States softwood lumber industry fears the most.
We have recently seen American legislators propose resolution
after resolution calling for further restrictions on Canadian
exports to the United States. I take this opportunity today,
therefore, to put the issue into perspective by addressing what
is really behind the U.S. industry's attack on our exports and
the nature of the challenge we face.
The U.S. industry and some supporters in congress have long been
mesmerized by their own rhetoric. U.S. claims of subsidization
are in fact no more true today than they have ever been. Today I
would like to focus on what are actually the five essential facts
of Canadian softwood lumber trade with the United States. These
hard facts, which we all need to keep clearly in sight, will form
the foundation of the Canadian position on softwood lumber.
First, the U.S. industry's position on softwood lumber is not
based on any legitimate claim of unfair practices by Canada. It
is based on protectionism, pure and simple.
Second, Canada has a right under our trade agreements including
a right of access to the United States softwood lumber market
which the United States must recognize.
Third, Canadian forestry programs do not constitute subsidies to
the Canadian industry.
Fourth, Canada is a leader in sustainable forest management
practices.
1305
Fifth, the role of the Government of Canada is to safeguard the
Canadian interest in the face of U.S. protectionism and to work
toward free trade in this vital sector.
Let me take each of these five points in turn. First, it is
good old protectionism that has always driven the United States
industry position on softwood lumber. We have heard U.S. claims
that there will be a wall of wood coming from the north when the
softwood lumber agreement expires.
Traditionally Canadian lumber shipments to the United States
arrive in April as demand for wood increases due to spring
housing starts. This is normal and is not a wall of wood from
the north. In reality what we could face is a wave of
protectionism from the south washing over us on April 2. This
has been going on for nearly a century. United States softwood
lumber producers have always wanted to restrict Canadian exports.
They have always wanted protectionism from Canadian competition.
However there are now interests in the United States that have
taken a position against another round of protectionist measures
in this sector. American homebuilders and other consumers of
softwood lumber are also calling for free trade, pointing to the
adverse effects in the United States of reducing access to
Canadian wood and the price.
U.S. homebuilders claim that protectionism costs United States
consumers $1,000 for every home built in that country. This is a
steep price to pay to protect the United States lumber industry.
The fact is the United States needs and relies on our lumber. It
is not self-sufficient. Second, et me talk about our rights.
[Translation]
A second essential point has to do with the protectionist
threats currently being uttered by the U.S., which go directly
against our trade agreements, those of NAFTA and the World Trade
Organization.
The government has already taken steps. We have initiated two
major dispute settlement proceedings at the WTO against the
U.S., proceedings that directly affect lumber.
What counts is that we are not prepared to allow the U.S. to
concoct its own version of the rules established internationally
or to choose which of their trade obligations they are prepared
to honour.
The most central point in the softwood lumber issue is as
follows. Throughout all our discussions about lumber, the U.S.
has always alleged that the Canadian industry is subsidized.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Canadian industry
is not subsidized by cutting rights or by any of our policies.
This is why despite several tries the Americans have never managed
to get their subsidy allegations to stick. In fact, their subsidy
allegations have never been proven. If they build another
countervail case, we will defend ourselves against such
allegations as we have in the past.
[English]
Fourth, let me address the question of forest management
practises and the environment. Once again the facts speak for
themselves. Canada, with 94% of forest land under public
ownership, controls harvest levels so that forests are not
depleted. Canada grows twice as much wood as is harvested
annually. Less than one-half of 1% of Canada's commercial
forests are harvested each year, well below sustainable harvest
levels. Canada, with more commercial forest land, cuts less than
half of what is harvested in the United States each year.
The simple truth is that Canadian harvests are limited by annual
allowable cuts that are based on the sustainable growth rate of
the forest. As recently as January, a joint survey conducted by
the University of British Columbia and Yale University ranked
Canada as one of the top three nations in environmental
sustainability.
Fifth, the Government of Canada's role is to safeguard Canadian
interest. During the past year I have consulted with Canadian
industry from all regions of our country to hear its views on how
to proceed next.
I have asked Canadians at large through open dialogue their
thoughts and ideas. I have brought our stakeholders together to
listen to what they had to say about our trade with the United
States.
1310
Recently I met with representatives of all provincial and
territorial governments in Ottawa to discuss their specific
concerns and to determine together how we should proceed. In an
effort to bring all views forward and to continue our dialogue
with our neighbour to the south, I met with United States trade
representative Bob Zoellick in Washington a little more than
three weeks ago. At that time I presented Canada's case to the
United States and proposed as a way to avoid our recent history
of trade dispute on softwood lumber that both countries appoint
envoys to provide governments with non-binding recommendations on
solutions to this dispute.
[Translation]
We will continue to work with all the stakeholders in Canada and
to ensure that the interests of all of Canada's regions from
British Columbia through Quebec to the Atlantic provinces will
be taken into account.
Furthermore, even though we are working toward finding
solutions, we will also affirm our rights under our trade
agreements. We are entitled to free trade. We want free trade.
In conclusion, I support a vigorous Canadian lumber sector, as
do all members on both sides of the House. This is why I will
support the motion by the member for Joliette. I encourage all
members on both sides to do the same. We must send a clear
signal to the US that our House of Commons is united in its
support for the Canadian lumber sector and let it be known that
we will defend our rights under the international agreements.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the minister.
I would like him to explain how it can be that in the United
States when there is a dispute, when an appeal is won, and I
presume the decision must be executed as in a regular court, it
does not work that way for the Americans. Even if they lose,
they try a kind of blackmail on us and we end up forced to
negotiate what is coming to us as a result of the decision by
the trade tribunal. I am not laying any blame whatsoever on
anyone.
I would just like him to explain how, even if we win out, they
will not comply unconditionally but come after us with other
agreements on milk, eggs, yoghurt, margarine or mayonnaise. Do
the Americans only use free trade when it suits them? That is
what I would like explained.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question
is an extremely pertinent one. That is why I expressed a degree
of impatience after my discussions with the new representative
of the Bush administration, Bob Zoelleck.
There are people who insist on repeating false statements, even
when they know they are wrong. This is the situation as far as
the softwood lumber industry in the United States is concerned.
The parliamentary secretary, whom I thank for his speech this
morning, has clearly demonstrated that this is an issue of
market share. When the Americans see us with 30% of the market,
that is okay, but the minute we start to pull ahead, because of
the highly competitive nature of our industry with its
modernized mills that are highly productive and therefore highly
competitive, they try to rein us in.
Now the international systems and tribunals provide us with
recourse and the rule of law applies.
In fact, their stubbornness leads them to use certain tactics,
which are regrettable but which are part and parcel
of the legal systems under which we live.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his remarks
and I wish him well in the fight against American protectionism
and the fight for free trade in this sector.
I would like to ask the minister a somewhat technical question,
but one that is very important in terms of jobs and the Canadian
interest in this question. As the minister will know, the lumber
industry includes not just the primary sector but a secondary
sector that is involved in remanufacturing of wood products, many
of which are directed toward the United States.
1315
The minister will also know that this sector is very large. It
includes, I think, 300 independent producers in B.C., Alberta,
Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. It employs over 40,000 Canadians
annually. Its production is about $4 billion annually in sales.
The sector accounts for about 10% to 15% of Canada's exports to
the U.S. under the current SLA.
The minister will also know that group is actively working
on the development of a transparent and enforceable process
through which Canada's secondary sector can be, from an
administrative perspective, effectively excluded from any
countervailing duties or from any other restrictions imposed on
Canadian softwood lumber exports to the U.S. either now or in the
future.
My question is, does the minister recognize the concerns of the
secondary lumber sector and support its efforts to avoid injury
when the current SLA comes to an end?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
for Calgary Southwest for his good wishes in this very difficult
and complex file. I trust that we will all be able to work
together on it, opposition and government.
Yes, we are very much aware of the differences between the
primary producers and the secondary remanufacturing of wood. In
the last agreement a great deal of secondary re-manufactured
products were included. In our view, it is very important that
American producers, when they act the way they are announcing
they will act, have the same mentality and the same refinement in
distinguishing it. We will monitor that very closely.
Obviously it will be up to U.S. producers, but n my view they
should not have countervailing duties on any of the softwood,
neither primary nor secondary groups. We will demonstrate that
such measures are not legitimate because we are not subsidizing
any part of our sector.
However, it will be important to monitor closely what products
the Americans attack or put under investigation in early April if
they decide to go that route. We will be able to demonstrate
that we are not subsidizing either group, and we will do
everything we can to protect both sides of the softwood lumber
industry.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
as the minister will know, we strongly agree that the current
softwood lumber agreement should not in any way be renewed and
should be allowed to expire at the end of this month.
I have two very brief questions for the minister. As the
minister knows, I represent British Columbia. One of the very
serious concerns there is the dramatic increase in the volume of
raw log exports from British Columbia. In 1997 the amount was a
little over 100,000 cubic metres. Last year it was perhaps as
much two million cubic metres.
The minister and the government are under pressure from some
forest companies to reduce current restrictions on raw log
exports. Will the minister make it clear to the
House, to the people of Canada and particularly to the people of
British Columbia that he will not in any way reduce restrictions
on raw log exports and that in fact he will take steps to ensure
there are even fewer raw logs exported?
Second, what is the response of the minister to the proposal by
the B.C. minister of forests that he attempt to seek the
appointment of a special envoy to negotiate a fair trade
agreement with the United States so that we will not be into this
destructive cycle of countervail, tariff and anti-dumping
procedures after March 31?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I assure the member
that whatever we do about the log exports from British Columbia
it will not be done under pressure from the United States. Either
the provinces or, as in the case of export control, the
Government of Canada makes all the decisions for Canadian
forestry practices. However, whatever we do it will never be
because of pressure from the United States on this file on which
we feel very strongly.
We thank the House for its support on this complex and difficult
file.
1320
In terms of the envoy, I had a conversation this morning with
the British Columbia forest minister. The envoy idea was put
forward by our government. It was not a suggestion the B.C.
minister put forward but a suggestion our government put forward.
I raised it with Bob Zoellick, the United States trade
representative of the Bush administration. He sounded skeptical
at first but has not rejected the idea. It could certainly allow
us to have a calmer dialogue on facts, as I have tried to put in
my own remarks. It is a suggestion our government supports
because we initiated it.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I too acknowledge how complex the situation is. It has
tremendous potential to be divisive for the country and may pit
four of the provinces against the other six. However we will
work with the department if we are kept in the loop.
I have a couple of specific questions. First, as the minister
knows, the maritime accord gives Atlantic Canada true free trade
and the four Atlantic premiers have asked for the maritime accord
to be extended. Will the minister assure the Atlantic provinces
that any future agreement will assure the continuation of the
free trade and protection from litigation that are provided under
the maritime accord?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, for the past 20 years
the Atlantic provinces have been exempted from all quotas and any
other restrictions the United States has imposed on the rest of
our country. We would like all of Canada to benefit from free
trade with the United States. We will fight very hard to
maintain Atlantic Canada's complete access to the U.S. market. I
want the same for British Columbia and every province.
We want free trade and we deserve free trade. We hope very much
that the Americans will respect Atlantic Canada as they have for
the past 20 years.
If the Americans move in early April I hope they will not target
the Atlantic provinces. I hope they will recognize that the
Atlantic provinces do not subsidize. I also hope they will
recognize the great history we have had in the past 20 years. I
would like the rest of the United States' producers to respect
the rest of Canada as they have respected our Atlantic provinces
in the last few years.
The Deputy Speaker: At this point I see there are still
members rising. I will put myself in the hands of the House as
I believe I should, depending on the availability of the minister
and the desire of the House to continue the questions to the
minister. We have more than generously used the question and
comment period.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Because this is such an incredibly important issue, and
because the minister is here and has obviously said he would stay
a little while, I would ask for unanimous consent
of the House that we continue for as long as the minister may
stay.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
very specific question for the minister.
Apparently many Americans and a minority of Canadians in some
industrial sectors think that to avoid a trade war with the U.S.,
Canada should voluntarily impose an export tax on its lumber sold
in the U.S.
I would like the minister to tell us if such an idea has been
categorically rejected.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to
remain in the House a while longer. The only problem is that
after question period, during which I will be available to answer
questions from opposition members, I must appear before the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I
do not think anyone could contend that the Minister for
International Trade is not making himself totally available to
his colleagues in parliament.
In response to the question of the hon. member for Joliette, who
is the seconder of today's motion, I will say that this was the
solution Bob Zoellick suggested when I met him. He asked me if we
would consider that.
1325
I can assure the House that there is absolutely no consensus
that we should limit our access to the U.S. market through an
export tax or any other means. There is absolutely no consensus
in Canada for such a tax, which could be construed as an
admission that we are subsidizing our industry, which, of course,
we are not.
[English]
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's seeming
support for this motion, but I have some questions to ask him
about the fact that the government appears to have come
considerably late to this party.
As far back as three years ago in the softwood lumber agreement
the signs and evidence of market distortion, the harm it was
causing our industry and indeed the creation of the have and have
not quota holders were becoming quite prominent. It is only
within the last several weeks that the minister and the
government have been talking about this issue in a public
fashion. The minister may well have been talking to industry
leaders over the last year but it has only been in the last
several weeks that he has talked about it publicly.
As a result, the Americans have beaten us to the punch and have
come out with their sabre rattling. We have had lots of time to
work on this. We have had as much as two or three years to try
to drum up support south of the border for our position with the
coalition of senators.
Why has the minister and the government come so late to the
party in a public way?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted by
the question because we have been working very hard at it for
quite a few years. If the opposition failed to ask me questions
on the issue over the last few months and years, it is certainly
not my fault.
We have been working in Washington through our embassy and
through the lobbyists we have hired. We have also been working
with industry from all regions of Canada and with the provinces.
We have helped build a coalition in Washington of home builders
and consumers. We have built strong arguments and cases that we
have put forward time and again. I can tell the member that our
government is ready.
Why would we have come to the House if an agreement that would
be terminated March 31 was the wish of everyone? I do not know
how I could have come to the House without having done exactly
what we have been doing.
There is a consensus that we let the agreement terminate. I can
tell the member that we have mustered all the support we could in
Washington. We have consulted and maintained a united front on
the Canadian industry both with the provinces and the industries
themselves. We are in much better shape to meet the challenges
that are awaiting us.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
hon. colleague from the Bloc, the member for Joliette, asked the
minister what his and the government's position was on the export
tax. The minister acknowledged that there was no consensus.
The question was not whether there was consensus. We recognize
that there is not consensus. I believe the question, certainly
from my perspective, was whether the minister and the government
supported an export tax and whether they would support an export
tax as another way of buckling to U.S. pressure?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I think my answer to
the earlier question was quite clear. There is no such consensus
in the country and the government reflects the consensus we have
been building and working on. We will not admit that we are
subsidizing our industry.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the minister for staying to take questions because it is an
extremely important issue.
I have not been able to participate in the debate, but there was
a comment made about the have and have not provinces for quota
holding. The member who made that comment should take a look at
some of the facts before us.
Six provinces in Canada now enjoy free trade with the United
States in softwood lumber. In Atlantic Canada that goes back to
the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842. There is a lot of history
in reciprocity of softwood lumber products between Maine and
Atlantic Canada.
1330
Because we have six out of ten provinces that enjoy free trade
now it is the position of the Conservative Party that we should
not be encompassing all six provinces with the other four that
are suffering under a softwood lumber agreement. We should be
seeking free trade for those four provinces directly. We could
support that from our position. I would like to hear the
minister's position on that.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the government stands
for Canada, for the Canadian forestry industry. We do not want
the six provinces that have free trade right now to be subjected
to quotas. It is the last thing I would ever want. I want to
free the rest of the country from the restrictions and the quotas
we have right now. I want to free British Columbians, Albertans
and Quebecers from the self-restrictions to which they have been
subjected. I want to keep our country united.
I do not want to affect the Atlantic provinces and the
privileged position they have had in the last five years. I am
glad for them. It has served them well. I am glad for the
Atlantic provinces, but I want to fight to maintain a Canadian
position and not play east against west or any other division. I
want Canada as a country to be united behind all our softwood
lumber producers. They deserve a free and total access to the
United States market. This is what American consumers want.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It is my understanding that the House had agreed that we
could ask short questions of the minister as long as he cared to
stay. I come from an area that would be devastated by this and I
would very much like to ask a short question under the rules that
we established.
The Deputy Speaker: The rules were established as
indicated by the hon. member but, as he has also mentioned, at
the availability of the minister. In one intervention not long
ago he mentioned that he had to prepare for question period and
that he had to testify as a witness at committee. The minister
will be available all afternoon in these other forums, so I think
we will have to resume debate.
With the greatest of respect, I know the hon. member for
Cariboo—Chilcotin has been a very active participant in the
debate since I have been in the chair and I suppose all day on
this very important issue. It is my understanding that the
minister is not able to stay right now, so I will have to resume
debate.
Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
join the Minister for International Trade in supporting the
motion. I also commend the Bloc Quebecois for the admirable
dedication to the cause of Canadian unity that the resolution
exemplifies.
The issue of subsidies in the free trade of softwood lumber to
the United States is one that is dear to the hearts of all
British Columbians. It is an essential aspect of our economy and
our social fabric.
When we look at the difference between forest practices in the
United States and Canada, which is at the heart of any claim to
subsidization, it is a matter of whether we have private land or
public land logging. In Canada, as has been noted, 90% of
logging is done on public land, with 10% on private land. In the
United States it is the other way around, with private logging
making up 90% of its logging practices.
The sustainability which the public demands in Canada of those
logging practices is absolutely critical to the question of
whether or not there are subsidies. It is also critical to the
health of the economy, society and environment of Canada.
Sustainability depends on a balance among those things. We
simply will not have economic strength if we do not have social
stability. We will not have social stability unless we have
environmental integrity. We must keep those in balance.
In listening to the debate as I have with great interest today,
I have been taken by the amount of unity across the country that
has been expressed by many hon. members from different parties.
In that spirit I want to make my next statement very gently. I
simply observe that sometimes the failure from the left is that
it believes government can do everything.
Of course it cannot. Sometimes there could be a failure of the
right as well while properly mistrusting big labour and big
government but not sufficiently mistrusting big business.
1335
That is particularly ironic given the fact that so much faith is
put in the marketplace. The greatest threat to the marketplace
and the cause of market failure is often uncompetitive practices
and large monopolies. In the spirit of what we are saying in the
House, I should like to touch on those two points.
In terms of the economic issues, we have heard of the large
importance to Canada as a whole of softwood lumber exports to the
United States. That is of particular interest and importance to
British Columbia, making up approximately 47% of those exports,
totalling almost $11 billion.
My hon. colleagues from Prince George—Bulkley Valley and
Cariboo—Chilcotin have properly recognized the importance to
their communities and resource based communities around British
Columbia of sustainable support of this industry.
The forest industry in British Columbia has contributed greatly
over the last decade to the forest management practices that we
enjoy in British Columbia and demonstrate across Canada and
around the world. These are not subsidized. Stumpage rates have
been significantly increased, as well as forest practices over
the past decade.
With the forest industry agreement in British Columbia, those
extra stumpage charges have been dedicated to forest renewal,
restoration of stream beds and replanting, new research in forest
sensitive forest practices, retraining of forest workers into
different jobs, and more sustainable practices. They are also
dedicated toward value added manufacturing which is to be the
lifeblood of the future of diversified economies in resource
dependent communities. The forest industry resource based
communities have all done their part in British Columbia to make
sure that we continue to enjoy economic strength from this
vitally important industry.
Social stability in communities, in British Columbia and Canada
as a whole is based on economic strength not only in resource
based communities but for the general public. The issues of
health care, education, social structure and infrastructure are
dependent on a strong economy. The resource based economies, the
forest industry above all, is the lifeblood of that economic
strength in many parts of Canada, particularly British Columbia.
Let me turn to the environmental balance which is so critically
important and which underlies the strength of the argument that
we do not have subsidies, certainly in British Columbia or
anywhere else in Canada.
Over the entire last century we have taken on the responsibility
of the idea of sustainable yield logging. However, in the last
20 years, the meaning of what that total yield should be has
changed as we have gone to integrated resource management. We
look to all interests of society in the integrity of the
environment and to non-forest product uses for our forests. This
is reflected in the cost of doing business.
Forest companies in British Columbia and across Canada are
required to go through detailed planning processes that usually
involve multiparty planning processes which adds considerably to
their costs but to the balance to be brought to those multiple
uses of the forests. They must observe very high logging
standards in terms of road building, stream side protection and
reforestation.
We do not deforest in Canada. We replant all our forests. Those
forests are not all the forests. We protect other values like
old growth values and parks. We have doubled the amount of parks
from 6% to 12% in British Columbia over the last eight years.
This is one of the costs that goes into our logging practices
which eliminates any argument of subsidy.
We have heard comments and concerns, properly placed, that
logging practices and subsidies to industry not destroy our
environment. The worry from the NDP is that perhaps free trade
of the Americas, if not NAFTA, may contribute to the destruction
of our forest ecosystems. That need not be so and I do not
believe it is so in British Columbia or across the country.
What we have in NAFTA is an environmental parallel agreement for
environmental co-operation which allows non-governmental
organizations to challenge governments, in much the same way the
hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas spoke of in international
corporations challenging governments under chapter 11 of NAFTA.
That is available under the commission for environmental
co-operation at the NAFTA environmental commission.
1340
When we look to Quebec City and free trade of the Americas,
environment and labour conditions will be parallel agreements to
any agreement that Canada signs. In addition to those that are
included in NAFTA, there will be agreements on human rights,
democratic development and education. Free trade of the Americas
as negotiated in Quebec City will build on the experience of
NAFTA, the importance of environmental integrity and the
effective enforcement of environmental standards which Canada is
bound by and which underline the non-subsidy in terms of our
forest practices.
We have a healthy industry in the country. We are economically
and socially dependent upon it and it must continue. I am very
pleased to support the resolution for a Canadian unified position
behind its forest industry with all the integrity it practises to
accomplish fair trade access to American markets.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver
Quadra for his comments and for his knowledgeable participation.
