37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 193
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 28, 2002
|
 |
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Human Rights Act |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--International Trade |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon--Souris, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Privacy Commissioner |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Statements by Members
|
|
|
Member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada-U.S. Relations |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Science, Technology and Informatics Fair 2002 |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) |
|
|
Howard Mackie Awards |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.) |
|
|
Education |
|
|
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Burlington Economic Development Corporation |
|
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.) |
|
|
Code of Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Mining Industry |
|
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
|
Science and Technology |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.) |
|
|
Social Programs |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Liberal Government |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Robert Lay |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Government Grants |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Grants |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Grants |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. John Manley |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Health Care |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Appointments |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Appointments |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Renewable Energy Sources |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Taxation |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Question Period |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Board of Internal Economy |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--International Trade |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley |
|
|
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Harvard |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Harvard |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Division 288) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Assisted Human Reproduction Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 289) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read second time and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Housing Bill of Rights |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Adjournment Proceedings
|
|
|
Public Works and Government Services |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 28, 2002
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
* * *
(1005)
Canadian Human Rights Act
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-465, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private member's bill today. This took a great deal of research and talking to a lot of people who feel truly discriminated against regarding their assistance dogs. We know that seeing eye dogs certainly have become very commonplace in Canada, but it has come to my attention that an enormous number of Canadian citizens have been denied access to goods, services and transportation because they have fully qualified assistance dogs that are turned away from special transportation facilities, are not allowed in schools, and are not allowed in public places and restaurants.
My bill seeks to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act so that these people would have full access and would be able to live full and very productive lives with the assistance of these marvellous trained animals that are able to help them.
Right now I would ask for the House to give unanimous consent to just put this through because it is so sensible.
The Speaker:
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to have the bill approved at all stages now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: I am afraid there is no consent, so we had better just go with the good, solid process we have in place and which might take a little time.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Petitions
Child Pornography
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and present a petition on behalf of 381 residents of Medicine Hat and the immediate area.
The petitioners call upon parliament in the following way: that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by the clear majority of Canadians, that the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment, therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sadomasochistic activities involving children are outlawed.
* * *
[Translation]
Canada Post
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present in the House of Commons a petition concerning the denial of the fundamental rights of people hired by the Canada Post Corporation as rural route mail couriers, by not maintaining their wages and working conditions, which constitutes discrimination against them.
This petition is fully justified and I hope the government will take follow up action.
* * *
(1010)
Questions on the Order Paper
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Supply]
* * *
[English]
Supply
Allotted Day--International Trade
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
|
|
That this House has lost confidence in the government for its failure to persuade the US government to end protectionist policies that are damaging Canada's agriculture and lumber industries and for failing to implement offsetting trade injury measures for the agriculture and lumber sectors. |
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House today to present this supply day motion for the official opposition. As the international trade critic for the official opposition and speaking first, I will focus my comments on the softwood lumber side of the motion and will split my time with my colleague, the member for Selkirk--Interlake, who is our senior agriculture critic and will focus on the agriculture industry side of the motion.
The importance of the motion should not be underestimated. First, there are Canadians sitting at home not working because of belligerent comments about Presidents Bush, senior and junior, by the Prime Minister and his nephew. Canadians are very aware that the Canadian government essentially has no influence on the Bush administration and its increasingly protectionist policies.
Just last week, from May 16 to 20, the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group met with senators and congressmen in the U.S., and the kinds of problems we have became very clear. For example, we had the Minister of Natural Resources make a $75 million announcement on some programs for the forest sector that have direct implications for the softwood lumber dispute. Despite the fact that Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade had full knowledge of our visit, despite the fact it knew softwood was on the agenda, there was no follow-up to ensure that the government members in the meeting were aware of what had been announced.
Fortunately, or maybe from the government's perspective unfortunately, I was the only one who could really respond to questions put forward by a U.S. senator and a U.S. congressman about whether or not the program was a subsidy. I had been made aware through my office that this announcement had been made and I had already put out a somewhat critical press release.
My point is that the government is not results oriented. It only knows how to throw money around. When it comes to following through and working in the trenches, it is simply not there.
There is a host of examples of areas in which the government has gone out of its way to alienate our major trading partner. Our motion asks the government to re-evaluate its basic approach to Canada-U.S. relations.
In addition, the official opposition has been trying to engage the government for months on the extension of EI benefits to accommodate forest workers laid off as a consequence of the softwood lumber dispute and on designing a softwood tariff trade injury program that would prevent the closing of significant parts of the softwood industry in the face of the punishing 27% tariffs. Not only does the minister of trade not want to talk about these trade issues despite extensive questioning, but he also sent a strong signal to the minister of human resources by stating that no softwood lumber jobs have been lost due to the softwood lumber dispute. This statement is factually wrong. Is it any wonder that the minister for HRDC has been impossible to move on the plight of unemployed forest workers when her responsible cabinet colleague makes statements denying that a very real problem exists?
(1015)
We have asked the minister of trade to apologize for his comments, and despite letters from industry and workers, the minister has neither apologized nor retracted his statement.
One of the employers wrote a letter on May 6. He said:
| I am very disturbed that you do not feel our forest employees are negatively impacted by the softwood lumber dispute. I have on many occasions, advised you of the layoffs our employees have faced due to the unresolved softwood lumber dispute. You have indicated that the forest industry is going through a restructuring process. May I remind you that all industries go through a restructuring process when demand is low, as higher cost operations are shutdown or curtailed. I have informed you in the past that U.S. lumber consumption is very strong, however a 27.22% duty cannot be absorbed by our customers and we will continue to lose market share. This is not due to a restructuring process, this is due to the unresolved softwood dispute. |
The employer went on to complain:
| One year later there is still no plan B and yet you have told us since last year, that the Government of Canada will assist companies when we fight these unwarranted duties. |
| I am advising you today, that our Company will once again take significant downtime as a direct result of the softwood lumber issue at many of our operations causing job loss and further loss of market share unless a non-subsidized program is put in place promptly for forest companies. |
That in a nutshell summarizes much of our concern.
The Minister of Natural Resources, when the minister of trade did not have the opportunity to be in the House, was questioned on these comments and he suggested they were taken out of context. He denied that forest workers were out of work because of the dispute. However we all saw the television scrum. We all know the government is into damage control regarding scandals, cronyism and corruption.
In the last week the Minister of Natural Resources and the minister of trade have announced $95 million worth of spending in the forest sector. These public relations damage control announcements will do nothing to address the real issues which are unemployment and mill closings. What the government is announcing is long term spending and it is deeming this to be for innovation, diversification, research and development and forest industry advocacy.
We should take a moment to analyze what the announcements mean in substance. The advocacy should have been started years ago. The all party natural resources committee which I sat on in June 2000 suggested exactly that. The leader of the official opposition and I called for this advocacy last August.
Our government talks tough domestically and then treads lightly with our U.S. trading partner. I will summarize my comments as they relate to the $75 million announcement on May 16 by the natural resources minister. This funding is an attempt to obscure the fact that the government is avoiding the real issue of tariffs and that this will affect our competitiveness in the U.S. marketplace.
Diversification and innovation are areas in which the government has had a poor track record in picking and choosing winners and losers. Any development of markets is long overdue but will hardly address the current issue in a timely way.
Six weeks ago this same minister echoed my call for a tariff management scheme through Export Development Canada or some other vehicle while Canada continued its challenge of the U.S. tariffs at the World Trade Organization and before NAFTA. He has been distancing himself from those comments ever since.
(1020)
I put the Minister of Natural Resources on notice at the premiers' summit on softwood lumber in Vancouver on April 29 that we had not forgotten his support on March 29. We will continue to call him to account for those statements which he has refused to support ever since.
The $20 million announcement from the international trade minister yesterday is months overdue. It does nothing to address the real issue of forced worker layoffs and mill closings. The announcement is simply public relations and damage control.
This announcement is not new money. The minister is reannouncing a $17 million program planned prior to September 11 that was shelved. The minister's announcement of $3 million in additional resources for our trade consulates to deal with U.S. trade issues is long overdue. These announcements continue to do nothing to address the substantial measures needed to assist laid off forest workers and to deal with the tariff burden that is threatening large sectors of the Canadian forest industry.
We will continue to press the minister on these issues and that is what today's debate is all about.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that we have this motion. It is a divisive motion at a time when industry and the provinces continue to stand with the government. The official opposition is engaging in a rather silly motion.
The member says he asked the government to reassess its policies. That is not what I read. This is a motion of non-confidence in the government. It is because we have not been able to convince the United States to end its protectionist policies.
Could the member tell us if he thinks that should be the case with the U.K. and the other countries of the world which have not been able to convince the United States to end its protectionist policies?
There is regret worldwide about this policy. Allies of the United States are expressing their anger and frustration. Hopefully their governments are not facing such a motion that calls for non-confidence because somehow one country unilaterally has not been able to bring the United States to end its protectionist policies.
Is the member not naive in his assessment of the situation? Perhaps while he is answering that question he could explain to us why, if there is such great interest and concern about international trade in his party, this time a year ago his party went something like two months without even having a trade critic? For some two months it had no one in the House of Commons assigned to specifically monitor and question the government on its trade policies. Is that what he means by a show of interest from the Canadian Alliance?
Mr. John Duncan:
Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that we have a special relationship with the United States. First, it is our NAFTA trading partner. There are only three nations in NAFTA. Second, 85% of our exports go to the United States.
The parliamentary secretary must remember that it was his own minister who made the comment that the Prime Minister's effectiveness in dealing with the Bush administration was tainted and not worthwhile because of the track record of antagonism between the Prime Minister and the Bush administration. I do not know that a comparison of non-NAFTA nations is useful.
The parliamentary secretary has brought up many times the question of a vacancy in the trade portfolio. It is a bogus point. The parliamentary secretary knows that the softwood file was my file when I was in the natural resources portfolio long before I was named trade critic. There has not been a beat missed. This is simply throwing a red herring into the fray.
(1025)
Mr. Pat O'Brien:
Mr. Speaker, the member said there was not a beat missed. There was also not a question asked in the House of Commons on softwood lumber for weeks and weeks by his party, by him or anybody else. The motion speaks to more than softwood lumber. It speaks of the trade policy. The truth is, and he should explain it to his constituents, that his party went at least two months with no trade critic when it was ripping itself apart over its leadership a year ago.
Mr. John Duncan:
Mr. Speaker, I throw that into the category of petty politics. There has been nobody who has been more proactive on the softwood issue than the Canadian Alliance. We led announcements by the government from either his minister or the Minister of Natural Resources time after time. This is somewhat of an embarrassment to the government and that is why it is playing petty politics.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Alliance has put forward a very important supply day motion in regard to our trade relationship in particular with the United States but also in relationship to our trade around the world. Agriculture, for which I am the chief critic for the Canadian Alliance, is an area that the government has fumbled every bit as badly as it did with the softwood lumber issue.
In 1995 the government signed the Uruguay round agreement which in essence got the world moving toward reducing subsidies and developing hard and fast rules about our trade relationship with individual countries. At the time the government changed supply management and went to tariff protection as opposed to quota protection which was all ready there. In essence it started the process of selling out supply management in the country. The current WTO talks will deal with the reduction of tariffs that protect our supply management.
Even though the government professes to be protecting all sectors, primarily the Quebec and Ontario sector, it has sold them out. We note also that the Prime Minister, in speaking about imports of products from poorer third world countries, is being a little deceptive in that he professes to protect supply management by not allowing these poor countries to send any kind of supply managed product to Canada. He will allow imports of all other kinds of agriculture products but not those supply managed products, thereby depriving the poorer countries from getting ahead. I see a two-faced stand by the government.
The European Union is every bit as bad or is worse than the United States in regard to agriculture policy. Today I will deal with the U.S. farm bill but I also want the Americans to know that the European Union is twice as bad as they are when it comes to trade policy dealing with North America.
Canada obviously cannot write laws for other countries, or tell them what to do or argue with them when they are staying within the WTO rules. That is the case with the U.S. farm bill, with a couple of exceptions.
We have talked about our trade relationship and agriculture products with the United States. Since NAFTA, and even before it, Canada has been trying to establish a continental market in agriculture products between Canada, Mexico and the United States and that was moving along quite well. With the special relationship Canada has with Americans, the government should have been able to influence them more than it did. Instead we have the antagonistic results that are not in keeping with the continental market and not in keeping with the best interests of Canadian farmers.
The U.S. farm bill will give about $180 billion to U.S. farmers over the next 10 years. The U.S. secretary of agriculture stated: “The U.S. will not unilaterally disarm”.
Back in 1995 the government unilaterally disarmed our Canadian farmers by reducing subsidies to virtually zero by the year 1997. Contrast that to the written policy of Canadian Alliance. We would only reduce our subsidies in conjunction with other countries. We understand from where Secretary Veneman is coming. When subsidies are lowered, It has to be a joint process so that one country does not unilaterally disarm, resulting in farmers of that country almost starving to death and certainly living below the poverty line.
In Saskatchewan this year it is estimated that the grain farmers will only make about $13,000 net income. That is a direct result of the lack of policy and trade negotiation ability of the Liberal government.
(1030)
With regard to subsidies and what Canada should be doing, the farm groups across the country, including the free market groups like the western barley growers and the western Canadian wheat growers, have called for a trade distortion compensation program which would require $1.3 billion to compensate our grain and oilseed farmers and keep them competitive with American farmers who are producing the same products. This was based on the government's own figures. The federal government is responsible for trade agreements. The federal government is responsible for coming up with a trade injury program and funding it.
I would like to point out, before the government members stand up and start talking about the action of the Canadian Alliance on agriculture, that on February 25 I asked the government how it would protect our pulse industry. We know that the U.S. farm bill includes pulse crops in its subsidy program. I of course got no answer from the minister of agriculture.
On April 18, prior to the signing of the farm bill, I once again brought up the fact that there should be discussions with Secretary Veneman about our challenges under the WTO and NAFTA, particularly if the farm bill was passed. Again there were no commitments from the government.
On May 2, I asked the minister if we would challenge the farm bill when passed. Of course, there was no answer again. This was asked again on May 6 and 21. Hansard recorded those questions when we were trying to get the government to do something.
In essence the government was very ineffective prior to the signing of the bill. Since the bill, we have not received any commitment from the government with regard to a trade injury compensation program.
The government sent three top level ministers responsible for trade, agriculture and the wheat board to Saskatoon. The farmers did not receive any promises about the program. The finance minister even listened and no comments were made that would give the farmers in the grain and oilseed sector any hope.
The country of origin labelling was added to the U.S. farm bill, in particular because the northwest terminal feedlot program was not promoted by the government. Our member for Lethbridge pointed that out quite clearly. Back in the winter he asked the government to do something about the northwest terminal feedlot program otherwise the Americans would bring the origin of labelling. What did we see? The government did nothing. We now have ended up with country of origin labelling in the U.S. farm bill which will hurt our producers.
In Manitoba we also have the problem of TB in elk. The Minister of Canadian Heritage takes care of national parks. What do we have? We found out on the weekend that the CFIA took away Manitoba's TB-free status three or four years ago and did not tell anybody. Now there is a potential trade problem. Live cattle may have to be tested in the future before being exported. What did the government do about the problem with TB in Manitoba? Nothing.
I will not go into the issue of the Canadian Wheat Board. If we had a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board, we would end up with less challenges from the United States. We would be operating according to the wishes of our Canadian farmers who want a voluntary wheat board that would work within market forces as opposed to a dictatorial government forcing farmers to market through one agency when it is against their best interest.
(1035)
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the member's remarks about not disarming unilaterally and remind him that that is exactly what the former Reform Party talked about back in 1995. Neither the member nor I were in the House at that time. If he cares to look back at Hansard around March 29 of that year he will find a speech by Elwin Hermanson the then agriculture critic for the Reform Party. He said “I have no criticism about the cuts to agriculture”. Then he went on to say that his only criticism my be that if the Reform Party were on that side of the House it would be cutting further and faster.
Indeed when the member for Selkirk--Interlake was a candidate for election in 1997, the Reform Party was still calling for $600 million worth of cuts to the Canadian agricultural program. Would the member care to comment on that?
Mr. Howard Hilstrom:
Mr. Speaker, I sure would like to comment on that. I cannot believe the NDP are going back and trying to fight the 1993 election over again, which it lost so severely. In 1997 it barely kept its status as a party in the House due to the very few numbers that were elected. Of course, in 2000 it barely survived again.
The Canadian Alliance policies were what caused it to become the official opposition in both 1997 and the year 2000. Obviously its agriculture policies were the very ones that a lot of farmers in the west wanted to see because the Alliance took every seat in the west, with the exception of one that the NDP received which has a big farm component to the electorate.
The policies of the Canadian Alliance are written down in black and white and every Canadian can read them. They say that the Alliance supports the use of safety net programs and that we call, as are the farm groups and the provinces, for a trade injury compensation program. I and members of the Canadian Alliance are the only people who have raised this in the House.
I know there the NDP asked one question last week with regard to the trade injury compensation program. I think all the member did was simply read Hansard from the days before and repeat my question. If that is the agriculture policy of NDP members and if that is the way they want to operate, it is up them. However with regard to the criticism of Canadian Alliance members, we were the one who drove this.
The Alliance members have asked over 20 questions on agriculture in the month of May. We have put forward this debate on agriculture and softwood lumber today. What do I see the NDP doing? Nothing except copying a question that I asked a long time ago.
(1040)
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, because the member seemed to be partially behind the motion from his colleague, I would like to ask him if this is really a serious motion expressing non-confidence in the government because it has not single-handedly been able to prevent the U.S. farm bill? Is it a serious motion given the repulsion that countries around the world have expressed about the U.S. farm bill and given the helplessness and anger that many countries are feeling over this American protectionist measure?
Is the member serious in supporting that the government does not have the confidence of the House because it single-handedly has not been able to prevent local politics? As Tip O'Neill said “all politics are local”. This is local politics at work in the United States. Why does the member not understand that? Surely he cannot be serious about this motion.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom:
Mr. Speaker, the issue is not only what the government should be able to do with a good relationship with the United States before the bill was signed, but it is what the government has done now that the bill has been signed or, more explicitly, what it has not done.
Last week the ministers of agriculture, trade, finance and the wheat board went to Saskatoon and spoke to farmers. In fact what they did was give farmers the Trudeau salute with their middle fingers again telling them that there would be nothing for them. The promise they got from the agriculture minister was “Mr. and Mrs. Farmer, you just wait until the agriculture policy framework comes in and everything will be glorious”.
Local politics is exactly what this is about. It is time the government did something for our farmers locally. It has to bring in the trade injury compensation program. It has to fix the TB problem and cull that bloody herd of elk in the Riding Mountain National Park which is spreading the disease. The government sits on its hands and does nothing. Darned right this is local politics.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that answer holds the record for inconsistencies but I will address that at another time.
I am disappointed to have to stand in the House today and address what really is a divisive and rather unreal motion. It is about as unreal and far from reality as the question put to me by the member for Vancouver Island North's last Friday in the House when he was fooled into believing that the WTO was actually disbanding. The motion is not in touch with reality.
Canada and the United States are each other's largest trading partners. About $1.9 billion worth of goods and services move across the border each and every day. In 2001 Canada exported $351 billion in goods to the United States and imported $255 billion in return. Some 85.1% of Canadian merchandise exports is destined for the United States. There can be no doubt that trade with the United States is a key driver of Canada's economic growth and prosperity. Management of this crucial trade relationship is the government's top trade policy priority.
Both sides recognize the importance of keeping trade flowing to our mutual advantage. I heard a member opposite ask if the scope of trade with the United States was a good thing. It is reality. Jobs for many of his constituents, my constituents and the constituents of members throughout the House are dependent on our trade with the United States. The reality is that is the scope of our trade relationship and it bears an overview.
The Canada-U.S. border issues that emerged in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11 underscore the need for a border that operates efficiently and effectively. To further enhance our management of the border, the governments of Canada and the United States signed, on December 1, 2001, a declaration on the creation of a smart border for the 21st century. Through this declaration we have the opportunity to build a smart border that securely facilitates the free trade of people and commerce, and a border that reflects the largest trading relationship in the world.
I digress to point out that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Etobicoke North.
The vast majority of trade between our two countries is dispute free and the trade continues to grow fueled by the increasing integration of our two economies and facilitated by the rules based trade system provided by the WTO and the NAFTA.
It is important to note that only NAFTA countries, Canada and Mexico, enjoy the benefits of preferential access to this huge and important U.S. market, the vast majority of which is trouble free. Yes, we are very upset about the U.S. farm bill and the softwood lumber, but--
Mr. Rick Borotsik: You have opposed free trade? That is the reality.
(1045)
The Deputy Speaker:
Order, please, I know members cannot wait for the question and comment period but it is coming up soon. In the meantime, let us hear one speaker at a time if possible.
Mr. Pat O'Brien:
Mr. Speaker, I hope the member's interjection will not come out of my time.
The reality is the vast majority of our trade is trouble free. Yes, we are angry and frustrated over the unfair action in softwood and the ludicrous U.S. farm bill but we must keep things in total perspective. I have a history lesson for the Tory member opposite when it gets to questions about the relative position of his party historically and my party historically on the matter of continental trade.
Only NAFTA countries benefit from the extensive set of rules and obligations and dispute settlement mechanisms that help shield us from certain U.S. trade action. For example, it is because of the NAFTA that Canada was excluded from the recent U.S. safeguard action on steel imports, a topic of great importance in Canada.
The NAFTA also provides a unique dispute settlement system that ensures that trade remedy actions, such as countervail, dumping and safeguard, are applied in a manner consistent with domestic law. Canada has used this mechanism with success in contesting U.S. duties on products such as pork and hogs. We are using it with respect to U.S. action on softwood lumber.
We do have protection from the arbitrary and capricious use of U.S. trade remedy law, protection that no other country enjoys, apart from Mexico. It is worth noting that just as only a small percentage of our bilateral trade is subject to dispute, an even smaller percentage, some 2%, is subject to trade remedy action.
A key priority for the Government of Canada is to resolve the disputes that will inevitably emerge in a trade relationship valued at over $675 billion. That is the scope of this relationship.
We will continue to use every tool available to us, including dispute settlement provisions, to aggressively defend Canadian interests. We have an effective array of tools to do this.
Our main priority is in resolving the softwood lumber issue. In this, the fourth U.S. led dispute in 20 years, we are challenging recent U.S. government decisions that negatively affect our industry in every legal venue open to us.
Despite the U.S. having never sustained its claims three times previously, we are once again in a position of having to defend ourselves against U.S. trade action and cumulative 27% duties on our lumber exports.
As the U.S. government has not offered any new proposal to secure a long term durable solution, the Government of Canada is currently undertaking four challenges of U.S. decisions, laws and policies relating to softwood lumber at the WTO and two others under the NAFTA.
