Debates of Feb. 8th, 2002

Softwood Lumber

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that negotiations had resumed and that we were making progress on softwood lumber, but the trade minister admitted that all he got was a phone call from the U.S. with no counteroffer, no timeline, just no counteroffers at all. If that is progress I would hate to see a deadlock.

The new talks seem to be more about political face saving than actually getting a deal. What assurances could the minister give the House that the U.S. is acting in good faith and will put a genuine counteroffer on the table?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the House that yesterday afternoon former Governor Racicot and I had a long telephone conversation. Governor Racicot expressed very clearly to me that the favoured course of the United States administrations, both of Mr. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, and of Secretary of Commerce Evans, remains this bilateral solution. He informed me that the Bush administration believes that this is a viable course and that it is feasible.

I have informed him it was imperative for Canada that we have clear elements and that the United States is ready to consider secure market provisions as well.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the same answer from the minister when Governor Racicot was appointed. Forestry workers do not have time to waste. The minister admits we cannot stop the clock. If this is not settled before March 21 then we may be facing a countervailing duty that will cripple our industry and perhaps kill it.

Does the minister have any assurances from Governor Racicot that the U.S. will table a concrete, realistic counterproposal before the March 21 deadline?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Racicot knows that it is imperative for Canada to get it. He tells me that the Bush administration believes that it is the right course to follow, so of course I expect him to be in a position to react concretely to the propositions of the Canadian provinces that we tabled before Christmas.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is time to get tough. We have been getting the same answers from him for months now. If a long term solution is not found by March 21, thousands of workers may be laid off, mills may be shut down and communities will be devastated. It does not look like the government has a serious plan. We have been getting the same answers month after month after month.

What contingency plans are in place to support our companies and laid off workers if the countervailing duties are reapplied?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the industries and a number of companies already have approached EDC and we have some bonding programs. A number of those companies are now discussing with EDC to see what we can do. Now there is no countervailing duty, so the bonding applies only to anti-dumping and that creates the present situation.

We have worked closely with the Minister of Human Resources Development for the workers. We will of course continue to serve them with a number of programs that we have on that track.

Instead of fearmongering and instead of finger pointing at the government, the opposition should realize that the problem is not in Canada. The problem is south of the border in the United States.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if 60,000 people out of work is fearmongering I do not know where the minister's head is at. Contrary to the minister's optimism I refer members to the U.S. trade representative's appearance at the senate finance committee two days ago in Washington. If that was free trade talk I do not know what protectionism is either.

Industry in the provinces fear U.S. attempts to divide them against each other. That is the format of the negotiation so far and continuation in that format certainly is not in our best interests. Despite asking the question I have not received an answer. Will the minister guarantee that he will not allow the provinces to--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister for International Trade.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, using the 60,000 number is fearmongering because this is not the case. The countervailing duties imposed by the United States have not applied since mid-December and they will not apply before some time in May. We cannot attribute it to countervailing duties that were applied some time in the fall but do not apply now.

Let us try to be constructive. I know the opposition has a hard time. I had a very constructive meeting with the forestry minister of British Columbia this morning and we are working as--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister had a strategy the tactics would work themselves out. The tactics are not even working. He has reversed himself twice in the last two days in terms of whether the talks are on or off. It is all a face saving measure.

The minister talked about the Export Development Corporation's bond program. The program is so poorly designed that EDC admits no forestry company has taken them up. Will the minister redesign the bond program so that companies can qualify to cover--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister for International Trade.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been working very closely with industry and with the provinces. We have been on the litigation road at the WTO making extraordinary progress on that front, which brings some pressure on the United States.

We continue to believe that the Bush administration is sincere when it says that it wants to solve it for the long term with good public policy. This administration will eventually have to push back on some of the U.S. producers. We will help them in that because we believe a deal is reachable.