A number of people have a lot to say about British Columbia and
about the rest of our country, particularly in other forums. For
example, I recently received a copy of a letter from the German
Tourism Bureau expressing concern about the use of our land mass.
It does not think it should send tourists to Canada or to British
Columbia because of it.
I am also aware that there are stories about a mythical land of
the Great Bear Rain Forest. A bear with a gene mutation that is
white rather than brown or black has spiritual qualities and is
called the spirit bear.
What effort is the Government of Canada making to influence our
position in this trade difficulty with American consumers? We
have a toehold there. We have heard that retail marketers do not
want to have duties imposed. They want to have free trade. We
understand those consumers would like to have free trade because
houses are $1,000 or $1,300 more with the duties applied.
What is the Government of Canada doing to promote our position
and put down the falsehoods, the untruths and even the lies that
are being told about how we produce lumber and look after our
crown lands?
Mr. Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for his question. The Minister for International Trade gave
quite an account of the list of initiatives over the last number
of years that the Government of Canada has taken to build a
coalition of support in Washington to advance the argument the
hon. member is mentioning.
The issue of the consumer interest of the United States public
in avoiding what in effect is a tax on house building of over
$1,000 U.S. per household is something that should and is being
brought forward and a coalition built around it. The Government
of Canada has been working hard over the last two years to build
a coalition within Canada to work with forest product companies
and their legal advisers to prepare and advance the argument as
effectively as possible.
Over the last 20 years the Government of Canada has demonstrated
its zeal in promoting a unified Canadian interest in the softwood
trade by aggressively arguing against countervails in the past
and winning those arguments before international trade tribunals.
The government has expressed its strong intention to continue
aggressively on that course.
My hon. colleague made an interesting comment regarding the
Great Bear Rain Forest. I think of it as the central and
mid-coast of British Columbia and outstanding old growth forests.
When we look at free trade in softwood products we must think of
marketplace democracy as well, which not only works in favour of
forest companies but in favour of the environment.
1345
We need to have a willing seller and a willing buyer for free
trade in order to underline the importance of it. Marketplace
democracy has played a large part in the largest forest companies
in British Columbia. Sitting down with the largest environmental
groups and working out a joint solution to logging practice on
the west coast will be demonstrably at the forefront of those
practices in the world. That is just a further expression of the
extent to which Canadian producers and other aspects of our
society have come together in the interest of Canada.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the minister for allowing us to have
an extended question period on this topic. That was a noble
gesture by both yourself and the minister.
The question I have for my colleague from Vancouver Quadra has
to do with the linkage of free trade and the softwood lumber
agreement with other sectors of trade. That spectre was raised
by the Prime Minister, but there were some contradictory comments
made by other ministers of the crown. Would the member agree
with the notion that was raised by the Prime Minister that
perhaps we should link the free trade agreement with other
sectors, such as energy, or should we not go down that route?
What would his opinion be on that?
Mr. Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, the issue of linkages is
an important one and, of course, our trade relationship with the
United States, quite apart from anything that might be negotiated
under the free trade agreement of the Americas, exists under
NAFTA and our joint membership in the WTO.
Our relationship with the United States under NAFTA includes
being parties to the North American agreement on environmental
co-operation and labour co-operation. We already that linkage
that would bear on our free trade arguments with respect to
softwood lumber under NAFTA.
As we look beyond that to the other 32 countries of the
hemisphere, and the Prime Minister spoke to this, it is important
for us to understand that while there are great benefits to be
had by society in all countries through freer trade and the
development and increased wealth that comes from it, those will
not actually be achieved unless there is some requisite level of
human dignity and human rights in those countries, unless they
have some sort of democratic support for the policies of those
countries, and unless they have some sort of level of labour
standards and environmental integrity.
Our interest is not just in free trade, although that is an
essential part of democracy and liberalism, but it is also a
precondition to the necessary stability in the rules of law and
the rules based system that will allow us to trade with other
countries in a successful way.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
just like me, you sense the determination that characterizes the
Bloc Quebecois and its members when the time comes to discuss an
issue that is at the core of Quebec's economic vitality, since it
concerns our natural resources.
I clearly remember that when the current Quebec premier was the
Minister for International Trade he said in his policy statement
that Quebec was a trading nation. When that statement was made,
40% of Quebec's production was exported. This percentage has
since increased, because that was some years ago.
We cannot debate the motion before us without paying tribute to
the hon. member for Joliette, who proposed it and made us aware
of the importance of not renewing the Canada-U.S. trade agreement
on lumber.
I thank the member for Joliette for showing tenacity, for
displaying extreme perseverance, and particularly for being a
good teacher. This issue could be debated strictly in boring
economical terms, but it is one of the great strengths of the
member for Joliette to always succeed in showing both the
economic and human dimensions of the issues for which he is
responsible.
1350
I thank him and I hope that all the political parties in the
House will support his motion, which is not a partisan
initiative.
Regardless of which side members may sit in the House, they can
support this motion. Why? This motion says three things:
there is a natural resource; there is an economic
resource to be exported; and there are producers who have complied
with the rules of the game. This is what we must discuss.
Even though they followed the rules, producers were prejudiced
by the imposition of a countervailing duty that should not have
been imposed.
Let us start by establishing the importance of the lumber
sector in Quebec's economy.
Once again, before getting to the heart of the matter, I hope
that we can count on all the political parties represented in the
House to support the motion.
I must say as well and without any partisan overtones
that we have a few grievances against the Minister for
International Trade. Despite his support for the motion—he is
redeeming himself but barely—we must include in the equation
when we discuss these issues the fact that the Government of
Canada has shown itself to be a miserable defender of Quebec's
interests in the matter of lumber.
Had it not been for the vigilance of the member for Joliette and
his colleagues, we might think that the government would be
tempted to renew an agreement that was once again prejudicial
to Quebec lumber producers.
Members can rest assured that things will not happen that way
because the Bloc Quebecois is here and we want to pass on the
baton to all those wanting to work with us in defending the
interests of Quebec.
Since I have the full attention of the Chair, I want to tell the
Speaker that Quebec is the second largest provincial producer of
lumber in Canada, with 25.5% of production. It is therefore easy
to understand the importance of the Bloc Quebecois motion in
keeping with the mandate to provide a strong defence of the
interests of Quebec, a mandate we received in a resounding
majority in the latest election.
Quebec is the second largest producer of softwood lumber, with
approximately seven billion cubic metres a year. I think that
the importance of this sector for Quebec is well understood.
It is not just a matter of production. There is also the
matter of keeping jobs. That is why the member for Joliette was
so eloquent and appealed to us as parliamentarians to vote in
favour of this motion. If this agreement is not renewed and
Quebec's softwood lumber producers are allowed to return to a
full free trade position, over 30,000 jobs in the softwood lumber
industry will be on the line. That figure was for 1999, so it
is extremely current.
Still bearing in mind the member for Joliette's wish to present
the latest statistics, I remind the House that 20,430
people were employed in the sawmill industry and 10,000 in
forestry.
As far as Canada is concerned, the relationship between the
economic forces of Quebec and those of the other provinces is
very clear. That is why I was pleased earlier to see members
from Alberta, British Columbia and the maritimes rising to speak
and express their support for the Bloc Quebecois proposal. This
bodes well for all the virtual and potential possibilities of a
partnership between a sovereign Quebec and eventually the rest
of Canada.
I would not want the member for Joliette to
think that I was going to forget a piece of information as key to
our understanding of this debate but the lumber industry contributes
more than $4 billion annually to Quebec's economy.
Over 250 municipalities are developing, growing and taking shape
around the wood processing industry. This industry provides 100%
of the manufacturing jobs in 135 towns and villages.
I could go on and on with examples of the importance of this
sector, but I think that all members of the House have understood
that this is an important battle.
What happened?
1355
From the early 1980s to 1996, and I do not think this is too
strong a term, a trade war, economic guerrilla warfare, was being
waged between Canada and the United States around softwood
lumber. I understand that Canada, which includes Quebec since we
are not yet able to have our own policies on this, has been
accused of unfair competition and preferential policies in this
industry.
The Americans are, we must admit, barking up the wrong tree. It
is my understanding they were under the impression that we
could not even provide fair competition. Quebec producers, I
would remind hon. members, were forced to assume a countervailing
duty of 6.51% although they had proven that they were not being
subsidized.
I trust that all hon. members will understand that this 6.51%
duty had to be added to the existing production costs. We can
imagine what this means for price setting by the producers
concerned. When we look at the issue in a little more detail we
see that the actual rate of subsidy to Quebec exporters was a
teeny tiny, insignificant 0.01%, a Lilliputian amount that is a
far cry from 6.51%.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois has been so vigilant in this
matter. We cannot accept that in 2001, 2002 and 2003—I think that
the agreement expires in March—these countervailing duties will
be maintained.
The government of Quebec, which is very activist,
asked the federal government, which has a minister responsible
for international trade, that the countervailing duty for Quebec
exporters be reduced to 0.01%, as I just mentioned.
However the inescapable, sad and totally unacceptable fact is that
the federal government was unable to protect Quebec's interests
and that lumber producers were not charged what they should have
been, that is at a rate of 0.01%.
In Quebec 92% of the forest is publicly owned. This shows how
true it is that Quebec is a land of natural resources.
However, a demonstration was made by us—and the hon. member for
Joliette will correct me if I am wrong—and even by the U.S.
department of commerce. This made us realize that the market
price for lumber from private woodlots had nothing to do with any
unfair practices but was truly closely related to what could be
anticipated, given the natural market forces.
I see that my time is running out, but I remind hon. members
that we are seeking unanimous support of the House on this
issue, which is not a partisan issue.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE OLYMPICS
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Sunday
evening I attended a gala in honour of visiting members of the
International Olympic Committee's evaluation commission for the
2008 Olympic and paralympic games.
It was an outstanding evening. I congratulate the key
volunteers of Toronto's bid for the 2008 games. The IOC
evaluation commission was impressed by Toronto's bid work, the
support of three levels of government, including the strong
support of the Prime Minister, his cabinet colleagues and members
of the GTA federal caucus.
The games will leave a lasting legacy for the citizens of
Toronto including new and expanded sports facilities and an
improved transportation infrastructure. Residents of my own
community of Richmond Hill will enjoy watching the preliminary
baseball competition at Richmond Green. A $10 million expansion
is planned for Richmond Green that will leave a lasting legacy
for athletes and residents of my riding.
I offer congratulations to the TO bid on a job well done.
* * *
1400
NURSING
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we must make Canada the first choice of our graduating
nurses. Canada has become a subsidized training ground for U.S.
hospitals.
Recently the Globe & Mail featured a series of articles on
the brain drain of thousands of nurses headed for greener
pastures south of the border. An estimated 20,000 Canadian
nurses are working in the United States today. At least 10% of
our graduating nurses and hundreds of experienced nurses have
headed south annually. The crisis will only get worse.
Estimates show that Canada will be facing a shortfall of
113,000 nurses within a decade. Stressful working conditions,
rising tuition and the brain drain are all contributing to the
growing nursing shortfall.
With this critical shortage, it is small wonder that Canadians
lack the confidence in the future of our health care system.
The lack of foresight by the government has caused this crisis.
The government must acknowledge the crisis, take some immediate
steps to prevent dangerous future shortages and implement a long
term plan to keep Canadian health care professionals at home.
* * *
JUNO AWARDS
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Sunday the 30th anniversary Juno Awards were presented in
Hamilton, Ontario. These awards recognize excellence in all
aspects of Canadian music.
This year's event gave all Canadians an opportunity to celebrate
the successes of our diverse musical community.
I would especially like to draw attention to the organizers and
volunteers who made this year's event run so smoothly. The city
of Hamilton demonstrated yet again its warm hospitality and
continuing interest in promoting our world class music industry.
I know all members will join me in congratulating all the
winners on their achievements as well as all those who worked
hard to make the event such a success.
* * *
[Translation]
JEAN BESRÉ
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with dismay that we have just learned of the tragic death in
Cowansville yesterday evening of the talented theatre and
television performer, Jean Besré. He was 64.
For 40 years, Jean Besré was part of our cultural life, playing
numerous roles both in theatre and in television. Many will
remember Tour de terre, a Radio-Canada broadcast for young people
which he hosted on Saturday mornings in the 1960s.
Jean Besré played many engaging characters.
There was Joseph Arthur, in the series Le Temps d'une paix, Rémi
Duval in Jamais deux sans toi, and his final role, the
grandfather in Le monde de Charlotte.
An artist with an exceptionally strong dramatic range, Jean
Besré seemed to leap right off the screen and into our living
rooms, touching our hearts. He was involved in his community
and, with Juliette Huot, sponsored the Little Brothers of the
Poor.
The entire artistic community today mourns the passing of one of
the greats, Jean Besré, who lived in Brome—Missisquoi.
On behalf of the Canadian government, I pay tribute to his work,
and offer my deepest condolences to his friends and family.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, through the health transition fund, Health Canada is
supporting over 140 innovative projects across the country, each
trying new ways to make improvements to our health system.
Announced in 1997, this fund now has projects in place that are
making a difference. They are also sharing the lessons they have
learned with others across the country.
[Translation]
For example, the health transition fund gave a grant of $677,000
to the SMART project in Hamilton. Many older Canadians are
taking a number of different drugs, and the management of their
drug regimens is complex.
This project has successfully established links between
pharmacists and family physicians with a view to improving
seniors' drug regimens.
Pharmacists have noticed improvements in the drug regimens of
many seniors, and physicians have been receptive to the advice
of pharmacists.
* * *
[English]
VIOLENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to support a campaign waged by
a concerned Calgary woman, Carrie Kohan.
I intend to make her campaign the subject of a private member's
bill entitled Carrie's Guardian Angel Law. The goal of the
bill would be to finally get tough, really tough, with sexual
predators who commit the most egregious and heinous of assaults
against children.
It is time we put violent sexual offenders away for 20 years to
life, with no chance for parole. The only sure way to deal with
these incurable molesters is to lock them up. When a sexual
assault involves the betrayal of trust between victim and
predator, this too should be severely punished.
When sexual predators are arrested, let us be assured that they
have plenty of time behind bars to consider the enormity of their
crime and the lasting psychiatric damage inflicted upon their
victims.
1405
I stand with millions of Canadians and say that we in this House
can do something to stop the pain. We can support Carrie's
Guardian Angel Law.
* * *
[Translation]
MUSLIM COMMUNITY
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to invite all of the members of this
House to celebrate the great Eid ul-Adha ceremony of the Muslim
community this evening.
[English]
This festival is held each year to coincide with the annual
pilgrimage to Mecca, a major tenet of Islam and a journey all
Muslims must hope to make at least once in their lives.
I am pleased once again to invite members of this House and the
other place to attend the sixth annual Eid ul-Adha ceremony here
on Parliament Hill. The event will begin this evening in room
200, West Block, starting at 6 p.m. I hope that members will be
able to join in this celebration and recognize as well the
important contribution the Muslim community makes within Canadian
society.
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to wish you a very happy
and prosperous new year.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN CLONING
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Friday,
Radio-Canada announced that the leader of an international team
of experts on fertility had just announced in Rome that his group
would produce the first human clone.
These researchers are apparently in a secret location for
security reasons. The firm has unlimited financial resources and
an impressive bank of volunteers.
The current legal void in Canada with respect to genetic
engineering could attract to Canada megalomaniacs with financial
interests, expelled from other western countries under
restrictive legislation, because human cloning is prohibited in
almost every country of Europe, with the exception of Great
Britain.
Has the Government of Canada decided to let itself be dragged
along by foreign legislation or will it find the courage to take
a stand in a debate that calls into question the very nature of
the human being?
* * *
[English]
MEMBER FOR SASKATOON—HUMBOLDT
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Alliance member for Saskatoon—Humboldt,
who suffers from francophobia, introduced a deplorable private
member's bill on February 28 to destroy the Official Languages
Act and our Canadian unity.
According to his comments, he feels that money is being wasted
supporting language minorities. He would crush any hope for
French Canadians to be equal partners of Canadian society. He
would even want to prevent the capital of this country from
officially providing services in French.
Do the Leader of the Opposition and his Canadian Alliance Party
agree with this attitude of intolerance and—
The Speaker: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member,
but I think he knows that Standing Order 31 statements cannot be
used for attacks on other members of the House, and I am afraid
that is what this is.
* * *
[Translation]
JEAN BESRÉ
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last evening we were saddened to learn of the death of
the famous Quebec actor, Jean Besré.
A well-known figure in live theatre and television, he left an
indelible mark on Quebecers' imaginations, particularly through
his roles as Rémi Duval in Jamais deux sans toi and Joseph
Arthur in Le temps d'une paix.
An entire generation of Quebecers adopted his untranslatable
trademark expletive “hostin d'beu” as their own.
Francophones everywhere in Canada are today mourning the passing
of a great and hardworking artist, a humanitarian concerned for
the most disadvantaged.
The great contribution of Jean Besré will go down in the annals
of Quebec television and theatre for all time.
* * *
[English]
BILL C-286
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I too rise today to speak on the matter of Bill C-286, introduced
last February 28 by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.
This bill would redefine the criteria for the provision of
government services in English and French so radically as to
essentially eliminate the rights of most linguistic minorities in
this country.
It is my fervent wish that the member's name will be drawn in
the next private members' business lottery and that when it is
that he will select Bill C-286 for inclusion on the list of
priority items.
It is also my fervent wish that the subcommittee on private
members' business would declare Bill C-286 a votable item. When
that happens, it is my belief that the retrograde vision of our
country contained in Bill C-286 will be overwhelmingly rejected
in this House by the representatives of the people of Canada.
* * *
1410
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday's farm rallies have ended but the plight of farm
families endures.
The hurt really began after 1993 when the government took a
sledgehammer to agriculture. Hiding behind the World Trade
Organization and with a compliant reform opposition that hates
words like support and subsidy, the government socked it to
Canadian agriculture by killing off transportation subsidies,
like the Crow benefit, and by jacking up user fees.
Despite recent announcements, federal support for agriculture is
nowhere near what it was when this government assumed office.
Net farm income in Saskatchewan averaged just $5,000 last year
and this year looks worse.
All MPs, but especially government backbenchers, are realizing
that the inability to help our farmers in a meaningful way
resides ultimately with the Prime Minister.
The message from the farm to the Prime Minister is this. He
should stop governing by polls or by whether the official
opposition or the media cares about agriculture. He should do
the right thing and put sufficient resources into agriculture to
ensure that our farmers will once again be on a level playing
field with their major competitors.
* * *
[Translation]
JEAN BESRÉ
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
through the roles that made him so well known to Quebec
television audiences, Jean Besré became part of the lives of
countless Quebecers, a member of their families.
His celebrated characters Rémi Duval and Joseph-Arthur won over
our hearts completely. He was known for his contagious laughter,
his likeable personality and his helpful nature, and his
performances were unique.
A sovereignist, he never backed down from his convictions and
his backing of a cause in which he truly believed. I will always
be grateful for his support. With his passing, Quebec has lost a
man of great generosity. His social commitment, particularly
with the Little Brothers of the Poor, was but one example of his
loving kindness, and all Quebec perceived him as a man who was
sensitive and truly human.
I would like to express the most sincere condolences of myself
and all members of the Bloc Quebecois to the family and friends
of Jean Besré. His passing is a great loss to Quebec and to its
arts and culture in particular.
* * *
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I cannot help but condemn the lack of judgment
shown by the Canadian Alliance member when he introduced his
bill on official languages. This bill is simply unacceptable.
The hon. member claims that the Liberals are protecting
bilingualism only to appease nationalists. Quebecers may be
Canada's francophone majority, but one does not have to be a
rocket scientist to know that they are not the only ones for
whom it is important to preserve the status of French as an
official language. There are many francophones in various
Canadian provinces and they have rights.
The support given by the Liberals to francophones is not a waste
of money. On the contrary, it is an asset and we have a duty to
make it grow.
It is time Canadian Alliance members open their ears and shed
this most intolerant attitude toward Canada's francophones.
* * *
[English]
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, six out
of ten Canadian provinces currently have free trade with the U.S.
in softwood lumber. The federal government must ensure that
these provinces are not included in future agreements that would
restrict free trade as it currently exists. Instead, we need
free trade for the other four provinces, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta
and British Columbia.
There are currently 145 sawmills operating in the maritime
region and only five of these sawmills are publicly owned. As
well, 22% of Canada's private woodlots are in Atlantic Canada,
with 72% of Nova Scotia's woodlots under private ownership. This
mirrors the American position where 75% of forest land is
privately owned, and is one of the reasons why the Atlantic
region was not subject to the softwood lumber agreement.
It was in 1842 that the Webster-Ashburton treaty provided
reciprocity in forest products between Maine and Atlantic Canada.
We need to see free trade continue for the six provinces that
currently have free trade in softwood lumber. What Canada does
not need is countervail or anti-dumping restrictions against any
Canadian softwood.
* * *
WILLIAM NEEDLES
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate Mr. William Needles of
Stratford, Ontario for being named to the Order of Canada.
Mr. Needles is a veteran actor and was a member of the first
acting company of Stratford in 1953. He has appeared in more
than 100 productions and in 41 festival seasons.
1415
Mr. Needles came to Canada at the age of six. During the second
world war he was involved in the army of occupation in Japan in
1945. He has also worked in radio and television in Toronto.
A father of four and a grandfather of fourteen, Mr. Needles will
be performing in one role this season, that of Just Silence in
Falstaff. Last year Mr. Needles played Merriman in The
Importance of Being Earnest and The Tutor in Medea.
In addition, Mr. Needles taught in the drama department of the
University of California, Irvine campus. Congratulations to Bill
Needles.
* * *
HAYLEY WICKENHEISER
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize a
unique young lady. She is a worldclass athlete, an Olympic
participant in both hockey and softball, and someone who believes
in her community.
Hayley Wickenheiser was born and raised in Shaunavon,
Saskatchewan. She began her hockey career in the Shaunavon minor
sports system and has gone on to be a leader in Canadian women's
hockey. She has had tremendous success in international hockey
and has won an Olympic medal in that sport.