Another perennial problem area is agriculture. We have had disputes with the United States on our wheat exports and on dairy. Most recently Canada, along with many other countries, including EU members Australia, South Africa, India, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and China, have expressed their concerns about the direction of the new U.S. farm legislation. I wonder if those governments are facing the kind of silly motion this government is facing today because they have not been able to get rid of the U.S. trade action.
The legislation moves in precisely the opposite direction of the Doha objective: to achieve substantial reductions in trade distorting domestic support. We are reviewing the legislation very carefully, as are other countries, to assess its conformity with U.S. international trade obligations.
It is at this point I would like to point out how incredibly naive the member for Vancouver Island North is to propose that the farm bill is a policy directly directed at Canadian producers and the fault of the Canadian government. It is unbelievable. This was a move to protect political interests in the United States during an election year. That is what I meant earlier by Tip O'Neill's comment about all politics is local.
It is a destructive step backward in global trade mobilization and no amount of lobbying from right wing President Fox in Mexico or close friend and ally, prime minister Tony Blair, could persuade the American congress and senate otherwise.
The motion would have us believe if only the Prime Minister and the president were somehow closer friends we would not have this farm bill. It is just nonsense. Tony Blair can attest to that.
Many people focus on the dispute settlement systems under the WTO and the NAFTA as the key means of resolving disputes.
(1050)
While those are fast and effective ways of resolving disputes, they are not the only means at our disposal and are often used only after we have exhausted all other avenues.
For example, the trade relationship is managed through regular means between Canadian and U.S. ministers and officials, and, on a daily basis, through our embassy and consulates in the United States.
The Prime Minister enjoys a good working relationship with the president. The Deputy Prime Minister has worked actively with the U.S. director of homeland security on the smart border declaration. The Minister for International Trade meets regularly with his counterparts. In fact the minister is in Mexico today meeting with Secretary Derbez and U.S. trade representative Mr. Zoellick.
We also used the various committees and working groups set up under NAFTA and the WTO to pursue Canada's interest. The Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Finance met with provincial and farm group representatives on Friday. While everyone at that table recognized the need to provide short, medium or long term support to farmers, there was a consensus that we should not open ourselves up to punitive trade actions but rather seek out solutions that would increase productivity and profitability consistent with the proposed agricultural policy framework.
Our trade relationship with the United States is the government's top priority. That has been demonstrated repeatedly by the actions of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, obviously the Minister for International Trade, and many other ministers. There have been many delegations. The member who moved the motion has even participated in delegations of Canadian parliamentarians to go to the United States to seek fairer trade between our countries.
However to put forward a motion of no confidence in the government because somehow it has not single-handedly been able to reverse the historic trend of American protectionism is unreal, divisive and, of course, the government cannot support it.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon--Souris, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief so that other questions can be asked of the parliamentary secretary. He made so many difficult comments to try to comprehend, I am sure there are a lot of questions as to what he was really trying to say.
I have two questions. First, it is that member and the government who were totally opposed to any type of a free trade agreement. Now all of a sudden the NAFTA agreement is the end all and be all to the government in attempting to solve trade disputes within the United States.
The fact is that we and the government knew, because of the softwood lumber and agriculture issues that were before us, that these issues would be very difficult to deal with. Eighteen months to two years ago the minister for trade knew about a softwood lumber issue. We have been telling these people about the U.S. farm bill for months and months but there was no action at all from the government.
The member is now saying that since other countries could not solve the problem why would we expect his government to.
Is the member simply going to throw up his hands and let agriculture go by the way of the dodo bird without having any kind of opportunity to find a positive solution to this particular impasse with the American government?
By the way, simply going to the WTO will take years. The fact of the matter is that will be too much time for our producers in western Canada. What are the other solutions that this member has with respect to the trade issue?
(1055)
Mr. Pat O'Brien:
Mr. Speaker, if that is brief I would hate to hear longwinded. I will give the member a real quick history lesson because he obviously needs it.
A quick read of the history of this country will tell anybody that the party of protectionism, starting with John A. Macdonald, right through the 1980s, was the Conservative Party. The party for continental trade was--
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Who brought in free trade? Was it the Liberals?
Mr. Pat O'Brien: I know the hon. member does not want the answer but I will ask for the same indulgence that I showed him.
The reality is that throughout that time of Canadian history, despite his ignorance of Canadian history, the party of continental trade was the Liberal Party. Yes, for a brief time in the 1980s those two principal parties reversed their trade position. That is the reality. Unfortunately the member needs to read some Canadian history.
When the member finally asked his question he wanted to know if we were just going to throw up our hands over agriculture. Of course not. The ministers were out last week talking to the farmers in Saskatchewan. They did not say what the Alliance members said, that there would be no assistance for agriculture at all. It was quite the contrary. We said there would be appropriate assistance and that it would need federal and provincial involvement.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there is a lack of confidence in the government with regard to its reaction to the U.S. farm bill and what it will do about it. We cannot do anything about what it has done in the past but we can react to it on behalf of our Canadian lumber and agriculture people. As to the issue the member spoke to regarding when to use the WTO and NAFTA, the United States uses the WTO and NAFTA with regard to our supply management sector and the wheat board.
I have two questions. First, why is the Canadian government not explaining to Canadians why it will not use the WTO and NAFTA immediately with regard to the agricultural issues of pulse crop additions and country of origin labelling?
Second, why did the agriculture minister hide the fact that Manitoba lost its TB free status in 1997 thereby jeopardizing the trade in cattle we have with the United States? Why is the Riding Mountain National Park elk herd not being reduced so we can have a disease free country?
I would remind the member quickly that--
The Deputy Speaker:
Respectfully, I have tried to accommodate as many members as possible but the old trick of asking three or four questions within a short period of time, which I understand, is prevailing from either side of the House. If that is the option selected, which seems to be the case so far today, 10 minute speeches with five minutes for questions and comments leaves very little time. I can therefore only try to accommodate as many members as possible.
Mr. Pat O'Brien:
Mr. Speaker, I knew they would not slide that kind of trick past someone with your experience.
The member obviously does not expect me to address his question about the agriculture minister hiding facts. It is quite the contrary. No agriculture minister has consulted as widely with Canadians as the current minister of agriculture. He is a farmer and a person who has been through the vicissitudes of farming. I am not about to address a question where the member is proposing or purporting that the minister of agriculture hid something from farmers.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief and to the point. This is a very serious motion. Like workers and business leaders, I feel betrayed by the government because it has led us to believe that we had to take part in the consensus with the Canadian government.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell us today why there are no measures to help businesses, such as loan guarantees, which he himself suggested in committee?
So far, the plan is all backwards. Export markets are going to be expanded. Today, we are told that it the government is conducting a campaign in the United States, but why is there no assistance for our own jobs, workers and industries right now?
That is why the government is going to lose the confidence of the House.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien:
Mr. Speaker, I am willing to engage my hon. colleague in a bet about whether or not the government is about to lose the confidence of the House. I rather think his assessment is incorrect.
The reality is that there are programs in place to assist workers and communities who are being penalized by the unfair U.S. trade action. Further to that, the Minister of Human Resources Development recently announced $13 million more would be made available to provide support and services to softwood workers in British Columbia. That is a positive response.
As for assistance to industry, a number of options are on the table. The government is carefully reviewing all of them. It is keeping all its options open and will take the appropriate action at the appropriate time.
(1100)
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I found the points expressed by the parliamentary secretary to be persuasive and very much on topic.
The motion before us today is quite scandalous. It would take away from the consensus we have in Canada and the great job our trade minister has been doing to build a consensus in the forest products sector on the softwood lumber dispute. It is not a simple task because we have very disparate groups such as the coastal industry in B.C., the interior industry, the pulp and paper industry, the softwood lumber industry, and east versus west. However the trade minister has been able to achieve consensus and unanimity. That is not always an easy task.
We should be focusing on the real problem which lies south of the border in Washington, D.C. We know for sure that the U.S. government has embarked on a huge period of inward looking protectionism. It is almost like the period of the Munroe doctrine many years ago when the U.S. government of the day and the American people said they would focus inward, forget about the world and look after themselves.
We have worked co-operatively with the United States on many fronts. The Americans are great friends of ours. However if the U.S. administration had really wanted to deal with softwood lumber it could have dealt with it. The president could have asserted pressure on the various stakeholder groups, lobby groups, and powerful U.S. senators and congressmen and women.
We often underestimate the power of the White House. When the president invites the players in to have a discussion and make a point of view, they listen. What has the U.S. president done in this case? He has done nothing. Has he brought in the players explain to them that Canada is an ally with which the U.S. has an important relationship? Has he put pressure on them? He has not because the U.S. is going through an inward looking period of self interest.
What about Kyoto? We can all debate whether Kyoto is a good or bad deal but President Bush unilaterally said the U.S. was scrapping it. Did he have an alternative plan? No, he did not. Greenhouse gases are a problem. This has put Canada and the world in a difficult position because the United States is one of the biggest generators of greenhouse gases.
This is all is part of a process of drawing inward during a period when the United States is going into congressional and senatorial elections. Does the U.S. administration have the guts to call in the players and tell them Canada is an important ally and friend? Has he told U.S. lumber producers that Canada has won every time? Has he told them they should look more clearly at whether their actions are appropriate and that they had better go back to the drawing board? I very much doubt it. If he had done so it would have had an effect.
The same could be said about the U.S. farm aid bill. The same could be said about steel or pasta. I recently became aware of a company in Toronto with 300 employees that is fighting subsidies paid by the U.S. administration to U.S. pasta producers. It is creating an uneven playing field for pasta producers in Canada.
This is one of a litany of U.S. inward focused protectionist actions driven by self interest and partisan politics. The U.S. president wants a majority in the senate but at what cost? He has said to cut Canada and other allies adrift because it is so important to him. It is nice that he has the self indulgence to forget about the rest of the world.
It is ironic that we had the Prime Minister stand in the House during question period to welcome the new leader of the official opposition. He said we had a lot of information on positions that had been expressed by the leader of the official opposition, one of them apparently being support for Mulroney style trade tactics and policies. That is interesting.
(1105)
In 1986 when Brian Mulroney was looking for fast track support in the U.S. and he and Ronald Reagan were singing blarney and When Irish Eyes are Smiling and were the greatest of buddies, did he have the guts to tell the U.S. administration and the president they were hurting our softwood lumber industry? No, he did not.
Everyone in the House should read a book called Who's In Charge Here, Anyway? written by Adam Zimmerman of Noranda Forest Inc. Zimmerman was very much involved in the softwood lumber disputes and was a mentor of mine. The book talks about Brian Mulroney and Pat Carney, the trade minister at the time who sold Canada's lumber industry down the river. Did Brian Mulroney raise the issue with U.S. president Reagan? Of course he did not. He wanted to fast track to get the NAFTA. What did he do? He cut loose thousands of Canadians who sacrificed their jobs so he could get his 15% lumber export tax. Is that not nice? Those are the kinds of policies the opposition party wants. It wants Mulroney style trade policies. Is that not grand?
There are alternatives to the current process of countervailing duties. I had a discussion one day with Gordon Ritchie, one of the lead negotiators in NAFTA and the FTA. I asked him about concepts like net subsidies, serious prejudice, and fighting trade disputes through the prism of competition policy. Among trade gurus, and I am not one of them, there are alternatives to the countervailing duty process.
The countervailing duty process is skewed in favour of the Americans. All we can do as Canadians is defend our system. We cannot attack their system. If we had a system of net subsidies the Americans could only launch countervailing challenges if they could show that on balance net subsidies were greater in Canada than in the United States. Then we would not have this problem.
When I was in the forest products industry I went to the United States to meet with the governors of several states. If one wanted to put up an OSB mill, a saw mill, a pulp mill or a paper mill they would roll out goodies like sales tax abatements, property tax abatements, tax holidays of all descriptions, cheap industrial land, and cogeneration agreements that would knock one's socks off. However can we attack U.S. subsidies? No, we cannot. Because they are narrowly defined through U.S. trade law all we can do is respond with ours.
We can argue about trying to change trade remedies under NAFTA. However while the U.S. congress and senate guardedly protect, and from their perspective rightly so, the domain of the U.S. congress and senate over trade law we can talk until the cows come home about trying to get better trade remedies. We can talk until the cows home about getting a better definition of subsidy or dumping because the Americans will not agree to it. They will not agree because they look at their own narrow self interest instead of trying to be a world player. If the U.S. was a world player it would only look at whether action in Canada was non-competitive in nature. In other words, it would ask whether it constituted predatory pricing or price fixing.
The Americans could look at these disputes through the prism of competition policy. It is the biggest competitive nation in the world. Does it do that? No, it focuses on subsidies and dumping through the narrow confines of its own trade law because that is what suits its self interest.
It is terrible to have this motion before the House. The Prime Minister has had the guts to raise softwood lumber and U.S. farm aid with the president on many occasions while Tory prime minister Brian Mulroney rolled it under the carpet. Brian Mulroney did not have the guts to take it up with the U.S. president but our Prime Minister has. Our trade minister has been able to forge a great consensus in the country on softwood lumber and a whole range of other issues.
Instead of focusing on this side of the border we should be focusing on the White House, the U.S. congress and U.S. senators. We should be trying to build awareness in the United States about what the issue is doing to Canadians and to house prices in the United States. I am glad our government has responded with a promotional campaign which will attempt to do that.
(1110)
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have had two speakers now from the government side. They have managed to avoid the main substance of our motion which deals with the lack of support for laid off workers and for the agriculture and softwood industries. I am most amazed.
I would like to pose a question to the member for Etobicoke North on the softwood lumber issue. He dragged up some history from 1986. Let us talk about 1996. In 1996 the government insisted it had done a cost benefit analysis before it signed that agreement. The member for Okanagan—Shuswap determined through over a million pages of documentation from access to information that the government never ever did a cost benefit analysis before it signed that agreement.
An additional hypocrisy or misleading of the public was dealing with the pulp mill subsidy in Quebec. Against the advice of the government's now minister of revenue and the fact that it would go against the WTO, the government proceeded to do it for electoral purposes.
Is the member for Etobicoke North proud to revise history and drag our leader into 1986 history because he is not proud of his government's 1996 history?
Mr. Roy Cullen:
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Vancouver Island North has raised this point again. He raised it previously in the House and I guess he was not listening. In 1996 and before I was elected I was working in the forest products industry. The then trade minister was Roy MacLaren. I was elected after Mr. MacLaren in Etobicoke North. Mr. MacLaren is a good personal friend of mine.
I was working with the forest sector advisory council on competitiveness issues. Mr. MacLaren came to my home one night and we were having some Christmas cheer, and he said that the forest industry in Canada was begging him, not the provinces and not the bureaucrats, the forest industry was begging him for five years of trade peace with a system of managed trade, which is the system of quotas. The forest industry was begging him and it was totally anathema to his view on free trade. He asked me what he should do?
I find it so repulsive that the parties opposite keep trying to tell Canadians that the five year softwood lumber quota agreement was an invention of the bureaucracy in Ottawa or the government at the time, or the trade minister. The industry begged for it. I know that for a fact. The member for Vancouver Island North should check his own history.
If he were to focus on finding better solutions to this countervailing duty process that is what we should be fighting for. We should be convincing the Americans that we should be implementing systems such as net subsidies, serious prejudice and looking at these issues through a competition policy instead of laying problems with the government.
The government has been fighting hard on behalf of all Canadians. We should identify the real enemy and go down to Washington and convince the Americans of their folly.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Island North is absolutely correct when he points out that the two members on the government side who have spoken on this issue have failed utterly to refer to anything dealing with Canada's failure to implement offsetting trade injury measures for the agriculture and resource sectors. It is an important part of the motion. The members have chosen instead to talk about it being silly, scandalous and a terrible motion.
Let me ask the member for Etobicoke North who was referring to the protectionist congress and saying that we could talk until the cows come home and we are not going to make any changes. In the context, Mr. Member, that the Minister for International Trade announced yesterday of $20 million for advertising into the U.S. market, could he explain if that is going to solve the problems that we have today?
(1115)
Mr. Roy Cullen:
Mr. Speaker, I find the wording of the motion about offsetting trade injury measures a bit confusing. This normally comes up with a WTO challenge. If a country is seen to be offside then the country that puts forward the challenge can launch various offsetting measures.
What the hon. member is probably after or what the motion addresses is support for the forest products industry and the farmers in Canada. The member opposite conveniently ignores the fact that the government has announced $75 million to help the forest products industry with market access, to help with research and development with value added products, and a $20 million launch not too long ago to deal with sales promotion. The $20 million advertising and promotion campaign is an important initiative. Americans need to understand that with the tariff in place the cost of their housing is up by about $1,500 per year. We need to tell Americans that this is hurting them as well as us.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion by the member for North Vancouver. I would like to read this motion, which I am going to support. It states:
| That this House has lost confidence in the government for its failure to persuade the U.S. government to end protectionist policies that are damaging Canada's agriculture and lumber industries and for failing to implement offsetting trade injury measures for the agriculture and lumber sectors. |
I will address the softwood lumber sector in particular. I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lotbinière-L'Érable, who will deal more specifically with agriculture.
This is indeed a highly responsible motion and the House can no longer have confidence in the government. Let us recall that we here were nearly unanimous in adopting a position in support of free trade for softwood lumber. The Minister for International Trade had promised us that there would be a firm position, that he would defend the workers, defend the industry. At every stage, when the Americans reacted in a protectionist manner, he backed down. He is no longer doing anything. Because of him, the Americans are making the decisions for us.
When we hear members like the Liberal member who spoke before me bashing the Americans, saying things like “their protectionism is what is to blame”, is this not an admission that the federal government was unable to persuade the U.S. government when this campaign was first launched? Did the Minister for International Trade not know there was an upper house in the United States as well, that there was a Senate and a House of Representatives? That the President of the United States would be pro-protectionist as we now see that Bush is? These are things the Minister for International Trade knew, as did the people in the industry. The workers knew it too. But we never thought that the federal government would get us into such a thing and would then, when backed into a corner, abandon the industry and its workers, who are now losing their jobs as a result.
This is why today's motion is so appropriate. The government must be condemned for its inaction. It strikes me as very important that it be done today. This government, and the Minister for International Trade in particular, has been irresponsible in its dealings with the Americans.
As regards the softwood lumber issue, during the past year we travelled through our various regions and everyone was saying “We will stand up to the Americans”. We went to Washington with the parliamentary secretary to defend our position. He himself was then saying “If it takes loan guarantee programs to help businesses, so be it”. I believe he said this before a parliamentary committee.
Today, we can see that the federal government always reacts after the fact. Now that the Americans have decided to impose a tariff in excess of 20%, the federal government is going to conduct an ad campaign in the United States to inform Americans of the plight of our producers and of the loss for Americans. The government is now going to engage in market prospecting abroad. This government is always one step behind; it reacts after the fact. When the house is on fire, it calls the fire department. Why did it not do some prevention in the first place? It could have conducted this campaign in the United States two or three years ago, when it was time to convince Americans, to correct public opinion, so that members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate in the United States would not have taken the position they now hold. We could have convinced these people then. We could have acted and been proactive at that time.
The motion condemns the government because it is not proactive. Now, we are faced with a fait accompli, as can be seen again in today's newspapers.
For example, the executive vice-president and general manager of the Free Trade Lumber Council, Carl Grenier, indicated, and I am quoting an article published in today's edition of La Presse, that “his organization had proposed the use of loan guarantees to help the industry, a plan that should not result in new reprisals on the part of the Americans”. He said that “As the impact of the 27.2% duties begins to be felt, there will be more pressure to make an announcement”.
It goes without saying that pressure will be exerted now that we are closer to reality, but the government had a duty to be proactive regarding this issue. From the moment it knew that the Americans had decided to impose a tariff, the government should have told our industries “Yes, we will protect you, yes, we will ensure that a loan guarantee system is in place”. Should losses not be as high as anticipated, this will not cost us anything, and we will have supported our businesses. However, if there are losses, then we will have given our businesses a chance to weather the storm.
They were not proactive on the government side, even less so when it came to workers. They completely abandoned them. In Quebec alone, 2,000 jobs are expected to be lost in the short term.
(1120)
In all, some 10,000 jobs are at stake because of the dispute and 7,000 have been affected since the beginning of the campaign. We are unable to get the government to do anything to help these people and to announce that it will help them.
In my region, the only news is that next year, instead of receiving EI benefits for 32 weeks, seasonal workers will receive benefits for 21 weeks. This is the opposite of what we are hoping for. Workers were told “We will go to battle, we will fight the Americans and win the war”. Yet, once in battle, they have disarmed them and not given them any means to defend themselves. This is why we need to denounce the government's behaviour, which is completely unacceptable.
In my riding, there are multinational lumber companies such as Bowater and also local and regional companies, such as GDS, Lebel, Richard Pelletier et Fils. These are all companies that our region depends on. Today, they are waiting for the federal government to come up with an action plan to help business, a loan guarantee program that will keep people from getting the impression that this government always reacts after the fact and intervenes once things have happened.
Rather than sending the Americans a clear political message that we are ready for battle, that we will ultimately win the war and that we are supporting our industry, yesterday we heard comments such as those made by the Minister for International Trade, who simply said “Oh, we will see. We are open to new things”. It is like saying “Give us your best shot, hit us hard, we can take it, we will take it all and not react”. This is the type of attitude that we find unacceptable and that must be corrected.
I would also like to add a few words about a specific situation. In 1996, if Quebec had been sovereign and had negotiated with the Americans—they were charging 0.04% at the time—we would now have a free trade agreement. But no, we had to go with all of Canada to come to a situation where the maritimes were exempted from the tariffs and accept tariffs to compensate western Canada. We have all learned a lesson from this situation.
Today, nothing has changed. The federal government is not able to negotiate effectively with the American government. We are not saying that the United States is not a major world power; we are not saying that it does not have a lot of clout. But when the government launched us into this fight, it knew this. Now we are even seeing the price of softwood lumber continue to drop because, now that Canadian lumber has been excluded from the American market, lumber from other countries is entering the United States. The Americans are going to see a new situation. They will perhaps have to adopt protectionist measures against every other country in the world. But here in Canada, we are going to go on paying the price if the federal government fails to reduce offsetting trade injury measures for the softwood lumber sector.
For all these reasons, I think that it is important for Liberal members, who are going to vote on this motion and who live in areas of the country where forestry is a major industry whose survival depends on the assistance it can expect, to call around in their ridings, to go and see business owners and workers on the weekend and ask them how, in all conscience, they should vote on such a motion. I hope that they will not have to vote before the weekend. If they do, they should check around today. In the end, if they listen to what the public and business leaders want them to do, I am sure that they will vote in favour of the non-confidence motion.
