Debates of March 11th, 2002

Softwood Lumber

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

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that Minister de Jong is here with the other representatives. We are also pleased that we have met all the members from British Columbia, most in the House today.

However we would also like an answer from the minister. Will he guarantee that he will fight for a binding binational panel when he goes to Washington? That is what we are all asking. We are trying to work together as good Canadians to make sure we all go there with one issue and fight together to let the Americans know this is one issue we will not back down on.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear it has been the position of the government that an unfettered market access guarantee in the United States is the objective the government has, has had for years and will have until we resolve this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was elected in 1972. I have been representing British Columbia for an awfully long time. It is the first time I can remember that over 30 people--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, they can make fun of us in British Columbia but I do not like it. I am here to try to work with the government. We are all here to try to help him solve this serious problem for over 20,000 people who are unemployed.

Will the minister guarantee that he will make sure we have this agreement, the one we are working together to have? We will back him up if he will tell us yes, that is what he is going after.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Everyone on this side of the House has been extremely supportive of the British Columbia situation on softwood lumber. We are well aware that British Columbia alone is responsible for 50% of the exports.

We will stand by British Columbia until we have unfettered market access to the United States, whatever means we have to take. This is what we want.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has had since 1996 to fix the problem of the U.S. lumber lobby limiting Canadian access to the U.S. lumber market.

On March 21, in another 10 days, the U.S. department of commerce will announce duties on Canadian softwood lumber. Now at the 11th hour the Prime Minister is heading to Washington to try to broker some kind of a deal.

Will the Prime Minister assure Canadians that Canada will insist western red cedar specialty and value added products will be exempt from duties in our insistences?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say to the hon. member that I have discussed with the president of the United States the softwood lumber issue every time I have talked with him. I will be there on Thursday to try to finalize as quickly as possible a deal with them.

In theory the best solution is to apply the free trade agreement on all wood products coming from Canada to the United States. We will try to have this deal with the Americans when we will talk with them, but there are some problems in relation to the way some provinces operate their lumber operations that have to be negotiated at the same time. I hope to have good results before the end of the month.

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem is not the provinces. It rests right here and the very existence of whole Canadian communities and thousands of jobs are at stake.

Canadians have the right to know what is on the table at these negotiations. Will the Prime Minister tell us what at a minimum is not to be bargained away by the government?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, unfettered market access is not to be bargained away. This is what we want in the United States.

As for the exemptions the member has been referring to, whether we are talking about red cedar or whether we are talking about the remanufacturers that add value to the wood, we have always been saying as a government that these should be exempted from any action and any trade actions the Americans would take.

We have been asking for the exclusion and the exemption of red cedar. We are asking for the exemption of remanufacturers as well.

Taxation

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Séguin commission has confirmed the existence of a considerable tax imbalance in Canada, resulting in Ottawa's pocketing the bulk of tax revenue, while Quebec and the provinces are having to cope with astronomical increases in the costs of health and education, with fewer resources.

Instead of denying the existence of a tax imbalance, will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that health and education, which represent challenges both now and in the future as far as the management of public funds is concerned, are not a federal responsibility and that, in order for Quebec and the provinces to meet these challenges, they must have available to them a larger share of the money in Ottawa's hands, as the Séguin commission recommends?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in order to lend its projections credibility, the Séguin commission draws on the projections of the conference board.

Looking at the conference board's projections in detail, we can see that it really does support the position of the Canadian government.

The leader of the Bloc Quebecois has two choices, therefore: accept the conference board projections and thus the thesis of the Canadian government, or not accept these projections, in which case he is denying that the Séguin commission and its projections have any credibility.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

This is a kind of flip-flop we have here, Mr. Speaker. This is the very minister who said a few days ago that the conference board had no credibility whatsoever.

The minister, it must be said, is being a bit comical here. He knows very well that there is a tax imbalance and a sizeable one, but refuses to acknowledge it because the government has a hidden agenda.