Through all of her success, she has not lost her belief that
young people are the key to the future and she is committed to
them. Her commitment to young people and her community is shown
by her willingness to return this weekend to her home town of
Shaunavon, Saskatchewan. The Shaunavon Project 2002 Committee, a
fundraiser for a new community complex, is hosting the Hayley
Wickenheiser homecoming weekend.
I would like to recognize Hayley Wickenheiser and the project
2002 committee for their commitment to kids, to hockey and to
their community. Today I ask the House to pay tribute to this
outstanding young Canadian.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would like to
pretend that the Shawinigate mess is over, but the ethics
counsellor has now launched a new investigation of the corporate
records of the Grand-Mère golf club, which may finally reveal
whether the Prime Minister remained a shareholder in the company
after 1996.
Why will the Prime Minister simply not tell the House whether he
was the direct or beneficial owner of an interest in the
Grand-Mère golf club at any time after 1996? Simply tell us.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have here what the ethics counsellor wrote to the hon.
member on January 29, 2001. He said that with respect to the
golf course “the Prime Minister sold his interest on November
1, 1993”.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he neglected to quote the most recent
letter. The Director of Corporations at Industry Canada has said
that he will finally examine the corporate records of the
Grand-Mère golf club. I have asked him, through the ethics
counsellor, to do this and to release the names of the four
shareholders from 1996 to 1999. The names of three of the
shareholders are already listed in public documents. Only the
identity of the fourth shareholder still remains a mystery.
Who is the secret fourth shareholder? Is it Jonas Prince or is
it the Prime Minister himself?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I sold my shares in November 1993.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, just when the Prime Minister thought he
was out of the woods regarding the Auberge, he finds himself in
the middle of the adjacent golf course.
For two years we have been asking the Prime Minister to table
documents, but he consistently refused to do so.
In light of this new investigation, will the Prime Minister
finally table all the documents relating to the Grand-Mère golf
course, in 1993, and any other document—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
like all cabinet members, I put my assets in the hands of the
person responsible for the trust fund.
The ethics councillor said that I properly filled out all the
forms and confirmed that the interests which I had in the golf
course were sold during the first week of November 1993.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, those shares might have been sold in 1993, but it is a
gift that just keeps on giving. They came back to him again some
time later.
1420
I think the ethics counsellor has raised a very important point
in response to the letter from the Leader of the Opposition. He
said that those corporate records are “an important issue.”
You bet that is an important issue, Mr. Speaker. Canadians need
to know just exactly who is in charge there and who owned these
shares.
Now it was mentioned earlier that there were four shareholders.
Three of them have been identified. Who was that fourth
shareholder between 1996 and 1999?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again innuendoes. They wrote to the ethics counsellor
and he looked into that. The ethics counsellor explained
everything a year ago at the industry committee. It was made very
clear that I sold my share in November 1993.
I am not like the member of parliament who got back her pension
after having been elected by claiming she was not the same type
of member as we are. After the election, she took back her
pension.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is just unbelievable that the ethics—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton
North has the floor. We want to hear her.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, that is nice to know.
The Prime Minister just said that the ethics counsellor looked
into that and it was a closed deal. The Minister of Industry has
been going on for weeks saying that the file is closed. In fact,
that file is open again. The ethics counsellor just said that he
is looking into it again.
The Prime Minister could get over this in a heartbeat by just
tabling his bill of sale for those shares in 1993. Will he do
that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, because the Alliance Party wrote the ethics counsellor
another letter on this matter, he passed the letter on to the
Department of Industry which has the records.
If the Leader of the Opposition had been competent, he would
have written right away to the Department of Industry. This has
nothing to do with the ethics counsellor who has said many times
and for a long time that the shares were sold in November 1993.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
Amodeo affair, the government is trying to convince us that the
RCMP lost track of Mr. Amodeo once he was in Canada. We are not
buying it. With the modern techniques and considerable means
available to the RCMP, it is simply incomprehensible that they
lost track of him.
How can the solicitor general explain that the RCMP allowed
Mr. Amodeo to circulate freely in Canada for almost two years?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I indicated yesterday was that the
RCMP have worked with the Italian police since 1999. They did
not positively identify or locate the individual until December
of last year. When they did that, he was arrested, put in jail
and is now awaiting deportation hearings.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
RCMP admitted that it supposedly lost track of him.
We are told that there was a warrant out for him in January
1999. But 25 months, a completely unreasonable length of time
in the circumstances, went by before he was arrested.
Given the means available to the RCMP and the fact that we knew
where his wife lived, because at the same time she was seeking
immigrant status, how can the minister explain that Mr. Amodeo
was allowed to roam freely in Canada for 25 months?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I can indicate, as I have before, is
that the RCMP were working with the Italian authorities. There
was an investigation under way but the only way that the RCMP can
arrest somebody is under a Canadian warrant. They investigated,
located and identified the individual in December of 2000. He was
arrested, put in jail and is now awaiting deportation hearings.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in January 1999, the wife of Gaetano Amodeo made an application
to Immigration Canada in which the name of her husband, a
notorious criminal in Italy, appeared as a dependent. That same
month, the RCMP was informed that an arrest warrant had been
issued for Amodeo by a court in Palermo.
How does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explain
that, at the time, her department, which has access to the RCMP's
central file, failed to connect Amodeo the applicant and Amodeo
the criminal, thereby delaying his arrest by several months?
1425
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have stated before, my department
receives over 300,000 immigration applications each year. This
particular file was transferred from one office to another and
Mr. Amadeo's name was removed from the application by a legal
order. The criminal checks were not proceeded on him at that
time because his name had been removed from the application.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in September 1999, the Canadian authorities received a
request for the extradition of Gaetano Amodeo, who was being
sought for murder in his country. A few months later, the RCMP
admitted that it has lost track of the dangerous criminal.
My question is for the solicitor general. Why did the RCMP,
which had been aware of the request for extradition since
September 1999 and which had lost track of Amodeo at the end of
1999, wait until December 2000 to ask Immigration Canada for help
in arresting this criminal?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated many times in the
House, I do not run investigations in the RCMP, but I do get
information from the commissioner of the RCMP. He has indicated
that the RCMP did not locate and identify this individual until
December 2000. When it did, he was arrested, put in jail and is
now awaiting deportation.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, now that
President Bush has the election behind him, he has come clean
that Americans have no intention of honouring their signature on
the Kyoto deal. I am sure the Prime Minister has seen the
letter.
Leaders from around the world have been swift and scathing in
their condemnation but not a word or a whisper from Canada.
Will the Prime Minister register Canada's protest with his new
special friend in Washington, or will we remain, once again,
international wimps on the sideline?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wonder where the hon. member has been over the
last few months, particularly at the time of the meeting in the
Hague on climate change where Canada, through the former Minister
of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Axworthy, expressed our position and our
clear disappointment at the breakdown of those meetings, partly
because of the American position but, more important, because of
the position taken by the Europeans. I would reiterate that we
had a meeting in Ottawa immediately following to see what we
could do to proceed with the events but we were unable to get
agreement. Now we do indeed have a serious problem with respect
to this gap between the Europeans—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have
a really serious problem in that this government will say nothing
about the fact that, with President Bush, Kyoto is kaput.
Forget international obligations, forget election commitments
and forget the environmental consequences, will the Prime
Minister, right here and now, condemn Bush's Kyoto kiss-off and
make it absolutely clear that Canada will only sign on to
international trade agreements if there are real, enforceable
environmental—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the letter sent by the president of the United
States to four United States senators made it perfectly clear
that while the president would not proceed with his campaign
remarks with respect to carbon dioxide, he, nevertheless, in that
letter, made it perfectly clear that the United States
administration of President Bush takes extremely seriously the
problem of climate change and intends to take measures to deal
with it.
* * *
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister keeps saying that the auberge file is closed,
yet the ethics counsellor has just found another part of that
deal that needs investigating.
Jonas Prince says that he returned the Prime Minister's shares.
What happened to those shares then? Was the Prime Minister, or
the Prime Minister's trustee, or the Prime Minister's lawyer, or
any other of the Prime Minister's go-betweens, advised that the
ownership of those shares was back in the Prime Minister's
control?
If those shares were not in the Prime Minister's control, and Mr.
Prince had sent them back, who controls those shares?
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I replied to the Leader of the Opposition very clearly a
minute ago.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the simple fact is that is not true. The Prime Minister is
running and hiding.
We have an indication from the ethics counsellor that there has
been what he calls an important issue. He has asked for an
investigation by an official who reports to the Minister of
Industry. Nobody would claim the Minister of Industry is
impartial on this issue.
Will the Prime Minister finally come clear and appoint an
independent inquiry into this question and all the questions of
the auberge file, so that there can be some honour—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have replied to these questions many times. They have
confidence in the ethics counsellor because they keep writing to
him.
It was that person who said there was absolutely no conflict of
interest and that the shares were sold in November 1993. I have
nothing to add.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I know the hon. member for
Wild Rose can be heard over a lot of noise but I cannot hear and
I expect hon. members to show proper deference.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, conducting basic police checks on people immigrating to
Canada should be standard procedure. The failure to do so
damages our international image and puts Canadian lives at risk.
I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at what point
in the application for permanent residency is a police check
conducted.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question. It
is an important one because criminality and security concerns
make someone inadmissible to Canada. Therefore before anyone is
granted permanent residence status in Canada both criminal checks
and security checks are completed.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, wanted fugitive Gaetano Amodeo's name appeared on two
requests for permanent residency. The first application was in
June 1999 and the second was in September 2000. At what point in
the application did the department of immigration conduct a
police check on Mr. Amodeo?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered that question at the start of
question period but I will answer it again.
I want to make one thing very clear. Mr. Amodeo is not a
permanent resident of Canada. He was not granted permanent
residence status in Canada. In fact, he is in jail awaiting a
deportation hearing.
As I said earlier, his name was originally removed from the
application. On the second sponsorship application the result
was that he was not granted permanent resident status.
* * *
[Translation]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the ethics
counsellor is going to look into the ownership and actual control
of the Prime Minister's shares in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair.
However, we see all this as an attempt to whitewash the Prime
Minister.
My question for the Prime Minister is a very simple one, which I
believe merits consideration. Does he not understand that the
only way to settle this matter, to exonerate himself—the only
way, there are not 50 of them, only one—is to provide us with
the record of sale, as we have demanded so many times already?
Let him provide that, and the problem will be over.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the ethics counsellor has answered this question very clearly
before the Standing Committee on Industry. He answered all
questions of interest to the hon. members, and I have nothing to
add.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): The problem. Mr. Speaker,
is that this same ethics counsellor whitewashed the Prime
Minister during the election campaign and we now realize that he
did so without checking all the facts. This proves that he was
more concerned with hastily whitewashing the Prime Minister than
finding the truth.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that, by refusing to make
the bill of sale public, he is implying that there is something
in it that he does not want known, and that is what is
disquieting?
1435
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all members of parliament who become ministers are required to
hand all of their assets over to a trustee to be administered.
The trustee reported to the ethics counsellor who monitors
this for everyone in the House. Even MPs consult him. He
appeared before committees. He examined the file in detail and
has provided a response on several occasions before the committee
and in letters, in response to requests by the opposition
parties.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Gaetano Amodeo and his wife had an appointment with
Immigration Canada to discuss their immigrant status. The
Corriere Canadese has found out that the meeting was not
cancelled, contrary to what the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration told us.
In order to be allowed to appeal, a person must provide
documents that state two things: the person does not have a
criminal record and is not the subject of an investigation.
Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell us
whether her department received such documents?
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite does not want to hear
the answer. Mr. Amodeo's application for permanent residence
status was never approved. He is not a permanent resident of
Canada.
As soon as the RCMP concluded its investigation, it gave the
evidence that was required to my immigration officials who picked
him up and put him in jail where he is now awaiting a deportation
hearing. He is not a permanent resident in Canada. He has no
status.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's response is completely irrelevant. The
name Amodeo was not originally removed from the application. The
meeting did take place. This occurred after the meeting. Could
the minister explain how Mr. Amodeo received this meeting in the
first place?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said to the House, an application
was received in the Paris office. It was transferred to Buffalo
and Mr. Amodeo's name was removed from that application by a
legal document. That is what I said. That is the fact.
When his name was subsequently put on an application as a
sponsorship, the result was that he was not granted permanent
residence status. He is in detention. He is awaiting a
deportation hearing. Those are the facts.
* * *
[Translation]
FOOD INSPECTION
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in October 2000, two ships transporting genetically modified feed
corn arrived in the port of Montreal, from the United States.
Under Canadian laws this type of corn is prohibited in Canada.
One of the two shipments was intercepted, while the other one was
recalled by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. One of the two
shipments is still missing and may even have been used to feed
cattle.
Will the minister confirm that one of the shipments of Starlink
corn was sold on the market? Can he explain why?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an issue that is
of concern to us. As he has said, the one shipment has been
found and has been taken out. The other one is being traced. We
are confident that it will be found. I am also confident that it
has not gone into the feeding system.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in e-mails dated March 13, Dr. Louise Laferrière, an
official with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, confirmed that
a shipment was sold, delivered and then recalled by the agency.
Can the minister tell us if it is common for the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency to let grains be sold and delivered before even
having been tested for the Starlink gene?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, grain, in this case corn, is supposed to
be certified free of the StarLink gene before it comes to Canada.
In this case the certification was not provided by the shipper.
It shows that the system works. The CFIA found the shipment,
recalled it, and the feed did not enter into the feeding system.
* * *
1440
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I want to be very clear here. Amodeo's name was removed
after the meeting with immigration officials. That means that
the Amodeos got their appointment for permanent residence status
without the required police clearances or someone intervened to
waive the requirement. Which one was it?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. He is wrong and he
is wrong.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister just stated that what I claimed was wrong.
I ask the minister to table the documents that outline the
procedures that the Amodeos took and make available all the
documentation surrounding this matter to make it perfectly clear
that there was no intervention by the department at any point to
waive the police clearance requirements for the Amodeos.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will make an unequivocal statement in
the House. No one receives permanent residence status in Canada
without having a complete security check and a criminality check.
Anyone with a criminal record or anyone who poses a security
threat to Canada is inadmissible and they are not granted
permanent residence status in Canada. That is the law.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
discovery of potato wart in a small corner of one field in Prince
Edward Island has crippled the island's number one industry. The
government has announced assistance for island's producers.
However hundreds of their crews, most of whom have not worked all
winter, are still waiting for some recognition of their plight.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell the House
whether any assistance will be forthcoming, and when will the
workers know of her decision?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recognize the hon. member for Egmont
and his Liberal colleagues in the province of Prince Edward
Island for the diligence they have shown on this file.
In fact there are over 500 employees in the sector who have been
negatively impacted as a result of the cross-border ban. My
department is working with the province and with local
stakeholders to determine which action will best assist these
employees. I hope to announce the results and a good action plan
in the near future.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the
Dow fell below 10,000 points. The Canadian dollar is now one
cent away from an historic low in the country. There are now
63,000 fewer jobs in agriculture than one year ago. The U.S. and
Japanese economies are both in serious trouble. Yet there has
been no federal budget in the country for the last 13 months.
Will the government finally bring in a budget this spring to
deal with all these serious problems, or does the government
intend to continue fiddling until February 2002, a full two years
since the last budget?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government had the wisdom to have a budget in
October in anticipation of the difficulties faced by everybody.
We managed to reduce taxes on January 1 through the biggest tax
cuts in the history of Canada. The timing could not have been
better.
We read in the press that they are trying to cut taxes in the
United States. In Canada we did that on January 1, 2001.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Transportation Safety Board of Canada spent two years
investigating the Swissair disaster and made five recommendations
to make jetliners safer.
Today it was reported that the Liberal government will not
follow a single one of them. It says it will only do it if other
countries do the same. If safety was the number one priority of
the government, it would follow the safety board's
recommendations regardless of what other countries do.
Whatever happened to Canada setting an example for the rest of
the world? Our own safety board has made these recommendations.
Why will the minister not set an example for the world and
implement them?
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very important that
Canada co-operates with all nations to make sure international
air travel is safe for everyone. It is important that Canada
co-operate on every level.
I am sure the recommendations of the safety board will have a
very serious review, notwithstanding the member's comments.
* * *
1445
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, three
federal court of appeal judges confirmed in a ruling last week
that there is evidence of politics having played a role in the
process to replace the Sea King helicopters.
These findings were specifically directed at the Department of
National Defence and are unacceptable. How could the Minister of
National Defence possibly justify these findings?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what court the hon. member was in, but
the court decision in fact dismissed the application.
We are proceeding with a fair, open competition for those 28
helicopters. We want to ensure we get the best helicopter that
meets the needs of our military.
They wrote the statement of requirements. The statement of
requirements is what we are proceeding with, as they wrote it. We
want to get them at the best possible price, and that is the way
we are proceeding on this procurement.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
federal court quoted military correspondence which stated:
Even though the Cormorant EH-101 is politically unacceptable,
(political suicide as you said) how do you ensure that it does
not win a MH competition?
The court called this patent politicization within the
Department of National Defence. It was the three judges who said
it. The court said it. Will the minister ask the judge advocate
general to begin an immediate investigation into this matter?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. She seems to want to be
selective in what part of the judgment she reads. I have read
the judgment. The judgment clearly says a case has not been made
and the court dismissed the case.
We are proceeding to do this in the right and proper fashion to
get the best helicopters to meet the needs of our Canadian
forces.
* * *
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I very clearly asked the Prime
Minister, relating to the public record which shows the names of
three of the four shareholders of the Grand-Mère Golf Club, if he
would tell us if that fourth mystery shareholder was Mr. Jonas
Prince or was in fact the Prime Minister himself.
He did not answer which one so I will simply ask this question.
Does the Prime Minister know who the fourth mystery shareholder
is?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I sold my shares to Mr. Prince in November 1993. The
ethics counsellor testified very clearly in front of the
committee. He looked at all the documents and he said that I had
absolutely no ownership of the shares after I was sworn in as
Prime Minister.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the opposition , Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he sold those shares but he admits
after about of year of pressure on the question that he got the
shares back in 1996. He keeps avoiding that.
Why will he not tell us if he knows who is the fourth mystery
shareholder and what is the accepted process after shares have
been told to be sold but he winds up getting them back?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like the Leader of the Opposition to look at the
testimony of the ethics counsellor in front of the committee. He
explained that from A to Z very clearly.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
Last week, we learned that senior Chinese military had trained
with the Canadian army in order to perfect their techniques for
fighting in extreme weather conditions.
How can the Prime Minister, this supposed—and I mean
supposed—defender of human rights in China agree to collaborate
with the Chinese army, an instrument of repression par excellence
in China?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Chinese army is not training with the Canadian
army. We are engaging, however, in dialogue because China is an
important part of security and defence issues in the Pacific.
As we do in many other areas as well, including trade, we engage
in constructive dialogue with the Chinese. We want them to know
about our values and our areas of concern. This gives us an
opportunity to show them how a military works and works well in a
civilian controlled context.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will go
further.
We have now learned that the army's chief of staff, General
Baril, will be going to China for a four-day visit. The Prime
Minister often claims that he must use economic exchanges to
advance the cause of human rights.
1450
Is the Prime Minister now going to tell us that he is going to
use military collaboration with the Chinese army to advance human
rights in China? I find this a bit much.
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are Canadian values and there is an
opportunity to promote values and views about how a military
operation occurs in a democracy. This is a good opportunity for
General Baril to be able to impart those values and those views.
China is a very important player in terms of the security of the
Pacific. That is why we have engaged in this constructive
dialogue.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, when Canadians buy gasoline at the pumps the price
includes federal and provincial taxes. On top of that, this
greedy government charges the infamous goods and services tax. In
simple words, consumers pay the GST on other taxes.
How could the Prime Minister, since he is the expert on GST,
justify the application of the GST on other taxes? Why will he
not remove it?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we looked
at this issue earlier it became obvious to us that there was a
heavy load of provincial taxes and federal taxes, and that if
there were to be any meaningful relief it would have to be
carried out by both levels of government. That is why we made
the offer to the premiers to do so, and they turned it down.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the crude cost of gasoline is 28.9 cents a litre.
Federal, provincial and excise taxes are added to it. Then 7%
GST is charged on the total. The price of the same gasoline
becomes 74 cents per litre. We are talking about a tax on top of
taxes.
The Prime Minister at least should not be so greedy as to charge
consumers GST on taxes. A tax is neither a good nor a service.
Why would he not be fair and not charge the GST?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said
all along, it is very obvious that if we are to get meaningful
relief to consumers at the pumps then we will have to enter into
it in a very co-operative way, working with the provinces. That
offer was made to the premiers. They did not accept it.
* * *
[Translation]
ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Following the decision of the WTO's appeal body, which ruled in
favour of France by saying that the ban on chrysotile asbestos
was in compliance with multilateral trade agreements, what will
be the short and long term consequences for Canada on
international markets?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are very disappointed by the final ruling
of the World Trade Organization, even though our appeal helped
secure important gains in terms of the precedents that will apply
to future issues.
We still believe that the safe use of chrysotile asbestos is
much more appropriate than its total ban.
The asbestos industry must now work even harder to promote the
safe use of chrysotile by other foreign partners, and our
government will be by its side to help it do so.
* * *
[English]
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in the House the Prime Minister suggested that
the government would use President Bush's desire for a
continental energy policy as leverage in the softwood lumber
agreement negotiations.
Both the trade minister and the natural resources minister have
stated previously that the government would not use Canada's
energy resources as a bargaining chip. If there is one thing
investors hate it is uncertainty.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will his government
use access to the energy resources as leverage in Canada's
softwood lumber agreement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we only said to the Americans that we were for a free
trade agreement with them and to respect the free trade agreement
between the two countries in energy and in softwood lumber. We
want to have a free trade agreement that applies to both sectors.
1455
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it may have been a problem with my hearing but Peter
O'Neil in the Ottawa Citizen heard the same as I did, that
the Prime Minister suggested there were would be a linkage.
Who is speaking for the government? Is it the trade minister?
Is it the natural resources minister? Is it the Prime Minister?
Will they use Canada's energy resources as a linkage?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister speaks for the government and he says
exactly the same thing as his ministers.