When it comes to softwood lumber, this government is headed for complete disaster. We are still looking at getting through two difficult years while we wait for the WTO ruling. If things keep on like this, in two years the government will win its case but the industry will have died. The federal government must take speedy action. When can we expect loan guarantees? When can we expect tangible action to help our industries?
(1125)
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my colleague's comments. He made the statement that the government reacts to facts. I agree with him. That is exactly what any government should do. One cannot react to anything else and make good decisions.
He asks why we as a government did not take preventive action two or three years ago. My question is, does the member not understand that all of the key provinces involved, with their provincial industries and governments, as well as the government of Quebec and its industry, deliberately were part of a consensus to let the softwood lumber agreement run out? It was not the kind of deal we wanted to have again. We would see what the facts would be: Would the United States live up to free trade in softwood lumber or not? It decided not to live up to free trade. Now we are pursuing every legal avenue open to us at the WTO and NAFTA.
Does the member not understand that it was a conscious decision fully supported by the Quebec industry and the Quebec government? Does he not understand that two or three years ago there was a totally different administration, a different president and a different set of circumstances? We have to deal with the facts. He said that as a government this is what we do and he is quite right. I would like to hear his views on those facts.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête:
Mr. Speaker, I think the industry was expecting the government to be proactive and for some pre-emptive action to be taken on this.
When we went to Washington last summer, we realized we were on a different planet. The representatives of the United States Senate and House of Representatives had no idea whatsoever of the reality of this market.
Why did the government not react immediately at that point? Why was there not far more real and extensive action taken at that time to convince them? If we decide to fight the Americans on softwood lumber, we need to make use of all the weapons at our disposal, and particularly the most important one: American public opinion.
If we wanted to win the fight, that was when we ought to have reacted. Today we are going to try to change public opinion three months away from elections, when representatives will be elected on the basis of how they vote on major issues such as this. It is certain that each American sector of activity will want to defend itself.
It is terribly late to react. We must never forget that the one who is in charge of negotiations with the United States, and this cuts to the core of the issue, is the Minister for International Trade. We cannot be polite when it comes to the things that are working well, on the one hand, then refuse our responsibilities when it comes to things that are not working, on the other.
The Minister for International Trade tried to calm things down, to have everyone behind him, but he was not prepared to do battle with the United States on the issue of softwood lumber. Today, we are dealing with this, with the consequences of this fact. This is what our businesses and workers are realizing: that the one who was in the lead, who was supposed to be the leader, turned out to be spineless. Indeed, this government is spineless.
This is why we need to condemn the government today. The House must tell the government “There must be a change of attitude. There must be a change in behaviour. The industry must be given the means to defend itself. Workers must be given a guarantee that they will not experience a gap with no income for eight, ten, twelve or fifteen weeks, because of this government's decisions”.
This is a responsibility. We decided that we would not enter into another agreement like that of 1996. We decided that we would fight, when it comes to softwood lumber. We must fight this to the end and stop being timid, like we are currently doing, because the minister himself, by his attitude, is saying to the Americans “Hit me harder. I like it. I like getting hit. I do not react. I do not give business what it needs to defend itself. I do not defend my workers”.
All of the messages that the government is sending, as it has in all of the negotiations, is that Canada is not ready. We have not taken the necessary measures and today we are forced to defend ourselves when we have not prepared ourselves to do so.
We still have time. We must react. The government must learn from this motion. The government must learn that it has lost the confidence of the House on this issue, and that ultimately, it must correct its behaviour, perhaps change the minister—it might not hurt to have someone who has some clout with the other ministers—and free up some money to defend our workers and businesses in a responsible manner.
(1130)
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to support the Canadian Alliance motion, which condemns the adoption, by our American neighbours, of the infamous U.S. Farm Bill, and which particularly condemns the inaction of the Liberal government and its agriculture minister, who is continuing his consultation and is being buried under numerous reports that do not provide any solution to the agricultural crisis that will soon hit Quebec farmers hard.
As members know, I represent one of the most rural ridings in Quebec, the riding of Lotbinière—L'Érable, where agriculture plays a key role in our economy.
The whole supply management system that governs Quebec's dairy industry is in jeopardy. With its protectionist legislation, the U.S. government will allow the payment of billions of dollars in subsidies, which will create a distortion on the market.
The UPA, the Federation of Dairy Producers of Canada and agricultural co-operatives are all condemning the action taken on May 13 by President George Bush, who signed what is now known as the infamous U.S. Farm Bill. What is left of the family farm in the regional economy, which is already seriously affected by the massive industrialization of its agriculture, will disappear.
I have with me the headline of La Terre de chez nous. This weekly publication owned by the UPA does not mince words about this U.S. legisllation, which is one of the most protectionist in the agricultural world.
The headline reads “Farewell to freer trade”. The author of the text is very critical of the U.S. administration. When commenting the American approach, the journalist writes “Hypocritical, perverse, reactionary, protectionist, election-minded”.
This is rather clear, is it not?
La Terre de chez nous also alludes to the outcry that followed President Bush's decision. The European commissioner for agriculture said that the American position is the opposite of the position that the United States defended at the last recent WTO conference, held in Doha.
At this point, I should remind the House, so that Liberal members opposite know exactly what this infamous bill is all about, that it provides for the most generous subsidy program in U.S. history, and the most unfair to Quebec and Canada.
Indeed, over the next 10 years, an additional $5 billion will be given annually to U.S. farmers, thus bringing to $22 billion the annual amount of money earmarked for special production.
The purpose of the WTO rules on the liberalization of markets established a few years ago was to make producers less dependent on government financial support.
Through this bill, the Americans are breaking not only their WTO commitments, but also those they made during the last Uruguay round, which led to the World Trade Organization.
In an obvious vote-getting ploy, the Bush administration has, for some time now, been adopting a series of protectionist measures which are penalizing its economic partners.
Again, I would like to know how the Americans define “partner”. My feeling is that their definition is quite different from the one we use on this side of the border. Free trade seems to be one-sided, benefiting only U.S. made goods. The members across the way appear not to understand this.
The Americans' expansionist aims are more obvious than ever and do little to hid the interests of an agricultural industry which no longer leads world markets.
I would like to come back to Quebec. On behalf of his organization and its 40 affiliated federations, UPA president Laurent Pellerin fully supports the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's urgent appeal to the federal government for compensation for Canadian farmers to offset the infamous U.S. Farm Bill.
Farmers in Quebec and in Canada, farmers in my riding, have trouble understanding how the government could put off acting any longer.
(1135)
This time, it is the responsibility of the federal government. It must act, instead of starting off in search of a kind of consensus in order to try to enlist the help of the provinces in connection with unassumed responsibilities. What is more, this government has at its disposal all the surplus funds it may need to take immediate action. It must accept responsibility for its inaction. It must act because what we are dealing with here is a trade dispute between two countries.
As far as the Minister of Agriculture is concerned, this great specialist in consultation, we give him the green light right away today to adopt positive measures to provide farmers with some reassurance.
The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister for International Trade, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the majority of the Liberals have the cash in hand and the power to use it. We know that, like his counterparts, the Minister of Agriculture has spoken out against the Farm Bill.
But the Canadian government must not stop at merely speaking out, it must take action immediately.
I would like to see the Prime Minister being as quick to act as he was this past weekend with his cabinet shuffle, in an attempt to cover up and put an end to the wave of scandals affecting his government these past few weeks.
Yet, he is being patient as far as agriculture is concerned, and particularly unaware of the disastrous consequences of the position taken by his neighbours to the south. The Liberal government is far quicker to give nice little contracts to its cronies than to take action to help the agricultural producers of Quebec and Canada. It is shameful to see the Liberal attitude. Quebec and Canadian agriculture is disappearing. What are they doing about it on that side of the House? The Liberal federal ministers have worn out their knees groveling to the Americans. It is unacceptable to have a government so lacking in leadership.
In conclusion, this government must immediately speak out against this law before the World Trade Organization. I would like to just add a comment made by my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, the official Bloc Quebecois agriculture critic. In a recent press release, she gave a good summary of the weakness of the federal minister of agriculture:
| For too long now, the government has been following the policy of turning the other cheek as far as the Americans are concerned. We demand a firm stand in this matter and some tangible support for farmers. |
I doubt that the present Liberal government is likely to exhibit such an attitude, since it has backed down to American imperialism.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I appreciated the comments by the member for Lotbinière--L'Érable and the speaker before that, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
I have an important question that relates to a couple of things. We had firm statements saying that maintaining resolve on the Canadian side in the fight for free trade required a couple of things. The first one was to support companies.
The Minister for International Trade told the B.C. producers last week that if they wanted support they should see the Minister of Industry. About a week and a half ago the trade minister said that there were no job losses due to the softwood dispute, that rather it was a restructuring issue.
I wonder if the members from the province of Quebec are getting the same message as British Columbians are receiving, which is essentially that the Liberal government does not care about the agriculture and softwood lumber issues.
(1140)
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers:
Mr. Speaker, on June 2, I will have been a member of this House for five years. I attended all the consultations on both agriculture and softwood lumber. On each occasion, I saw ministers from the Liberal government make commitments. On each occasion, they made me feel a little more optimistic about the economic situation in Canada and Quebec. However, on each of these occasions, they mostly made my frustration level go up, because they did not make good on their word and their commitments.
If agriculture and softwood lumber are now in this situation, as shown by today's debate, it is because the federal Liberals did not do their job. It is because the Prime Minister should have looked after the economy, instead of dealing with scandals. If the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for International Trade are not able to do their job, then the Prime Minister must act and replace them.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have now heard that the two previous speakers from the Bloc intend to support the motion. Well they can answer for that.
Could the member who just spoke on agriculture address the following point? Almost a year ago the Alliance member, who was appointed critic for the World Trade Organization, said that Canada should agree “to open up its now-protected dairy, poultry and egg markets. It is critically important that agriculture be on the table and be totally on the table”.
I wonder if that is what the Bloc member's constituents want. I wonder if that is what his dairy farmers want.
The Alliance member for Selkirk--Interlake said that we were not standing up for agriculture. I just quoted his World Trade Organization critic. I hope I will have a chance to put that to the Alliance member later on.
I wonder if the Bloc member who spoke so passionately about agriculture and who will be supporting the motion, supports the Alliance policies to get rid of our dairy system and so on.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers:
Mr. Speaker, as we know, Canada is a very vast country with regional disparities. Quebec has a position on dairy production, eggs and poultry, and the Canadian Alliance has another position on agriculture.
I cannot provide an answer right now because, as we know, negotiations are underway. The Minister of Agriculture is always consulting with his provincial counterparts to try to achieve a consensus. As I said earlier, the federal government is always trying to achieve consensuses, to find solutions. It keeps telling us that it will set up good action plans, but nothing happens.
At any rate, it is well-known that the Bloc Quebecois has the solution. Once we have achieved full control over our economy, we will not ask the federal government to get involved in our business, because we can manage our own economy. The Quebec agricultural industry will then be better off and better protected.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Churchill.
The debate today deals with two essential elements. The first one is the hypocrisy of the U.S. government which parades as the champion of markets and free trade but which is prepared to support narrow and sectoral business interests. That is the one that the Liberal members have spoken about.
The second important element of the debate relates to our Canadian government and its failure to protect the livelihood of tens of thousands of Canadians, whether they are in the farming or the forestry sector.
Free trade was supposed to be the panacea. We were promised that it would win us secure access to the American market. Free trade, in other words, was supposed to prevent exactly what is happening now.
The U.S. senate has just passed an amendment called the Dayton-Craig amendment after the names of the sponsors. It will make future trade negotiations even more difficult. The amendment allows U.S. senators to pick apart and renegotiate international agreements. Up until now it has been an all or nothing arrangement. We either rejected the whole package or we accepted it all. Now they will be able to pick and choose. It will render U.S. trade negotiations impotent because their word will not necessarily be their bond.
New Democrats and Canadians alike are all for trade but it has to be fair trade, not some ideological slogan that leaves us vulnerable every time there is an American lobby or an American election.
The farmers and the forestry workers have a great deal in common. They are both primary industries harassed by the Americans and they have both been virtually ignored by the government.
Like the forestry workers, Canadian farmers have endured years of harassment from the American administration. It has threatened to stop beef and pork at our border. It is now talking about country of origin labelling on a voluntarily basis. It has charged time and again that we are dumping our wheat into its market and at one point the Liberal government agreed to put a cap on wheat exports to the U.S.
Time and again the Americans have attacked the Canadian Wheat Board just as they are attacking us now on softwood. The Canadian government has been completely inept in our opinion in its handling of the softwood lumber dispute, as it has been on a wide range of trade matters.
The government has been passive when we have the tools, limited though they may be, to be more aggressive.
Just on that point, we note that $20 million was announced yesterday in a public relations campaign to convince American consumers that their government is wrong and we are right on the softwood lumber industry. That will certainly bring the Americans cowering to the table. What happened to the threat by the Prime Minister a couple of months ago when he was all puffed up after Canada won a couple of Olympic gold medals and he promised to hit the Americans over the head with the proverbial 2x4? I doubt that a $20 million advertising campaign going into the U.S. market will have any effect whatsoever. The money might as well go up in smoke.
I think Canadians are asking for some strength here. The Americans need Canada's approval, for example, for a northern gas pipeline route. So far our government has been tripping all over itself to co-operate. Why does our trade minister not tell the Americans that the pipeline approval process will be slow walked if the U.S. continues to harass the people working in our forests and on our farms?
Canadians want that kind of action. In a poll that came out last Friday in the Globe and Mail, some two-thirds of Canadians felt that the government was out of touch on trade issues and they believed that the Americans got the better of this country in trade deals and trade disputes. That is related to natural gas, agriculture and certainly to softwood.
The U.S. is so large and powerful that it inevitably gets the better of Canada in trade agreements and during trade disputes. That comment received a 65% approval rating in the poll.
(1145)
This substantiates what a P.E.I. farmer told our agriculture committee when we were in Summerside this past winter. He said that when it comes to free trade the United States has rights and Canada has obligations. Another way to put it is as the Mexicans say: that when it comes to the United States they are so far from God and so close to the United States.
Seventy per cent of Canadians polled said it is unwise to have so much reliance on one trading partner. We have heard the parliamentary secretary say 85.1% of our trade is with the United States. We should be seeking other markets. We should be broadening the basket, but we have put all our eggs in this one and we are dropping and breaking those eggs. Twenty-six per cent of Canadians want Ottawa to retaliate by blocking exports of other Canadian products heading south. In other words, they would like this government to poke that government in the eye with a sharp stick.
Further on agriculture, there have been nine trade investigations into the Canadian Wheat Board and every one of them has said that the CWB is acting and trading fairly. The Americans pose as the champions of free trade and unfettered markets but their actions speak much louder than their words. They have just introduced this 10-year package which, coupled with previous packages, will amount to more than $180 billion in subsidies to American farmers, a program in which the vast majority of the money goes to the biggest and wealthiest of U.S. farmers.
The U.S. subsidies allow American farmers to produce grain at prices that may be well below market price and thus put our farmers at a great disadvantage. For the first time anywhere in the world pulse crops such as peas, beans and lentils are now subsidized in the United States. No other country in the world subsidizes those commodities.
The U.S. farm bill definitely has the potential to put thousands of our farmers out of business. This could not come at a worse time because, as we know, Statistics Canada has just reported that we have lost 30,000 farms in the past five years between 1996 and 2001. Canadian farm and political leaders are urging the federal government to provide a trade injury compensation package worth at least $1.3 billion. About $500 million of this injury will occur in the province of Saskatchewan, which has 47% of Canada's arable farmland.
Members of our caucus have supported this request. We have raised the issue in the House of Commons on many occasions, thus far to no avail despite the meeting last Friday in Saskatoon.
After its election in 1993, the Liberal government, aided and abetted by the Reform Party, began to cut support to Canadian farmers to levels well below what was allowed under the GATT agreement, the Uruguay round. As a result, today Canada's support for farmers is among the lowest of all industrialized countries. Only Australia and New Zealand are ahead of us in that.
The Americans and the Europeans argue that the subsidies they provide to farmers fall within the limits allowed by the WTO. If that is true, then Canada's support for farmers falls well short of the support limits that are allowed under the WTO.
The parliamentary secretary says he is concerned about punitive trade actions. The fact of the matter is that the agriculture committee was told many years ago, in about 1998, that Canada could put $2 billion a year into agricultural support payments without running any risk of problems with the WTO.
I realize that my time is up, but I will just make one or two very quick points in 30 seconds. First, it has to be the federal government, not the provincial governments, that steps up to the plate on a trade injury compensation package. This is international trade. It is not agriculture. Finally, we have sold away a good deal of our sovereignty but we have not lost all the tools. The world belongs to those who show up and the government has so far failed to show up on this issue. More important, it has failed to stand up for our country and its people. It had better soon do that or we will not have a country at all.
(1150)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman speak on this issue and I know how he feels about a number of things along these lines. However, earlier today one of the Liberal members came out rather strongly on what a horrible job the Mulroney government did when it was in power.
I want to remind this member and the Liberal Party that in 1992 the Conservative government at the time opened up the market on barley. It opened up the continental barley market. For the first time in a number of years in my riding, barley farmers were making the kind of money that they just never dreamed they would ever make again. Things were really on the go. It was working well. Even the wheat board increased its sales because it suddenly saw some competition. Its sales went way up.
Along came the Liberal government in 1993. It slammed the door on this positive initiative and in the last nine years it has not even come close to being successful in this area. Once we had something that worked. The Liberal government came along and slammed the door on it and this member and his party supported that slamming of the door.
Why is it that when initiatives are taken and a good decision is made somebody has to come along and, for whatever reason, ruin something that is working really well? Consequently the member now can rest assured that probably 25% of these farms have been sold in the last nine years. They have gone under because of these kinds of decisions. I would like to hear his comments.
(1155)
Mr. Dick Proctor:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is painful to recall, but between 1993 and 1997, as the member will know because he was sitting here then, the New Democratic Party did not have official party status in the House. Therefore we had very little to do with what happened during that four years. The Reform Party, on the other hand, had a great deal to do with it and that explains why we are in some of these problems when it comes to trade policy.
I would simply say on the question today that I know the member and his party are opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board. They know we support the Canadian Wheat Board, but the position of the New Democratic Party is that with an elected board it is now up to the farmers themselves to decide the future of that board and what it will or will not do. Whether it will change its policy on barley or whether it will not is entirely up to the voting members. There are elections coming up this fall. If farmers in those regions where the elections are being held want to make a change to the Canadian Wheat Board, they will do so.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have heard about all the government's so-called shortcomings on trade from the NDP member opposite, yet on the subcommittee on trade, which is a subcommittee of the foreign affairs committee, we go through meeting after meeting and consultation after consultation with no representation from the NDP party. I am sorry, but it is very difficult to just sit here and be preached at by a member from the NDP when we see so little involvement by that party when the actual work is being done in committee.
The member said that we should be seeking other markets. I want to ask him if he is totally unaware of the fact that the government has been doing just that. One of our initiatives is on the bilateral front. We have a successful Canada-Chile free trade agreement, which is growing. The growing numbers are very encouraging. We are in the process of concluding a Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement. Admittedly that would be a smaller market, but it goes along with the theme the member rightly espoused, which is that we should be seeking other markets. Indeed, we are seeing other markets. That was one of the reasons why the government supported the inclusion of Mexico in NAFTA.
The trade committee that I mentioned has just returned from a trade trip to Latin America to look at these possibilities, again with no NDP participation whatsoever. Maybe the member could address this lack of NDP participation and tell us whether or not he has any awareness of the active seeking of other markets by--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Churchill.
(1200)
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP):
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if it is the usual practice to draw attention to members not attending committee meetings, or to days such as today, with hardly any Liberal members in the House.
The Deputy Speaker:
We are of course very familiar with the practice in regard to any reference to the absence of members in the Chamber. I would hope that by extension we would also offer each other and colleagues of all parties the same respect with regard to work outside the Chamber and, by extension, in committees. That is not as clear, but I would hope that within the spirit of this place, if not in its written form, most of us would understand and would probably be supportive of that same respect. At this point I simply draw this to the attention of the House and ask for co-operation and the exercise of best judgment, as is the practice.
The time has lapsed in this intervention, but I will give the hon. member for Palliser an opportunity to respond briefly to the parliamentary secretary's intervention.
Mr. Dick Proctor:
Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The parliamentary secretary asked if I was aware of other interventions, such as Canada-Chile, to expand trade. Yes, of course we are aware of them, but the fact of the matter is that our trade with the United States, on a percentage basis, is increasing faster and faster. It used to be 80%. It is now, according to his statistics, 85.1%. We recently had a spokesman here from the European Union who was anxious to see more two way trade between Canada and Europe but did not feel that the Europeans were getting much response in that matter.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, once again we see how distracted the government is in dealing with the corruption and political wrangling of its members and largely ignoring the pressing issues that are of concern to Canadians.
It has been nearly a month since the U.S. announced plans to impose 27% tariffs on Canadian softwood and nearly a week since the tariffs came into effect. In the past month the U.S. has greatly increased its subsidies to U.S. agriculture. In that time all we have received from the government is talk and promises without any substantive progress.
The government has wasted so many opportunities with the U.S. government by putting up meaningless resistance and simply giving in to all its demands. Now at a time when Canadians require strong action and a firm stand on the issues, the government is simply being ignored by the U.S.
The government has set the precedent and the U.S. is continuing along those lines. It is unfortunate but true to say that the U.S. has no reason to believe that the Canadian government and people are in strong opposition to the U.S. actions given the government's past weakness in response to similar actions.
Canada's lumber and agriculture industries need substantive action from the government. Unfortunately the government seems unable to provide that action, unable to protect Canadian industries from the protectionist U.S. actions and tariffs. Consequently it is sacrificing Canadian industries and Canadian workers in their time of need.
It is the government that brought us free trade and all the promises attached of Canadian goods trading and selling in the U.S. market. Now free trade and NAFTA are being exposed as a one way street with American goods flooding the Canadian market, while Canadian goods and industries run into a steel wall that extends across our shared border. While it is true that this border is undefended in military terms, this action brings home the reality that not only is this border defended but it is representative of an aggressive and dominating giant which has no interest in dealing fairly with Canada and Canadian companies.
Where are the great Canadian defenders of NAFTA now? Why do they remain silent when Canadian industries and workers suffer at the hands of American protectionist policies? It is time for the Government of Canada and the opposition to step forward with a single voice and declare that this is not free trade and it is not fair trade. It is a time for us all to stand resolute in support of Canadian industries, lumber and agriculture, workers and farmers and show them that the Canadian government is their government and will act in their best interests.