Foreign Affairs

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the rules of international conventions were signed precisely so that they would apply during conflicts. Despite the most recent statements made by the Americans in an attempt to convince the world that they will respect the Geneva conventions as they apply to the status of prisoners taken in Afghanistan, there have been calls—from the International Red Cross in particular—not to defend the terrorists, as the Prime Minister claims, but to clarify the situation.

What does the Deputy Prime Minister have to say to the Red Cross, which is asking serious questions about the status accorded by Canada and the United States to prisoners taken in Afghanistan?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, we are very happy that the Red Cross has access, every day if necessary, to each prisoner and that the United States has said that it will respect the Geneva conventions. Therefore, we have the clarification that we requested.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the conflict, this government has continually gone along with the Americans' positions and statements.

Given all of the confusion, not only the Bloc Quebecois, but the International Red Cross, Canadians in general, and even Liberal members hope to see a tribunal established to determine the status of the prisoners.

What is the Deputy Prime Minister waiting for to announce the Canadian government's position?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I visited Afghanistan, I visited Kabul. The problems in the region are much more complex than that. There is not simply the issue of determining the status of prisoners. There is the issue of creating rules of law in Afghanistan. There is the issue of hunger among the Afghan population. There is the issue of creating a safe situation.

These are not only our priorities. They are also shared by Mr. Karzai.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government says it is happy with the Americans' clarification regarding the status of prisoners taken in Afghanistan. But this clarification has not actually clarified anything at all. All that we can conclude is that the government is choosing to interpret the Geneva convention in such a way that it is not really bound by it. Letting a government judge its own case may lead to some arbitrary decisions.

In this context, is the government favourable to the creation of an international tribunal for issues having to do with the war in Afghanistan?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, members should understand the situation. This is a situation of conflict. It is not a situation in which we can use all the processes available in criminal situations.

One aspect of our foreign policy has been to support the Treaty of Rome, which created an international criminal court. We support this and we have encouraged all the other countries to adopt it, but it is not for situations of conflict such as in Afghanistan.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as recently as yesterday, the European Council asked the United Nations and the security council to pass a resolution creating an international tribunal with a mandate to clarify the legal status of the prisoners captured by the Americans.

Given the confusion still reigning within the Canadian government, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what position Canada intends to take at the UN regarding the creation of this international tribunal?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, the confusion is on the other side, because the Canadian government's policy is very clear. We are partners with other countries in the battle against terrorism. This is an effort which requires sacrifices, not just on the part of the government, but also from the soldiers who are in danger. We support our soldiers who are in danger in Afghanistan and we support the cause of fighting terrorism. That is clear.

Softwood Lumber

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade was asked in the House yesterday and again today about what he will do to assist the industry and workers during the softwood lumber dispute. He still has not answered the question. Today he is to have a press conference and tell the media.

I would like to ask the minister a question. Why does he not tell the House, tell all Canadians right now, what he will do to help the industry workers and the industry get through this softwood lumber dispute?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that the countervailing duties do not apply at the moment. They have been lifted since mid-December. They cannot apply before the final determination on March 21 and then it would take two months before they are applied again.

It is important to put things into balance here. Our government has a certain number of tools like EDC which has been working closely with industry in identifying solutions. We have the Department of Human Resources that has been very active, has been in touch with industry and workers in British Columbia, and our programming is there. However the countervailing duties do not apply now.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is crucially important that Canada stand firm on this issue in the forestry industry dispute. It will affect all our industries in dealing with trading with the U.S. in the future.

The Liberal government is letting the Americans hold our industry hostage. The minister says to wait it out, wait until we get the WTO decision and wait until we have negotiations. The minister knows full well that very few companies if any are even qualifying for EDC bond loans. The Liberal government's EI is insufficient. Therefore the workers are in jeopardy. What will he do that will help the industry?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been doing everything it has to do in terms of building a team Canada and meeting with the United States. We are tackling this problem with much seriousness.

The United States is not only one calling the shots. We are meeting the United States at the WTO. Every time we have had litigation and legal challenges this country has won for its industry and its workers in the forestry industry. It is time that we recognize it in the House as well.