* * *
[Translation]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has suggested we look at the evidence given by the
ethics counsellor. So I read it, and he said that, in May 1999:
The course the Prime Minister did take was to have negotiations.
They are very well advanced, I understand. They have been very
well advanced for some time. I keep saying that my understanding
is that there will be an imminent closure to this.
How can the Prime Minister say that the ethics counsellor
cleared him, when he simply confirmed in May 1999 what he was
still negotiating, that is, to have shares paid for after
intervening to ensure the continued existence of the Auberge
Grand-Mère? These shares were worth more,—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the ethics counsellor was clear that the shares had been sold and
that payment followed a number of years later. The shares were
sold in November, before I became Prime Minister in 1993.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health. Three years after the compensation package for hepatitis
C victims was announced there are still victims who have not
received compensation.
My office has received complaints regarding the complicated
process for compensation. What is the minister doing to ensure
that the victims receive their compensation?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank our colleague for asking that question, because
if there are complaints from people in various ridings, Health
Canada is only too happy to hear about them.
The Minister of Health wrote a very vigorous letter to the joint
committee, charged by the courts, with the administrator, to
compensate victims, on January 30.
The joint committee reassured the minister that it would rectify
the situation. If problems continue, we would like to know.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Mrs. Amodeo ended up receiving landed immigrant status
from the government. To do that she would have needed police
clearance.
Could the minister explain how her department could grant landed
immigrant status if Mrs. Amodeo also received police records
which clearly would have indicated her connection to Mr. Amodeo
and organized crime?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the member opposite would
suggest that a woman who is married to someone is a chattel and
therefore carries any criminal record with her.
He should know better in the year 2001 that men and women are
able to submit individual applications. In this case Mrs. Amodeo
had her husband's name removed from the application. He should
know better.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister responsible for housing has told the House before that
he is prepared to announce a further housing initiative.
Does he plan to sit down with provincial housing ministers who
are calling for a meeting with the minister to communicate to him
their concerns that there needs to be a significant contribution
for affordable housing and not just a subsidy for private rental
housing? Will the minister consult with the provincial ministers
and with communities before he makes his announcement?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I already said in
the House that since January, not now when the member is asking
the question, my officials, officials at CMHC, had meetings with
provincial officials to consult and work on a program that would
help Canadians in need of homes.
1500
That is what we are doing. When the program is ready I will sit
down with the ministers and I will be glad to announce it here.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: Order, please. I wish to inform the
House of the presence in the gallery of His Beatitude Mar
Nasrallah Pierre Cardinal Sfeir, Patriarch of Antioch and all the
Orient.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Janet Ecker, Minister of
Education in the province of Ontario.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, inquiring minds do want to know. We do have some
indication because of a motion passed earlier today that we will
perhaps get on to discussing modernizing parliament.
We are looking forward to that, but as for the rest of the
business of this week and next, would the government House leader
tell the House and the listening nation what we will be dealing
with?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will debate second
reading of Bill C-5 respecting species at risk. I also hope that
tomorrow we will be able to complete second reading of Bill C-14,
the Canada Shipping Act, and to send it to committee.
Monday and Tuesday of next week shall be allotted days, with
appropriation bills being considered at the end of the day on
Tuesday.
Next Wednesday, pursuant to the motion and the special order
passed earlier today, and I thank all hon. members for their
co-operation, we will debate a motion to establish a special
committee to improve and modernize the Standing Orders of the
House of Commons.
Perhaps I could also take this opportunity to indicate to all
hon. members, pursuant to requests that were made and to
commitments made earlier, that it is my intention to seek from
the House measures to have a special take note debate on the
summit of the Americas to take place on Tuesday, March 27.
1505
I know this is several days ahead, but given the considerable
interest of several hon. members I thought I would indicate the
intention as it presently stands is to call that order on the
evening of March 27 so that all members could make necessary
arrangements to participate in the debate should they so wish.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, what a shocking disappointment. On the Thursday
question, I am just wondering if the government House leader
would confirm his undertaking that ministers will be readily
available for a full indepth examination of the estimates
in committee.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was going
rather quickly with his question. I may have missed part of it.
I understood it to be to ensure that ministers would be available
at committee for estimates. Certainly all ministers are informed
that they are to do so.
If other House leaders have difficulty with that I can certainly
assist, as I believe I have in the past, to ensure as much as
possible the presence of ministers for the consideration of
estimates, providing there is the normal time that is usually
acceptable for notification and so on. My co-operation is hereby
provided, as I believe it has been in the past not only to this
hon. member but indeed to all hon. members.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you will
surely recall that, on Tuesday March 13, during Statements by
Members, I inadvertently or unwittingly pointed out the presence
in the gallery of two VIPs from my riding. While I did not at
any time ask them to rise, I have since learned that what I did
was the exclusive prerogative of the Chair.
I would beg your clemency, Mr. Speaker, for I did so out of
ignorance. I also assure you that the members of my party now
understand the importance of this prerogative which is yours
alone, and will be more careful in future.
The Speaker: I would like to assure the hon. member that the
Chair is most merciful.
[English]
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order. Today in my question for the Minister of
National Defence during question period I quoted from the Federal
Court of Appeal document.
The minister said I was incorrect. I seek unanimous consent of
the House to table the Federal Court of Appeal document by the
three judges regarding EH Industries Ltd. and the Minister of
Public Works and Government Services of Canada.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
of the House to table these documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
[Translation]
STANDING ORDERS—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: Order, please. I am ready to rule on the
point of order raised on Thursday, March 1, by the hon.
member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
The hon. member's concerns stem from the adoption by the House,
on February 27, 2001, of a government motion to amend the note to
section (5) of Standing Order 76 and the note to section (5) of
Standing Order 76.1. As you no doubt know, these sections deal
with the Speaker's power to select amendments at the report
stage. The hon. member's problem lies in the fact that the notes
contain the following phrase:
—in exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be
guided by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the
United Kingdom.
The hon. member argues that, to do his job properly if he has to
draft amendments, he must have access to the rules governing the
selection of amendments in his own language, French. He
indicates that documents from the United Kingdom are available
in English only and that, as a result, he cannot do his work
effectively, since he cannot understand the nuances and
subtleties of the rules.
1510
He asks the Chair to suspend the implementation of the adopted
amendments until his rights and those of other francophones are
protected and respected.
[English]
I wish to thank the government House leader, the whip of the
Bloc Quebecois, the parliamentary secretary to the government
House leader, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party
and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for their interventions.
As hon. members know well, the role of the Speaker is to preside
over the business of the House of Commons and to rule on
procedural matters, whether this involves interpreting standing
orders or deciding issues of privilege or decorum.
The discussion on this point of order made various references to
specific statutes. The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska
referred to the Official Languages Act and the Constitution Act,
1867, while the parliamentary secretary to the government House
leader referred to the Parliament of Canada Act, noting that
act's specific reference in section 4 to the House of Commons of
the United Kingdom.
While these references are an interesting backdrop, it must be
remembered that it is not the Speaker's role to rule on the
application of any act, but rather to examine issues in light of
possible transgressions of procedural practice and procedural
precedent.
[Translation]
The hon. member insists that he will not have access to the
rules governing the drafting of amendments because they will be
“in English”.
I would point out that the House has simply decided to amend the
note to section (5) of Standing Order 76 and the note to section
(5) of Standing Order 76.1 by making explicit reference to the
practice followed in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
Moreover, Standing Order 1 states the following:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of
the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker
or Chairman, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms,
customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on
parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far
as they may be applicable to the House.
This Standing Order stipulates that if, during proceedings in
matters of public interest, a procedural question arises that has
not been provided for or mentioned in the Standing Orders or
other order of the House, the Speaker of the House must base his
or her decision first on the usages, forms, customs and
precedents of the House of Commons of Canada; then on
parliamentary tradition in Canada; then on that in other
jurisdictions, to the extent that it may be applicable to the
Canadian House of Commons. This provision does not refer directly
to the codified rules or standing orders of other jurisdictions,
but primarily to the tradition on which they are based.
Standing Order 1, which has existed since 1867, recognized the
origins of our Westminster Parliament and stated that this House
would be guided by British precedent. From 1867 to 1986, it
stated this explicitly:
In all cases not provided for—, the rules, usages and forms
of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom—shall be
followed.
In 1986, the House amended Standing Order 1 recognizing that
parliamentary practice in Canada had evolved to the point where,
in unprovided cases, it might seek guidance from the wider
community of parliaments. The members of the Special Committee
on the Reform of the House of Commons considered that the
practices of the Canadian House of Commons need no longer be tied
to those of any other assembly or any other country. However,
they recognized that in unprovided cases, there was still great
usefulness in examining the precedents and authorities in other
legislatures and parliaments, especially those in the
Commonwealth.
1515
Thus, on the committee's recommendation, the House adopted the
current wording for Standing Order 1 to reaffirm that the House
of Commons had the freedom to tailor its procedure to its own
needs while preserving Canadian traditions.
I have drawn such a detailed history of Standing Order 1 to show
you that the House of Commons of Canada has often turned to the
United Kingdom in cases that were not provided for. Of course,
the situation has evolved, and now we also consult other
jurisdictions to the extent that their rules or practices are
applicable to the House. However, the fact remains that if, at
the report stage, a situation arises that is not covered by our
practices or by the practices of the United Kingdom, I would be
required, under Standing Order 1, to consult the practices of
other jurisdictions.
In such circumstances, the availability of documents in either
of our official languages is not a consideration. Instead, I
would respectfully suggest that it is the interpretation of such
practice and the Chair's judgement on how such practice will be
applied in this House that is the key concern for members.
[English]
The House has a long history of consulting the precedents in
other parliaments that have followed the Westminster tradition,
and the language of these documents has never seemed to be an
obstacle. When we discuss procedural matters during the daily
business of the House, we frequently consult the various editions
of Erskine May to develop our arguments. The wide range of
documents that we consult on parliamentary precedent are not
necessarily available in both official languages, but we have
been able to work with them.
[Translation]
The House recognizes that members are entitled to receive
service in both official languages. Simultaneous interpretation
is provided in the House and in committees and members have
access to free translation services. One of the roles of the
Speaker is to protect and defend members' rights to work in the
official language of their choice.
In that regard, in keeping with what I said earlier about the
application of other practice in this Chamber, I am currently
studying the application of these notes to Standing Orders 76 and
76.1, and I will return to the House with a statement on how this
note will be interpreted. The statement will, of course, be
available in both official languages and members can govern
themselves accordingly.
Meanwhile I cannot grant the request made by the hon. member for
Richmond—Arthabaska to suspend the implementation of the
amendments in question. Because the motion was adopted by the
House, these amendments are now part of the Standing Orders of
the House, and it is my duty to be governed by the Standing
Orders. Only the House can decide to change the Standing Orders.
As always, the Chair is in the hands of the House, which may
decide if and when it will modify the rules under which its
deliberations are conducted.
I wish to thank the hon. member for having raised this issue,
and all those who made a useful contribution to the discussion.
[English]
Right Hon. Joe Clark Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. For my clarification, does that mean that it is no longer
a requirement that documents respecting the procedures of the
House of Commons be in both official languages?
The Speaker: The hon. member will want to read the
judgment the Chair has just given. I think he will find the
answer in that judgment. I do not want to confuse him by giving
answers to questions. I think the judgment is quite clear, and I
know that he will find it so when he has a chance to review it.
1520
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I simply would like you to clarify for me what you just
said.
Am I right to think that the motion, as passed, does not change
the standing orders of the House of Commons, but is meant to
provide guidance to the Chair? May I ask you also if the subject
matter of the motion in question does not involve a number of
existing practices in Canada, which would eliminate the need to
look at what is done in the United Kingdom?
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you understand what I am asking.
I will make it clearer. I would like you to tell me if this
motion is simply meant to guide you in your rulings and does not
change the standing orders of the House of Commons.
The motion refers to a practice followed in the United Kingdom.
However, according to the ruling you just gave, foreign practices
have to be taken into account only when there is no existing
practice here, in Canada.
My question is this: since there is a practice that has been
followed in Canada for a number of years with regard to the
selection of motions at report stage, does what you just told us
eliminate the need to refer to a foreign practice?
The Speaker: Once again, I think the member will find the
answer to his question in the Speaker's ruling I just made, which
he will soon be able to read.
I also indicated in my ruling that there will be another
presentation by the Chair regarding the acceptability of
amendments at report stage. There will be something on this
subject soon.
With the ruling I gave today and with the presentation I will
soon make to the House, the member will certainly have all the
answers he needs, or at least I hope he will.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—SOFTWOOD LUMBER
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened with great
interest to the member opposite who in his usual eloquent and
studied fashion made some interesting points.
If we look at the facts with respect to this particular issue,
and more to the point in terms of Quebec, the Canadian government
ensures that Quebec's interests are very much assured in this
particular area, and in other areas as well, because of our
economic and political clout, and quite frankly because of our
reputation around the world.
I point out that I think Quebecers understand the importance of
a federal system and how federalism works in the country. I
remind the hon. member that in the last 20 years Quebecers'
standard of living has risen 30%, as it has in other parts of
Canada, such as in Ontario. I also point out that the
unemployment rate in Quebec has dropped to 8.5%.
Most recently the CHST transferred $1.5 billion from the federal
treasury. It represented 80% of all the money that was given in
the country. An additional $429 million will be given over as
soon as the ceiling on the equalization payments has been
eliminated.
1525
My point is simple, Quebecers understand the benefits of being
in this great country called Canada.
I would ask the member a specific question, contrary to his
sovereignist kind of protestations. Over the last number of
years the softwood lumber industry and the sales to the United
States from Quebec have gone from 20% to 25%. That is great news
for Quebecers. How does he explain that? If things are so
terrible and the Canadian government, as he seems to indicate,
cannot do its work right, how can that be?
The hon. member opposite should be congratulating the government
and saying what a good job the government, and especially the
minister, is doing on this important file. At the end of the day
it is good news not only for Quebecers, but for people in British
Columbia, Alberta and others as well. It underscores the
commitment of the government in this very important area to
ensure that all Canadians benefit, especially Quebecers. Sales
have gone from 20% to 25%. That is good news, and we should be
congratulating everyone involved.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, if I were asked why Quebec
should become a sovereign nation, I would without any hesitation
use the softwood lumber issue as an example.
Do people realize that Quebec producers were hit by
countervailing rights 100% higher than the price in effect in
the U.S.? The hon. member, who is just as naive as he is
guileless, rose in this House to say that the federal government
stood up for the interests of Quebec.
If there is one area where the federal government neglected
Quebec's interests, it has to be the lumber industry.
We urge all members of parliament to vote in favour of this
motion so that we can go back to full and comprehensive free
trade, as we should have done in 1996.
Lastly let me say that the day will soon come when Quebec
becomes sovereign.
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, obviously the member for Waterloo—Wellington is
again using his extremist divisive tactics which is unfortunate.
There is agreement among other members of the House, including
his own government, on the motion.
What does my colleague see as being the most important issue?
How might we be able to move forward together to solve the issue
of softwood lumber, which is so important in my riding and across
the country?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. The hon.
member is a moderate man, with a moderating influence and a
balanced approach. He has called for calm. For his call to be
heard, a consensus must emerge. That consensus is for all
members to support the Bloc motion, even if—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member, but time has run out. The hon. member for
Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Madam
Speaker, it is of course a bit intimidating to rise just after
my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve who is always so
eloquent, funny and lively in his speeches.
However, with all the humility that I am known for, I will try
to vie in skill with him.
I think that on this file the Bloc Quebecois has once again
acted as a catalyst for common sense. For months now the Bloc
Quebecois has pushed for a return to a common law between Canada
and the United States, this common law being free trade.
The softwood lumber industry is a vital industry for Quebec as a
whole. More than 30 000 jobs in Quebec alone are related to the
lumber industry.
In 1999, 20,430 people were employed in the sawmill industry and
10,000 in forestry management. The lumber industry injects more
than $4 billion each year in Quebec's economy. It is therefore
very important.
1530
This important segment of Quebec's industry and economy has been
adversely affected by federal government policies.
It is well known that Quebecers strongly support free trade in
principle. For that matter, it is very interesting to see the
Liberals joining a free trade position, and I am pleased to see
that, while Quebec sovereignists supported it long before them. I
remember that in 1993 the Liberals were campaigning against
free trade, while we were strongly in favour of this
politico-economic philosophy.
The Bloc Quebecois, which supports free trade as Quebec does,
has seen the federal government set its interests aside to sign
an agreement with the Americans.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General boasted,
saying that Canada stood up for the interests of Quebec and
that, thanks to Canada, Quebec's interests were protected. In
this case, we can see it is not true.
Quebec producers were subjected to a countervail tariff of 6.51%
even if they were not subsidized. Is this what you call standing
up for Quebec? Is this a government really concerned by Quebec's
interests? I wonder on what planet the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General lives. The fact is that this
government's action has been detrimental to the interests of
Quebec. The subsidy rate for Quebec exporters was actually
one-tenth of 1%. A countervailing tariff of 6.51% was imposed on
the Quebec industry.
Non-subsidized exporters in Quebec bore the brunt of quotas, when
in fact they should have been exempted, as was the case in the
maritimes for instance.
Many rallied to the position of the Bloc Quebecois, among others
the Canadian Alliance, which is now supporting us, as does the
federal government—and I am glad it finally did, because its
position was not clear.
Members know as well as I do that the position of the Minister
for International Trade was not clear. On February 22 and 23,
there was talk about free trade being a long term goal for
Canada and the need for a transition period.
On February 22 the Minister for International Trade said:
The 1996 lumber agreement is due to expire in a few days
and only a month ago we did not even know what the federal
government's position would be. Thanks to the work of the Bloc
Quebecois and other organizations, the federal government
finally listened and rallied to the common sense, deciding to
come back to the common law which the free trade agreement
between Canada and United States is.
For once, and this is rare, I cannot but congratulate the
federal government for having listened and rallied to the Bloc's
position, which is based on common sense, not only on the
economic interests of Quebec but also on those of the rest of
Canada, and for supporting the Bloc Quebecois motion. This
motion will ensure that exporters from Quebec and Canada have
access to the large U.S. market without any tariffs or other
barriers.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
comment on the remarks of the member opposite on the softwood
lumber situation.
I have spent 15 years of my life in the forestry sector and
mucking around in countervailing duty problems.
First of all, the problem is not Quebec versus B.C. versus
Alberta versus the maritime provinces. The problem is that the
Americans have a different system. They have mostly private
lands. The timber is auctioned. In Canada most of the timber is
on crown lands and is subject to stumpage and royalties.
1535
In that relative sense, I can tell hon. members that Quebec is
not exactly lily white in terms of the relative standing
vis-à-vis other provinces. All provinces in Canada have the same
battle. We all have to fight the same common system.
In fact it was in 1996 that the industry came to the Government
of Canada and, in a pretty broad consensus, argued very
strenuously for a five year quota agreement, a managed trade
agreement, because the industry was sick to death of these trade
wars. The minister at the time, Roy MacLaren, who was a free
trader to whom managed trade was anathema, consented to managed
trade because the industry wanted to buy five years of trade
peace.
When we look at the situation, especially in the maritimes
because the member draws the story out of the maritimes, the
maritime provinces were excluded because most of the lands there
are private lands, as he well knows, and if Quebec could have
been excluded, it would have been. However, there had to be a
willing agreement on both sides.
I agree with the hon. member on one point. I applaud the
Minister for International Trade. He has been speaking out very
strongly in a very unified manner on behalf of the industry
across Canada. I am very confident that we will prevail.
I would ask the member opposite, what do you think about the
relative positions? If you look at the American system compared
to the Canadian system, why should we have to defend our system
when they do not have to defend their system in the
countervailing duty process?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the
member opposite for his question. He used the pronoun you, so
I assume the question was for you. I will answer it anyway, if
only to relieve you from this responsibility and to prevent you
from having to take a stance, you who play such a neutral role
in the debates of this House.
The member opposite mentioned the fact that most woodlots are
privately owned in other provinces, whereas Quebec has a
different system where 92% of woodlots are publicly owned.
He said Quebec was not “lily white” on this issue. I assume it
means beyond reproach.
Perhaps we can rely on an organization that is not from Quebec
or from Canada to assess the impact of the public ownership of
woodlots in Quebec.
In 1992, the U.S. department of commerce concluded that the
method used by Quebec to establish stumpage fees on publicly
owned woodlots was equivalent to a subsidy rate of 0.1%, not 1%
but 0.1%. I remind members that this rate is 100 times lower
than the limit above which a countervailing duty must normally
be imposed.
Going back to the previous question, why is it that, if the
subsidy rate in Quebec was 0.1%, the federal government
negotiated an agreement whereby Quebec exporters were subject to
a countervailing duty rate of 6.51%? That is the question.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, earlier, some
members seemed to find it bizarre that Quebec would sponsor a
motion asking the Canadian government to protect us. We were
told that this is contrary to our ideology.
Would the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier agree that a
sovereign or independent Quebec could better defend itself and
would not have to ask another government to do so?
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I know I have very little
time. It is unfortunate because I would have liked to dwell on
the subject.
Indeed, I do think that in political life, as in day to day life
or the life of nations, we are our own best advocates.
For example, I never saw Canada ask Washington to represent
Canadian interests in the international arena. Of course I
would prefer that Quebec be represented by Quebec and not by
Ottawa.
1540
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to add my voice to those of other members who have
already spoken to this most crucial issue. As the Minister for
International Trade said, the softwood lumber industry is a
basic element of the Canadian economy and we must protect it.
The stakes are extremely high. The softwood lumber industry
creates thousands of jobs for Canadians. It is the lifeblood of
hundreds of communities across Canada. It is one of the main
export sectors in Canada and it plays a crucial role in our
trade balance. I would also add that in Beauce, my own region,
hundreds of jobs depend on this industry which affects a
thousand individuals if you include families.
Our softwood lumber exports to the United States represent
nearly $11 billion. About a third of the lumber Americans need
to build and improve their homes and businesses comes from
Canada. There is absolutely no way the United States can meet
their needs by themselves, but they still insist that access to
their market by Canadians be limited.
What is the cost of this protectionism? American homebuilders
suggest that the cost for the consumer is $1,000 for every new
house built in the United States. This is a very expensive
protection for the American lumber industry.