The government has shown its willingness to relent to the desires and interests of the United States and in doing so has sacrificed Canadian industries and workers. It is safe to say that Canada is hemorrhaging jobs and industry to the United States and Mexico as a direct result of NAFTA. The best remedy the government has been able to offer is bandages. Bandages will not stop the bleeding from a wound such as this. It is time for the government to take strong and decisive measures to save Canadian industries and workers and to preserve the standard of living that Canadians enjoy and deserve.
I believe the situation with these tariffs and subsidies demonstrates clearly just how serious a failure the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA have been and the great cost they have had and continue to have on Canadian industries. These are not the first instances of Canadian industries being punished for the failure of U.S. equivalents. We all know of the problems that Canada's steel industry has had gaining access for its products in the U.S. market. It is the same for Canadian lumber and agriculture. When the United States is not able to compete, it simply chooses to ignore NAFTA and other agreements and acts to protect its industries. We see the same attitude in the continued American overfishing of depleted fish stocks. All too often the government is slow to react.
Canada and Canadian industries have been dealt a double blow. The government is again slow to react and is impotent in its dealings with the United States. It is strange to see that the United States, a party to NAFTA and a great beneficiary of it, so freely ignores it when it suits its purposes to do so while Canada continues to work to resolve trade disputes with the United States through NAFTA and is subsequently ignored by the U.S.
If the United States chooses to ignore and reject NAFTA, it is clear that Canada should do so as well. Why do we continue to handicap ourselves while the U.S. abuses us and our goodwill? The government and opposition must make a unified call for fair and open access to U.S. markets with a level playing field for all Canadian industries and producers. They must work to protect Canadian jobs and end the flow of jobs from Canada to the U.S. and Mexico.
(1205)
Part of this would mean increasing the restrictions on raw log exports to the United States; keeping manufacturing and production jobs here where skilled workers await the opportunity to demonstrate their craft and skill; revitalizing our own lumber usage within Canada and increasing our focus on overseas markets in Europe and Asia, making us less dependent on the United States; and addressing the urban and first nations housing crisis by activating CMHC and increasing its role in providing low income housing.
The government must also act to prevent Canadian lumber companies from going out of business while this dispute drags on. This can be achieved through increasing the investment in the non-profit housing sector; stimulating domestic demand for softwood lumber; and modifying the qualification criteria for the Export Development Corporation's bond program to enable more lumber companies to qualify.
We must also voice our concerns that the rights of corporations are being allowed to take precedence over the rights of citizens and local, provincial, first nations and federal governments. We must encourage and support programs aimed at employment retraining and continuing education.
The sad truth is that this instance of tariffs on Canadian lumber did not arise overnight. Many of us saw it coming years ago when the softwood lumber dispute began. At that time we called on the Prime Minister and the government to develop an assistance package for laid off lumber industry workers. The response was always the same: wait until we resolve the dispute.
Now the dispute lies unresolved, having led to the imposition of U.S. trade tariffs, many more lumber industry workers being laid off and no assistance package. These workers and their families now struggle, having been insultingly ignored by the government which has once again waited to react instead of being proactive. As these tariffs come into full effect and take hold, more mills will close. Literally tens of thousands more people will lose their jobs and their families will struggle because the government did not react to assist them.
The drastic cuts to the employment insurance program since 1993 have made EI of little help to anyone who loses his or her job, including Canada's lumber industry workers, especially if as predicted the dispute takes a year or more to resolve. Shame on the government if it now claims that this was unforeseeable, that there was nothing it could do to predict or prepare for these circumstances.
The New Democratic Party fully supports the government's decision to appeal the U.S. tariffs to the World Trade Organization and to the North American Free Trade Agreement panel. We also stress the need for Canada not to back down to these United States actions. We call on the government to act to limit the ramifications of the tariffs and agriculture subsidies on the Canadian lumber and agriculture industries.
Without an aid package from the government to support laid off workers and struggling companies and to assist Canadian farmers, we will find that by the time the dispute is resolved through NAFTA and the WTO the costs will be so great as to outweigh the benefits. It is vital that Canada not back down. We must maintain a unified front with the provinces and assert our interests in these international forums.
There are indications that the goal of the United States government is to protract this dispute for as long as possible to devastate our lumber industry, eliminating the competition to the faltering U.S. lumber industry, making it competitive again in the North American market. This is not the way free trade by any definition is meant to work. The government's inaction could prove as devastating as the American government's actions.
The position of the New Democratic Party is that the government's actions and its inaction are significant factors in the United States trade action against Canadian agriculture and softwood lumber. Its actions sent the United States government the message that trade action against Canada would receive no substantive action on Canada's part. Now our farmers and lumber industry workers struggle with no assistance package from the government. The government's reaction to the U.S. tariffs and subsidies has indeed proven to lack substance.
I emphasize that in 1998 Canada and U.S. pasta producers argued that Italy was unfairly dumping cheap pasta into the local markets. The U.S. government agreed and began collecting punitive damages. What did Canada do? Nothing. Now the U.S. government has taken the $20 million from those punitive damages and given it back to the industry. What has the Canadian government done? Nothing. That is the problem. The U.S. government is standing up for U.S. companies. The Canadian government is doing nothing.
(1210)
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that nobody should be surprised by the protectionist actions of the United States. This is what it does best. It looks after itself first. We were sucked into a deal many years ago.
Our auto sector will be in a major crisis soon. Shipbuilding has been all but abandoned by the government. Now our agricultural and softwood lumber producers are in serious trouble. They understand the ramifications of these deals and the need for rules, but they want open access to markets and they want a level playing field. They are getting nothing but lip service from the government. The government talks about revisions to the deal or taking the issue to various trade dispute panels but that takes time. Meanwhile people cannot feed their families.
My hon. colleague mentioned something about a housing program for aboriginal people. Canada has markets that can be served through innovative ideas of the government and the House of Commons. I would like her to elaborate on a national housing strategy which would put a lot of people back to work and house the homeless in the country.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais:
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question there is a major housing crisis in Canada, certainly in urban areas as well as in first nations communities. We as a party have long maintained that the federal government has absolved itself of any responsibility whatsoever for low income housing in Canada. As a result there is a major problem.
Studies indicate that $1 billion yearly over 10 years would address all the housing problems in Canada. That figure is probably higher now because the studies were done some time ago. Now more than ever we should be utilizing our dollars and assisting our industry. It is the time to address the housing crisis in Canada. Once again the government cannot see the answer which is sitting right in front of it. The government just will not do it.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we heard the NDP ideology of how trade should be and how we have to get other markets and that the government does not care about workers. There is nothing wrong with getting other markets. As was noted by the two NDP members, our trade with the United States continues to grow. That is the reality given our geographical position.
Does the member think the Government of Canada somehow has control over business people and where they go with their markets? I know she is a member of the NDP, but does she not understand the basic principle of the movement of goods and services?
(1215)
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais:
Mr. Speaker, as insulting as that question is, I will get beyond it. Does the Liberal government not realize that if it does not support these industries we are not going to have them?
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Answer my question.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Of course we recognize that we do not have total control over markets and industries. If another country uses unfair practices and subsidizes its industries through unique measures that it does not call subsidies, in order to fight that we must do something as well to protect and sustain our industries. That is what this is about.
I do not for one second believe that other countries utilizing Canada's lumber industry will totally save it, but right now we need to put additional dollars into it to help it get through this rough time. That is the important thing we should be doing.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government knew for years that the softwood lumber agreement was coming to a conclusion and would be gone. For years it did absolutely nothing. The minister and other government members told us time after time to quit being alarmists as they were working on this issue.
Any government with an IQ of a light bulb would have put in place some kind of program, a plan B for example, for workers and industry when this went down. Would they--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
The hon. member for Churchill.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais:
Mr. Speaker, without question something preventive should have been done to put us in a position to fight the tariffs being put in place by the U.S. There is no question the government should have done a whole lot more and it failed to do so.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for this debate. It is a subject we have talked about on several occasions, it continues to go on and on and it will go on as long as the government is here.
I will be dividing my time with the member for Brandon--Souris who will address the agricultural side to this debate and I will focus on softwood lumber.
The motion is really quite telling and I am sure the government cannot be too proud of it. It reads:
|
|
That this House has lost confidence in the government for its failure to persuade the U.S. government to end protectionist policies that are damaging Canada's agriculture and lumber industries and for failing to implement offsetting trade injury measures for the agriculture and lumber sectors. |
The government has failed but it is not all its fault. The U.S. has used strong-armed tactics and taken a very inflexible approach. However the fact of the matter is that this government has failed Canadian industry whereas the American government has succeeded in representing American industry very well. The American industry interests are looked after and the Canadian industry interests are not. The government has failed because it has a lack of imagination, initiative and inability to bring together the industry, provinces and all stakeholders.
Everybody on the opposition side harped on for months and months about this. Rule one is that united we stand, divided we fall. The government allowed the Canadian initiative to be all over the board. Representatives from the provinces went to Washington. Representatives from the regions went to Washington. Lumber groups went to Washington. Then the federal government went to Washington and it was surprised to find out it was the last one to go and that everybody had been there before it. There has been a total lack of co-ordination with the industry and a total failure on behalf of the government.
It is a failure because we have a 27.2% tariff on our lumber industry. The government has failed where others have succeeded. Previous governments, and one of which I was a member, ran into the same opposition, the same protagonists, the same issues and the same arguments and we overcame them. This government has not been able to overcome them because it does not have the imagination or whatever it takes to do that. It has failed. It simply has not been able to match the Americans person per person in its arguments.
Now we find ourselves in a very serious situation. What are the results of the failure? Thousands of people in the industry will be laid off and are being laid off as we speak. Communities are totally affected because many of them are one industry towns. This means that the small businesses, the corner stores, the clothing stores, the car dealers and everybody are affected by the downturn when a mill closes in communities. It has a tremendous impact. Businesses will be lost, never to come back. Savings will be lost forever. Houses will be lost. The impact is pervasive in these communities, and this will happen across the country.
It means that kids will not go to university. There are so many impacts. What is the government reaction? The minister said that there were no direct job loses linked to the situation with the U.S. and that the government could not intervene every time there was a natural restructuring in one industry's market and that things would have to be sorted out. Ask the people who are losing their homes, their small businesses, their RRSPs, their retirements and everything else, if there is an impact. The minister said there were no direct job loses. That is just not true.
The failure is easy to explain. I picked out two quotes, one from an industry in Canada and one from the trade representative in the United States. The president of Doman Industries said:
|
|
Governments should be embarrassed by their lack of progress in negotiating a settlement and provide help to forest dependent communities |
That is a Canadian industry saying that the government should be ashamed.
(1220)
The other quote is by Mr. Zoellick, the U.S. trade representative. He said:
|
|
The sense I've gotten from the Canadian government is they're not interested in further discussions--they're going to play this out at the [World Trade Organization]. |
He went on to say that it was a callous and awful attitude to take. That was his impression of the Canadian government's reaction, that it did not want to negotiate or deal.
Meanwhile people and communities across the country are suffering and losing everything they have. The industry is in chaos. They do not know where to ship their products. They do not know whether to send them east, west, south or north. They do not know how to handle it.
From the beginning everyone on the opposition side said over and over to get the industry together and establish one strategy. It said not to let the provinces, or the lumber organizations or the regions go to Washington to independently negotiate. However that is what the government did. Instead of getting everyone together and allowing the federal government to negotiate the deal, it let everyone go to Washington. This happens frequently. Then when representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International trade went down, they were the last ones to arrive. The Americans must be laughing at our approach to this. We have failed to develop a strategy which reflects the entire industry.
Let us compare this with how the U.S. government has done it. It has worked hand in hand with its industry. In fact, at the direction of the U.S. lumber industry, it has established strategies and tactics, exactly what the U.S. industry wants, and it has succeeded. The Canadian government does not bring the stakeholders together. It thinks it can do it all by itself. We have the provinces and the regions going to Washington. It must be a joke in Washington.
In the face of failure, how do we react? Do we reach out to the people affected? Do we try to help? No, the government has said that there are no job losses and that everything is just hunky-dory. It is like saying people have jobs but they cannot go to them and they will not get a paycheque. It is incredible how the government is allowing a wave of devastation to go across the country, one that will hurt all these communities.
The government has created the problem. It should be part of alleviating the problem. I am not saying it is simple because the Americans are tough negotiators. However the government has failed where other governments have succeeded in dealing with the same issue with the same people. It should stand and say that it is responsible and it will help.
I saw on television yesterday that the government announced a $20 million advertising program that would solve the problem. It will spend the money in the U.S. and probably funnel it through Groupaction in Quebec. The only result will be that the friends of the Liberals will get their kickbacks and their share of the $20 million.
An hon. member: Two for one.
Mr. Bill Casey: Two for one. From the beginning, members of the Progressive Conservative Party have pressed the government to do what we did when we were in power. We got the industry together and met with them regularly. I know because I was there. We met with the industry regularly. We succeeded in coming up with a strategy. We negotiated with the Americans and we came up with a settlement. We have encouraged the Liberals to follow our lead and do that again. Would they do it? No, they would not.
Now we find ourselves in a situation where we have a 27.2% duty on all softwood lumber going to the U.S. We have asked the government to fight back, not to just knuckle under and do what the U.S. says. We have asked it to argue from a position of strength, not from a position of weakness. We have asked it to stand up to the Americans like we did when we resolved this issue the last time.
The Progressive Conservative Party also has urged the government to deal with the victims of this. It is the government's fault and there are victims because of it. It should establish a cabinet committee at the very least to focus on this and not leave it up to one minister who passes it off to another minister who passes it off to another minister. There should be a committee responsible for dealing with this, with the negotiations and with the results of the failure.
The government should co-ordinate assistance and come up with programs to help the people in the industries and in the communities who are suffering so much from its failure.
We will be supporting this motion today, but it is really unfortunate that the motion is even here.
(1225)
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of my colleague. While I actually agreed with some things he said, I am afraid he took too much credit for the previous Conservative government. If the Conservative government had dealt with the root causes when it had the opportunity, we would not be in this position today.
Does the member not understand that this government has built the strongest national consensus on this issue ever, unlike the previous Mulroney government that he proudly cites? It did not deal with this in a long term solution and that is why we are back in this problem today.
Does the member not understand that there was a conscious decision of the provinces and industry to let the softwood lumber agreement run out, which would then gave us free trade? Except the Americans refused to accept that, refused to live up to being the free traders they claimed to be and launched these punitive actions.
I want to correct one point. For the U.S. trade representative, Mr. Zoellick, to say that Canada is not interested in trade talks is simply wrong. I do not know if my friend is quoting him correctly but I hope not because Mr. Zoellick knows better.
Canada is prepared to sit down when the United States is prepared to look at meaningful progress in these talks, otherwise we will fight this out at the WTO.
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, it is always an interesting debate with the parliamentary secretary. I am pleased to hear that he agreed with some of the things I said. I think that is the first time he has ever agreed with me on anything.
I am glad he agrees that the Conservatives were successful in resolving this issue. I believe that is what he said. Then he went on to blame the Conservatives. At some point in history, maybe 100 years from now, maybe the Liberals will stop blaming the Conservatives for everything they have failed in. The government has failed here where the Conservatives succeeded. The government is still blaming us even after three elections, if we can believe that.
The member said that they made a conscious decision to take this strategy. It is a strategy of zero action, which is not a strategy. The government had five years' warning. It knew this was coming. The government took no steps to get ready. It did not bring the industry together prior to the conclusion of the memorandum. It did nothing to get ready. It said that it would have a strategy of doing nothing that came back and hit it on the side of the head.
(1230)
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for his speech. He, as well as everyone else who comes from Atlantic Canada, knows full well the effects on families and communities when an industry dies. I am thinking of course of the groundfish collapse in 1992.
As we speak, whole logs are leaving British Columbia and going into the United States. These are logs and those are jobs. Those are jobs that are being exported from Canada to mills in the United States.
If the Conservatives were the government, would my hon. colleague make a suggestion to stop the export of whole logs into the United States?
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. I live right on the border between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and I see whole logs going from Nova Scotia to New Brunswick all the time. It is a different thing and it is within Canada. However it still is an export of jobs and it is a concern.
Certainly these are Canadian resources and Canadians should have the benefit of them. If there are jobs created, those jobs should be created in Canada.
The hon. member mentioned the impact on communities when industries die. Yes, we have seen more than our share of that in Atlantic Canada. We can speak with some authority on the impact.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC):
Mr. Speaker, a comment was made by the Minister for International Trade that I found to be the most insensitive comment I have heard since I have been in the House. The comment was that there was no job loss in the softwood industry; it was simply a matter of restructuring the industry.
Does the member have any specifics? I do not mean to put him on the spot, but does he see in his own constituency any of that restructuring the minister talked about and the job loss, unfortunately, which is being affected by that restructuring or in fact by the problem with the softwood lumber trade?
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, Atlantic Canada is exempt from some of those duties because its lumber trade practices are agreeable to the Americans. However when the western provinces lose their market in the U.S. they begin shipping lumber to Atlantic Canada which does not have the market to absorb it all. The supply and demand ratio reaches such a condition that the local producers then have a problem competing with all the lumber coming in because of the lost market in the U.S. which was due to the Liberal government's failure to negotiate a deal with the U.S.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion. I use the word pleased somewhat reluctantly because it would have been much better if the government had reacted to the two circumstances that we are dealing with right now, which is the softwood lumber trade dispute as well as the farm bill. If it had dealt with those two issues we would not be standing here and my producers and the individuals involved in the softwood lumber industry would not be suffering as much as they are.
I was actually very saddened when I listened to the very ineffective excuses of the parliamentary secretary for international trade. He is turning a blind eye to the situation. He and his government are sticking their heads in the sand. They recognize that there are certain issues with the United States and its protectionism but they say that it is not their fault. As a matter of fact he wanted to know how the government could be expected to resolve those problems when the European Union, Britain and even Mexico could not resolve them. He wanted to know why we would expect the government to resolve the problems with trade, which affects so many people in agriculture and softwood lumber.
If that is their attitude then they should not be putting any positions forward. If any other countries have problems with the United States and its protectionism, we should let them deal with it. We will simply come in on their coattails, as we have always done, and pick up the pieces at that point.
I am saddened that is the attitude of international trade and certainly the attitude of the parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Nobody said that.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, you did say that.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: I defy you to find that in Hansard.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: The motion is in order and it should be supported by the House. If the government had any principles at all it would also support the motion.
The motion states:
| That this House has lost confidence in the government for its failure to persuade the U.S. government to end protectionist policies that are damaging Canada's agriculture and lumber industries... |
Surprise, surprise, Canadians have lost confidence. The government should visit my constituency, which is agriculturally based, and ask the people on the farm fields who are now putting their crops in whether they have confidence in the government, in the department of agriculture and in the minister. I can assure the government that the answer would be a resounding no. They have no confidence.
The government should go to the mills and the forests of British Columbia or northern Manitoba and ask the people in the schools, in the retail outlets and in the forest industry whether they have confidence in the Minister for International Trade, the government and the department. The answer would be a resounding no.
How can anyone have confidence in a government that realized softwood lumber would be a major issue but this $20 billion industry has now been virtually shut down? The government knew about it years in advance but decided to let it run its course. That is the term I heard in the last intervention. “We will let it run its course and then we will deal with the WTO”. It ran its course and right now it is having a dramatic impact on that industry.
The same thing happened in agriculture. The government let it run its course. We knew a year ago that there was a very serious problem with the U.S. farm bill. What did the minister and his department say? They said that they really did not understand the impact so they would just let it run its course and find out how to deal with it after the fact.
I must tell this House that the U.S. farm bill is having an impact on our agriculture industry right now, to the point where it may well have devastated it.
The minister of agriculture and the parliamentary secretary asked if we realized it was an election year in the United States. They said that it was really too bad that Canadian agriculture had to be impacted but wanted to know what we expected them as the government to do. They said that since it was an election year in the U.S. the U.S. would put those things into place and that Canada would simply have to stand back and enjoy it.
Well we do not have to stand back and enjoy it. We do have some solutions that we can put into place if the government has the political will to do it.
The first problem I see is that the government blames everyone else for its ineffectiveness. It claims that everyone else is at fault and even goes back to pre-1993 to blame another administration of another government.
(1235)
However the biggest problem the government has is that it has lost touch with the land, with the issues and with the people.
I have a lot of respect for the parliamentary secretary, who comes from London--Fanshawe, but he probably has not seen a small rural community in western Canada for a long time. He has not seen the devastation in those communities, the boarded up windows and the people who are leaving because of the impact the U.S. farm bill has had on them.
The people around the Cabinet table do not understand primary resources. They have lost touch. The bureaucrats working in their departments right now, and I cannot say the words in the House because I will be chastized, but they do not care what is going on in those sectors.
When the bureaucrats appeared before us in committee their answers were simple. They said that what was there was there and that they could not have any more. They were not fighting for agriculture or for softwood lumber. They were simply sitting back in very comfortable positions in comfortable chairs saying “If it happens, great. If it does not, we do not care.” The problem is that they have lost touch.
No further relationships with the United States is the second problem. Politics is all about relationships. It happens here in the House. There is no science in political science. We deal with relationships.
We do not have a relationship with the United States. President Bush and his administration do not care about the Prime Minister and his government. That has been proven in many cases, not only with the war on terrorism when Prime Minister Blair was invited to Washington but also when the president visited Vincente Fox in Mexico. That proves that we are not even on the American radar screen.
I should tell members that in a previous administration prior to 1993 that was not the case.
When we have problems with trade we go there and deal with the problems. We cannot even get a meeting. The minister of agriculture could not meet with the secretary of agriculture when she was in Quebec City. That is disgusting. The minister of agriculture could not meet with the secretary of agriculture in Washington. That is disgusting.
How do we deal with issues with the U.S. farm bill when we cannot even put our positions forward? That is ineffective and that is where we are right now.
The same thing happened to the Minister for International Trade when was dealing with the softwood issue. As was mentioned by my colleague, the provinces were meeting with people down there but our own government would not go and fight our battles. It was a totally irresponsible position which is why the motion is actual truth. Canadians have lost confidence in the government because of those two issues.
The U.S. farm bill will devastate our communities. The government and certainly the parliamentary secretary of international trade do not understand some of the issues with the farm bill. The first issue is the very serious subsidy to American commodities of $180 billion. I just saw a report today that says depending on how the crops come in and what they plant that could be up to $200 billion and more, depending on how much subsidy they have to pay to their producers. It is astronomical. We as Canadians have to compete in order to keep our people in the game.
The second problem is the type of subsidy paid to what commodities. We used to have at least some specialty crops that we could depend on for some cashflows in our industry. The problem is that those specialty crops, the pulses, the legumes, the peas, unfortunately, will now be covered by subsidy in the United States. This has never been done before in history but all of a sudden Mr. Bush, in an election year, for heaven's sake, has decided to do it. Because there is an election this government will let him cover new commodities in their subsidy. Is that not wonderful? We will just stand back and let them do that. In the meantime, the producers in western and eastern Canada cannot compete.