Will the Minister of Finance at least be frank enough to admit that, if Ottawa insists on keeping the most profitable areas of taxation for itself and the billions of dollars they represent, its purpose in doing so is to encroach at will upon areas of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces? That is what the real reason is.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the Bloc Quebecois wants to accept the projections of the conference board, then he will also have to accept that there is no imbalance over the next four years. There is no imbalance, nor is there any federal government surplus, any excess money, according to the conference board projections.

Thereafter, in the next fifteen years, any federal surplus will only be based on some very unrealistic hypotheses.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the credibility of the man who denies the existence of a fiscal imbalance is compromised to say the least, as, over the past five years, he has been off by more than 100% in his forecasts regarding surpluses.

If the Minister of Finance thinks that the Conference Board erred by presenting forecasts for a 20 year period, can he give us his surplus forecasts for the current fiscal year, which ends in less than a month?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote the Conference Board's forecasts. For the coming year, they anticipate a surplus of less than $200 million; for the following year, it is $2 billion; the year after, $2 billion. This is less than our contingency reserve. These are certainly not staggering surpluses.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, instead of running away like a hare, the minister should agree to a public debate on this issue. But in the meantime, if he wants to improve his credibility, he should pledge, before this House, to allocate at least half of the surpluses anticipated in less than three weeks, that is about $9 billion, to help the provinces fund health and education through the Canada social transfer.

This would be real evidence of the minister's credibility. He should take advantage of the legislative void to introduce a bill that all of us here would readily support.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, instead of working himself into a state, the Bloc Quebecois critic should read the report of the conference board, which, if we look at the forecasts for the next four years and at the basic assumptions, supports the Canadian government's position.

Steel Industry

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

In view of the tariff imposed by the United States on imported steel from which Canada was exempt, and in view of the very real worry that much of the steel which was headed for the United States may now be diverted into the Canadian market with disastrous consequences for the Canadian steel industry, could the minister tell the House today whether he is prepared to implement safeguards now in order to prevent that kind of negative consequence from happening here to the steel industry?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, let me first express my great satisfaction with the fact that we have been exempted by the United States on the steel action which is taking place around the world. This is very good news for Canada and demonstrates that our work has been working in Washington. I am very pleased with that.

We have been discussing with industry for some time what to do next. I can say that for months we have been monitoring very closely steel imports into Canada to make sure that there will be no such surge. We continue to monitor exports very closely.

Industry has now asked us to impose some safeguards to avoid Canada becoming a dumping ground. We are reviewing that request and we will be meeting with industry in the next week or so.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it will not be good news if the Canadian market is flooded with steel that otherwise would have gone to the United States. Therefore I say to the minister that the time for safeguards is now.

We do not want the minister to spend his time monitoring what is happening in the industry. The industry wants him to implement safeguards now. That is the position of the unions, of the companies, of all stakeholders, and they want that done now. Will the minister make a commitment to do that rather than just monitor the situation?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the industry has now requested safeguard action on the part of the Government of Canada. That safeguard request is being reviewed as a priority for the government.

I can say that we will make absolutely sure that Canada does not become a diverting ground for steel dumping in the world.

Softwood Lumber

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Prime Minister is meeting with President Bush. Will the Prime Minister be making specific proposals to resolve the softwood dispute?

Would it strengthen Canada's hand in this negotiation if the House of Commons were to endorse in advance the Canadian proposals which the Prime Minister will take to Washington? If so, will the government consider seeking the support of parliament on these proposals?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I take all the support I can get. The position of the Canadian government is very clear. We want the American government to implement the free trade agreement that we signed with it. If the House of Commons wants to vote for that, it is fine with me.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is planning one meeting that will have to do with softwood with the president, I gather on Thursday. We hope he achieves an acceptable long term solution.

However, if he does not, may we have a guarantee now that the Prime Minister will stay engaged personally in this critically important softwood file and that he will maintain active leader to leader discussion with the president until the softwood issue is resolved?