The softwood lumber trade has been regulated for 5 years by the
softwood lumber agreement.
This agreement provides for quotas of softwood lumber that can
be exported duty free to the United States from British
Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. It has bought us five
years of relative peace in a long, endless, and costly conflict.
The industry endorsed the agreement almost unanimously, but now,
it is almost unanimous in its determination to fight for the
free access to this crucial market.
The softwood agreement will expire on March 31. If no other
agreement is reached, two things will happen almost for sure.
First, we will come back to the WTO and NAFTA rules, both of
which give us access to the U.S. market. Just as important is the
fact that WTO and NAFTA provide us with a rules based system and
dispute settlement mechanisms that we will not hesitate to use.
Second, for all intents and purposes, in the U.S., this industry
which relies on government assistance will try to have
countervailing duties imposed on Canadian softwood lumber
exports. From what we hear, the American industry wants to take
antidumping measures against Canadian producers.
Such a protectionist approach is unacceptable and, as my hon.
colleagues pointed out, it is contrary to our trade agreements.
These agreements prohibit the United States from imposing
quantitative restrictions or customs duties on Canadian softwood
lumber exports unless and until they can demonstrate, through
fair enforcement of trade rules, that these exports are made
possible because of unfair trade.
The United States must prove that we are subsidizing our
industry or that we are dumping softwood lumber on their market;
they must prove not only that we subsidize our industry and dump
lumber, but that we do so in a way that is prejudicial to
American producers.
They have never been able to prove their allegations. In the
last 20 years, there have been three investigations on potential
countervailing duties and none of them has proven their
allegations. That does not deter them.
If the United States make new claims, we will defend our
positions, you can be sure of that. The Government of Canada will
ensure that our rights under WTO and NAFTA are upheld.
How will we go about it? As my colleagues have mentioned, our
government has been proactive. Twice, we have used the WTO
dispute settlement process against the United States to help
clarify the rules governing new trade measures.
1545
The first case is a challenge of the declared intent of the U.S.
to consider our export controls on raw logs as subsidies giving
rise to countervailing duties. It is obviously an important issue
at a time where we are faced with the possibility of new trade
action by the Americans.
We also had consultations at the WTO on a new U.S. legislative
provision that is both unacceptable and, in our opinion, contrary
to our trade agreements. It relates to countervailing and
anti-dumping duties that are not implemented in the appropriate
manner. Under this provision, the U.S. government would keep the
customs duties already paid, even though the countervailing or
anti-dumping duties have been successfully challenged and
repealed. This is totally unacceptable.
Finally, as our minister said after his meeting in Washington
with the U.S. trade representative, Mr. Zoellick, we are trying
to get some clarification about what is called the Byrd
amendment. It would allow U.S. customs to distribute the product
of countervailing and anti-dumping duties to the very companies
in the U.S. that petitioned for those duties. This seems totally
unacceptable. Not only is it contrary to United States
obligations as a WTO member, but we believe that that cannot be
applied to Canada under NAFTA.
The United States should not be allowed to pick which ones of
their trade obligations they are willing to respect. The United
States have not only signed the trade agreements, they even led
the movement for their negotiation. Therefore the time has come
for the United States to abide by them.
The Government of Canada is firmly committed to having the
rights of Canada under those international trade agreements
respected and upheld. We deeply believe in a rules based trade
system. That is why we took advantage of the mechanisms provided
in those agreements to make sure that U.S. protectionist
measures do not prevail.
We respect our obligations and we expect the United States to do
the same.
If we are faced with an inquiry about the potential imposition
of countervailing duties, we will fight it and we will win. We
are ready. The provinces are ready. The industry in Canada is
ready, probably more than ever. We have allies more powerful
than ever before, in the forms of groups of consumers and
retailers and of associations of home builders in the United
States.
We continue to ask insistently that impartial envoys from Canada
and the United States be appointed to explore the issue from all
sides, to consult with all the stakeholders and to bring forward
non-binding proposals to resolve this longstanding dispute. We
will examine every possible option for the resolution of this
dispute so that our softwood lumber industry can resume the
activity it does so well.
Therefore I am pleased to indicate my support for this motion
and our firm intention of pursuing Canada's goal of free trade
in softwood lumber across Canada and particularly in Quebec and
in my riding of Beauce.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, there is something that I want to bring to the attention
of the House, especially the government, regarding the softwood
lumber agreement.
The Atlantic provinces are subject to what is called the
Maritime accord which was signed in 1996. This accord exempts
Atlantic Canada from the softwood lumber agreement, and there is
a reason for that. I sometimes get the feeling that that is lost
in the halls of government. It ignores the fact that 75% of all
lumber produced in Atlantic Canada comes from private land. That
is why it was excluded.
1550
In addition to that, stumpage fees in Atlantic Canada are much
higher than they are in other parts of the country. That is why
we have this special recognition or exemption. That is why we
were included in the Maritime accord, signed in 1996.
The concern that we have on this side of the House is that the
government, in its negotiations with the United States, has
ignored this very fact. What we have is an agreement that might
come about, or penalties that might be imposed on Canada which
might be a better way to express it, that are going to punish
Atlantic Canada. It is going to punish us despite the fact that
we have managed our forests well and have what we call market
prices for our stumpage. We have never been part of the problem.
If we want to look at that, we are part of the solution.
Is the hon. member aware of recognition of the special status of
Atlantic Canada in regard to the Maritime accord signed in 1996,
and has he made that case to his cabinet colleague who is
carrying this file for the Government of Canada? In addition to
that, going back to 1982, we have always been exempted from the
lumber agreement, the SLA.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I can assure my
colleague from the opposition that I was indeed aware of the
fact that the Atlantic provinces were excluded from the
agreement. Four provinces were party to this agreement.
The Government of Canada represents all provinces, and I am sure
our Minister for International Trade and our government will
continue in that direction.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the
comments from my colleague for Beauce. I know they have a very
active and very important forest products sector in that area. Of
course, we all know what the issue is. The issue is market
share. Every time we take more than 30% of the softwood lumber
market share in the United States, it comes back, it reinvents
the rules and changes them to suit its needs.
I find it quite astounding that we have a system of countervail
where we have to defend our system but we cannot attack the
American system. We know there are subsidies in the U.S. system.
They take place at the state and local government levels, whether
it is property or sales tax abatements, industrial land or
co-generation. Because of the process in the U.S. system, we
cannot attack its system.
I think there is a much better method which is called net
subsidies. The U.S. could only launch a countervail if there was
a net over a de minimis, a net subsidy difference that was
important; net its subsidies against ours. However, why should
we have to defend our industry and our process because it is
different from its? We cannot attack the U.S. system? The
Americans are now alleging that lumber from crown land is moving
through the maritimes into the U.S. market. That is equally
false as well.
Could my colleague tell us why we cannot come up with a better
system where we could challenge and attack American subsidies?
Why do we have to defend our own system? Is that not wrong?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Drouin: Madam Speaker, if I understand the question,
of course we have to defend our position. However, we can also
launch challenges, to show our determination and to ensure that
we are treated fairly and that NAFTA and the WTO agreement are
complied with.
[English]
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the debate today centres on what we perceive to be the
softwood lumber industry but it is really a larger debate. Today
what is being challenged by the expiration of the agreement on
March 31 of this year really affects the forest industry in
Canada.
1555
Needless to say, and I am sure it has been said here today, the
forestry industry is Canada's largest single industry. It employs
more Canadians than any other industry. It has more communities
directly involved in the forestry business than any other
community. It adds about $25 billion to $27 billion a year to
our balance of payments.
We are not talking exclusively about the softwood lumber
industry. We are talking today about Canada's largest single
industry of which softwood lumber is about half of the forestry
industry.
When we talk about that and why the Americans are trying to
influence our market penetration on this business, what we have
to do is understand what happens in the forestry business when we
harvest a tree and maximize its utilization. I want to explain
why it is so important to the total concept of what the forestry
industry is all about. It is not exclusively making 2x4, 2x6 and
2x8 lumber.
When we harvest a tree, the bark is stripped off and it is put
through the mill. Out of the mill we will get 2x4 and 2x6
lumber, whatever that tree will provide. When that process is
over, the residue of that tree is then turned into chips. Those
chips are then shipped to the paper plants and used to make the
fibre for our wood products, our crafts and so on that are so
necessary for the total forestry business.
The bark that we stripped off that tree is presently being used
as biomass to generate the very power that is running and
operating these mills throughout Canada. That includes eastern
Canada, the province of Quebec, Ontario and western Canada. We
are not dealing exclusively with regions, rather with the
productivity throughout Canada as it comes out of the forestry
industry.
It has become our largest industry. On top of that, it is a
sustainable development. By the very fact that we are utilizing
everything on that tree, means we are being prudent in the use of
a resource. Given the changes in our forestry practices over the
last seven to eight years, Canada can be looked upon as the
leading country in operating its sustainable forests and
utilizing its natural resources to their maximum potential.
Let us stop beating around the bush in finding out just what we
are trying to accomplish. What the Americans are trying to
accomplish in the debate, although they use the softwood lumber
as a ploy, is the release of the raw logs that we are collecting
and harvesting in Canada. They want the raw logs shipped to the
United States so they can use their manufacturing process by
using our basic natural resource.
They want to eliminate our ability, proven over the last five
years, to value add to the products of our forestry industry.
Just take into account the rougher headed lumber that we were
shipping to the United States. It was a value added product.
Take into account the drill studs that we were sending to the
United States. Those are all value added products that the
Americans put an embargo on because they did not want them
included in the 14.7 billion board feet quota system, that was allowed
under the agreement. That is what they are trying to do.
The United States producers are using the softwood lumber debate
as an economic advantage. In Canada, and to the credit of all of
the softwood lumber industries in Canada from coast to coast, a
good part of the profits in the last several years have been
applied to the new technology that is working so well in our
mills. A lot of the profits have been reinvested in plants. As
a result, we have perhaps the best technology in softwood lumber
production in the whole world.
I could take anyone to a mill in Nakina, in the furthermost
regions of northern Ontario, where the production methods are so
sophisticated that one would not believe the amount of production
that can come out of that one mill because of the advanced
technology employed in that particular mill.
1600
What the Americans have failed to do during this period of time
in this particular industry, which they are complaining is being
abused and injured, is that they have failed to take their
resources and apply them to their businesses in order to produce
more and in order to better this type of business. What they are
trying to do is harm the Canadian industry and take away its
competitive advantage, because in their industry they have failed
to keep up with the rapid progress the industry needs.
The end result is that the Americans want to utilize our trade
laws, a threat of a countervail and the threat of the
anti-dumping legislation in order to enhance the position of
their industry in the marketplace.
Our industry in Canada today takes up about 33% of the United
States industry. That is because of the restriction to the 14.7
billion board feet. Let me explain why we get such a large
section of the United States market. We get 33% of it. We could
get a lot more if we had a free trade agreement with the United
States without the threat of the countervail and without the
threat of the anti-dumping.
First and foremost, Canadian lumber products and forestry
products are the best in the world. There is no question that
the softwood lumber we produce is one of the best products in the
world. A little known fact is that when an average sized house
in the United States is built and the carpenters insist on using
Canadian lumber, they can take between seven and ten days off the
production time of that house because of the sturdiness, quality
and lack of water content in Canadian lumber. Our lumber is
rigid, is treated properly and is more competitive than their
lumber. It is better than American lumber and it sells on the
floor of the hardware store at the same price.
They cannot compete with that today. As a result, they are
using the trade measures that we have in Canada in order to harm
Canada's largest single business.
That is the problem, but what should we be doing about it? Let
me offer a couple of suggestions. In Canada, with the market
conditions we have seen in the last several months, and with the
new technology, e-commerce, we have seen what has happened in the
marketplace in the last weeks. Every time this happens,
Canadians and the Canadian economy have to revert to where we
began. We are a resource based industry. What are our natural
resources? They include natural gas, and its shipment to
wherever we can. They include the production of crude oil and
its shipment to countries that want to buy crude oil. Our
natural resources include all the products that we mine from the
ground. Our natural resources also include fresh water, which we
have in abundance, particularly in the northern parts of our
country.
The point I want to make is that these are the natural resources
of Canada. At the bargaining table, whether it is with the
United States or any other country, we cannot isolate those areas
that are natural resources at the expense of every other national
resource.
1605
When we deal with our friends in the United States, we deal in
natural resources, which include mining, forestry, natural gas,
oil and the production of electricity.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, I
listened to the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North with some
interest, because obviously he has taken some time on this and
has a background in and knowledge of the subject.
Softwood lumber is one resource that Canada has. I appreciate
the fact that he brought others forward, but I would like to
focus my question on the softwood lumber debate.
Perhaps because of lack of time, there were a couple of factors
that the hon. member did not get a chance to bring up. One is
the fact that lumber prices have fallen, within the last year
especially. When the market gets expensive and the market is
demanding lumber products, we can ship across the border with a
fair amount of impunity because the Americans want our raw
materials.
However, what also happens when the price of lumber is higher is
that there are a lot of substitutions in the construction
industry. More concrete is used and a lot more steel studs are
used. A lot more timber or softwood lumber replacements come
into the construction field at such a time.
The issue, I believe, and the issue I would like the member to
reply to, is the very motion that is before us, that we want free
trade in softwood lumber. As I mentioned earlier in the debate
today, we now have free trade in six of ten provinces in Canada.
We have a softwood lumber agreement that covers up to 14.27
billion cubic feet of lumber coming out of B.C., Alberta, Ontario
and Quebec. The issue is that we need the government not to
include all of Canada in one agreement.
We need to support those four provinces in getting free trade in
softwood lumber, which we certainly will do, but in regard to the
other provinces that have free trade in lumber now, we need to
maintain it and assure those provinces that they will not be
lumped in on countervail, that they will not be lumped in on any
duty coming out of the United States.
I am sure the hon. member understands that and would like to
comment on it.
Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
his question, but it really is counterproductive to what the
House is trying to accomplish today.
If there is one issue that comes out of this debate, it is that
Canada deals with other countries as a whole, that we do not
become parochial in our negotiations and look after the interests
of one section of the country over another section of the
country.
I understand full well what the member has talked about in the
area from which he comes, that is, his area has had free trade
because of its ability to convince its American counterparts that
it has private timber limits, as do many of the Americans.
However, at the end of the day I hope that what he and his
provinces, the maritimes and Newfoundland, have been enjoying for
the last five years under the trade agreement would start to be
enjoyed by every other province in Canada, by all of the
provinces, that is, free access to the United States market
without any threat of countervail, without any threat of
anti-dumping.
Let us operate in the marketplace in the United States. Let us
operate freely, openly and competitively and we will show what we
can do as a country with respect to selling our product in the
United States.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North
and congratulate him on the good work that he has done as the
co-chairman of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group.
This issue has come up from time to time because we both joined
that group in 1988. Of course he has risen higher through the
ranks than I have because he is now co-chairman.
1610
I do have a question for the member. I have with me an article
from the St. Croix Courier which is written by John
Baldacci because of the international interest in this matter. As
a congressman from the U.S. he is trying to lobby the United
States to take harsh and punitive actions against Canada. The
statistics and logic he uses are totally out of line in terms of
what we have been telling Americans.
Can the member enlighten us in terms of what our minister has
done and the information that he has used to lobby for our
interests in the United States? In other words, how could the
information become so distorted by an American congressman in
defence of the American case versus ours and—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I am sorry to
interrupt, but the time for questions and comments has elapsed. I
will allow the member to give a very brief answer.
Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague
across the aisle for his question. It is amazing and I do not
know how the U.S. can get away with this.
I have here a letter written to the president of the United
States which is signed by 51 senators. I have gone through the
letter and without a lot of thought have underlined several areas
where they are absolutely wrong in the accusations they make
about the Canadian forestry industry. The information being
disseminated by our friends in the United States is by and large
incorrect.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
like to use my time to assert the importance of the forest as a
resource and of its harvesting by the softwood lumber industry
for an area like the riding of Matapédia—Matane.
Considering the makeup of my riding, I will divide my speech
into two parts and talk about the situation and the issues for
two separate regions, namely the lower St. Lawrence area and the
Gaspé peninsula. These are two huge areas that I represent,
along with one of my colleagues on the other side of the House.
On April Fool's Day, we stand to be made fools of by the
Americans.
The softwood lumber agreement which has been in force since
1996, will expire on March 31. I think we should consider our
past, present and future situation in order to avoid the
problems we have had before with the United States.
For the next few minutes I will try to illustrate the situation
in areas similar to my riding. The hon. member for Beauce stated
earlier that 1,000 residents in his riding will be affected by
the softwood lumber agreement. In my riding, I have 2,000 people
working in the industry.
This goes to show that any action taken in an industry like the
forest industry must be well targeted, because it can have a
serious impact on communities like mine that have already been
hard hit, for instance, by the downturn in the fishery.
We in the Bloc Quebecois have realized how detrimental the
current softwood lumber agreement is and, as a famous politician
recently put it, how harmful it is to the Quebec industry. Some
might say barbaric, but I think that word has not been properly
used in the last little while.
Let me review the current situation as seen by the forest
industry commission of the Gaspé Peninsula—Îles-de-la-Madeleine
regional consultation and development council, a group of
stakeholders who truly believe in the development of our forest
industry.
1615
Our forests, a natural resource once thought to be
inexhaustible, are and remain very vulnerable from many points
of view.
Nature itself and human activity did play a role and still do.
They are very important change factors. We should use good
judgment and foresight. In other words, we should be very
careful, because the forest industry is just as vulnerable as
the natural resource is.
We find two bioclimatic zones in the Gaspé peninsula. The
peninsula is surrounded by fir forests with a mixed stand of
yellow birch and softwood trees like the balsam fir, white
spruce and white cedar.
The two main harmful elements are spruce budworm infestations
and fire. They obviously have an impact on the lumber industry.
The other bioclimatic zone is the middle of the peninsula. It is
made of fir forests with white birch stands. Here, we have
stands of balsam fir, white spruce and white birch. The ground
is usually very rugged.
Therefore it is quite false to suggest that the lumber industry
in my area has an advantage compared to the American industry,
because of our harsh climate and rough land.
My region is almost totally covered with forests: they take up
96% of the land. People in my area say things like: “I was
raised in the woods”.
Some 87% of this forest is publicly owned. It is mostly made up
of softwood stands, 48%, or mixed stands, 33%. Standing volumes
mostly contain the following species: fir, spruce, birch and
trembling aspen. Obviously these are all species that are
affected by the softwood lumber agreement.
Nearly two-thirds of the stands are considered young, being 50
years old or less, even though more than 17% of the forest is
made up of stands over 90 years old.
As for the privately owned forest, it covers a 383,000 hectare
area 95% of which is made up of small private properties, meaning
properties of about 800 hectares or less, the other 5% being made
up of large private properties. This area occupies a very narrow
stretch of land on the periphery of the peninsula, the width of
which varies between 2 and 20 kilometres.
The main benefits from the forest in the Gaspé area come from
the management and harvesting of the forest biomass, which, as we
know, is affected by the softwood lumber agreement. The largest
part of the region's publicly owned forest is subdivided into
management units, and available timber volumes are allocated to
processors through harvesting and forest management contracts.
Despite this industrial use of the forest, other users such as
hunters, fishers and vacationers can also enjoy the forest and
its various resources. All this to show that the logging industry
is very important to a riding like Matapédia—Matane.
This industry employs nearly 2,000 people, as I was saying
earlier, which accounts for more than 45% of primary sector jobs
in the region.
This means that any change to the softwood lumber agreement will
have disastrous consequences on a region such as mine. The four
logging co-operatives in the Gaspé Peninsula are concentrated in
the Baie-des-Chaleurs area. They employ nearly 500 people.
As for the five logging groups, they are spread out throughout
the peninsula and employ more than 600 people. Add to that some
15 logging contractors, two nurseries, four consultants and seven
forestry advisors.
Management activities on publicly owned woodlots are financed
through timber royalties, contrary to claims made by the
Americans, and paid by individual operators based on their allotted
volumes. These royalties are also used to fund activities related
to the forest resource development program.
For example, in 1996-97 close to $22 million were paid in
timber royalties, stumpage fees, et cetera. in our region alone. Of
this amount, $8 million were used to fund regular forest
management activities.
Over 80 wood processing companies employ nearly 2,000 people,
which represents 26% of jobs in the manufacturing sector.
1620
There are two cardboard and paper mills, one of which, Gaspésia
in Chandler, is currently shut down. There is a recovery plan in
the works and, if I may say so, federal aid is still not
forthcoming. In the Gaspé there are also 19 sawmills covered by
timber supply and forest management agreements and more than 60
sawmills in operation.
According to the forest sectoral commission of the regional
consultation and development council, which is made up of various
stakeholders from the forestry sector, there are three main
issues at stake: to preserve and create direct and indirect
forest sector jobs, which is almost impossible without a free
trade agreement; to improve the skills needed in the Gaspé forest
sector to ensure full and comprehensive economic and social
development; and to promote integrated management of all our
forest resources in order to protect our resources.
The regional consultation and development council has also
prepared a brief on the situation in the lower St. Lawrence area,
which I would like to briefly review for the House since my time
is running out.
Populated areas and the physical environment join together in
great surroundings where nature is everywhere and influences
every aspect of daily life. Nature dominates in several different
ways. One quarter of our municipalities are along the St.
Lawrence estuary. Various crops are cultivated on cutover marine
terraces and the gentle slopes of the valleys. On the north-east
side, mixed forests can still be found on the Appalachian
plateau.
The region's development relies therefore on the development and
sustainability of our natural resources. Public expectations are
very high. It urges us to strive for excellence, as we have done
in the past and will continue to do so, for instance, with our
high performance sawmills. This is probably what irks the
Americans the most. Despite our climate and our situation, we are
still able to perform and compete with them on their own turf.
However, the need to take into account national and
international concerns about sustainable development further
reinforces this idea. The challenge to excel that we must pursue
forces us in a way to raise the bar of our ambitions and to
aspire to become a reference in the area of natural resources
protection and use. And that we have already achieved to a great
extent.