The last and most important thing about this Draconian piece of legislation in the United States is that in two years, and I am putting everyone on notice now, the Americans will be demanding country of origin labelling. Everything that is grown, produced and raised in this country will have to be labelled Canadian under the country of origin labelling. When it goes into the retail stores in the United States with a label stating it is triple grade A American beef or triple grade A Canadian beef, which one do members think the Americans will buy? We need to stop that now.
The parliamentary secretary will probably tell us that we need to wait because it is an election year in the United States. He will probably say that we need to stand back and let the United States put in the clause but that in two years, when the clause comes in, that it will be dealt with.
(1240)
We have lost confidence in the government and in those two departments. The motion should be supported and passed in the House.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, fortunately I get to speak for myself. The hon. member does not get to do it for me.
First, let me tell him that my former riding, of which he seems totally unaware, was called London--Middlesex, and 20% of my constituents are farmers. I invite him down to London, Ontario some time. The county of Middlesex surrounds the northern part of London. Elgin is to the south, Lambton is to the west and Oxford is to the east. This area has some of the most thriving, diverse agriculture in the country. I hear all the time from farmers in that area, many of them personal friends of mine, about the unfairness of this U.S. farm bill. One does not have to hail from the beautiful part of Canada, western Canada, to have some touch with agriculture. That is the first myth I wanted to debunk.
The member said that the government did not care, that nobody did anything, that nobody talked to the farmers and that nobody had any interest in the issues. That is just silly.
Last week three ministers personally travelled to western Canada. One was in a conversation by phone. We had four minister consulting with farmers in the prairie province of Saskatchewan about the crisis, the scope of it and potential help from the Canadian government.
I do not think the member is being fair at all when he says that there has been no interest from the government. He may not like the actions taken or not taken, but to say that there has been absolutely no effort and no interest is just simply the second myth I wanted to debunk.
Third, he made these comments. He quoted--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Order, please. Let us give the hon. member a little bit of time to answer.
(1245)
Mr. Rick Borotsik:
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear any question so I really have no answer.
The only thing I would like to say is that although 20% of the land in Middlesex is for agriculture, my community, which is probably more to the tune of 50% or 60%, has certainly been more affected by the farm bill than perhaps the hon. member's riding has been. I think it would be worth his while to go to some communities that have closed businesses on the main street.
I should also say that I have been invited to Middlesex. I will be there in August because a lot of people would really like to hear some solid solutions to the agriculture problem.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from western Canada has a number of agricultural producers in his riding. I do as well in the eastern part of my riding.
However another side of the whole debate today is the softwood lumber side of the issue. I have a number of businesses in my riding that are directly affected by this, including one that I visited last week called Chasyn Wood Technologies. It has said that it wants parliament to take all measures necessary to ensure that the Canadian independent lumber remanufacturing industry was provided protection from the onerous and unreasonable duties so as not to place the Canadian independent lumber remanufacturing industry at a competitive disadvantage to either the Canadian primary industry or the U.S. remanufacturing industry.
The company went on to say that more had be done to help the Canadian independent lumber remanufacturing industry survive, not merely just to be able to keep employees and communities on extended life support. It said that a bridging mechanism, such as a loan guarantee program, was necessary for the survival of the Canadian independent lumber remanufacturing industry.
The company went on at length to talk about what needed to be done on this issue.
I was wondering if my colleague from Brandon might be able to comment on the problems we are having with protectionist policies that are directly affecting people across the country in a number of different sectors.
Mr. Rick Borotsik:
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester is our expert with respect to softwood lumber although I was trying to deal specifically with agriculture.
However the remanufacturers situation the member talks about is, I am told, a very serious situation. Some of these people buy lumber and they do not know where it comes from. It could in fact be American lumber. They remanufacture it into certain products then send it back into the states and are also charged with the horrendous 27% duties. This in itself is a very specific problem that should be dealt with by the Minister for International Trade separately from the softwood lumber issue so that we could at least come up with one small solution in very difficult trade negotiations.
If the hon. member talks to the Minister for International Trade, there are not job losses. This is simply a matter of restructuring the industry. Does the member understand that? Maybe he should take that message back to Dewdney--Alouette, because that is the message we are getting from the government.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lanark--Carleton.
I would like to congratulate the member for Vancouver Island North for bringing forward the motion today. The member has been dealing with the softwood lumber file for our party. He has done an excellent job and has earned the respect of the industry in Canada and south of the border as well for his efforts in bringing the government to understand the full ramifications of what has happened. I applaud him for that.
Over and over again we hear the minister and the parliamentary secretary say that they have worked hard particularly on the softwood lumber file. They have put their best effort forward. They have spent all the resources they have on this file.
I do not think that is much to brag about because they have come up with nothing. They have not come up with a resolution. If that is the best they can do, they had better change their tactic or yield to someone who can do better because Canadians deserve better.
The problem that really exists is the poisoned atmosphere between the administration on Parliament Hill, the Liberal government, and the Bush administration. There is no love lost between the two. It is becoming quite apparent. The fact that they cannot talk to each other is reflected in all the problems that have been created in the trade file.
I would like to focus my remarks today on the impact the country of origin labelling provisions of the U.S. farm bill would have on our agricultural sector. This is one aspect of the U.S. farm bill that is facing our producers today which could have been avoided. We tried to warn the government back in February. I brought a question to the House for the minister telling him that the country of origin labelling issue would be coming forward. It had been circulating in the beef industry in the United States for quite some time and it was put into the bill.
It states that a product must be born, raised and processed in the United States to be labelled as a product of the United States. It would affect meat, fruit, vegetables, fish and peanuts. It becomes mandatory within two years.
We feel the government needs to challenge this provision immediately. It is something that has been added to the U.S. farm bill and it is something we should have a hard look at and ensure that the WTO and NAFTA processes are put into place, and if indeed we can stop this.
Last year Canada exported $1.8 billion in beef products and another $1.7 billion in live cattle exports. Hog, live and meat, exports were worth $2 billion, vegetable exports were worth $1.6 billion and fruit exports were worth $400 million. With this country of origin labelling aspect provision being brought forward in the U.S. farm bill, all of this would be in jeopardy.
U.S. retailers and processors have stated that if this comes into effect and if it becomes mandatory the easiest way for us to work around this is to only deal with American produce and American farmers. That would immediately cut off the trade that we have created over the years with the Americans.
We have received indications that the country of origin labelling has already restricted investment in the agriculture industry in Canada. Canadian investors are so concerned with what the country of origin labelling could do to certain sectors of our agriculture industry that they have stopped building, planning and putting money into it. Therefore it is already having that kind of effect.
The threat of country of origin labelling was known long before the U.S. farm bill was signed. Despite warnings from ourselves and others the government did nothing and there it is in the U.S. farm bill, becoming mandatory within two years.
The Liberal hesitation on the softwood lumber case cost tens of thousands of Canadian jobs. That is part of the motion that we brought forward today. How will the government address the harm that has been done in the softwood lumber industry and the agricultural industry through these trade actions?
We have not heard anything from the Liberal side on that today. I do not know why the Liberals are not responding to that aspect of the motion. Maybe they will and they should. The government has gone back and forth across the country many times on agricultural issues. The time for study is over and the time to act is now.
I will offer some solutions as I wrap up. The country of origin labelling was completely avoidable. If we had shown the Americans that we were serious in opening up our border to back and forth trading, particularly in live cattle, we would have been able to avoid a lot of this.
(1250)
It was the beef industry that really pushed this forward although the national beef congress in the United States reduced it from being a mandatory to a voluntary process for a couple of years. However, we should have shown some indication that we were going to implement, for one thing, the terminal feed lot protocol which allows cattle to come into Canada, be fed in Canadian feed lots and then shipped back to the United States for processing. The wording of the country of origin labelling provisions states that it has to be born, raised and processed in the United States to be able to be classified as American.
This has become an issue. It is a question we raised in the House back in February with the minister and we had no indication from him that he would do anything about it. He indicated there was a connection. He said in his remarks that there was a connection between the terminal feed lot protocol and the country of origin labelling. He was aware but was unable to resolve it, I guess, if he did raise it with secretary Veneman. He indicated that he did but there was no resolution to that.
It just shows that the Americans are not listening to our negotiators since the Bush administration took over. The relationships have been poisoned between the two governments. We have to become more forceful at the trade table or we will continue to lose on these issues and they are picking us apart.
Another part of the industry in Canada that has become successful is the pulse industry. It has done a tremendous job of expanding its industry as well as the processing that goes along with that industry. That has been targeted in this U.S. farm bill because it has seen it as being successful and it wants a piece of that action. By moving these crops into the U.S. farm bill, that were not there before, we feel is another angle the government could use to go to the WTO and to the NAFTA tribunals to challenge it and to have it reversed.
One of the things we need to be doing is to gather our partners in trade around the world and say to the Americans as a group, the Cairns group for instance, what is going on here? We do not appreciate the bill the U.S. put forward and it is ruining our industry. If Canada were to bring as much power to bear as it could then some of the poisoned relations that we have seen between ourselves and the Americans would be somewhat hidden.
We have also heard much from the industry on compensation for trade injury to the sectors of our economy that are being affected. That has not been addressed today by the government at all. It has chosen a different angle to attack us on. However I am proud of one thing we have done. Last June we submitted to the agriculture and trade minister our idea of a rapid response process for agricultural trade disputes. We acknowledge the WTO and NAFTA processes have to be gone through but we need another process that could circumvent these long and costly battles.
We presented that and I have a letter from the agriculture minister saying that is all fine and good but it is not something that the government is going to embrace. Then, lo and behold, when the government toured around on its framework for the future of agriculture, one of its recommendations is a rapid response trade resolution mechanism. It actually used the same words that we provided.
We also understand that the United States and Mexico have signed a memorandum of understanding on agricultural trade disputes. Part of it is a rapid response mechanism to circumvent some of these long and costly disputes that happened in the agriculture sector. We took this to our Canadian Alliance assembly in Edmonton in April and we were able to bring this to the floor as a resolution. It was adopted by the Canadian Alliance and will be part of our policies from hereon to state that we need to have a rapid response trade resolution mechanism in place to circumvent some of these long expensive battles that we have seen.
(1255)
We have seen it in the beef industry, the potato industry and in softwood lumber. We have seen it in other agricultural products. We need to have a process in place whereby parties could come together and come to some resolution before these things turn into full blown trade wars.
The motion we brought forward today has some aspects that deal with what should be done to the injury that has been carried out to the industries of softwood lumber and agriculture. I hope we hear from the government today as to what its response is to that.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have two brief points and then a question. The member seems to be unaware that the Cairns Group has already issued a statement against the U.S. farm bill. He is a bit behind the times on that.
U.S. Secretary of State Veneman has said that even though the U.S. industry is against the mandatory labelling for country of origin the administration would support it. That is why advocacy is so important in the United States. That is why we have been doing that for some time.
The hon. member for Peace River in September 1998 stated that he was against renewing the softwood lumber agreement. He said it simply did not work and did not make sense. What does his colleague think about that? If renewing the softwood lumber agreement was not the answer, and we agree it was not the answer, then obviously free trade is the answer.
Since the United States will not support free trade at this time we are pursuing every legal option at the WTO and NAFTA. I do not understand what my colleague's problem is with us pursuing all these legal options.
(1300)
Mr. Rick Casson:
Mr. Speaker, the member posed a number of questions but I will address the one that referred to the member for Peace River stating that we did not desire an agreement in softwood lumber.
Our position has always been that there should be free trade in softwood lumber. That is where we stand. There has been a 30 year history of problems with these negotiated deals. Everyone and the government knew about these problems. We warned the government that this agreement was coming to an end, that something needed to be done, however it was allowed to collapse.
The government kept indicating that when it was over we were supposed to revert to free trade. That is fine, but where were the contingency plans? Where were the studies that were done to indicate the problems that would exist if indeed something like this would happen? That was certainly one of the options the government should have looked at as one of the outcomes when the agreement came to an end.
There is one thing that we keep going back to. I do not understand how the parliamentary secretary and the minister keep getting away with saying how much effort, time and resources they have thrown at the softwood lumber issue and that they are doing their jobs. The Prime Minister has talked directly to the president. All of these things are going on and absolutely nothing has happened.
We have a huge tariff against our industry. We have tens of thousands of softwood lumber workers out of work. We have no indication there will be an end to this. In my mind the full efforts of the government have utterly failed the industry and continue to do so.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned my name a few minutes ago and I would like his response to the following comment.
I was the trade critic for my party from 1993 until 1998. At the time there were a number of disputes that had been ongoing in the softwood lumber industry. In fact, as my colleague stated, there have been 30 years of disputes between Canada and the United States and there have been a number of trade actions.
We were facing that potential back in 1995-96. The government of the day chose to enter into a softwood lumber agreement with the United States that would restrict the amount of product we would sell into the United States to 14.8 million board feet a year. Anything above that was penalized heavily. Everyone knew that was not the solution that needed to be adopted. The World Trade Organization had been established and that was the opportunity to take this case to the WTO to put the process in gear that would ultimately have resolved it.
Would that not have been the opportune time to resolve this case rather than wait for the softwood lumber agreement with the United States to expire, one that probably should not have been in place in the first place, and face the mess we are in now some six to seven years later?
Mr. Rick Casson:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Indeed, his expertise in the trade file over the last number of years has been exceptional and we appreciate his contribution to the debate.
Absolutely, we should not sit on our hands. It was the same when the softwood lumber agreement came to an end and when the U.S. farm bill was presented and signed. We know these will happen. The Liberal government sits and waits until it happens and then cries foul because the Americans have come out with some protectionist agenda.
Certainly the Americans are wrong in what they are doing but should not our government, which is responsible for the Canadian situation, be on top of these things and be working well in advance of the implementation or conclusion of agreements to come up with a solution that would save our industries?
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the motion today deals with two issues over which we are embroiled in a trade dispute with the United States. First, it addresses the issue of softwood lumber. Second, it addresses agricultural subsidies.
I will address primarily the second issue because there is little softwood production in my riding of Lanark--Carleton. We have some hardwood production. A bit of softwood is produced coincidentally to that, particularly pine as the hardwood is collected. Two local producers, Umpherson's in Polland and Lanark Cedar, produce some softwood. However softwood is not a large industry in my neck of the woods whereas agriculture is a substantial product in Lanark--Carleton and all of eastern Ontario. It is one of the pillars of the local economy.
People may not realize it, but the House of Commons is at the centre of the most agricultural city in the entire country, a city I am proud to in part represent in parliament. More than 10,000 jobs in Ottawa alone are tied to the agricultural sector. Total production in rural parts of the city is worth $402 million according to an agricultural impact study produced in December, 2000. That is $402 million from one city alone.
Ottawa is only a fraction of Ontario. Ontario is only a fraction of Canada. This is a major Canadian industry. It is absolutely critical to the success of not merely part of the economy and those directly employed in agriculture. It is critical to the success of all of us. My riding extends into Lanark county. In Lanark and Renfrew counties outside the boundaries of the city of Ottawa there are over 7,000 jobs in the agricultural sector. That represents over 9% of all jobs and $240 million.
Agriculture in Canada faces three problems today. First, there is a long term trend toward mechanization, increased efficiency, increased productiveness and hence agricultural consolidation. There has therefore been a decrease in the number of farms and people employed directly in the agricultural industry. However there has been no decrease in production or productivity which continues to go up.
The decrease in the number of farms is due to increased efficiency. It has had an impact. By far the majority of low efficiency, low productivity farms and farmers have been forced out. Some were forced out decades ago. The people left in the agricultural sector tend to be highly efficient, highly organized and entrepreneurial.
Second, periodic agricultural crises have been caused by weather. Like skiing, entertainment, summer festivals and a number of other industries, agriculture is an industry for which weather is crucial. Sometimes people complain when I raise the legitimate concerns farmers have regarding weather. They say farmers whine a lot. If urban people listened to people in industries and businesses a bit closer to their homes they would realize they complain as much as farmers. However for farmers several years of bad weather in a row or a year of drought followed by a year of very wet weather can be a life or death matter. Something like that has happened in eastern Ontario over the last couple of years.
Third, the artificial crisis caused by the trade war between the European Union and the United States, an enormous international drama in which we are a mere bit player, is driving agricultural prices far below production prices. The devastation this is causing our agriculture industry will get worse. The worldwide crisis existed prior to the latest U.S. farm bill thanks to the unwise agricultural subsidy practices of these two great powers of the agricultural world. However the results of the farm bill will increase the impact dramatically.
(1305)
Small players like Canada, Australia, New Zealand or Uruguay depend on agricultural industries but are small in comparison to the enormous production of the United States and Europe. They are facing tough times. I will try to give members an idea of how huge the production is. Although we do not think of France as an agricultural country and particularly not as a wheat growing country it nonetheless produces roughly as much wheat as Canada although admittedly not of the same quality. Our farmers have attempted as much as possible to differentiate ourselves from the bulk product produced in France. Nonetheless the huge productivity in France, subsidized by local governments, is having a tremendous impact.
The state of Kansas alone roughly equals and may exceed total Canadian production of wheat. One could find similar results in different sectors. It makes it difficult for our farmers to compete when the two enormous players start greasing up their subsidies.
Notwithstanding these factors Canada has the most efficient farming industry in the world. Although it has been a struggle we have been able to compete despite enormous subsidies elsewhere. I am sure the number has been quoted earlier in the debate but Canadian wheat producers get approximately 17% of their income in the form of government subsidies and protection. For American farmers it is 49%. For wheat farmers in the European Union it is 43%. This goes a long way toward explaining why the French produce so much wheat instead of some other product which is more naturally suited to their high intensity land.
In the face of this kind of competition and subsidy our farmers have tried to be innovative. Many Canadian farmers have changed to pulse crops, abandoning traditional and highly subsidized products in which it was becoming impossible for even the most efficient to compete. This has occurred in wide swaths of the country but particularly in eastern Ontario. To make the point I will quote the agricultural impact study I cited earlier. It states:
| Growth associated with the field crop sector [in Ottawa] has been centred around increases in farms producing soybeans. Production in soybeans increased from 3,500 acres in 1986 to 20,000 acres in 1996. |
The change does not occur cost free. To make the switch farmers must acquire the appropriate knowledge and supplies and sell to the appropriate persons. Sometimes equipment changes are necessary. Under the new U.S. farm bill they then get hit by an expansion of American subsidies to cover the products they had moved into to sidestep the subsidy war.
I have a background in the retail sector. It is a bit like being the local corner store when Wal-Mart gets into a battle with Loblaws over the price of toothpaste. When the local store tries to move into something else they focus on that. They are not concerned with whether they make a profit in the area. It is about predatory pricing. They are concerned with putting the local store out of the market.
Our farmers do the best they can to move out of the market and become the world's leaders in pulse crops. What happens? They get hit by American subsidies and are devastated. They get hit at a time when it is not possible to change their plans for the upcoming year. Having done everything right and become the world's leading exporters in crops like peas and lentils, some of our most efficient producers find themselves being driven out of business. Our government has been engaging in inadequate efforts to exclude from American subsidies certain Canadian crops and products that are peripheral to the ongoing trade wars. Pulse crops are a key example.
Moving back to softwood, an area I mentioned earlier is red cedar. With more effective lobbying of the United States we could have excluded red cedar from the trade bill. There was discussion of excluding it. A lobby in the United States was allied with us. With more effective efforts on our part we could have worked with our allies in the United States and excluded red cedar. It was not done. It is symptomatic of the failure of the government to be more effective in protecting our lumber producers.
(1310)
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. He said the government's response to what is happening has been inadequate. A number of details might be helpful in understanding how inadequate it has been. First, the international trade minister announced $20 million in advocacy advertisements in the United States. It is not new money. Some $17 million of it was announced prior to September 11. Another $3 million has been added. It is less than the amount planned for the landmine initiative of former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy.
Second, the natural resources minister announced $75 million in forestry funding. That is less than 3% of what is estimated to be needed. It should be $2 billion rather than $75 million.
Third, today the Prime Minister is in Rome rubbing shoulders with the president of the United States. However he says he will not have time to talk to him and will instead probably talk to the president of France.
These are indications of the attitude the government brings to a problem that is destroying our communities. I would like a response.
(1315)
Mr. Scott Reid:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is speaking to the government's overall neglect of its primary duties, particularly in dealing with international trade wars.
If the Prime Minister is in Rome today rubbing shoulders with the president of France I hope he will not neglect to raise the issue of European Union crop subsidies. France is a key player. However I am not aware that it is part of his agenda.
The issue of international trade subsidies and barriers against Canadian products has not only been neglected by the Prime Minister. It is more widespread. The American political system is focused on overt and aggressive lobbying.
I will return to the issue of red cedar. While there is a strong lobby from certain lumber producing states, mainly western states and some states in the south, there is an equally strong lobby in favour of free trade which Canada could tap into. The United States has a powerful construction industry. Some people are concerned for health reasons about using pressure treated lumber for decks and other things. It is an issue close to my heart because pressure treated lumber contains arsenic and could have health effects. Cedar is a perfect replacement. There was a strong movement in the United States to exclude cedar from its overall softwood lumber tariffs and import restrictions.
I am quite confident that by working with our friends in the United States we could have found a way to do something beneficial for urban and suburban Americans, people building houses, and people looking for more reasonable housing costs to cause the adjustment to occur. Instead our producers face a tariff of over 20% on their cedar exports. It is doing damage to a number of producers in this part of Ontario and across the country. It is costing Canadians jobs.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened, as did all my colleagues in the House, with rapt attention to the comments of my hon. colleague. I will follow up on the issue of the effort or lack thereof that the government has put into the trade dispute with our biggest trading partner and neighbour. Since last fall I have been urging the Prime Minister to engage personally in the file whether on the issue of farm subsidies, the steel problem, subsidies for the transportation of natural gas from Alaska, or softwood lumber.
Could my hon. colleague comment on what appears to be a complete lack of attention on the part of the Prime Minister in engaging President Bush on the file?
Mr. Scott Reid:
Mr. Speaker, not only is there a problem of neglect but the Prime Minister on a number of occasions has made remarks that could not conceivably have gone over well with the White House. In particular he expressed his preferences as to who would win the presidential election last year. When we think of something that would exclude one from the inner circle that does get access to the United States president, probably suggesting that he should have lost the election at the time when there was a national constitutional crisis would have been just about the worst possible item to choose.
(1320)
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this will be my first speech as the leader of Her Majesty's official opposition. I took some time to look back at my other maiden speech as a new member of parliament in 1994. Then as now I was very proud to be here. I am proud of my adopted province of Alberta and proud of the people of Calgary for sending me to this parliament. I want to assure everyone who is listening that as different as my role is now and as different as my riding is, I am just as proud today as I was then.
