Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak on Bill C-311, an act to require the Minister for International Trade to retaliate against import restrictions introduced by the United States of America on Canadian refined sugar and sugar-containing products.
I said that I was extremely pleased to speak on this bill, and I am pleased to do so of course, but also somewhat distressed at having to speak on such a bill. I feel it is an unfortunate bill not because the initiative of my colleague from Fundy-Royal is an unfortunate one, anything but, but because I think it is unfortunate we are placed in a situation at this time which requires us to discuss or pass such a bill.
It is unfortunate that the two largest trading partners in the world, Canada and the USA, have reached the stage of having to envision bills such as this one. It is unfortunate that these two countries, which share the longest undefended border in the world, are forced to assess, to envisage, to discuss bills such as this one. This bill from my colleague from Fundy-Royal, who also heads the sugar caucus, the all-party caucus to which he referred a few minutes ago, was introduced to this House in reaction, essentially, to two things.
First, to a decision by the United States to restrict unilaterally access to the American market by Canadian sugar products as of January 1 this year. On January 1, the United States decided to reduce Canadian sugar imports to the United States by 8,000 metric tonnes, and it will further reduce imports of Canadian sugar by 22,000 metric tonnes as of October 1. This is a considerable reduction, since in three months, from October 1 to December 31, 1994, we shipped more than 35,000 metric tonnes of sugar products to the United States. This is a considerable reduction.
As a result, sugar refineries in Canada and Quebec stand to lose $135 million, while in the process more than 2,400 jobs across Canada and Quebec may be lost. These unilateral reductions directly contradict the provisions of NAFTA and the provisions of the Uruguay Round agreements that led to the creation of the World Trade Organization.
The bill before the House today is also a reaction to legislation proposed in the United States, the Helms-Burton bill, which would prohibit any company importing sugar from Cuba from having access to the American market. The bill has already reached the floor of the House of Representatives and will soon be put to a vote in the U.S. Senate.
The consequences of the passage of such a bill may be quite serious for Canada and Quebec, since the bill may further restrict access to the U.S. market for Canadian and Quebec sugar refineries. As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal said earlier, we went to Washington to discuss the matter with our American colleagues,
and we found that they were influenced by two stubborn misconceptions, two misconceptions that will not budge.
The first misconception is that Canada is flooding the American market with sugar products. Let me say that this is totally false. It is totally false, because Canadian refined sugar represents only 1 per cent of the American market, and sugar containing products represent only 3 per cent of the American market, whereas the Americans occupy 13 per cent of our refined sugar market and 26 per cent of our market for sugar containing products. I say this to show how wrong this misconception is.
The second misconception that is very popular in the United States is the belief that Canada is dumping Cuban sugar on the American market-another belief that is totally wrong. It is totally wrong, because we differentiate in Canada between sugar produced in Cuba and anywhere else, and this differentiation is certified. The American authorities recognize this certification.
A few months ago, American inspectors came to Canada to check and were satisfied with the differentiation we make between sugar products from Cuba and other sugar products.
It is important to note as well that Canada imports more sugar from the United States than it does from Cuba.
While we were in Washington, people asked us if our mission was not a bit dangerous, if we did not think the Americans would take advantage of our being in Washington to try to obtain Canadian concessions on farm product quotas? Of course we did not, because the two matters are completely different.
Why are they completely different? The answer is very simple. In order to comply with the new provisions of the Uruguay Round, which gave rise to the World Trade Organization, Canada decided to transform its farm product quotas into tariff quotas, thus complying with the provisions of the Uruguay Round.
The U.S. in turn did not convert already existing quotas into tariff quotas but imposed new restrictions in flagrant violation of the provisions in the Uruguay Round agreements, in flagrant violation of the Marrakesh agreements.
This is a different situation because agricultural products were already subject to quotas. The Americans cannot claim that they were not aware of the situation since it already existed. All we did was modify it to comply with the provisions of the Uruguay Round agreement. As I pointed out earlier, the U.S. imposed new restrictions. So this is not a situation that existed before.
The two situations are totally different. One cannot put in the same basket a discussion about access to the U.S. market for Canadian sugar products and access to the Canadian market for U.S. agricultural products that are subject to quotas in this country.
We also saw when we were in Washington that even if the Americans do not try to link the sugar issue with the issue of supply-managed agricultural products, they will link it with anything else. In Washington, they talked to us about durum wheat, about softwood lumber, even about peanuts, believe it or not.
So the Americans are ready to link the issue of supply-managed agricultural products with anything. They will negotiate on anything to try to obtain concessions from Canada. They will negotiate on anything that relates to the sugar issue in order to extract concessions.
Finally, what must be understood is that they imposed new restrictions on sugar, simply to exert pressure on Canada, to force it to make concessions, whether on supply-managed agricultural products or on something else, which is totally unacceptable because the situations are completely different.
In this context, I think it should be pointed out that the government has been refusing for several months now to tie various trade issues to one another, considering them as completely separate issues, which are distinct from one another. I think that is desirable.
Bill C-311, finally, was put forward to show our American partners how concerned we were about the situation, how deplorable we found these additional restrictions imposed by the United States on Canadian sugar containing products. As I mentioned earlier, it is unfortunate that we have to debate a bill like the one before us today. That is probably why our colleagues have decided to make this bill a non votable item, because this kind of petty, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth attitude of tying together discussions on completely different products does not fit in with our view of things, in Canada and Quebec.
We are for an open market and absolutely free trade, we abide by the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the agreements concluded as a result of the Uruguay Round. In that sense, we are definitely not crazy about this kind of legislation, be it Canadian or American.
However, the purpose of this particular legislation is to clearly convey to our American partners that we will not tolerate such an attitude on their part and that, if need be, we are prepared to retaliate to make sure our rights as well as the partnership and trade relations between Canada and the U.S. are respected.
Of course this bill will not be voted on. We will not have to vote on this bill, and it will not be passed. But not passing this bill does not mean that the Minister of International Trade will not be authorized to retaliate or take other action against this kind of
action taken by the U.S. government. Of course, the Minister of International Trade and the Canadian government will remain perfectly free, if required, to retaliate against this kind of attitude displayed by our American partners.
Nevertheless, as I said, I greatly appreciated the opportunity to speak on this bill, although it will not be voted on. But, as I said, the government has complete latitude and can count on our fullest support in any action it may initiate to strengthen economic relations between the United States, Quebec and Canada.