The forest environment includes the land, the resources it
contains, the multiple uses that are made of it and the
relationship between the human beings and the natural environment
in which they live. From now on, the values and aspirations of
the people of the lower St. Lawrence, combined with the national
and international concerns, must govern the protection and use of
the local forest environment.
Sustainable development and biodiversity are at the heart of the
forest resources protection goal.
Our area has to become a model. It already is one. We now have
to promote the great potential of those sites while aiming at
optimum production. As I was saying at the very beginning of my
remarks, 2,000 jobs are affected in the Matapédia—Matane riding.
I wonder what the Americans will do when the time comes to
negotiate a lumber agreement after the free trade area of the
Americas has become a reality.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam
Speaker, first of all, with all due respect, I will address my
comments to you, because the rules require so, and I will also
address them to workers in the lumber industry, to the thousands
of workers who, as we speak, have lost their jobs, temporarily,
we hope.
In Quebec in the last six months 20 businesses all related to
the lumber industry have shut their doors temporarily, we
hope.
There may be talking and pussyfooting in the House, but in the
field, there is a lumber crisis. This crisis is obviously the
result of the 1996 agreement, but it is also fuelled by the
economic recession that is forthcoming in the United States.
Consequently lumber prices have dropped by 17% in the last six
months while stumpage fees imposed on businesses have not been
reduced accordingly.
1625
Since 1992 stumpage fees in Quebec have gone up 117%. Since
1996 these same fees have increased by 53%. In 1992 the U.S.
department of commerce, a venerable institution, said that if
stumpage fees were calculated as subsidies the benefit gained
by Quebec producers would be only 0.01% compared to American
producers.
Therefore I will let the workers in the lumber industry be the
judge of Canada's efforts.
Today in the House the minister and a bevy of members on the
government side said they agree to support the motion put forward
by the Bloc Quebecois, which has been fighting for months for a
good outcome for the softwood lumber agreement, due to expire on
March 31, 2001, for the implementation of free trade as of April
1, 2001.
We have been telling the government for many months that the
agreement will expire on March 31, 2001, and that the transition
for that industry is provided for since 1996. The softwood lumber
agreement was a transitional agreement that was supposed to
expire on March 31, 2001 and free trade was supposed to apply as
of April 1. Sadly, that is not what is going to happen.
Here we are just a few days away from the expiry of the
agreement and although free trade is supposed to come into effect
as of April 1, the minister responsible and the Prime Minister
still cannot assure us that, in spite of the implementation of
free trade, there will not be any retaliation by the U.S.
government.
This is the main cause of concern for workers who are currently
jobless. This is cause for concern because, in my opinion, it
will demonstrate that Canada is no longer effective.
If the Canadian government cannot get our American neighbours to
agree on an issue that has been ongoing for 20 years, we will no
longer have any reason to stay within this country because its
only strength is its negotiating power. We will see what happens
on March 31. We will have proof that the Canadian government has
failed on the issue of softwood lumber.
As one of my colleagues said, Canada is in the process of
showing its ineffectiveness in an economic field of utmost
importance for Canada from coast to coast to coast. The agreement
expires on March 31, 2001, but over the last 20 years, and more
specifically over the last five years, the Canadian government
has been unable to find a satisfactory solution for the softwood
lumber industry.
I will say it again, 20 plants have closed and thousands of
workers still do not know if these plants will reopen one day. We
cannot be absolutely sure that reprisals will not keep these
workers from getting their jobs back. The economic climate is
clouding over in the United States and free trade is the true
solution. We have given proof of that here in this House.
My eminent colleagues have established today that the Canadian
softwood lumber industry can compete with any other around the
world, in all categories. If Canada cannot protect its own
position in a field where it is one of the best in the world, it
is showing its weakness. We will let them go ahead, but I am
convinced that they will, once again, prove that Canada cannot
protect the interests of Quebecers.
I have heard several comments in this House these past few
weeks. The Prime Minister spoke to President Bush to discuss the
lumber issue and was told to talk about energy.
As an hon. member said earlier, I hope they will not put all of
Canada's natural resources on the table to negotiate the lumber
agreement. The lumber issue has been discussed for 20 years now
and it must be settled by March 31 in the evening. It must be
solved.
If Canada cannot do it, I hope they will not tell us that they
intend to use other natural resources, for example our energy or
water, as leverage in the lumber negotiations.
1630
It would be a catastrophic error. Given the lumber agreement
signed by Canada in 1996, it would be a disaster for the energy
industry and the hydro industry that Quebecers are doing their
very best to protect. The government must not be allowed to use
natural resources as leverage to negotiate the lumber agreement.
We have had a problem for 20 years now and it is time for Canada
to prove that it is strong and powerful enough to protect the
interests of Quebecers and of all Canadians.
After listening to the Prime Minister and the Minister for
International Trade these last few weeks, I am convinced that
Canada will not be able to reach an agreement by March 31. Once
again, it will show that it is not the power it says it is and
that it does not have the respect of the Americans.
Obviously, the workers of Quebec will once again pay the price.
I am talking about the thousands of workers in Quebec who, as we
speak, no longer have jobs in the softwood lumber industry. Even
though, since 1992, the industry has increased countervailing
duties by 117% as the Americans requested, even though 53% of
countervailing duties have been increased since 1992, and even
though there has been a drop of 17% in the selling price of
softwood lumber, countervailing duties have barely dropped by 3%.
Obviously, this industry will once again be abandoned by the
Canadian government.
That is why I am proud to support the motion by the member for
Joliette. I hope that members of all political parties in the
House will be unanimous when it comes time to vote on such an
important position for an industry that is one of the most
important in Canada today.
Obviously, Canada is facing a considerable challenge. Pardon
me, but I am not confident that our minister and our Prime
Minister have the political strength to be able to defend the
interests of Quebecers. I am certain that, the day after March
31, we will see the U.S. government once again imposing duties,
tariff barriers, and quotas on our industry.
We will have to put up with what we are putting up with now,
which is to say drastic job cuts and factory closures in an
industry which is one of the most prosperous and in which we are
the most highly competitive in the world. And all because our
government does not have the political strength to be able to
negotiate with its neighbours.
[English]
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
will be splitting my time.
I had the opportunity over the Christmas break to go to
Australia with my family. I have the good fortune to be married
to an Australian. She has been away from her country for 18
years so we thought the Christmas break would be a great time to
visit her homeland.
While there we were at a place called Heron Island which is on
the Great Barrier Reef. Madam Speaker, if you ever have an
opportunity to visit an absolutely idyllic setting I recommend it
to you.
It was quite idyllic unless of course one had the misfortune to
be seated next to a lumberman from Montana. I had a rather
unpleasant lunch with an American lumberman and his wife. I will
distinguish between the two by saying that his wife was really
quite pleasant but he was not.
Needless to say, I got quite an earful about rapacious Canadians
and how we engage in unfair trading practices and have subsidies
and stumpage fees, et cetera. I do not claim any great expertise
in this area, but I thought I gave about as good as I got. I
expressed to him my views as a parliamentarian that we were as
fed up as fed up could be with the gross hypocrisy of American
interests in that area.
It seems to me that free trade for the Americans is only free
trade if it works for the Americans. If it stops working for the
Americans it then ceases to be free trade.
1635
I pointed out to that individual that in pretty well every free
trade dispute with our colleagues to the south over NAFTA-like
issues, most disputes had been resolved in Canada's favour and
that we were heartily sick of being dragged into the courts and
proven right.
Needless to say, my views did not endear myself to this Montana
lumberman and he and I parted ways. He then saw his way clear to
leave the island the following day, by private helicopter may I
say.
My little vignette is in some measure a reflection of what goes
on in Canada's relationship with the Americans on a daily basis.
We trade about $1 billion a day. Clearly the U.S. is our most
significant trading partner and clearly we are its most
significant trading partner.
Canada is a trading nation, has been a trading nation and, for
the foreseeable future, will always be a trading nation.
Something in the order of 40% to 45% of our gross domestic
product is dependent upon trade. The comparable figure, which is
quite an interesting figure, is that it is about half for the
Americans. About 20% of their gross domestic product is dependent
on trade.
In the last election four out of the five parties essentially
ran on free trade platforms. The one party that did not run on a
free trade platform got around 10% of the vote and barely hung
onto official party status.
Free trade enjoys pretty broad support among Canadians,
something in the order of 65% to 70%, but, as I said, we are
heartily sick of being dragged into court. Fortunately, we seem
to be winning most of the disputes.
Americans trade and we, on the other hand, trade freely. We are
not a colonial power. We cannot and do not use threats of
military intervention to get our way. We need agreements and
therefore we need rules. Rules based trade is better than
gunboat trade. The resolution therefore is timely because it
gives Canadians another opportunity to reaffirm their commitment
to free trade.
Is it difficult? Of course it is difficult. Does it take up a
lot of time? Yes. Do we have an endless number of lawyers? Yes
we do, but let us look at the alternative. Are we to become an
isolationist nation? I do not think so. Are we to somehow or
other become a colonial power? I do not think so. For the
foreseeable future what we are doing is the way we will go.
The softwood lumber agreement expires this month. Canada's
position is pretty darn clear on this one: Trade in softwood
lumber should be governed by the WTO rules or the NAFTA
agreement, period, end of sentence.
The motion reads:
That this House support the government's will in its efforts to
restore free trade agreement rules for lumber and inform the
United States that it rejects any obstacle to that free trade
process.
It is a pretty difficult proposition on which to argue.
The negotiations will be difficult as the U.S. congress and
president are clearly captives of the lumber lobby. It is a
powerful and well-financed lobby. To give members some
perspective on the role of lobbyists in the U.S. system I will
treat them to another vignette.
I had occasion to be in Chile representing Canada at a
conference on tobacco reduction strategies. I along with the
American senators were the only English speakers at the
conference. As we are wont to do, politicians being politicians,
we chatted. I asked the U.S. state senators why they did not run
for congress. I asked them why they did not move up and run
federally. Their response was, money. I asked what the problem
was with money.
The problem is that to be a congressman in the United States one
needs $1 million every two years. That means that a person would
need to have $10,000 a week. It would mean that every Monday
morning a congressman would need to find 10,000 bucks somewhere,
and if he or she is from Montana, Idaho or one of the large
lumber states, his or her $10,000 would most likely come from one
of the lumber lobbies.
1640
I began to understand, in my own little naive Canadian way, the
intersection of money and politics in the U.S. On another
occasion I could possibly reflect on how it is distorting
democracy in our neighbour to the south. It certainly gave me a
new perspective on how lobbies interact with congress in the U.S.
Canada is in tough here. The entire political machinery of the
U.S. congress and the executive branches are lined up against
Canada on this issue because they are captives of the lumber
lobby.
The position taken by my separatist colleagues opposite would be
laughable if it were not so pathetic. Quebec wants to go it
alone with the Americans. Good luck to it. I am sure George
Bush lies awake at night wondering what that wily Landry will
think of next. If Canada has to muscle up, so to speak, just to
get the Americans to deal in the area of WTO and NAFTA-like
rules, what will poor little pathetic Quebec do to get its fair
share?
Quebec wants it both ways, as if that were news. It wants to
negotiate for itself but have an economic partnership with the
rest of Canada. Of course if the economic partnership does not
work in any particular sector then it will gas the economic
partnership and go on its own.
I was in my riding, as you probably were, Madam Speaker, during
our break week. Frankly, I got a pretty good earful from my
constituents about transfers to Quebec. They were a little
irritated with the gross up in equalization. That was
immediately following the gratuitous insult concerning the
chiffon rouge but before being told we have no real culture.
It is about time Mr. Landry looked at where his bread is
buttered and realized that Quebec, in spite of its government,
has prospered in Canada. It has done very well, thank you very
much, under the softwood lumber agreement. It has increased its
share from 20% to 25%.
It would be a novel idea if Mr. Landry paid a tad more attention
to the model and business realities of a large provincial economy
rather than hurling gratuitous insults at the rest of the
country.
The real reason the lumber lobby is spending its money on
lawyers and politicians is that the industry has not modernized.
The American industry is in the dark ages. It has not modernized
like Canadian mills and therefore it cannot compete with Canadian
mills.
In summary, this is all about power. This is all about lumber
power. This is about Canadians hanging together. If we do not
hang together we will certainly hang separately.
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's comments. I
will refer first to what the minister said when he was in the
House. In answer to a question I had asked, he said that his
department had been working on the looming deadline for softwood
lumber for quite some time.
I was correct in my comments when I said that may be true, but
the fact is that the government has not been revealing that to
the Canadian public or to workers in the forest industry, which
has caused a lot of consternation and apprehension. It is only
within the last several weeks, subsequent to the United States
starting its sabre rattling, that the minister said that the
government has been working on this and that it has started to
take a tough stand on behalf of Canada.
I wonder what progress has been made, for example, in dealing
with the other large lobby groups in the United States, such as
the American coalition for affordable housing and the lobby group
that represents lumber retailers and builders in the United
States.
What has Canada done to try to draw on their strength as
lobbyists to help us with the U.S. government and the senate?
Where do we stand?
1645
We cannot get into negotiations per se on softwood lumber
because once we get into negotiations it commits us to
negotiating another agreement. That is an important point. We
could have high level discussions, but we would like to know, as
would thousands of Canadian forestry workers, where we are in
these talks. They see a looming deadline three weeks from now.
They hear sabre rattling from both sides. Where are we in these
talks?
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite
is an experienced politician. He knows that negotiations carry
on all the time at a variety of levels over a period of time.
Everyone knows that there is a March 31 deadline. The pressure
to arrive at an agreement is certainly there.
I would certainly expect, although I cannot say because I am not
involved in the negotiations directly, that Canadian lobbyists as
such would be approaching the affordable home builders
association and the consumers of these products and saying that
their industry causes a great deal of expense to American
consumers because it is an inefficient industry. We could supply
the product they want which is as good as, if not better than,
what they get at cheaper prices.
That is what free trade is all about. I would expect that our
government would try to make them hang separately instead of
hanging together.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, I
have a question for the government member who just spoke. Free
trade works fine when there is lots of demand, but right now we
do not have the same demand.
All kinds of products can be shipped out of Canadian mills but
there is a lessened demand on the American side. At the same
time there is a downturn in the American industry. Its sawmills
are shut down. Our government has said all along that it intends
to let this go under free trade and that it does not have to
negotiate anything.
We are guaranteed on Monday, April 2, that the Americans will
either have countervail duties or anti-dumping charges, or our
government will have some type of export tax in place.
Where is the plan? What is the government doing about it? When
does it plan to have it in place? It is as simple as that.
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, I would use the phrase of
a certain hon. member, namely, I reject the premise of the
question.
If on April 2 there are countervail duties or anti-dumping
charges then on April 3 we will have a lawsuit. If that is the
way it is, that is the way it is. I cannot simply extract a
negotiated agreement because I wish to extract a negotiated
agreement.
As I said in the thrust of my speech, for Canadians free trade
means free trade. It does not mean anything else other than free
trade.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to this topic. As a former director of
international trade in Yukon it is a topic dear to my heart.
In particular, I am very happy when more free trade leads to the
reduction of expensive tariffs for all Canadian consumers, but
particularly for the poor. When we would otherwise add 10%, 20%
or 30% to the price of goods for no good reason, it does not help
the poor or any consumers. I am pleased to talk about and
support free trade in general.
That is not the purpose of my speech. I will not debate any of
the details. Our opposition critics, the good negotiators in the
government, the minister and the parliamentary secretary can get
into that.
1650
I would like during my intervention to commend all members of
the House on their co-operation on the issue. I also commend the
Bloc for what is a courageous and very productive use of an
opposition day under these circumstances.
As a new member I wanted to do this before I became public enemy
number one in the House. Obviously I will get into many tough
debates with my comrades opposite because I strongly disagree
with the visions of the parties opposite. If I did not believe
strongly in the Liberal vision, it would have been fraudulent of
me to run under the Liberal banner.
Although I disagree with the visions and some of the positions
of the other parties, I never once doubted the intentions of all
member of the House to work and help Canadians. They all believe
in what they are putting forward and they are all working very
hard to help their constituents and all of Canada.
Today's motion exemplifies that. Efforts like this one where
the whole House is working together is one way of showing
Canadians the hard work that all members do for their
constituents and the courageous decisions they make in their
interest. It does not neglect the fact that we will do heavy
battle to advance our visions because that is what we believe in.
It also shows that when there is a common enemy or common problem
we can all work together. We need that when we are threatened by
such an external force.
In commending the official opposition today, members will
probably notice that I have not done this too much since I have
been here. I should like to tell a couple of other stories
related to commending members of parliament.
Last night I was at a dinner. A private sector person of a
major Canadian company spoke. He said that earlier this week all
parliamentarians in the House of Commons voted on a common front
to approve a motion on an issue that was very important for
Canada. The message that got across was that we were all
co-operating on an issue that was very important to Canadians.
Parliament and everyone here obtained a lot of respect for doing
that. Today's motion is not dissimilar.
On a more minor point, I was also proud as a new member when
Tony Blair, the leader from Great Britain was here. We all stood
in appreciation and with decorum to recognize a leader of a
country that was a partner with us. In particular, I commend
Bloc members because due to some of their positions in history it
may have been very difficult for some them. They showed the
greatest degree of decorum along with other members of the House.
I was touched by the degree of decorum that day.
Being from Yukon I have an interest in today's debate. As the
rest of Canada, we want to avoid countervail duties such as the
one of 6.51% which the department of commerce tried to levy
against Yukon exports in 1992. That would have been very
difficult for us. Members can imagine with winters at minus 40
degrees the transportation costs and the increased wages. Yukon
is totally uncompetitive as it is. Obviously we are no threat to
anyone because our production costs are so high. We do not need
any more disadvantages.
Our wood, because it is so dry and so cold, takes a long time to
grow. It is a very high quality wood. It has the same name,
white spruce or lodgepole pine, but it is a different type of
wood. It is very strong and it is fine for exporting for
furniture exports but it is no threat to anyone. We do not want
to be caught as innocent bystanders in this dispute.
Getting back to my main point about commending the House for
co-operation, it is essential that we stand together when we have
51 senators of both parties in the United States standing against
us. Those are 51 senators of the most powerful nation in the
world.
1655
I should like to address Americans, especially American
anti-poverty groups and consumer groups that I am sure are
watching CPAC. I cannot imagine they would not be. Consumers,
anti-poverty fighters or consumer groups in the United States
should take a message back to their senators who have been
raising tariffs and increasing house prices over the years.
Can poor people in the United States afford the increased cost
of houses which would result from increased tariffs? Do their
consumer groups really want Americans to continually pay more
money for housing because of a few senators who are trying to
increase tariffs? Do all poor people in the United States really
have houses? Can they afford their being artificially expensive
because of the tariffs a few senators are trying to impose? They
should tell these senators that they want free trade in lumber so
that they have the lowest priced housing for the people who
really need them.
What would happen to American companies if they did this? The
lumber companies where some of their family members work would
become more competitive and would sell more with fewer tariffs.
When they become more competitive they will sell more of their
products and be able to better compete in world markets. This
would ultimately lead to those companies becoming more efficient,
providing more sales of American goods and more employment for
Americans. That would help their families as well.
It is a win-win situation. They have to take these senators or
anyone who tries to lobby for increased tariffs to task.
Continuing softwood lumber tariffs do not make sense from their
perspective.
In closing, I respect and appreciate all members of the House
for co-operating for the common good of Canadians. Any victory is
not a victory of one partisan party but is a victory of our
entire parliament. Any loss is a loss for all Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as
follows: the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette, Ethics
Counsellor.
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, as a member from British Columbia I
appreciate the time to ask some questions and make some comments.
It is important to reiterate to the member and the government
the reason this is such an exceedingly important issue to Canada
and in particular to my province of British Columbia. It is
probably not known by the member that on a balance of trade net
benefit basis the forest industry outperforms every other sector
of export in Canada. It has a net benefit of some $39 million to
Canada on the balance of trade. That is important. It employs
about 130,000 people in Canada and as a high as 50,000 or 60,000
in the province of B.C. in work related to the forest industry.
The province of British Columbia has seen the complete
devastation of the forest industry caused by to a very large
degree the softwood lumber agreement we have had to work through
over the last five years. It sounded pretty good in the
beginning. We were to find a way to deal with the constant
threats of countervail.
1700
In fact, what has happened is that we have had a market
distortion which has been disastrous to our economy in British
Columbia. We have had the creation of mills that have quota and
mills that have not. It is not a level playing field. Because
of their obligation to the ministry of forests and to their
timber licences to cut the wood and process it, they have had to
in effect literally dump the wood in the domestic market at
prices far below their costs to produce it.
It is having a disastrous effect and the government has to
realize that. In the city of Prince George, which is almost
wholly dependent upon the forest industry, the unemployment rate
is somewhere around 17%. In my riding it is somewhere around 15%
overall because of the softwood lumber agreement.
Our mills have simply used their quotas. They are into their
expensive penalty wood. They have had to lay off people because
they cannot afford to carry on business that way, so when I ask
the government where the public display of good stewardship of
our lumber industry has been, I am very serious.
There has not been a public display. The government has
admitted that it has been working on it for the last year, but
there has not been an expression to the people in the forest
industry in British Columbia that the the government is working
on this and understands the crisis and the severity of the
situation. The government has left the forest industry and
workers in British Columbia wondering whether on March 31 the
world is going to come to an end for them. It is going to get
considerably worse. They do not know that the government has
been working on it, if indeed it has, but we will take the
government at its word.
I would like to ask the member for Yukon if he understands that
on March 31 the lifeblood of the forest industry in British
Columbia will be at the highest crisis point it has been at in
decades. If so, has he and will he, along with other members of
the Liberal government, continue to impress upon the Minister for
International Trade that we must not allow the Americans, by way
of this large lobby group, to push us around on this like they
have traditionally done?
Canada cannot buckle under on this one. The member from Thunder
Bay said earlier that we cannot now move to another natural
resource and start to rattle sabres at the U.S. That is exactly
what the U.S. has done to us. It has singled out the lumber
industry and wants to go to war on it. Why should it be fair for
them when it is not fair for us? That is my question. How can
we allow the Americans to zero in on lumber and say we are unfair
when we are not prepared to say that if that is the way they want
to play we are going to zero in on something that they really
need? What does the member have to say about that?