I do not have a lot of time so I want to focus instead on the issue we chose for today's supply debate, which perhaps is the most important issue that ever faces Canada, our relationship with the United States and in particular the increasingly troubled relationship we have on the trade front.
The motion makes reference to two trade disputes, in softwood lumber and in agriculture. To this I could easily add a third, energy, the issue of pipeline movement of Alaskan gas reserves to the lower 48. I could add a fourth issue, that of border restrictions, especially in light of September 11, that are influencing our trade patterns and the very real threat that we could find ourselves outside an American security perimeter.
Before I comment further on these, I will make some observations. These are industries of massive size. I spent most of the past year travelling around the country in our leadership race dealing with many communities where these are the dominant industries and issues. I do not believe the Liberal government really understands the magnitude of these industries. Entire regions depend on these industries. Millions are directly and indirectly employed.
We face in some of these trade disputes the potential wiping out of entire regional economies. This is not something from which we in urban centres will be immune. These have important and significant linkages to our more urbanized areas.
The question we must ask is why this has occurred. Why do we find ourselves victims of protectionist, isolationist and unilateralist sentiments from the United States? Why are Canadian interests being systematically ignored in Washington?
There are many reasons. Some of them do involve, in fairness, blame on the Americans and the reality of the United States' domestic political interests, this being an important election year in the United States. There is a further reality with which the House can and should deal. That is the consistent and complete inability of the present Canadian government to make our case to American authorities, to congress and especially to the Bush administration.
The reality is that the Canadian profile in Washington is all but invisible. Let us look at the Liberal record in managing our most important international relationship. I took some time to do this. I cannot share it all with members but I examined a number of political initiatives in international affairs taken by the government over the last few years. I will not go through the list, but what stuck out, what I found to be consistently missing from the list was any reference to what is obviously our most important international relationship, the one with the United States.
In the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for example, there are secretaries of state for Europe, Latin America and Asia-Pacific but there is none for the United States. Likewise if we look at the so-called team Canada and other business development trade initiatives that have been the centrepiece of the government's trade strategy, we see almost no attention paid to our most important bilateral trading relationship.
Let us look at the vaunted team Canada trade missions. Up to September 11, 2001, that important day, there had been 17 team Canada trade missions and only one of them had gone to the United States. There has been a second one since then. In November one went to Texas and California and an earlier one went to New England.
[Translation]
The government is certainly going to protest, arguing that trade exchanges with the U.S. do not need any support. What needs improvement is trade relations with other regions.
[English]
The point of the motion is that all is far from well in our trading relationship with the United States. The damage that has been caused and will be caused to Canadian workers as a result of the softwood lumber duties and to farmers as a result of agricultural subsidies shows that while these crises were brewing, the focus of our political leaders in the highest offices simply was not on these files. It was elsewhere.
If the Liberal government failed to stand up for Canada's trade interests with the United States after 1993, and this has been a consistent pattern, we have to ask why it failed to do that. In my view I think it is no secret that the principal reason is that the Prime Minister and the majority of senior Liberals who came to office in 1993 were not supportive of our trade relations, in particular our free trade arrangements with the United States. Let me quote the Prime Minister's own words on the matter of Canada-U.S. free trade. In November 1987 the Prime Minister noted his opposition to free trade by saying:
| Canada has already given away all its bargaining chips: energy policy, foreign investment review agency, you name it, it's all gone. |
| What this deal has done in energy and in investment and what it will do in defining subsidies is to strike at the heart of the fabric of Canada. What this deal does is enshrine, in Canada, the Reagan view of government. |
In September 1988 he said:
| Removing the remaining trade tariffs between the U.S. and Canada, as proposed by the free trade agreement, would not improve Canadian business access to the U.S. market. |
The Prime Minister went on and on. I could give quote after quote from the period 1987 to 1993.
(1325)
As we approached the election in 1993, the election where he ultimately became Prime Minister, he continued to oppose free trade. He continued to oppose NAFTA which had recently been concluded. In fact, he said in February 1993 just before the election:
| The North American Free Trade Agreement gave the government an opportunity to correct major flaws in the free trade agreement. A Liberal government will seek changes to the free trade agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement. |
The consequence of all this is that after the Prime Minister came to office in 1993, neither he nor his senior ministers as a whole were interested in building on the success represented by the FTA and NAFTA. While they did not actually seek to renegotiate either agreement in any serious way, they did not try to build on that success either. That is not surprising. The Prime Minister was never a free trader at heart. Having been forced to swallow the FTA and NAFTA, he decided simply to neglect the file entirely.
That has proven to be a grave mistake. There were issues left unresolved by those trade agreements. In fact, the most serious issues, the ones we are discussing today, were never, and certainly not at the time, fully integrated into the free trade agreements. This is where the problems have arisen.
Softwood lumber was one such issue and agriculture was another. Neither was addressed. The most senior leaders in Canada were simply uninterested in further trade liberalization.
If the government did not pursue or enhance North American free trade, what did it do? What it did as the team Canada record shows, the Prime Minister went back to the future. He tried to revive the failed trade diversification of the 1970s, the Trudeau government's so-called third option strategy, which did not work then and is not working now.
The problem is more serious. While neglect and a high degree of apathy have characterized the government's approach to our trading relations with the United States, downright hostility to the United States, anti-Americanism, has come to characterize other dimensions of Canadian policy.
We all remember the open meddling in U.S. domestic politics prior to the 2000 presidential election when the Prime Minister stated his preference with regard to the outcome of that election. Of course these pronouncements did not go unnoticed in the United States, just as they would not go unnoticed in Canada if American politicians made similar foolish observations about Canada's internal politics.
On January 22, 2001 David Jones, the former political counsellor at the U.S. embassy, a very wise individual, made some very frank public comments about Canada-U.S. relations and the Prime Minister's unfortunate tendency to shoot off at the lip in making domestic pronouncements. He said our Prime Minister exhibits “a tin ear for foreign affairs, especially those involving the United States”. It is no secret that this poisoned the relationship between the government and the new American administration.
A story in the National Post on May 14 summarized the situation. One senior insider quoted said:
|
|
We are obviously not players. He [the Prime Minister] is just not effective. |
He went on to say in less charitable fashion that the Americans could not care less about the views of the current Prime Minister. This is particularly evident in President Bush's passivity in dealing with the softwood lumber dispute. This is important.
The former Canadian ambassador to Washington, Allan Gotlieb, recently wrote the following:
|
|
It is a sign of staggering ignorance for Canadians-- |
--and I would add especially our Prime Minister--
|
|
--to think that personal relations between the president and Prime Minister are not of unique importance. If a matter is on the president's personal agenda, there is a far better chance of a favourable outcome. If the president is concerned, word goes down to many hundreds of top loyal political appointees. The Canadian who is best placed by far to get an item on the president's personal agenda is our Prime Minister.... Without the Prime Minister in play, the president will not be in play. |
Clearly, our Prime Minister has been unable, and in some cases unwilling, to advance Canadian interests with the Bush administration.
(1330)
These problems in bilateral relations predate the 2000 elections. Since 1993 the government has pursued policies which have damaged our relationship with the United States. The government has consistently put the ideological agenda of the Prime Minister and other Liberal ministers ahead of real Canadian interests. Let me refer to just a few examples.
In 1998-99 Canada pushed for a review of NATO's deterrence strategy, even though it was made clear that NATO members, including the United States, Britain and France, were not interested in such a review.
In 1996-97 Canada aggressively pushed forward with the treaty to ban landmines without giving due consideration to U.S. concerns about the potential implications for its security forces in South Korea. What did we end up with? We ended up with a ban on landmines but one that few major landmine producers or users have signed.
For nine years the government has systematically neglected the Canadian forces and undermined our ability to contribute to peace enforcement and even peacekeeping operations, including recently our premature withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Most recently we have been inclined to offer knee-jerk resistance to the United States on national missile defence despite the fact that Canada is confronted by the same threats from rogue nations equipped with ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction as is the United States.
I can mention one other issue. The government has not adequately addressed the matter of security in the context of continental security. Because of the unreformed nature of our refugee determination system, we continue to be subject to unique internal security and continental security dangers.
I should say when I list all these things, it should not be surprising that when Canadian ministers suddenly show up in Washington and demand something be done about softwood duties or agriculture many high level American decision makers do not pay much attention.
The consequence of these actions is a loss of our sovereignty. I do not use our sovereignty the way the government uses the term. Sovereignty is not about putting a stick in someone's eye. Sovereignty is about real ability to exercise power, to have control, the ability to act. Under the government's watch, we have less freedom to manoeuvre than we ever had before. Instead of possessing real capability that is respected and valued by our allies, all we are left with is empty rhetoric and often the wrong rhetoric.
Where do we go from here? On this I will make a very controversial observation. When it comes to United States-Canada relations, the government has much to learn from former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
I can critique his fiscal record, I can critique his social priorities and I can critique his approach to government reform and national unity, but under Mr. Mulroney, Canada-United States relations were infinitely better than they are now. The groundwork he laid particularly in matters of trade account for progress not only in his era but some of the progress that followed in the early days of this government.
Whatever Mr. Mulroney's shortcomings, whatever his mannerisms or his peculiarities may have done to irritate so many Canadians, he understood a fundamental truth. He understood that mature and intelligent Canadian leaders must share the following perspective: the United States is our closest neighbour, our best ally, our biggest customer and our most consistent friend.
(1335)
Whatever else, we forget these things at our own peril. We can and do believe that we are the best country in the world, the best place to live, and we love this land, but not only does the United States have this special relationship to us, it is the world leader when it comes to freedom and democracy. We can never allow our affections for our own country to become the basis of resentment toward the United States. This realization is both the essence of our own self-interest and a moral imperative for any Canadian leader.
If the United States prospers, we prosper. If the United States hurts or is angry, we will be hurt. If it is ever broadly attacked, we will surely be destroyed. We share a continent, an economy and much else. We cannot afford the dilettantish position of some western allies and, for that matter, of successive leaders of the Liberal Party who nurture other illusions.
What do we do to put our relationship back on track with the United States? In the short term, we need to aggressively tackle the new American protectionism and international trade bodies. The ultimate objective must be to establish clear international rules that bind ourselves, the Americans and our European trading partners. My colleagues will also detail actions we need to take as well as compensation programs that need to be undertaken while we are pursuing these things.
[Translation]
In the longer term, new mechanisms will have to be established to avoid the problems connected with bilateral trade in such areas as softwood lumber and agriculture. We need to give some thought to some faster and more preventive dispute settlement mechanisms in order to avoid crises like the softwood lumber situation even cropping up. We need to make a priority of co-operation with the United States on trade issues we share, rather than concentrating on those that divide us.
[English]
More broadly, we also need to create a positive bilateral environment that enables us to do more together. In that regard, because security and diplomatic issues cannot be divorced from economic matters, we must re-establish political credibility internationally and especially in the United States. We must realize that we will be totally unable to accomplish any of our goals with regard to fair and rules based trade settlement bodies without the support of the U.S. administration. We will be unable to get the U.S. administration on board unless whoever is in the White House and leading members of congress value and respect what our Prime Minister brings to the table.
This means that we need to begin by putting our own internal security house in order. We also need to make serious efforts to construct and invest in a foreign and defence policy that will give Canada effective capability commensurate with that of a G-8 nation and an effective voice overseas.
Forward movement in Canada-U.S. relations is the best way to ensure that our bilateral relations do not stagnate or suffer setbacks due to emerging irritants. This should have been clear in 1993. The work should have begun then. It did not. We are now living with the consequences in our key trading sectors.
I submit that the House can no longer have confidence in the government's management of our international trading relationship and our overall relations with the United States. Canadians require a new approach that will truly protect their interests and secure their prosperity and livelihood as well as their nation's sovereignty. That cannot occur under this government. For these reasons, I urge the House to adopt the motion before it today.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me take my first opportunity in the House to welcome back the Leader of the Opposition. He was elected in 1993 when I was. I wish him many, many years of success in his current job. He is happier now. The last time I saw him we talked in an elevator and he was missing home et cetera, as I think many MPs do. It is good to see him back and I wish to congratulate him.
I want to tell the House that despite the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, as late as this morning the Prime Minister again had an opportunity to raise the agricultural situation, the unacceptable farm bill and the ongoing softwood crisis with the president of the United States.
An hon. member: A little late.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Someone on the Alliance side says it is a little late. I say he has had a chance to raise it again because he has done so repeatedly now, as have several ministers.
I just have one question for the Leader of the Opposition. Given today's motion, a rather sweeping motion that is a little off base, I wonder what his view is of a colleague of his who was the World Trade Organization spokesperson and who said on agriculture that Canada should agree to open up its now protected dairy, poultry and egg markets. He said:
|
|
It is critically important that agriculture be on the table and be totally on the table. |
I am not sure that in much of Canada that would be seen as standing up for Canadian farmers. Does the Leader of the Opposition share the view of his colleague in the Alliance?
(1340)
Mr. Stephen Harper:
Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of the quotation the member has used.
Let me just respond to his preamble to start with, which is his assertion that the Prime Minister is raising these issues now. It is a little too late to raise them now. The farm bill has been signed into law. The full-fledged international subsidy war between the European Community and the United States is on and we are left out in the cold.
It does not do anything to make a flippant comment to the president of the United States at an international conference that involves other issues. To influence the United States requires a thorough and constant working of the American system of government. It is not like here. We just cannot whisper in the president's ear and expect to get a favour from a friend.
We have to understand the congressional system, we have to work that system and, as former ambassador Gotlieb indicated, we must cultivate good relationships with the president, who is, bottom line, even in that system of divided powers, by far the most important person in that political system and the one most likely, as history has shown us, to be interested in open trading relationships, especially bilateral trading relationships. That the Prime Minister should have known, because he has been around here as long as most figures of history. He should have known that is true whether there is a Republican or a Democrat in the White House, so he should not care so much which party is winning a U.S. presidential election.
Our motion is designed to suggest that the government concentrate its efforts on the areas where the subsidies are in effect, not just in the grains and oilseeds and now the pulse crops, but now where some of our livestock industry is threatened. That is where we want to focus attention.
I believe it is probably inevitable that as we try to push our trading relationship forward the United States and others will want to look at all issues that are raised by agriculture. We have to be prepared to look at options in those areas. I would concede that to the member.
This is not the time for the member to be preoccupied with things that need protecting. We have to be preoccupied with breaking into those markets and retaining the market share we have in the United States.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in the Uruguay round in 1995 the Liberal government put supply management on the table. It took away the protection of the quota system and put in place a tariff system that was designed to reduce protection in the next round of talks at the WTO, which is now ongoing. It was the Liberal government that put supply management at risk and that in fact will change supply management.
My question to the leader of the official opposition is simply this: Is it better to have change and respond to economic conditions around the world and remain competitive as Canadians or to sit like the Liberals and try to freeze time and go back to the 1930s and 1940s as they would have us do?
Mr. Stephen Harper:
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate getting a very thoughtful question once in a while.
I think the comments by the agriculture critic for the Canadian Alliance are absolutely correct, and boy, would we ever have a different agriculture situation if we had this guy over there instead of the present guy.
It was this government that agreed to tariffication, put supply management on the table internationally and began the process of change for those industries. In typical Liberal fashion, however, there was absolutely no plan for the next step. Even years later with new rounds coming up, there continues to be no plan, no proposals, no consultation, no way forward, just the great dream that everything can go back to the way it was. That is so typical of this Prime Minister's approach to life, not just to politics.
That is something the country will have to address and I am glad to see that our agriculture critic has been doing that. Long before I became leader, I know that he was thinking about it, consulting with the people in supply managed industries and looking at the strategies that may well have to be looked at when the implications of the tariffication process become clearly evident in the years and decades to come.
(1345)
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the newly minted Leader of the Opposition on a very solid speech. He touched on some aspects that I think do hold true. When we have solid public policy, we propose things like an acid rain protocol. When we have solid public policy, we propose that we should enter the gulf war under the auspices of the UN as opposed to a NATO perspective. That is what Canada proposed to the Americans. He also highlighted the free trade agreement. In 1988 we had about $90 billion in trade with the Americans. Now we trade well in excess of $400 billion each and every year.
Given that solid footing that we had with the Americans, I have one simple question. Would we at least concede that some of the vitriolic and visceral language utilized by members on that side against the Mulroney administration during the early part of the 1990s might have been just a little over the top and that there were some significant gains made for the country under the Brian Mulroney administration?
Mr. Stephen Harper:
Mr. Speaker, in my speech I acknowledged Mr. Mulroney's contributions, particularly to our trading relationships with the United States.
I think that if we were to look back at the record we would find that our party, under the leadership of my predecessor, Mr. Manning, and not just my predecessor as leader but my predecessor in Calgary Southwest, was consistently supportive of the Mulroney government's approach to opening up our trading relationship with the United States.
I challenge the hon. member to embrace this legacy by walking away from the party that has now embraced David Orchard and the extreme anti-free trade position. I challenge him to walk away from that kind of coalition and instead embrace our offer of a full coalition here.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise on debate and to particularly have the opportunity to speak shortly after the Leader of the Opposition. The member from Calgary made some comments in this supply day debate, particularly comments with respect to our trading relationship with the United States.
The Leader of the Opposition made the comment that we had a problem with the agricultural industry and the softwood lumber industry in our trading relationships with the United States solely because of the actions of the Prime Minister.
Besides being totally incorrect, when we look at the evidence, if that were true, then how can he explain that those difficulties with agricultural trade are not limited to Canada? If we look at the discussions that are taking place across the world, it is not just Canada. Almost every nation of the globe is adamantly opposed to the U.S. farm bill and find it injurious to them.
To suggest for a second that it is the Prime Minister's fault that the U.S. congress passed the U.S. farm bill is nothing but partisan politics at its very worst. It absolutely has no foundation in fact. When we look at the reality of what is happening in the world, that is evident to everybody. I suspect it is even evident across the way but I do not expect them to get up and admit to that.
The same thing is true in other trade issues. Take the issue of steel. The European Union and many nations around the world say that the United States is not listening to them on the issue of steel. Therefore the suggestion that it is one man who has what opposition views to be an inappropriate attitude is totally ludicrous and I think everybody can see that.
There are irritants in trade and we have issues to deal with in agriculture and in softwood lumber. However for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that the whole trading relationship with the United States has fallen apart since 1993 is not appropriate. It is ludicrous. The reality is that when we look at the overall relationship in terms of trade between Canada and the United States, it is a relationship that is working to the economic benefit of Canada. That is the reality, as much as the opposition might want to say otherwise. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that because we have issues, and there are issues in agriculture and softwood lumber, that the whole trading relationship is inappropriate.
The evidence of that is to look at the Canadian economy and go back to 1993. This great nirvana that the member of the opposition wants to refer to as being the point at which everything was great was before 1993, and then that it turned bad. If I remember correctly there was a $42 billion deficit in 1993 when we came to power, yet the Leader of the Opposition thought it was a wonderful period in time. That deficit is gone. In fact for five years the government has operated in a surplus. So much for it being an inappropriate activity since 1993.
There are low interest rates and low inflation. The country is having the strongest employment growth among the G-7 countries and has just returned to the highest credit rating we can possibly have. It does not seem to exactly be policies that have not done well by this country.
I am sure our viewers can hear that this is sort of striking home. The members are getting a little excited over there on the other side. I do not blame them, when we have an opportunity to point out what the record actually is instead of the record that they pretend it is. I can certainly understand that.
(1350)
However the hon. Leader of the Opposition made a point about sovereignty. He talked about sovereignty and what it sovereignty should be. There is a great deal of difficulty with the viewpoint of the Leader of the Opposition. What he essentially said was that sovereignty to the Alliance Party was the freedom to say yes to the Americans. That is in contrast to our definition of sovereignty which is the freedom to say yes or no, depending upon whether it is in the Canadian national interest. That is the difference.
Their relationship, or their conception of a relationship with the United States, simply is to go down to Washington and say “Mr. President, if that is what you want, that is where we are. Mr. or Mrs. Congressman, if that is there you are at, that is where we are at”. That is not what sovereignty is all about. Sovereignty is acting in the best interests of Canada. It is acting in the best interests of Canadian farmers. It is acting in the best interests of Canadian forestry workers. That is what Canadian sovereignty is all about and that is what the government is doing.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about dealing with the Americans and said that there was absolutely no co-operation with the Americans and that there was nothing getting done vis-à-vis the Americans. He conveniently overlooked evidence to the contrary. All members of the House know, or at least they should know, that Canada and the United States, under the able leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister in working with homeland security director Ridge, formed and developed an action plan to deal with border security. Border security and the efficiency of moving goods over and across that border are an important part of our trading relationship.
We came not only to an agreement last December on an action plan to ensure that we facilitated the movement of those goods across the border, but both the governments of Canada and the United States, led by the Deputy Prime Minister and homeland security director Ridge, worked well to ensure that could take place.
When we deal with the issues of agriculture and softwood lumber, there are a number of component parts with which we need to deal. Yes, we need to deal with our international partners and form consensus because when we deal with the inappropriate, and it is inappropriate, U.S. farm bill we need to do it not just by ourselves but with every part of this globe that trades on agricultural production with the United States. We need to form those alliances and form a consistent approach, and we are doing that.
We need to resolve how we will deal with the agricultural industry. The Alliance says that no action has taken place and that is ludicrous. That is why the minister of agriculture, with the ten provincial agricultural ministers and three territorial leaders, signed an agreement last year in Yukon to create a new agricultural policy framework in Canada. The federal government did not do this by itself. It was done in co-operation with the provincial and territorial governments, governments of all stripes, so that we could lead our agricultural industry into a strong and vibrant economy and restructured for the future. The industry supports that. Canadian producers support that. Provincial governments support that. We as a federal government support that.
We will continue to work with the premiers and the provinces on that. We will ensure that we have a strong agricultural industry in Canada. That is the reality. It is very different than the reality painted by the Leader of the Opposition, which is not accurate by any stretch of the imagination.
(1355)
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have one simple question. Western Canadian farmers could quite easily increase their incomes, diversify and value-add the same as they are doing in Ontario by getting rid of the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is the member, who is supposed to be trying to help rural Canadians in the west and across the country, willing to stand and say that he also supports a voluntary wheat board?
Hon. Andy Mitchell:
Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for rural affairs, I firmly believe and support working with the provincial governments on an agricultural policy framework to ensure that our producers and the network of communities that support our producers work to create a framework within which our industry can be successful and within which those people who depend on it are successful from coast to coast to coast. This party sees Canada not as a collection of different regions but as one nation with national values, national goals and national objectives.
(1400)
The Speaker:
When the debate on this matter resumes later this day, the hon. minister will have four minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments.
* * *
Privacy Commissioner
The Speaker:
I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the privacy commissioner concerning substantially similar provincial legislation.
[Translation]
This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
Statements by Members
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague, the recently appointed Secretary of State for the Status of Women and Multiculturalism and the member of parliament for Etobicoke--Lakeshore.
In 1993 she became the first African-Canadian woman to be elected to the House of Commons. I have known the member since I was elected in 1997 and I can tell the House that she is a truly outstanding woman. I am she sure will be a remarkable secretary of state.
I wish her all the best in her new portfolio and would invite all my colleagues to congratulate her on becoming the newest addition to the cabinet.
* * *
Canada-U.S. Relations
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance):
Check the record, Mr. Speaker. This is not the first time I have asked the Prime Minister to begin building a better relationship with the president of the United States. Instead, he has been globe-trotting, focusing on his African initiative rather than concentrating on our deteriorating trade relations with our southern neighbour and biggest trading partner.
The ongoing trade war, which now includes softwood lumber, farm subsidies and northern natural gas, is more than news clippings in my riding. It is our livelihood. My riding of Prince George--Peace River in the northern half of British Columbia is primarily dependent upon natural gas, farming and forestry. I agree with the government's action to take these disputes to the WTO but it may be too late when a decision arrives. Immediate action is required.
For the sake of my constituents and for all the other Canadians who rely on the billion dollar a day trade with the United States, will the Prime Minister go to Washington and not leave until President Bush commits to finding a solution to these trade issues?
* * *
[Translation]
Science, Technology and Informatics Fair 2002
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is both a duty and a pleasure for me to make statements in the House from time to time on scientific subjects.
I would therefore like to draw to hon. members' attention the 2002 science, technology and informatics fair that was held this past May 24 at La Vérendrye school in the riding of Ottawa—Vanier.
The objective of this event was to support the mission of La Vérendrye school by encouraging the integration of science, technology and informatics into the school curriculum, a fine objective.
It is important to point out the collaboration between parent volunteers and teaching staff in the preparations for this fair.
Two parents merit particular attention, Daniel Cusson and Maurice Lamontagne, who co-chaired the event and were in large part responsible for its organization.
My congratulations to La Vérendrye school, its administrators, teaching staff and pupils. Next year, I hope to have the opportunity to help with the organization.
* * *
[English]
Howard Mackie Awards
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadian Interuniversity Sport is the national governing body of university sport in Canada. Each year 49 members representing over 12,000 student athletes and 500 coaches compete for 19 national championships in 11 different sports.
Earlier this month Canadian Interuniversity Sport honoured the top female and male athletes with the 2002 Howard Mackie Awards, a distinction which carries with it a $5,000 scholarship to attend a Canadian university grad school of the recipient's choice.
Taking home the award as female athlete of the year was the University of Toronto's Liz Warden, a member of Canada's national swimming team and a resident of Indian River, Ontario. Liz was joined on the podium by fellow national swimming team member, Brian Jones of the University of British Columbia and a resident of Richmond, B.C.
The winners were selected by the board of trustees of the Canadian Athletic Foundation, a not for profit board established for the purpose of administering the awards.
I know everyone in the House joins with me in congratulating Liz Warden and Brian Jones as recipients of the awards.
* * *
(1405)
Education
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I rise in the House to congratulate a young constituent of mine from my riding of Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound who received a national millennium scholarship.
Greg Dietrich, who attends Walkerton District Secondary School will be graduating and will be attending the University of Guelph where he will be studying animal science. He also expects to go on to be a doctor or be in the field of science on genetics.
This is one of those times that as a former teacher I would like to be back in school to watch the faces of those graduates, their parents and their great teachers as they bring forth this next crop of young Canadians.
On behalf of the House and all members of parliament I would like to congratulate all graduating students right across this country from coast to coast to coast for a job well done.
* * *
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government should make the settlement of the softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. its number one priority. This conflict is hurting both countries. The cost of not reaching a solution is enormous.
Canadian lumber exporters have already started paying 27% duties in cash. Why is the Prime Minister rubbing shoulders with President Bush today at the NATO meeting in Rome saying he is too busy to talk to him but he might talk to French President Chirac instead? Will this help our desperate forest communities? Not at all. The U.S. lumber lobby is causing the dispute to pump up the price of wood in the United States. The pain suffered by our forest communities is about to get worse.
Canada wants to negotiate a solution based on fair trade. The U.S. lumber barons know this but by refusing to negotiate they continue to rake in profits, destroying communities and economies along the way.
The Prime Minister and the U.S. president should insist that negotiations begin again immediately. The Prime Minister must go to George Bush and ask him face to face: “Are you with us or agin us?”
* * *
Burlington Economic Development Corporation
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Economic Developers Council of Ontario recognized the achievements of the Burlington Economic Development Corporation and its 2001 marketing efforts at the annual Ontario Marketing Awards dinner.
The Burlington Economic Development Corporation received the Award of Excellence and Best of Show Award in the special events category for its “Driving Burlington's High Performance Growth” dinner. Furthermore, the BEDC received the Award of Excellence in the Business Retention and Expansion category for its “Jobsburlington Recruitment Campaign”.
This campaign, developed in conjunction with HRDC, assisted local businesses by helping them attract the necessary skilled labour. This project's website received over a million hits during a 12 week period and filled 100 job vacancies. The success of this project has been outstanding.
I wish to congratulate BEDC. Way to go team Burlington.
* * *
[Translation]
Code of Ethics
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals refused to allow the House of Commons to vote on a bill that I presented and that would have incorporated a code of ethics for ministers into the legislation and created a position of ethics counselor appointed by the House, who would report to the House. This is a bill that could have served them well.
While the rating for politicians' popularity is at its lowest levels in polls, the Prime Minister is doing nothing to remedy the situation.
So it is ill-advised to state in the House that integrity and public trust are the cornerstones of a democratic government, when it is the Prime Minister himself that started this nightmare with the Auberge Grand-Mère affair.
All of these scandals that are being unearthed are just the tip of the iceberg and demonstrate the clear lack of ethics within this government.
Instead of preaching and claiming to be a great democrat, the Prime Minister should urgently order a public inquiry in order to get to the bottom of the reprehensible actions of his ministers.
* * *
Mining Industry
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in an article entitled “The Future of mines”, appearing in Le Soleil on May 25, 2002, Réjean Lacombe and François Pouliot wrote:
|
|
The non-renewal of mineral reserves in Abitibi, the asbestos crisis and problems in the steel market are like the sword of Damocles over at least 2,500 of the 6,500 or so direct jobs in Quebec's mining industry. |
|
|
In Abitibi, if nothing happens in the next ten years, there will only be one mine left at Matagami (Bell Allard), La Ronde and maybe Doyon. The others will be shut down. |
|
|
The reserves are running out in Abitibi. Half of the twenty or so mines in Quebec currently have reserves of less than five years. |
|
|
All of the threatened mines are located in the Abitibi--Chibougamau region. The region currently employs some 3,000 miners, half of whom are in the group at risk. |
* * *
[English]
Science and Technology
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance strongly supports stem cell research. It makes a difference in the lives of Canadians today.
The new reproductive and related science bill wrongly focuses on embryonic research, the benefit of which is only speculative. The number of individuals who have been helped through embryonic stem cell transplants is zero, while research on adult stem cells can help people today.
Recently, a 52 year old Parkinson's patient was treated with stem cells from his own brain. His symptoms were reduced by 80% and he no longer requires medication. Last month, a Quebec woman with MS was reported to be in remission following a stem cell transplant from her own bone marrow. These are just two of many examples I could tell members about.
Adult stem cell research is making great progress without problems of immune rejection and tumour formation and without the ethical minefield of research using human embryos.
Let us get our focus right on stem cell research.
* * *
(1410)
Foreign Affairs
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last month I circulated a petition among members and senators calling upon the Government of Canada to support Taiwan in its desire to obtain observer status at the World Health Organization. With not much effort I collected well over 100 signatures.
[Translation]
My Bloc Quebecois colleagues collected 38 signatures on their own petition.
[English]
By any standard this is a strong measure of support by Canadian parliamentarians which transcends party lines. It is both a narrow message and a broad message. Specifically it calls upon the Government of Canada to support the government of Taiwan's position. More broadly however it calls upon the Government of Canada to change its application of the one China policy.
Members have spoken. A policy rooted outside of reality is in nobody's interest, least of all Canada's.
* * *
Social Programs
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on May 25 my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas and I joined 40,000 British Columbians who marched through downtown Vancouver to voice our dissent and opposition to the massive cuts perpetrated by Gordon Campbell's cruel agenda.
Seniors, single moms, students, the disabled, aboriginal people, workers, kids and families were all united in speaking out against the devastating cuts to our health care, environment, education, welfare, legal aid, employment standards and schools. Even today we hear that tuition at SFU will go up a whopping 30% and yet again poor people are being hit, this time a $75 a month cut on welfare.
Where are the B.C. federal Liberals? Why are they not sticking up for people's basic rights and services? Is our federal government now so gutless that it would allow this B.C. premier to destroy fundamental Canadian values of universal health care and a decent quality of life without fear and punishment for being poor.
We say that B.C. federal Liberals must do their job and support the people of B.C. in stopping Gordon Campbell and these awful cuts.
* * *
[Translation]
Liberal Government
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it took a long time to convince taxpayers that it was necessary to reduce the deficit and tighten their belts.
But after months of collective effort, we are uncovering the true face of the Liberal government: rich, manipulative, spendthrift, insensitive and contemptuous of the public's real needs.
In 1993, the Prime Minister said “—we are here to serve others, not ourselves”. But scandal after scandal, we cannot help but see that memory is not infallible. Say what they will, the Liberals have shamelessly served themselves.
How can the government then say that it has no money to help the provinces, to restore fiscal balance, to provide adequate funding for health and education, when it is spending millions to increase its visibility, to the benefit of its cronies.
Things have reached quite a state. The smell of corruption is one more reason we must get out of this rut.
* * *
[English]
Robert Lay
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that we learned of the passing of a long-time friend of members and staff from all parties, Mr. Robert Lay.
Bob Lay was somewhat of a fixture on the Hill for more than 30 years. Bob worked in the offices of several successive House leaders and chief whips from 1973 until his retirement in 2000. Bob could often be seen roaming the corridors of the Centre Block in his navy blue pinstripe suit late in the evening and on weekends. He possessed a masterful understanding of procedure of the House of Commons and a deep respect for the institute of Parliament.
[Translation]
The Hill was Bob Lay's second home, if not his first. Bob had a deep respect for the institution of parliament.
[English]
A lifelong resident of Sandy Hill, he was a font of knowledge about politics and politicians, having been personally acquainted with every Prime Minister since Mackenzie King. Bob's calm demeanour and soft voice allowed him to make many friends. He had a well-developed appreciation for refined living and a sense of humour that could be both wicked and kindly.
We extend our most sincere condolences to his family. We will miss Bob very much.
* * *
(1415)
Agriculture
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC):
Mr. Speaker, today the debate in the House is about how Canadians have lost confidence in the government, more specifically the department of agriculture. So far the minister of agriculture has hidden from tough decisions and from taking positive initiatives.
Today I put the minister of agriculture on notice because western Canada faces a serious chance and a real probability of drought again this year. Action is needed and needed now. The government has said it no longer wants to initiate ad hoc agricultural programs. Here is a chance for the government to do something new, a chance for it to be proactive.
I call upon the government to develop an adequately funded and targeted comprehensive disaster relief program that will serve all farmers across this country with consistency. The government must toss out its wait and see approach to agriculture assistance. The government needs to deal with the problems now before it is too late.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Government Grants
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today we have new conflict of interest reports. We have learned that the solicitor general lobbied the RCMP, an agent for which he is directly responsible, to help his brother win a $3.5 million grant from the federal police force.
In this All in the Family episode, the solicitor general appears to have used his role as minister responsible for the RCMP to pressure for tax dollars for his brother's project.
Given the Prime Minister's newfound concern for ethics, how can the solicitor general justify his actions?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the facts in this case are very clear. The proposal was prepared for submission to the Atlantic initiative fund. When my office received the unsolicited proposal from a group of institutions, including Holland College, Sheridan College in Ontario and the University of Moncton, it forwarded it to the RCMP.
As solicitor general I do have an interest in education and training. My office receives many requests and proposals, and they are sent on to the RCMP.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, according to press reports, he did a little more than that. He discussed these directly with the commissioner of the RCMP.
Since the Prime Minister has expressed concern about the ethical conduct of his ministers and has promised higher standards of behaviour, could the solicitor general tell us whether he informed the Prime Minister that he was lobbying his own department on behalf of his brother and, if so, did he tell the Prime Minister before or after he lobbied the RCMP?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I indicated quite clearly what took place in this case. I told my hon. colleague that a proposal was received. It was from a number of institutions. It came to my office and was forwarded to the RCMP for approval. The fact is that in this situation the RCMP did not approve the proposal.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is great to know that his defence is that he may be a lobbyist but that he is a really bad lobbyist. However he did not answer the question on whether he advised the Prime Minister.
[Translation]
I will ask my last supplementary. Did the solicitor general seek advice on ethics and did he examine the Prime Minister's visible or invisible code of ethical conduct before or after lobbying for his brother's college?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition indicated that I was not successful. The fact is that when a proposal is received it is up to the RCMP to decide what to do with that proposal. I do not direct the RCMP.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on October 16, 2001, the solicitor general said the following in the House:
| Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing I do not do it is run the operations of the RCMP. |
If in fact that is true, then why did the solicitor general feel that it was appropriate to discuss with the commissioner of the RCMP the awarding of a $3.5 million grant to Holland College which is headed by his brother, Alex MacAulay?
(1420)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this proposal was submitted by a number of institutions. As my hon. colleague also indicated, and he is absolutely correct, I do not direct the RCMP. I have not and I will not.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general's attempt to influence the RCMP commissioner, whether or not the $3.5 million was or ever will be granted, was highly unethical, highly inappropriate and a clear case of political interference.
When will the solicitor general do the right thing and tender his resignation?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, again today we see excessive blood lust on the other side.
The truth is that no personal or private interest was being pursued in this case. Is there something wrong with his brother being the president of Holland College? Ought he to have resigned because he happened to have a family member in public life? Is that the extreme that we have gone to? Should Sheridan College have thought “My goodness, we had better not ally in this presentation with Holland College because the leader of the opposition will get up and scream scandal?”
The opposition should stay in the schoolyard and measure its language more carefully.
* * *
[Translation]
Government Contracts
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the Minister of Immigration was not required to comply with the code of ethics when he stayed at Claude Boulay's because, in 1997, he was an MP. Fine.
However, in 2000, the minister was then a secretary of state and he had to comply with the code of ethics when he categorically denied having lived at the condominium of the president of Groupe Everest.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that, in 2000, when he denied the truth and hid his connections with Claude Boulay, at whose condo he did stay, the Minister of Immigration violated the code of ethics for ministers and secretaries of state?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one cannot retroactively violate a code of ethics. The minister was not a cabinet member then. His actions were not governed by the standards of the code of ethics.
In any case, the contract was accepted by the Department of Canadian Heritage. This is not a contract that was accepted by the secretary of state or his office.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this is somewhat worrisome. The Minister of Immigration has problems understanding things and, in addition, his memory is failing him. In 2000, he forgot that he had stayed at Claude Boulay's condo, who, and this is quite the coincidence, also forgot all about it.
Will the Minister of Immigration admit that all these cases of amnesia occurred while he was governed by the code of ethics and when Groupe Everest had just been awarded a $500,000 contract to organize the Canada-wide tour that he himself had announced with great fanfare?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps trying to subject to the code of ethics the actions of an MP who was not a minister. This is neither the proper level, nor the proper standard.
We will develop a code for MPs and senators. I hope that the members of the Bloc will support us when we do so.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in defending himself against charges that he favoured Everest, the minister of immigration claimed that a secretary of state does not have authority to authorize contracts.
My question is for the minister of immigration. Will he admit that not having authority to authorize contracts in no way prevented him from being able to strongly recommend that Everest be hired, all the more so as it was his pan-Canadian tour and his consultation which was involved? It was his first project as minister.
Will he admit that it in no way prevented him from being able to give his friend a very strong recommendation?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this contract was permitted under treasury board rules. It was approved by the department of public works.
As I have repeatedly said, the actions of a member who is not a minister are not covered by the ethics code.
(1425)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister of immigration was conducting a pan-Canadian consultation. It was his first project as minister, and they want us to believe that the then minister of public works, Alfonso Gagliano, or the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I do not know which, surprised him with the news that the firm that would be helping him, the firm which had been given the contract, was the firm owned by his friend, the president of Everest.
They actually want us to swallow this. They take us for idiots. They take the public for idiots.
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of the minister of immigration's friends. If there are questions about the contract, the same holds as for the other contracts. This is something that could be looked at by the auditor general.
She is the one who conducted the investigations which were requested by the government. She will continue to do so. She has already said that she will continue to do so, and we will respond directly to the auditor general's recommendations.
* * *
[English]
Health
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Medical Association today published evidence that patients treated in for profit hospitals have a 2% higher risk of dying than those in not for profit hospitals. Based on 38 million patients, the study demolishes the health minister's contention that who owns or operates hospitals does not matter “as long as when you present your health card, your stay and treatment are paid for by a publicly administered health care system”.
Has this dramatic evidence finally persuaded the health minister to change her mind?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misunderstands what I said. I do not advocate for profit hospitals. What I do advocate for is evidence based decision making.
The importance of the Canadian Medical Association Journal article is that it provides us with more evidence that provincial and territorial health care ministers can use in making decisions as to how to best deliver health care on behalf of all Canadians.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome that the minister is now acknowledging it is hard evidence that needs to underlie these decisions.
The minister sent shock waves through the country on January 18 when she talked about how it does not matter who owns and operates the hospitals. This is evidence to be sure based on 26,000 American hospitals. Applied to the Canadian context, this means that 2,200 Canadians each year would die unnecessarily.
I ask the minister again, will she withdraw her contention that it does not matter who owns and operates the hospitals?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what I will say is that which I said earlier, which is what is important is evidence on which provincial and territorial health care ministers can make decisions around how health care is delivered in this country. In relation to that, the Canadian Medical Association Journal article is in fact an important contribution. It is one which I am sure my provincial and territorial colleagues as well as myself will review very carefully and with great interest.
* * *
[Translation]
Government Contracts
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.
When he was a minister of the crown, why did he give two contradictory responses to the Globe and Mail concerning his past relationship with Groupe Everest?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister has already said that he had not properly understood the questions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. John Manley: But at any rate, he was not obliged to give any answer to questions relating to his conduct while a backbencher.
* * *
[English]
Government Grants
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general now is following precisely the Shawinigate playbook on dealing with government agencies.
The Prime Minister saw nothing wrong in calling the president of the BDC. Now the solicitor general is discussing directly with the commissioner of the RCMP a $3.5 million grant application filed by the minister's brother. This is a clear violation of section 23 of the conflict of interest code.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us, has the ethics counsellor been asked for a ruling on this conflict?
(1430)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in addition to my responsibilities as solicitor general, I am also responsible for Prince Edward Island. It is my job.
In this case I was acting on behalf of my province, unlike my right hon. colleague from Calgary Centre who was acting on his own when he called the Prime Minister to ask to have his brother appointed a judge.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker:
Order. It is very difficult to hear the question from the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast who after all has the floor.
I know a lot of members have questions today. We will hear this one now because the hon. member has the floor.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question for the solicitor general. Did he or did he not talk to the RCMP Commissioner with regard to grants to Holland College, yes or no?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated a number of times, the proposal was submitted to the AIF. I received the proposal as regional minister. As is done with all letters and proposals, it was submitted to the appropriate area which was the RCMP.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat the question again for the solicitor general. Did the solicitor general talk directly with the commissioner of the RCMP, yes or no?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I made the facts of this case very clear. I acted as the minister responsible for Prince Edward Island. I acted as the responsible solicitor general.
The proposal was received by my office. It was submitted to the appropriate area, the RCMP. They made the decision.
* * *
[Translation]
Government Contracts
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister of immigration did in fact deny having used the condo owned by his friend from Groupe Everest, Mr. Boulay. At the time of this denial, he was a member of cabinet. Should he not have told the whole truth?
Will the minister finally admit that both he and Claude Boulay initially denied the facts regarding the use of the condo because they were both fully aware that they were in conflict of interest and deliberately tried to keep journalists from getting wind of the whole affair?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister already explained that he misunderstood the questions.
In any case, he was not even required to answer questions regarding his conduct when he was a backbencher.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, in defence of his minister of immigration, the Prime Minister gave as an excuse that members were entitled to personal privacy.
I agree with that. Of course members are entitled to personal privacy.
However, does the Deputy Prime Minister not find it completely unacceptable when a member's private life influences the first decisions he makes as a minister, causing him to return a favour to someone to whom he was indebted?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the member is exaggerating.
In any case, I believe that a member's behaviour and the right to privacy allow us to avoid answering questions about his private life.
I believe that the contract in question followed the treasury board standards. This was a contract recommended by the Department of Public Works and Government Services. There is no need for more questions.
* * *
[English]
Government Grants
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I think the people of Canada missed the answer to the question directed at the solicitor general.
My colleague asked him if he talked to the commissioner of the RCMP regarding the $3.5 million proposal from his brother who is the head of the college. There may well have been other colleges as well, but did he talk to the RCMP commissioner about that proposal?
(1435)
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think we have had about enough of this particular drive-by smearing by the Alliance Party. The proposal was not made--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker:
Order. I know the minister is getting a lot of help with his answer but we have to be able to hear his answer rather than the comments that may be intended to assist, for all I know. The Deputy Prime Minister has the floor. We will hear the answer.
Hon. John Manley:
Mr. Speaker, there was not a proposal made on behalf of the brother of the solicitor general. There was a proposal made on behalf of Sheridan College, Holland College and the University of Moncton. It was not for the private or personal benefit of anyone related to the minister.
It is time we realized that ministers have a job to do that requires them to take a position in public life. The fact that he received a proposal and passed it on--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Provencher.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has raised all types of fog in trying to avoid the question. I have respect for the solicitor general. Why does the solicitor general not have the courage to stand in the House and state did he or did he not talk to the commissioner about this proposal? Regardless of whether it was his brother's college or somebody else's college, did he talk to the commissioner about this proposal?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, why does the member not have the courage to stand in this place and acknowledge that Holland College is not the solicitor general's brother's college? It is a public institution. Why does the member not have the courage to stand in this place and admit that he is trying to, without foundation, smear the reputation of an hon. member of the House, a minister who has served with distinction? Why does the member not admit that he has taken one step too many in this ongoing crusade to try to destroy people's reputations?
* * *
[Translation]
Government Contracts
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, when a firm obtains a government contract, the public is entitled to expect it to be of a certain size, to have a structure allowing it to carry out its mandate satisfactorily.