Mr. Larry Bagnell: Yes, Madam Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise now at the end of the day to
speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion on softwood lumber.
I was here this morning when the hon. member for Joliette
introduced his motion. Afterwards I listened to what the first
speakers for the various parties had to say, and all parties
except for the New Democratic Party indicated that they would be
voting in favour of the motion.
1705
Therefore this must be a very positive motion. Some parties,
especially the one opposite, often say that the Bloc never has
anything positive to offer. This time members have to
agree that this is a good motion. Even the government has come
to this realization since it has indicated it will be
supporting the motion. What is surprising is that an opposition
party had to bring forward such a motion. Time is of the
essence.
The softwood lumber agreement with the United States will expire
at the end of the month, on March 31, just two short weeks from
now.
It was urgent that we addressed this very important issue
because it will affect a large number of jobs in Quebec and
throughout Canada. Even the member for Yukon, who just stepped
out, seemed interested in this issue. I know I am not supposed
to make such a comment, but the Speaker has already been very
kind to me, as she always is.
I think it is important to remind the House of the terms of the
motion:
That this House support the government's will in its efforts to
restore free trade agreement rules for lumber and inform the
United States that it rejects any obstacle to that free trade
process.
Excellent.
Everybody seems to agree, except the NDP, which is consistent to
a point with its own past position on free trade. It has always
opposed free trade.
This allows me to digress for a moment and remind the House that
before 1993 and even during the election campaign, the Liberals
and the Prime Minister spoke very negatively about free trade.
Back in 1988 the elections were fought on free trade and the
Liberals were dead against it.
This may explain in part their lack of a firm position until
yesterday. When questioned the Prime Minister stood and said
he was very much in favour of free trade in this industry and
other industries. He may be a late convert, but that is what he
said.
This raises a number of questions. How sure can we be that
government members, who were against free trade in the past, will
be very good negotiators of a free trade agreement on softwood
lumber?
The Bloc Quebecois supports free trade. I should remind the
House that in 1988 the Parti Quebecois, Quebec sovereignists and
even Premier Bourassa supported free trade. There was a consensus
on this in Quebec and it did have an impact on the course of
events. We signed an agreement first with the United States and
then with Mexico.
We are looking at extending free trade to the three
Americas. It is fine and negotiations will start,
but despite the fact that I have always supported free trade in
principle I want to point out an area where I am not satisfied,
as are many workers I might add, and that is shipbuilding.
In these negotiations we cannot blame the current government,
because it was the Conservative government that was in office,
but the fact remains that maritime transport and shipbuilding
were excluded from free trade. This is very damaging now for the
industry, which has only 2,500 employees. At the time, more than
10,000 employees and, depending on the time of the year, up to
15,000 employees were earning a living in this industry.
1710
Why was this not included? What we have learned from people
involved directly or indirectly, anonymously in some cases, is
that the famous automobile pact that favoured Ontario has been
used as a bargaining chip to exclude maritime transport and
shipbuilding.
We see that with respect to lumber, while following the free
trade spirit, the United States had asked in its negotiations
to conclude with Canada an agreement that is expiring soon, with
the whole issue of countervail duties that was not beneficial to
the sawmill industry in Quebec; quite the contrary.
In Quebec, the product is different from the one in British
Columbia.
Our trees are not as tall as British Columbia pines. It seems
that the product from that province is equivalent to that from
western U.S. states, and that is why Americans are more
reluctant.
Twenty-five per cent of all lumber comes from Quebec and over 50%
is exported to the United States. I come from the
Chaudière—Appalaches region, and this is an extremely urgent and
important issue for that region. We have not heard from the
member for Beauce, but it is an important issue for his region
also. He did not think it was important enough to speak.
An hon. member: He did speak.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: If he spoke, I apologize. I followed the
debate all day, except for a couple of hours during which I was
absent, so I assume he spoke during that period. He will not
have to make a statement tomorrow to ask me to make amends.
This issue is extremely important for all areas alongside the
eastern border, including Kamouraska, Témiscouata, Bellechasse,
Matapédia, all of eastern Quebec. The member for Charlevoix
underlined the importance of this industry for all of eastern
Quebec, on both shores of the St. Lawrence River. It is very
important since it is the main source of employment in over 250
municipalities in Quebec. It is the industry that provides the
largest number of jobs, even more than agriculture.
The Bloc Quebecois has always been there and will always be
there to defend Quebec's interests until we achieve sovereignty.
In doing that, we see that from time to time the government
realizes that the Bloc Quebecois puts forward positive ideas
that are not only in the interests of Quebecers but also in the
interest of other Canadians.
We respect the fact that until Quebec achieves sovereignty any
discussion on exports has to be viewed in a federal framework.
I fully understood the comments made by the member for Yukon,
but I do not see why he was so surprised that the members from
the Bloc Quebecois had properly welcomed the British Prime
Minister, Tony Blair. We have always behaved properly in these
kinds of circumstances. For us, Britain is an important economic
partner. We also have to go back to history. Even in Quebec, in
the national assembly, procedure is based on British procedure
and we have always respected those rules.
I am delighted by the comments by the member for Yukon, but a
little less by others aimed at recalling some negative
situations due to statements by the current premier of Quebec.
People seem to have taken offence. I would, however, like to
remind everyone of a sad anniversary, the anniversary of passage
of Bill C-20.
1715
I thank all the members who will be supporting the Bloc
Quebecois motion and all those who spoken to this motion. It
would have been even better if we had obtained the support of
members of the New Democratic Party, but we understand their concern for
consistency, considering the position they adopted earlier on
free trade.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant
to the order made earlier today, every question necessary to
dispose of the business of supply is deemed to have been put,
and the recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and
deferred until Tuesday, March 20, 2001, at the end of government
orders.
[English]
The Chair is seeking unanimous consent to see the clock at 5.30.
Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 5.30 the
House will now proceed to the consideration of private members'
business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
PARLIAMENTARIANS' CODE OF CONDUCT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That, in the opinion
of this House, the government should introduce legislation
establishing a code of conduct for Members of Parliament
and Senators, based on the March 1997 final report of the
Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct of the Senate
and the House of Commons.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise to put forward a
motion that I believe is very important and relevant, not only in
its timing but in its long-term implications for the Parliament
of Canada.
This is a motion that would bring forward a code of conduct for
members of parliament and senators. I would suggest with the
greatest respect and deference to the report that was tabled by
the current Speaker, the distinguished member for Kingston and
the Islands, as well as the senator from Nova Scotia, Senator
Oliver, the reference in this motion speaks of the
Milliken-Oliver report which very much forms the basis of my
motion.
The issue on which all parties during the committee process were
united was that we should try to strive for and aspire to a
higher standard of conduct for members of parliament. It seems
to have fallen by the wayside and has been put to one side. This
is not an effort to reinvent the wheel. This is something that
currently does not exist. This is a void in the way in which
this place operates.
My submission is that this would very much enhance and protect
the integrity of members of parliament. It would be a direct
benefit to not only members of parliament, but to all Canadians
by signalling our own desire to keep higher standards for all
members. The failure to address the issue leaves us with lower
standards than other jurisdictions. This includes other Canadian
jurisdictions and international ones.
That is why one is left to wonder why we would not act or take
the opportunity to put in place guidelines which would govern the
behaviour of members of the Chamber. This is the sort of debate
I would put to the House that if it was put to a vote it would
allow all members of the House to express their support for such
an exercise.
I say quite earnestly that this is not a motion that would tie
us to any particular standard at this point. It is an exercise
to engage all members in the drafting of such a code of
conduct.
From that point, I again refer to the Milliken-Oliver report
that would be the premise and a good starting point. There was
significant research. There was a great deal of effort. With
the greatest respect to the two drafters of that report, their
efforts would be the jumping point to put forward a code of
conduct for members of parliament.
Unfortunately, we will not have the ability to vote on this
particular item. I suggest this sends a very wrong message.
When the motion was presented to the committee, there was the
usual practice in the process of trying to make this votable, and
it was unfortunately turned down by the Liberal dominated
committee. Why?
As in the case with many issues, it would be politically damaging
to the government. Surely it would rather just ignore the
problems that exist. This, I suggest, deflects the cynicism. It
further undermines public confidence in this place. It is an
attitude, sadly, that we have become quite familiar with.
1720
There is a recent example in the parliament of Great Britain
where some senior members of parliament did not want the contract
renewed for Miss Elizabeth Filkin, who is the British
parliament's so-called sleaze watchdog. Her contract is to run
out next year. Some feel that the movement by some senior
members of parliament in Westminster to not have her contract
renewed was very much tied to the fact that because she was doing
such a good job in her capacity it was very threatening to some
members of parliament.
It demonstrates that when an individual is there with proper
powers and the respect of all members of parliament, there is an
incredible ability to watch over all members of the House. There
is the Damocles sword that hangs over the members. The attempt
by some members in that legislature to ensure that this
particular individual was not renewed demonstrates that in some
instances members of parliament would prefer not to have that
deterrent.
One can only wonder if that is in fact the case presently before
us, the effort by the government not to have this code of conduct
that would apply to all members. Never before have Canadians
seen such a blatant disregard for parliamentary rules, than we
have during the past seven and a half years of Liberal
administration.
The most recent example was yesterday when the Minister of
Justice's department provided a briefing and copies of a large
omnibus piece of legislation to members of the media before
members of parliament were given the opportunity to review that
legislation. Sadly, we have seen and have become accustomed to
the practice of legislation being announced in the parliamentary
press gallery prior to members of parliament, who have been
elected by the Canadian public, having the opportunity to review
and comment fully on that legislation.
The practice to test initiatives in the media, I would suggest,
is a long-standing practice. However, it has fallen further and
further afield, and very much undermines the way in which the
Chamber holds the respect of not only members but Canadians at
large.
On February 8, 2001, and I know the Chair will recall this
infamous date in this short parliament, there was a Reform
opposition day in which the House was asked to adopt the policy
that came directly from the Liberal red book and called for the
implementation of it by the government. It policy states:
In that instance, there was a motion debated here which
essentially called upon the government to keep its word to
fulfill a promise it had made. We have seen time and time again
that the government has never shirked or shied away from saying
one thing in a pre-election platform and after very quickly
abandoning its promise to the Canadian public.
Speaking of credible members and leaving positions, we have the
member opposite saying one thing while in opposition and another
while in government. I am hearing an echoing over there.
During the supply day debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Government House Leader stated:
Let me put it another issue to the hon. member. All of us in the
House are busily holding forth on the issue of compliance with a
code of conduct which would exist for ministers, for
officeholders and for parliamentary secretaries. There is no
code of conduct. For all of those here who are holding forth,
there is no code of conduct for members of parliament. They are
very willing to hoist upon the other officeholders a code of
conduct, but not one element of a code of conduct applies to
members in the House. That is business that we have to do.
Before we wax eloquent on what is missing in all of the other
codes of conduct, I suggest we get our own House in order. I ask
the hon. member to comment on that.
This was the parliamentary secretary's fine words on that sad
day in parliament when he was chastising members of the
opposition because they were calling on the government to do
something that the opposition members themselves would not have
to comply with.
1725
I suspect the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House
Leader would do a perfect Olympic style, pike position backflip
if he were given an opportunity to speak on this today. He would
reverse himself and explain away and slink away from the
statement if given the opportunity to speak. That, sadly, has
become a common practice here. Liberal members, confronted with
words that they said earlier in campaign mode, like saying that
they would repeal free trade and get rid of the GST, are common
words now that ring around the country when we examine the ethics
of campaigning.
The red book promise has been shredded in terms of its
credibility, but there is an opportunity to salvage some of that
by supporting a motion that would hold members of parliament to a
higher ethical standard than currently exists. For years
parliamentarians have been trying in vain to address this issue.
On March 15, 1999, Bill C-488, a private member's bill to
establish a parliamentarians' code of conduct was introduced.
Like many pieces of useful legislation, it died on the order
paper. It was reintroduced as a bill in the next session but
again it died on the order paper when the pre-emptive election
was called. Even the auditor general, an impartial servant of
the House outside the Chamber, has expressed concern over the
ethics of the government.
The auditor general, in Canada's most recent 2000 report, had
one chapter entitled “Values and Ethics in the Federal Public
Sector”. In that chapter the auditor general summarized the
history of unsuccessful attempts to develop a code of conduct for
parliamentarians. He recommended that parliamentarians try
again, arguing that it was very important to show ethical
leadership for the public sector as a whole.
In 1994 the Prime Minister appointed the ethics counsellor
insisting that in end that the buck would stop with him. I will
quote the Prime Minister from a speech he made on June 16, 1994,
in which he stated:
There can be no substitute for responsibility at the top. The
Prime Minister sets the moral tone for the government and must
make the ultimate decisions when issues of trust or integrity are
raised. That is what leadership is all about.
They are pretty powerful words but my how times have changed.
The Prime Minister does not feel that he did anything wrong when
he invited the president of the Business Development Bank to 24
Sussex to twist his arm to get a loan for a gentleman in his
constituency. He does not feel there was anything wrong with
lobbying the Business Development Bank by phone and in his living
room to approve a $615,000 loan for his good friend, Yvon
Duhaime.
If this is the type of moral tone being set by the Prime
Minister by backroom deals, government interference and trying to
speed up or ensure the approval of questionable loans that are
not based on merit, then it is not setting a good example. We
need a higher code of conduct.
We need a completely independent ethics counsellor for a start,
someone who would not report directly to the Prime Minister.
However there has always been a focus on ethics with this Prime
Minister and this government. They have always brought this
issue into debate, yet they have never lived up to their words,
not even close.
I will quote again from the red book, where it said:
We will follow the basic principle that government decisions must
be made on the merits of a case rather than according to the
political influence of those making the case.
That was from red book one, fairy book one, 1993.
The BDC rejected the $615,000 loan application. After a couple
of phone calls and visit from the Prime Minister, all of a sudden
the lack of merit of the case was overlooked.
We understand this is an unprecedented constant guidance and
involvement from the Prime Minister's office. There is no
question about that. It has been borne out repeatedly by the
evidence produced in the House.
At one point the Prime Minister said:
Since our election in October no goal has been more important to
this government, or to me personally as Prime Minister, than
restoring the trust of Canadians in their institutions.
This is laughable, given the conduct of the Prime Minister over
the past number of years. Since trust could be restored through
a code of conduct, why would members on the government bench
resist such a genuine attempt to try to restore some of the
confidence that Canadians once held in members of parliament?
I can also quote the Prime Minister, from red book one, when he
said:
The integrity of government is put into question when there is a
perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists exercising
undue influence away from public view.
1730
Yet a recent court decision echoes similar concerns over
political influence in the awarding of helicopter projects to
replace the aging Sea Kings. We all recall the cancellation of
the EH-101 project at a cost of $500 million to taxpayers. It
was all done with the simple stroke of a pen. The Prime Minister
said he would take his pen and write zero, and that is what he
did. It cost Canadian taxpayers $500 million.
Yet the Prime Minister continues to maintain that he did nothing
wrong in securing a loan for Mr. Duhaime in his constituency. The
ethics counsellor was appointed by the Prime Minister and reports
only to the Prime Minister, in private. We know of the recent
revelations that there were problems in terms of locating just
where those pesky shares went when they were sold to Mr. Prince.
They somehow went off into the abyss. They were floating around
out there and no one seems to be taking any kind of ownership of
that.
Yet the most recent opportunity that the government had to
clarify that was met with, yes, wait for it, who are they going
to put in place to answer some of these pesky questions? Yes, it
is going to be the Prime Minister's protector, the Prime Minister
wannabe, Mini-Me, the Minister of Industry, who will be the
person who will clear the Prime Minister again of any wrongdoing.
Canadians are going to be comforted. They are going to be able
to sleep at night knowing that the Minister of Industry is going
to clear the Prime Minister of any wrongdoing.
The Minister of Industry will similarly examine and, I am sure,
instantaneously explore the circumstances surrounding this. Yes,
the man who would be king will no doubt clear the emperor and his
new clothes and find that there is nothing wrong.
It all demonstrates the need for a code of conduct in this
place. I hope that all members would support the motion.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak today on Motion No. 200 presented by the hon.
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, which requests that
the government introduce legislation establishing a code of
conduct for members of parliament and senators.
I note that my hon. colleague has drawn on the work accomplished
by the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of
Commons on a code of conduct, which was established by the
government in 1995. Specifically my hon. colleague refers to the
committee's final report, which proposed a code to be
administered by the House and the Senate that drew on many of the
common elements raised during the testimony of its witnesses over
the course of a two year indepth study.
For example, the committee mentioned the following: that a list
of principles should precede such a code; that a commissioner or
a body be appointed to provide advice, take disclosures and
enforce the code, as does the ethics counsellor for ministers and
parliamentary secretaries now; the need for general rules against
parliamentarians improperly using influence and insider
information to further their private interests; the importance of
dealing with disclosure of assets and interests; the need to
address gifts, personal benefits and sponsored travel; the
importance of clarifying the area of government contracting; and
recognizing the distinction between the legislature and the
executive by recommending that a permanent committee be
established to administer such a code.
The special joint committee heard from many witnesses, including
the federal ethics counsellor, the privacy commissioner,
academics in the field, political scientists, respected members
of the media and several provincial commissioners of ethics. At
the time, both sides of the House and the other place could not
agree on this report or on the proposal.
The motion before us here today is very different. It calls for
a legislated parliamentary code rather than a code adopted and
administered by the House and the other place itself. Indeed,
the final report of that special committee, referred to in my
hon. friend's motion, recommended against such a legislated
parliamentary code. It was felt that such an approach would make
any code too rigid to administer and difficult to adapt to
evolving circumstances.
1735
Special joint committee members expressed further concern that a
legislated code might invite judicial interference in internal
parliamentary procedures. Consequently, the committee
recommended that a code be implemented by resolutions in each
Chamber. That of course is different from a legislated statutory
code of ethics.
As I mentioned earlier, the special joint committee's report was
not adopted because members of parliament themselves could not
agree to adopt the report. I recall as an individual member at
the time being generally in support of having a code but asking
if such a code would necessarily have to involve spouses of
parliamentarians. There were one or two spouses of
parliamentarians at the time who essentially told us to go to
hell, saying that they would not have their personal lives
interfered with because of the fact that their spouses happened
to be members of parliament and that their personal business
dealings would not be made part of the public record.
That was just one of the obstacles members had to encounter at
that time. That was for ordinary members of parliament, not for
cabinet ministers, recalling, of course, that cabinet ministers
and parliamentary secretaries in this place are already subject
to a code of ethics.
The challenge lies in the lack of agreement in the House,
including the lack of agreement within parties in the House. For
its part, the government has taken specific actions on integrity
and ethics, including the appointment of the first ever ethics
counsellor in the history of Canada, who provides advice on
issues relating to matters of conflict of interest and the
ethical conduct of government officials, including ministers and
parliamentary secretaries, and who reports to parliament on his
duties and investigations under the Lobbyists Registration Act.
There is a new conflict of interest code for public office
holders, which sets out principles and clear rules for all public
office holders. That includes ministers, secretaries of state,
parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff and full time
governor in council appointees. It was tabled in the House in
1994. That code of ethics has been functioning well for seven
years, notwithstanding the jaded view of the opposition in the
House.
In addition, the Lobbyists Registration Act amendments increase
the transparency of lobbying activities. All lobbyists now have
to reveal more about their projects and their fees and are
prohibited from including contingency fees in their contracts.
The government has delivered on commitments to improve the
standards of ethical behaviour in government, but the issue of
ethics and a code of conduct for parliamentarians is not one for
the government alone. It is an issue for all members of
parliament and for senators. A code of conduct is a matter which
all parliamentarians have and must have an interest in. It is a
matter that should have the support and agreement of all members
of the House and the other Chamber.
Until now, members have decided to rely on informal mechanisms
rather than adopt a formal code administered by the House and
Senate. That is for ordinary members of parliament and does not
refer to ministers and parliamentary secretaries. A legislated
code would appear to run counter to that view, as well as counter
to the advice in 1997 of the joint committee's report.
For these reasons, I urge members to reconsider this and, in
fact, not support this motion, which would in the end impose a
piece of legislation, a statute codifying a code of ethics.
Rather, I urge members to consider the template and mechanism of
having a code of ethics adopted and administered by the House and
a similar, if not identical, code of ethics adopted and
administered by senators, members of parliament in the other
place.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, the member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, for bringing forward this
important motion. This is a topic that has garnered the
attention of many people across the country and obviously of all
members of parliament, because as elected people in the country
who are representing our constituents we want to provide
leadership.
1740
We have seen some examples of difficulties with ethical
behaviour or the appearance of conflict in regard to the Prime
Minister's dealings in Shawinigan, which is well documented and
which I will be touching on.
I spent 10 years as a teacher before I became a member of
parliament. I know that there was a very well defined code of
conduct that we had as educators who are put in positions of
trust working with children, parents, colleagues and different
levels of the administration. If that code of conduct was
compromised, of course there were some very serious consequences.
It is worth revisiting this notion of having a code of conduct
for members of parliament. We would hope that there would be
sound judgment used by all members at all times and that such a
debate would not be necessary, but it seems as though some
examples have brought this forward again and there does need to
be a code of conduct.
I want to touch on a particular example that was brought to my
attention regarding the actions of one of our current colleagues,
that being the member for Waterloo—Wellington, in his riding
during the recent federal election. He is a parliamentary
secretary. He represents a minister of the crown. He wrote a
letter during the campaign which was viewed as very inappropriate
by members of his own community. I will not go into all of the
specifics, but perhaps I will highlight some of the things the
community mentioned.
The member for Waterloo—Wellington wrote a letter which
residents of the Morningside Retirement Village in New Hamburg in
his riding were very concerned about. In fact, they were shocked
that such a provocative letter from the incumbent member would
come forward. In fact, I will quote directly from a member of
the community. Maryjean Brown, the director of a retirement
complex within the community, said “I couldn't believe that kind
of letter could be read at that kind of gathering of people”.
Basically what happened was that the member of parliament wrote
a letter attacking some of the members of this retirement
community for some of their alleged responses to somebody who
worked for him.
I will quote from the letter the member wrote. He stated:
The reason I raise this with you is because we discreetly
followed half of these men and were astounded to discover they
were residents of Morningside.
He went on to say that he understands that most of the residents
are “decent, law-abiding, God-fearing and kind individuals” but
then said:
Next time this occurs, I will be pressing charges against these
weak and hideous men under the Ontario Human Rights Code, and
will be happy to make their name or names national headlines
across Canada.
This was something one of our colleagues wrote in a letter on
his parliamentary secretary letterhead to people in his community
during the election campaign, which the people of the community
viewed as very inappropriate. Obviously on the face of it, I
think all of us would be surprised by such a thing. This was an
issue that was brought forward during the campaign. Some of the
people in the community commented on this and were quite
surprised by this action. I will again quote again Ms. Brown,
the director of the retirement village, who said:
If it had to be brought up, it should have been brought up by
himself instead of sending somebody else to do his dirty work.
Everybody here is very, very upset about it.
He had this letter read at a public meeting rather than
attending himself.
This is a very specific example of a member who is one of our
colleagues and who used his privileges as a parliamentary
secretary in a way which many would deem to be inappropriate. If
members have difficulty with lack of judgment in this kind of
example, then I think it is a thing we need to discuss as
members, because we need to be showing leadership in this area.
1745
I will turn from that unfortunate incident to talk a bit about
the Shawinigan affair. I will also rebut a few of the comments
made by my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader, when he talked about the ethics
counsellor.
My colleague for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough gave a good
summary of the ethics counsellor debate that we had not long ago
and how the government voted down a promise in its own red book.
It was a motion brought forward by the Alliance and supported by
all members in the House.
My colleague from the government side mentioned that the ethics
counsellor does report to parliament. What he neglected to point
out was that he reports to parliament at committee when called as
a witness for estimates or some other thing. What my colleague
did not say, because it is not the case, is that reports by the
ethics counsellor are not tabled in the House of Commons. The
ethics counsellor does not report directly to parliament on any
investigations or provide any information, such as was brought
forward with the Shawinigan case.
The Canadian Alliance had a motion before the House that would
have required the ethics counsellor to report to the House and to
table reports in the House so that all members could be made
aware of the facts. It would have been a far greater thing for
members of cabinet to be cleared of any wrongdoing. If all
documents and reports were tabled before the House and there was
no wrongdoing there would be no wondering about what was in the
report. It would be a good thing.
We certainly could not understand why the government defeated
our motion, which was, in large part I believe, some of my
Conservative colleague's motivation for bringing forward his
motion today. We need to have a debate about ethical conduct in
the House of Commons.
It is unfortunate that the circumstances surrounding the Prime
Minister on a daily basis have not gone away and continue to
percolate, even today in question period. Circumstances like
that are ones that bring into question the ethical behaviour of
members of parliament.
British Columbia has a very strict code of conduct for members
of the legislative assembly. I have talked to some members of
the provincial government who have told me that their code of
conduct legislation states that even if there is an appearance of
a conflict of interest an investigation will be done and, from
what I understand, such reports are tabled in the provincial
legislature. That is far different from the ethics counsellor
process we have debated here today.
We should be considering some changes. If we want to restore
confidence in this place in the minds and hearts of people, then
we need to work together on many issues in the House. We have
done that on some occasions in this parliament already. We did
so on the motion in regard to the sex offender registry, which we
voted on this week. In large part, we had agreement today in the
softwood lumber debate. We did not have the same agreement on
the ethics counsellor motion, which was unfortunate because it
was designed to restore confidence in the minds of those we
govern that we are serious about ethical behaviour.
Members of the Alliance Party will continue to work together to
find ways to solve important issues in this place. I commend my
colleague for bringing forward this important motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Madam
Speaker, first, I commend the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for bringing forward Motion No. 200.
The motions reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
introduce legislation establishing a code of conduct for Members
of Parliament and Senators, based on the March 1997 final report
of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct of the
Senate and the House of Commons.
1750
As we can see in the motion, the initiative of our colleague
from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is based on the March 1997
report by the special joint committee on a code of conduct of
the Senate and the House of Commons and urges our institution to
introduce a much stricter code of conduct than the current one.
We can only commend the hon. member for an initiative that would
essentially provide for more openness and integrity in the
governance of our nation. So it would be in order, as I said, to
thank and commend the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his motion.
However, I am always surprised when I see my colleague, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the
House, putting a damper on the whole issue of a so-called code of
conduct, because I am sure everyone knows that it is not the
first time that such an issue is put before the House.
Our former colleague, Gordon Earle, introduced two bills on this
issue: Bill C-488, during the first session of the 36th
parliament, and Bill C-226, during the second session.
Unfortunately both bills were not made votable.
But on December 16, 1999, we had the opportunity to discuss the
last version of the bill introduced by Mr. Earle, that is
Bill C-226.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government
in the House came up with the same arguments as before, with
lots of euphemisms, to say how important it is for members of
parliament to have a code of conduct, and that parliamentary
practice has over time led to the establishment of certain
rules, and that it would therefore be utterly pointless to
enshrine such a code of conduct in the legislation.
Instead, he asked us, as he did earlier and as he did in 1999, to
take a close look at the rules that we have given ourselves over
time, to make sure these rules are respected. However he remained
totally vague regarding how the rules would be applied, who
would be responsible for their implementation and what the
sanctions would be, where appropriate.
Of course there are rules. The Parliamentary Secretary to the
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is right when
he says that, over time, a number of rules were put in place
through the various acts, rules of the House and established
practices, but have these rules prevented some rather dubious
things from happening here in recent years? Of course not.
We are currently in the midst of a scandal that has come to be
known as Shawinigate, and the Prime Minister himself refuses to
lift the shroud of suspicion by tabling documents that would
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not in a conflict of
interest.
If, today, we are once again forced to discuss such issues and
confronted to this kind of situation, it is obviously because
the current rules do not achieve the objective pursued. We must
therefore give ourselves more compelling rules. There is no
doubt in my mind about that.
Yesterday the hon. member for Halifax tabled another bill, Bill
C-299, to establish a code of conduct for members of parliament
and senators.
We will know later if this bill will be approved by the
subcommittee on private members' business, so that it can
eventually be put to a vote in the House after having been
selected as a votable item through the luck of the draw.
1755
The fact is that the members opposite do not seem very eager
to debate this type of issue. Just recently the government
defeated a motion brought forward by the Canadian Alliance, the
official opposition, in which it was simply asking the
government to honour a promise made by the Liberal Party in the
1993 red book, which reads as follows:
A Liberal government will appoint an independent Ethics
Counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the
day-to-day application of the Code of Conduct for Public
Officials. The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after
consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of
Commons and will report directly to Parliament.
There is another promise that has fallen by the wayside, because
the government voted against the motion. It no longer agrees
that the House should appoint an ethics counsellor who would
oversee the application of a code of conduct adopted by the
House and who would report directly to the House.
The government got itself elected in 1993 by telling Canadians
that it would bring in the necessary reforms so as to restore
their confidence in public institutions and in the integrity of
politicians.
What has this government done since it took office? Absolutely
nothing. On the contrary, it had the opportunity to bring in
major changes to the Canada Elections Act. What did these
important changes turn into? They turned into a large number of
changes, certainly, but mostly technical and cosmetic changes.
It could have undertaken major reforms to help Canadians and
Quebecers find their way though our electoral system, but it has
not seen fit to do so.
It could have changed the rules governing the financing of
political parties.
We can understand that a political party generously funded by
corporations, which takes the power and finds itself in front of
the pork barrel, may feel an obligation to return favours.
The present rules governing the financing of political parties
are an invitation for the government to fail to respect the
highest standards of integrity.
I understand the motives of the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for introducing his motion. That
being said, I think I must reiterate what I said during the
debate on Bill C-226 introduced by our colleague, Mr. Earle, and
that is that it may be somewhat premature to consider adopting a
code of conduct for members of parliament and senators.
We should start by looking into a code of conduct for people
around the cabinet, the members of cabinet themselves,
parliamentary secretaries, senior civil servants, people who
have access on a daily basis to privileged information, people
who spend taxpayers money on all kinds of subsidies and who, if
we put together the refusal to reform the Canada Elections Act
with respect to the financing of political parties and the
refusal to adopt a code of conduct for ministers and members of
cabinet, could put themselves in rather embarrassing positions.
Since my time is almost up, I will conclude by saying that we
would have hoped that, contrary to what the parliamentary
secretary to the government House leader suggested in his
remarks, the government would be more open to such a reform.
Since it has shown very little openness so far to electoral
reform, parliamentary reform, the introduction of a code of
conduct and the appointment by parliament of an ethics
counsellor who would be accountable to parliament, we should
not be surprised by the remarks made this afternoon by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons.
1800
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak in favour of Motion No. 200, tabled by the hon.
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
introduce legislation establishing a code of conduct for Members
of Parliament and Senators, based on the March 1997 final report
of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct of the Senate
and the House of Commons.
The House of Commons, this exquisite Chamber of vaulted
ceilings, carved wood and coloured glass, is the heart of our
democratic system. Yet, when Canadians watch us in question
period on TV they see us caterwauling and jeering. They see our
junior high antics and some very low grade behaviour. We all
know that does not serve us well.
If they see this place as a sideshow, as a zoo, by extension
they see us, their representatives and their members of
parliament, as objects of scorn and derision. That is something
we have to clean up. We have to clean up our act, real or
perceived. We have to make sure that this place does not suffer
from the shame of bad behaviour.
That brings us back to the motion and the idea of a code of
conduct. It is not the first time that the House has grappled
with the issue over the years. On December 16, 1999, the House
debated Bill C-226, an act to establish a parliamentarian's code
of conduct, brought in by Gordon Earle, the former NDP member for
Halifax West. That bill would have gone a long way to move this
item along on the agenda.
In that debate Gordon Earle stated that the bill would in fact
be realistic and would reflect in the provincial legislatures and
in other nations' assemblies. This code of conduct would raise
the level of integrity of our parliament. The bill was rooted in
very practical and legitimate concerns that Canadians hold about
their parliament.
His bill was based on the following principles. Parliamentarians
should have the highest ethical standards so as to maintain and
enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of
parliamentarians and parliament. Parliamentarians should perform
their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a
manner that would bear the closest public scrutiny.
Parliamentarians should avoid placing themselves under any
financial or other obligation that may influence them in the
performance of their official duties. Parliamentarians upon
entering office should arrange their private affairs to prevent
real or apparent conflict of interest. If such do arise, it
should be resolved in a way that protects the public interest.
As well, under that bill all parliamentarians would have to
disclose all official travel when the cost exceeded $250 in cases
where the trip was not completely paid for by parliament or by
one of the few officially recognized sponsors.
No parliamentarians would be permitted to be a party to a
contract with the Government of Canada under which the
parliamentarian received a benefit. Parliamentarians would be
required to make a disclosure of all assets once every calendar
year and would be required to make public disclosure of the
nature although not the value of all assets each year. Finally,
to ensure that the public interest and the highest standards were
upheld, there would be an ethics counsellor to advise
parliamentarians on any question relating to conduct.
I am pleased to say that Gordon Earle's private member's bill
was reintroduced yesterday by our leader, the member for Halifax.
She reintroduced legislation to establish a code of conduct for
MPs and an ethics counsellor who would report on an annual basis
directly to parliament, not to the Prime Minister's Office.
If such a code already existed, Canadians might have been spared
the unseemly spectacle of the Shawinigan situation and the whole
controversy surrounding the opposition leader's defamation suit
and how it was handled financially.
1805
In closing I would say that it is time we re-addressed the
erosion of public confidence in parliament and in
parliamentarians. It is time to help MPs deal with complicated
ethical issues, to restore their faith in the institution of
parliament and to provide them with a clear rule book on issues
of ethics and conflict of interest.
I thank the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for
moving the motion and providing me with the opportunity to speak
this evening on this important issue.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would begin by expressing my sadness
that private members' hour has been turned into a partisan debate
and an attack on the governing party, and the Prime Minister in
particular.
I mention that because in the last parliament it was understood
by both sides of the House, by all parties and all backbenchers,
that private members' business would be dedicated to private
members' issues and bills in a non-partisan way. I am very
distressed that this rule has been broken.
I would observe first that the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough began his remarks by saying that
his motion was made non-votable because of the Liberal dominated
subcommittee on private members' business. Liberal dominated
were the exact words he used.
Well, Madam Speaker, I will tell you that there is only one
Liberal on that subcommittee and four opposition members. If he
has a problem in making his motion votable, it is a problem on
the opposition side, not on the Liberal side.
Having said that, what disappoints me is the issue of a code of
conduct for MPs, which is an important issue. The report of the
senate joint committee was an excellent report. It dealt with
gifts. It set a ceiling on gifts which was very important
because not every member comes from communities where they
realize that it is not right to take expensive gifts from other
people in the context of their duties. The ceiling was set at
$250, and I thought that was a little high actually.
There were provisions for travel by corporations and companies
that were offering what is known in the newspaper trade as
freebies. All of this was very good but it was not something
that had to be in legislation. It not only could have been dealt
with by resolution, but I say to the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, that if he really believes in
the principles expressed by the senate joint committee, then he
should get his leader to stand and say that he supports those
principles and that they should serve as guidelines in his own
caucus.
It could be done. It does not require legislation. All it
requires is the various leaders of the parties simply saying that
they agree in principle and then individual MPs could act
according to their consciences. It would be an enormous step
forward.
I would hope that the leader of the fifth party would actually
address that, not only in spirit but in the practical sense.
Maybe he would be required to disclose not only his assets and
his salaries but the salaries of his wife. I wonder whether his
wife would even agree with it. I do not know. It would be a
very interesting test.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Motion No. 200 put
forward by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
because it is very close to my heart.
I was shocked to hear the hon. member from the Liberal side say
that the motion had no relevance. It is very relevant and there
is a need for the government to introduce legislation
establishing a code of conduct for members of parliament and
senators. This is the highest Chamber in the nation.
On the other hand, even professionals, like doctors, lawyers,
insurance agents and real estate agents, have a code of conduct
for their members.
No wonder voter turnout has been falling. We need to restore
the public's trust in the reputation, credibility and integrity
of members of parliament in this House.
There is a need to restore the reputation, credibility, integrity
and faith in politicians. There is a need to set a higher bar
for members of parliament and set an example for Canadians.
1810
I believe there is a need to address the issue of conflict of
interest, particularly in light of the shadow hanging over the
Prime Minister over the ethics issue. Look at the government's
record on patronage and its record of handing out grants and
contributions and tying them to the donations given to the
political party.
All these issues make it so important for us to have this code
of conduct. It cannot be confidential, as the government states.
I emphasize the need to establish a code of conduct for
parliamentarians.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members on this side of
the House who spoke so favourably and eloquently with respect to
the motion.
I also want to acknowledge Gordon Earle and his attempts to
bring forward a similar motion.
I take some umbrage with the unprovoked attack on the leader of
the Conservative Party. I do not think there is anybody in the
Chamber who has set a higher ethical standard. He is a man of
pristine ethical performance in this Chamber with unchallenged
ethical standards.
Yet when I look back again over the words of the parliamentary
secretary, on February 8, we see the melting of that moral
outrage like the snow outside. There is not even placid
consideration of his own words based on what he said in the House
today. There is not even a consideration that this might be a
good idea, even though just a few short weeks ago he called for
this very motion. It is very disappointing that a member with
his length of service in the House would back away from his words
so artfully. The devil is in the details.
I would suggest that no honest politician could ever be hurt by
the implementation of a code of conduct, nor, for that matter,
the appointment of an independent ethics counsellor to report to
parliament.
I hear a lot of chirping from the chipmunks across the way.
I want to refer again to the joint committee's report which was
authored by the current Speaker, a member of the governing party.
It touches on some important principles. It speaks of ethical
standards, public scrutiny, independence, public interest, gifts
and benefits, something the hon. member said just moments ago
that he was concerned about. Again those words ring hollow. Why
would we not want to delve into issues of furthering private
interest, using influence, insider information, declaration of
interest, gifts and benefits?
These are all the subject matter of the report that was tabled
and put forward by the current Speaker and Senator Oliver in the
other place. Why would we not want to try to improve the
tarnished image of this place? Why would we not want to try to
raise the bar somehow of what has occurred over the past number
of years under the current government?
The legacy of the Prime Minister is that he has lowered the
ethical standards. I do not say that personally. I am referring
to the comments that were made by Gordon Robertson, a retired
clerk of the Privy Council and the head of the Public Service of
Canada, who served under Prime Ministers King, St. Laurent,
Pearson and Trudeau. In the Toronto Star on January 6,
speaking of the current ethical standards of the Prime Minister,
Mr. Robertson said:
What happened in Shawinigan never would have met the standard set
in Pearson's code of ethics. I should know—I drafted it. This
Prime Minister has lowered the bar.
The legacy of this Prime Minister is that he has lowered the
bar, the erosion of public confidence.
Canadians want to have faith. They very much want to have faith
in the ethical standards.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I know it is at the
end of the day, but I would caution the hon. members to be
careful of the language they use in the House, including the
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I will govern myself
accordingly.
Canadians want to have faith in their elected representatives.
They very much want to believe that their politicians are here
for a strong purpose and are behaving within a higher standard.
1815
It takes a long time to build trust, and that faith is
particularly shaken by the performance of the government. If we
are to even start to move toward having a higher standard we
should have a tangible place to go when we examine the conduct of
members of parliament.
It is unfortunate that the government House leader's
parliamentary secretary did not at least take the opportunity to
put forward some other alternative. He made an oblique, vague
reference to the fact that we could not do it because it would be
legislated.
He should put forward some other alternatives or bring forward
some original ideas. We would be more than happy to wrap our
arms around them because this is an issue of non-partisan
importance in the Chamber. If Canadians could see a demonstrated
effort on the part of all members of parliament they would
appreciate it.
I will end by asking that there be unanimous consent that the
matter be made votable. I know this is once again a leap of
faith and that it will not happen, but I would ask that the
motion be made votable. I know we will get a resounding no from
the government side.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hour provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is deemed
to have been moved.
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, on February 19 I asked two questions about the
ongoing Shawinigan scandal involving the Prime Minister in the
Grand-Mère Golf Club. The answers provided by the Deputy Prime
Minister were simply unsatisfactory.
Let us examine the facts around the Prime Minister's ownership
of the golf course. He apparently sold his shares in 1993 upon
becoming Prime Minister. However that deal fell through and the
Prime Minister did not receive payment. He contacted the ethics
counsellor to inform him of this and the ethics counsellor has
admitted the Prime Minister could have lost money on his
investment had the value of the golf course property decreased.
One way to ensure the value of the golf course property did not
decrease was by ensuring the neighbouring Grand-Mère Inn remained
afloat financially. This is where the Prime Minister became
involved and how taxpayer dollars started to flow.
Here are the facts. First, a $164,000 TJF grant was given for
expansion of the inn. By the way, the owner who took the inn off
the Prime Minister's hands, a friend of the Prime Minister named
Yvon Duhaime, had been convicted of drunk driving, assault and
uttering threats. Unfortunately he forgot to mention those
details when applying for the grant. I wonder why.
We have since learned that he was involved in a high speed chase
through Shawinigan going 127 kilometres an hour in a 50 kilometre
an hour zone and was again charged with drunk driving. This is
the person who was apparently just a constituent of the Prime
Minister's. He was a friend of the Prime Minister, a fairly
unsavoury character who had been involved in all kinds of things.
Second, there is the famous loan for $615,000 from the Business
Development Bank to the inn which the Prime Minister helped
arrange via personal phone calls to the president of the bank.
The Prime Minister in a 1999 letter to the National Post,
said he had no direct or indirect personal connection with the
hotel. Revelations to the contrary have since become common
knowledge. By the way, the president, Mr. Beaudoin, was fired
shortly after the bank called in the loan.
Third, $2.3 million was put into the inn via the immigrant
investor fund. The Prime Minister met with Louis Leblanc, a
broker who organized where the funds were directed. The next
day, March 1, 1996, the money started to flow. By the way, the
Prime Minister originally denied that immigrant investor funds
had been sunk into the inn. It has become crystal clear that the
Prime Minister has been very involved in the Grand-Mère Inn.
The Prime Minister helped secure funds for his friend and owner
of the inn. As a byproduct it can be argued that he helped
ensure that he did not lose on the value of the golf course
shares for which he was not paid until 1999. It is clear to
Canadians that the shenanigans in Shawinigan involving the Prime
Minister remain unanswered.
Why has the Prime Minister told so many different versions about
his involvement with the shares of his golf course and about his
involvement with the BDC loan for his friend?
1820
Why will the Prime Minister not clear the air by undertaking an
independent inquiry into all the details in his own backyard?
What is it that the Prime Minister does not want Canadians to
know in regard to his dealings with these shaky situations in
Shawinigan?
Canadians want answers to these very serious questions. When
will they be answered by the Prime Minister?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
Prime Minister of Canada has explained to the House on numerous
occasions that he sold his shares in the golf course prior to
becoming Prime Minister and that they have never returned to his
possession.
All relevant documentation has been reviewed by the ethics
counsellor who told the industry committee, on May 6, 1999, that
he had reviewed the agreement of sale. He described that
agreement as follows:
He added to this statement by saying:
I know the Prime Minister doesn't own the shares and has not
owned the shares since November 1, 1993, which, from my point of
view, is the only issue.
Both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the
Conservative Party asked the ethics counsellor for further
clarification of the matter during the recent election campaign.
Once again, the ethics counsellor confirmed that the Prime
Minister had absolutely no financial interest in the golf course
or in a nearby hotel when he assumed office.
Perhaps I should remind members that what is at the core of this
issue is a hotel expansion project in the Prime Minister's riding
which received the support of the local caisse populaire as well
as the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec.
The project created 19 new jobs. The hotel is open for business
and employs over 60 people in an area of high unemployment.
Maybe it is time the opposition dropped this fishing expedition
and started dealing with matters of real importance to Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.22 p.m.)