How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain the fact that a check of the list of financial institutions shows that Communications Coffin claims to have no employees working for it?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the allegation that the hon. member has just made.
With respect to the issue related to the Coffin firm, which was discussed in the House yesterday, my officials have been in touch with the firm, both yesterday and today. The examination is ongoing. We are obviously seeking satisfactory answers from the company. We expect to receive those answers. If we do not, the appropriate action will be taken.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, does the minister think that it is right for the federal government to award substantial contracts to a communications firm which has no employees and which, in the end, serves only as a intermediary between the federal government and subcontractors, after helping itself to a generous commission? Is this good management?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what is important is for any contractor that does business with the Government of Canada to be able to perform the services that are contracted for, to do so in a proper manner and according to the complete rules of transparency and accountability.
I would point out that my predecessor in the department took steps earlier this spring to launch an entire new process for securing standing offers for firms in this business.
(1440)
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, at least now we know why the Prime Minister went to Rome. It is going to take an affidavit from the Pope to help out the solicitor general on this one.
Did the solicitor general specifically speak to the RCMP commissioner in regard to a $3.5 million program? Yes or no.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said to the House a number of times, I speak to the commissioner of the RCMP on a regular basis. In the second last briefing we had, the commissioner of the RCMP just indicated to me that this proposal likely would not be accepted. He liked the proposal but it likely would not be accepted because he did not have the means to do it.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, whether the proposal is accepted or not is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the facts. Did the minister specifically point out to the RCMP commissioner that Holland College, where the president is his brother, or did he actually say, would be a great place for this thing to go if they were going to do it? Yes or no.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
No, Mr. Speaker. As I have indicated quite clearly many times, when I receive a proposal it is handled in the appropriate manner. I did not indicate to the RCMP what they should or should not do. I did not tell the RCMP what to do or what not to do. I have never done that and I will never do that.
* * *
The Environment
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, after lengthy negotiations, the Canada-Ontario Great Lakes agreement was signed in March 2002 and has been in effect since then, yet the details have not been made public.
Could the Minister of the Environment inform the House as to when the contents of the agreement will become public knowledge, considering the importance of protecting the world's largest freshwater ecosystem?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell the hon. member that we are in discussions with the province of Ontario at the present time. My expectation is that we will be able to make the announcement that he asked for in the very near future, but I can assure him and the House that despite the fact that this has not yet been signed, ongoing work is continuing.
In fact, in the last year some $3 million was made available for projects under the general terms of the agreement, and we intend to make further financing announcements, regardless of the announcement with respect to the agreement, over the months to come.
* * *
Health Care
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the health minister says she wants to make evidence based decisions. She now has the evidence, the hard, cold facts, the conclusive results of the McMaster University study, which show that private hospital care increases death rates.
She also knows that under her watch private hospitals and clinics have opened up in Ontario, Alberta and B.C.
My question is for the minister. Now that she has the evidence, will she act to stop privatization?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, if one presumes that provincial and territorial health ministers make decisions in relation to delivery methods for health care on the basis of evidence, the McMaster study is an important study. It is one study and I have no doubt that provincial and territorial colleagues will study it, just as I will.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the McMaster study, which shows that private hospital care increases death rates, is a call to action for the minister and the government.
Four months ago the health minister said private delivery was not a big deal. We now know it is a big deal. It is a matter of life and death.
Under the minister new privatization initiatives have occurred in Calgary, Vancouver, Abbotsford, Brampton and Ottawa. At this rate, deaths will occur in Canada as a result of the minister's inaction. Will she now stop privatization--
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, here is another example of the hon. member's tactics in relation to scaremongering.
As I have said throughout, my provincial and territorial colleagues and I will make decisions on the basis of the best evidence.
The hon. member is suggesting that this is a useful study in terms of helping us understand those delivery modes which make the most sense in various circumstances. Absolutely. I think the McMaster study will be very useful to all of us in making those decisions.
* * *
(1445)
Government Contracts
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC):
Mr. Speaker, there is obviously a lot of concern surrounding the questions about the solicitor general's contact with the RCMP commissioner.
The right hon. member for Calgary Centre asked if this had been referred to the ethics commissioner and it seems to me that would be an appropriate way to deal with this. Has it been referred to the ethics commissioner or will it be?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor is undoubtedly prepared to look at any question that is raised by a minister or by the Prime Minister with him, but I point out once again to the hon. member that there is no allegation here, even at the most extreme, that any private or personal interest was being pursued in this case. Rather, what was being considered was a proposal from public institutions, namely two colleges and a university. It is a different matter altogether.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor's report on the Gagliano affair is twelve pages long, has four subtitles and twelve sub-subtitles. It obviously took a lot of work and time to prepare. It is hard to believe that the ethics counsellor, over the weekend, on Saturday afternoon, could prepare two of these. Would the government table these two completed reports on the minister of public works and the minister of defence today?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as the ethics counsellor advises the Prime Minister on the conduct of ministers, that is a matter between him and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister takes responsibility for ministerial conduct and that is his job.
* * *
Government Appointments
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we now learn that Portugal, like Denmark, might be receiving a disgraced Canadian minister as our ambassador. Rumours are afoot that the former Minister of National Defence may be appointed ambassador to Portugal.
Will the government assure Canadians that another disgraced minister will not be rewarded with an ambassador's position?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I guess the economy is going well, I guess the Alliance Party is very satisfied with the state of Canadian health care and I am sure that the Alliance has no concerns in areas of justice or in other matters of the environment, because that has to be one of the more pathetic questions we have been exposed to in the House in a long time.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about all of those things on this side of the House, but we are also concerned about the reputation of Canada worldwide and as a trade partner.
The Danish people must be wondering why Canada is punishing them by shipping them one of the Prime Minister's ethically damaged ministers.
One minister did something wrong and was punished. Another did something equally wrong, possibly worse, and he is being rewarded with an ambassadorship.
Do you have any standards on that side of the House, and if you do, what are they?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you do have standards and I would speak for them any time.
That really reflects the mentality of the members over there, that this is all about punishment. In fact what we are endeavouring to do and what the Prime Minister endeavoured to do in his speech last week was to deal with the maintenance of public confidence with an eight point plan to deal with issues, some of which have been raised quite legitimately by the auditor general. We have been very transparent and open about those. We have undertaken to make the changes that are necessary. We are looking toward the future, while they are looking to punish for the past.
* * *
[Translation]
Government Contracts
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from the lips of the Deputy Prime Minister that the minister of heritage was apparently the one who selected Groupe Everest to organize the cross-Canada consultation on amateur sport.
We would like to know the criteria the heritage minister used to select, totally at random, the company belonging to the great buddy of the minister of immigration?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I never said it was the minister, I said it was the Department of Canadian Heritage. According to treasury board regulations, the company was chosen by Public Works Canada.
I would however like to quote the words of the member for Châteauguay who said “I congratulate the government for the consultations it has carried out. I believe they were necessary for the sporting community, be it athletes, coaches, or even other levels of government. There were consultations, and I took part in some. I congratulate the government on that”.
This, then is the work which—
(1450)
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, is she the one who made the choice? If not, if it is not the secretary of state, who says he is not empowered to award contracts, and if it is not the minister of heritage, then was it Alfonso Gagliano who awarded the contract?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the same question may be asked a hundred times, but the answer is always the same.
Not only did the contract respect TB regulations, but I have also just quoted the words of his colleague who has indicated that the work done under this contract was carried out very well.
* * *
[English]
Government Appointments
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Alfonso Gagliano's conduct as public works minister is now the subject of at least one police investigation and involving Groupaction. Surely given the Prime Minister's apparent concern about ethics in public life, given that, it is wrong for him to allow Mr. Gagliano to continue as our ambassador.
Will the Prime Minister tell us, is he at least considering rescinding the appointment of Alfonso Gagliano as ambassador?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, the member misstates the facts. The former minister is not under any police investigation. Second, once again in a casual smearing of a distinguished public career reputation, I think it is unsuitable.
The information of which Mr. Gagliano is aware is perfectly accessible through all of this process and he too is accessible to those who are doing the investigation.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has put in place a flexible ethics guideline. The minister of defence did not adhere to it and was removed from his position. The minister of public works did not adhere to it, and was demoted. Yet Alfonso Gagliano did not adhere to it and was given an ambassadorship by the Prime Minister. This involves not only international affairs but also funny business.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister perhaps explain this to me?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member must have a very good understanding of funny business. He has had plenty of experience.
It must, however, be acknowledged that, in this case, the Prime Minister was recognizing the service an individual had provided to the public for a number of years.
There is also the fact that, here in the House and in the committees of the House, the hon. member can ask any question he wishes on what interests him.
* * *
[English]
Health
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. With the current pace of life and rising demands on workers in our knowledge based economy, mental illness is expected to rise sharply.
What is the minister doing to bolster mental health research and treatment efforts?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, indeed the Government of Canada considers issues surrounding mental health as very important, not only to individual Canadians but to their families and their communities.
Health Canada works across this country to promote mental health, working at the grassroots level developing tools, programs and resources. We also support the CIHR which has funded recently to the tune of close to some $10 million 55 projects in communities of all sizes to learn more about the causes of mental illness and how we, our families and communities can deal with the challenges of mental illness.
* * *
[Translation]
Government Contracts
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in 1997, the minister of immigration stayed at a luxury condo owned by Claude Boulay, the president of Groupe Everest. First, he said that he never stayed at Mr. Boulay's condo, but his story changed. Now, he tells us that he spent several weeks in this luxury accommodation.
My question for the minister is a simple one: Why did he change his story? Why?
(1455)
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, his explanation was that he had not clearly understood the question in English. In any event, this question has been asked several times today, and the answer is the same.
[English]
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of question period is to try to hold the government accountable. It is hard to do that when ministers do not stand up and answer questions that are asked of them.
We asked the solicitor general a simple yes or no question, but he cannot summon the will to stand up and answer yes or no to a simple question. We asked the minister of immigration simple questions. He cannot stand in his place and answer the questions. We tried to ask questions of Mr. Gagliano but the Liberals hid him over in an embassy.
I ask again a simple question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. If he is worth his income as a minister he will stand up and answer it. Why did he change his story about staying at the luxury condo? Why did he change it?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I encourage you to deal with that issue as a matter of a point of order because the rules of the House are quite clear. The minister of immigration has no obligation to stand in the House to answer questions about what he did when he was a backbench member of parliament.
If the member has any question to do with his responsibilities as minister of immigration, if he can think of one, why does he not ask it and the minister will respond?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians, we are entitled to know who at amateur sport awarded the contract to Everest.
I have a simple question for the minister of heritage—we are told that she is the one. Did she authorize the contract, what were the criteria, and did she know that the president of the company was a close friend of her minister responsible for amateur sport? That is a clear and simple question. Can she answer?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me try to be quite clear. The contract in question was awarded by the Department of Canadian Heritage. It was not the secretary of state's office. All Government of Canada procedures for acquiring communications services were followed.
The specific choice of Groupe Everest was made by officials in the Department of Public Works and Government Services on the basis of the agency's standing offer with that department.
* * *
[Translation]
Renewable Energy Sources
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Renewable energy sources, particularly wind and solar energy, are gaining more and more interest throughout the world.
In addition to reducing our dependance on oil and gas, these energy sources also provide a solution to the pressing problem confronting Canadians: the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other atmospheric emissions from energy production and consumption.
Can the Minister of Natural Resources explain to the House of Commons how the government—
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, renewable energy is extremely important for all members of the House. Last week I launched in North Cape in Prince Edward Island the wind power production incentive, a $260 million initiative, to develop wind energy across the country.
This new Government of Canada program will help increase the amount of wind energy available across Canada by 500%. This is a substantial improvement and I know all members of the House will support the program.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a bombshell was dropped on the cattle industry over the weekend when the Canadian Food Inspection Agency revealed it downgraded Manitoba's tuberculosis free status five years ago. The Liberals neglected to inform the cattle producers, the Manitoba government and the House of Commons of the change in Manitoba's tuberculosis status.
In question period on March 15, in response to my questions, the minister of agriculture stated that all of Canada was TB free. This is clearly not true.
Did the minister not know of Manitoba's change in status or did he just simply mislead the House?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the status of Manitoba is one that does not affect provincial movement of cattle, livestock, interprovincial movement of cattle or international movement of cattle. It has TB free accreditation but is not designated as totally TB free. The Canadian animal health consultative committee and the province of Manitoba has been aware of that.
* * *
(1500)
[Translation]
Government Contracts
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we now know that it is the minister of heritage who awarded the contract. Since it is her department, she has the responsibility.
My question for her has to do with the criteria she used. Did she know that Groupe Everest belonged to a personal friend of the minister responsible for amateur sport? Did she discuss this with the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport before awarding the contract?
Could she tell us what process she followed, since she is responsible for awarding this contract?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, again let me be clear. The contract was awarded by the Department of Canadian Heritage not by the minister. The choice of Groupe Everest was made by officials in the Department of Public Works and Government Services at the time on the basis of the agency's standing offer with that department and that standing offer was the result of a fully competitive process.
* * *
Taxation
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is a question on tax policy. Deaf and hard of hearing people, including students, now are issued tax bills for funds they receive to hire a sign language interpreter or a captioner. This taxation imposes an unfair financial burden and hardship, in particular on students, forcing many to discontinue their studies.
Will the minister do the right thing now and stop issuing tax bills for services that help to provide a level playing field for students and all Canadians who have hearing difficulties?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in the last budget, and in fact in the budget prior to that as well, we substantially improved the tax credits for people with disabilities. It is the government's intention to continue to do this.
I will certainly examine the issue the member has raised.
* * *
Government Contracts
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it the government's position that ministers have no authority over the issuing of advertising or sponsorship contracts?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister of public works has explained what process was followed with respect to that contract. I hope that clarified any confusion the hon. member found in my earlier response in French.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker:
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Ahmad Humaid Al Tayer, who is the Minister of Communications of the United Arab Emirates and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Emirates Post.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Points of Order
Oral Question Period
[Points of Order]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it has been the practice of the House during question period that the opposition can only ask questions of the ministers and their area of ministerial responsibility. We have always been precluded from asking a question about the minister's responsibility with respect to province or other responsibilities that the Prime Minister has given to him.
The solicitor general, in a response to one of the questions today, made it very clear that he, as solicitor general, also had ministerial responsibility for the province of Prince Edward Island.
I would therefore ask if this does not make the case that in future the official opposition and others will be able to ask the ministers questions about their provincial responsibilities along with their other assigned responsibilities?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay--Columbia just raised a point stating that he considered it would be appropriate for someone to answer questions about regional responsibilities or responsibilities outside of the minister's administrative function.
I draw to the attention of the House page 426 of Marleau and Montpetit, which says very clearly that a question must lie within the administrative responsibility of the government or the individual minister addressed. The footnote refers to an intervention by the then speaker, the hon. John Bosley, in reference to Sinclair Stevens where at the time Mr. Stevens was asked a question regarding his personal behaviour and something having nothing to do with his department.
At the time the Speaker ruled that the question was out of order on the ground that it did not pertain to Mr. Stevens' responsibility as the minister. He further clarified that questions of a purely personal nature or otherwise were out of order, even if the borderline between what was personal and what was ministerial was not always evident. That was on May 8, 1986, pages 13081 and 13082 of Hansard.
(1505)
Mr. Jim Abbott:
Mr. Speaker, the House leader has read us something that is irrelevant to my point. It is irrelevant in that the quotation that he read had to do with the fact that the question related to the personal business of Mr. Stevens. This issue does not have anything to do with the personal business of the solicitor general or certainly should not have.
My point is that the solicitor general in my judgment, and I am looking for your wisdom on this, Mr. Speaker, has clearly opened the door. As a minister that has been assigned responsibility for Prince Edward Island by the Prime Minister of Canada, he has reaffirmed in the House that he has responsibility for Prince Edward Island.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that I should also be able to ask, for example, of the Minister of Natural Resources, who is the political minister for the province of British Columbia as assigned by the Prime Minister and does administrative functions on behalf of the Prime Minister with respect to that provincial responsibility, questions about what is going on in the province of British Columbia as they relate to any spending related to WED or anything of that nature in that province.
I think the solicitor general has opened the door and I would like to drive my car through it.
The Speaker:
I think the hon. member for Kootenay--Columbia has raised a point that may or may not entitle him to ask questions.
The Chair is very generous in allowing members to ask questions in the House, as the hon. member for Kootenay--Columbia is well aware, but it begs the question of who gets to answer. Any member can rise on the government side to answer. The Chair has no control over that. He might ask the hon. Minister of Natural Resources some question concerning British Columbia but the Minister of Finance might be the one to stand up and answer, or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, or the Prime Minister, or the Deputy Prime Minister or even the minister of state, the government House leader, who has books in hand and I am sure is ready to argue this point further.
In the circumstances I do not think there is an immediate answer to his question. I am prepared to look at it and come back to the House if necessary. However I am sure that he is not likely to get objections from the Chair if he frames his question and addresses it to someone specific, particularly when someone else gets up to answer which as he knows is commonplace in question period in the House and has been for as long as I can remember.
* * *
Board of Internal Economy
The Speaker:
I have the honour to inform the House that Mr. Don Boudria of the electoral district of Glengarry--Prescott--Russell has been appointed member of the Board of Internal Economy in place of Mr. Ralph Goodale, member for the electoral district of Wascana.
Government Orders
[Supply]
* * *
[English]
Supply
Allotted Day--International Trade
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, when the proceedings were interrupted by question period, the minister was just coming forth with all the wonderful plans that his government apparently had for the well-being of the country.
I find it rather distressing that he exceeded in volume what he produced in substance. I would like to ask him to simply state what he was trying to say. He was so loud that we could not understand his words.
(1510)
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I said a number of things. It is unfortunate the hon. member did not hear them.
Let me make it clear. In dealing with the issues of agriculture and softwood lumber the government needs to follow and is following three different processes.
First, we need to understand that the issue of agricultural trade is not simply a bilateral issue with the United States. Agricultural trade exists right around the world. Several countries are heavily involved in it. Several organizations within the global community groups countries together. As we deal with the U.S. farm bill, it is important that we have consultations with all those individuals because the impact is not just on Canada. It is on many nations around the globe. It is as negative on them as it is on us and we need to deal with them.
The second point is that it is important that we have an opportunity to deal with some of the long term issues that are involved in our industries in terms of agriculture, and I mention that one again. The agricultural policy framework is one such initiative to deal with the ongoing issues in agriculture.
To quote from the Speech from the Throne and again from the budget, we must stop dealing on a crisis management perspective and bring some long term stability to the agricultural industry.
That is why last June the federal minister of agriculture reached an agreement with his provincial and territorial counterparts in the Yukon and why they have spent the past year working toward developing that framework. They are making some good progress. Another meeting is scheduled for the end of June where hopefully they will make some additional progress.
The third component is to deal with short term issues. Structures are in place to deal with some of those short term issues. On the softwood lumber side, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, has a number of tools that can be used in that respect. There is a safety net program in terms of the department of agriculture to deal with that. There are the regional development agencies right across the country that deal with community adjustment. There is also existing programming and we are looking at the adequacy of that programming. We are looking at additional measures that we may need to take in response to some of the international issues that are happening.
The key point here, and the point we understand as a government, is that we do not simply react in a major crisis, as the Alliance would suggest we do. We take a co-ordinated and an all encompassing approach to ensure we have a clear strategy to deal with the issues that are being brought forth by the inappropriate actions of the United States, both in terms of agriculture and in terms of softwood lumber.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say to the member opposite that this is not a knee-jerk reaction. We have been asking the government for a long term comprehensive strategy for a long time. In fact we began asking for that years ago when the softwood lumber agreement was in place. We knew it would expire and that the government would need to have a plan, and that it did not have a plan.
As a result, workers are now losing their jobs, many of them in my riding. Would he not agree with me on that point?
Hon. Andy Mitchell:
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we entered into discussions and negotiations as the softwood lumber agreement was coming to a conclusion. We did not do this in isolation. We did it with the provinces and with the industry. One of the things that they made clear to us was that we must work toward a free trade regime and not re-enter into an agreement such as we did five years ago. That was the strategic approach. It was accepted and supported by the provinces and the industry. That is in fact what the government has been doing, continues to do and will do in the future.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, those questions and the answers provide me with an excellent opportunity to participate in the debate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to re-emphasize for the House the importance the government accords to agriculture in Canada.
As was just discussed, I need to remind members that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been working non-stop for the past year with his provincial and territorial counterparts to develop the policy that they all agreed to in principle last June in Whitehorse. It is a policy that will take Canada's agriculture sector from the 20th century truly into the 21st century.
As the secretary of state just said, the importance of this agricultural policy framework, as it is called, lies in its ability to galvanize the agriculture sector and to increase its competitiveness and profitability in the long term. It is a strong, integrated policy that focuses on food safety and quality, innovation and environmentally responsible production. Such a policy is this sector's best security for the future. The government recognized this in the December budget when it made a commitment to provide its share of predictable long term funding to support such a policy.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his provincial colleagues continue to make progress toward signing an umbrella agreement on this framework next month.
This new integrated policy is essential for the continued growth of the agriculture sector in Canada as it faces unprecedented challenges. This is not something that can be accomplished piecemeal. No matter how well-meaning, knee-jerk reactions are not the way to go.
Our farmers work in a very complex world environment today. We all know about the U.S. farm bill. We all know about drought, globalization and the increasing consumer concerns and demands. Those are tough challenges but Canadian producers have always turned challenges to their benefit by treating them as opportunities. They have always used ingenuity and innovation to come up with better ways to meet the bottom line. That is how the farmers, not governments, built our agriculture and agrifood sector into a multi-billion dollar business, accounting for 8% of the gross domestic products. It is the largest manufacturing sector in seven out of ten of our provinces and the third largest agrifood exporter in the world.
The agriculture and agrifood sector is a major economic driver in the country. The proposed agriculture policy framework recognizes this and will lead to even greater growth and profitability.
When the nation's agriculture ministers met last June in Whitehorse, they shared a sense of urgency, fully aware that agricultural policy in Canada did not square with the challenges and opportunities that the new millennium held. What united the ministers in Whitehorse was the recognition that new times called for new measures. They left Whitehorse with an agreement in principle on an action plan to help Canada be the best in the world at meeting the demands of the marketplace.
Over the course of the last year the response to their vision has gone from being cautious initially, as one would expect, even skeptical in the first place, to wide acceptance and broad support among the stakeholders. I stress the stakeholders. I am not talking about wide acceptance and support among politicians.
The reason for that development over the year is quite simple. It is because this approach makes sense. It is the logical approach and the sector sees it as the approach that will increase profitability by equipping it for success in the 21st century marketplace driven by the new expectations of consumers and tight global competition.