Debates of Feb. 6th, 2003

Softwood Lumber

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for accompanying me for those two days in Washington. With what we have been going through, it has been very useful.

The Government of Canada likes working with the provinces. We appreciate their contributions because they are essential to this process as they manage the forestry programs and regimes in this country.

However, we are negotiating and Mr. Doug Waddell is the leader of those negotiations. He is a great co-ordinator. We listen to other people. We are in charge. We are doing a great job these days in Washington.

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

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. lumber lobby is demanding that any softwood deal requires Canada to drop its legal challenges through NAFTA and WTO.

Will the minister assure the House that Canada will not drop its legal options unless the provinces and industry are in agreement?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the position of our government has not changed. We are on a two track approach. This two track approach was adopted by all the provinces and was supported widely by industry. We are continuing with our challenges before the WTO and NAFTA.

In the meantime, we are having dialogue. I had lunch on Tuesday with about 20 chief executive officers of the softwood lumber industry. We are all working together to bring a resolution to this issue. What we want is unrestricted market access to the United States.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, considering the widespread opposition to genetically engineered wheat by overseas buyers, and considering that several agricultural groups, including the national farmers union, oppose the introduction of genetically engineered wheat, could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food inform the House as to whether he will refrain from approving the release in Canada of genetically engineered wheat?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has not yet reviewed the submissions for roundup ready wheat. There is a process where the Canadian Food Inspection Agency reviews such a submission for safety to animals and safety to the environment. Health Canada reviews the submission for safety to humans. That evaluation certainly is not complete because the submission has just come in.

I can assure the House and Canadians that submission will be conducted and that evaluation will be very thorough because we understand the concerns of everyone on this issue.

Airline Industry

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's airline industry is once again on the brink of a crisis. Air Canada announced a $364 million loss, threats of 10,000 lost jobs and a cancellation of regional flights.

Government security taxes and increases to NavCan fees continue to damage an already struggling industry. Overcapacity on routes where Air Canada is trying to drive out low cost carriers is jeopardizing all carriers.

The government needs to listen to those who say to get rid of the security tax and regulate capacity. This is the way to help the industry. When will the minister react?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on the air security charge, the Minister of Finance has said that this is under review, and one can assume that he might have something to say about that shortly.

With respect to the other suggestion about re-regulating the domestic air industry, this flies in the face of conventional wisdom and the good of the consumer. The fact is that, yes, today there is some turmoil in the marketplace but the fact is that people have the lowest fares in history, and that has come as a result of deregulation.

The issue with Air Canada is a much more complex one which I would be willing to elaborate on in a supplementary.

Human Resources Development

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of all the hype from the Treasury Board about government online, HRDC is removing all the electronic job search kiosks from public places on March 1. The 14 job kiosks in my riding alone recorded over 150,000 hits in a single year.

In light of the obvious need and demand for this service, will the minister agree to postpone the decision, leave the kiosks where they are and, if anything, upgrade them to provide an even better service to the thousands of Canadians who use them every day?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say to the hon. member that my focus continues to be to ensure that Canadians have the best service possible from my department.

He speaks about online service and indeed that is what Canadians want. These external kiosks are dumb terminals and can only provide information on one program. What we have found is that Canadians prefer to use the Internet.

In the member's own riding there are a number of sites across the riding, whether they be in our local human resources centres or in 19 public libraries, that will provide this service to his constituents.

Softwood Lumber

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, yesterday the parliamentary secretary answered a question but, in his excitement about answering a question for the first time, I think he made an error that needs to be corrected.

With respect to the department's proposed export tax, he said “we are going to make sure that all provinces are treated equally”. That statement is wrong and it could jeopardize the Atlantic Canada exemption costing millions of dollars to the Atlantic Canadian industry.

Will the minister retract the statement that all provinces will be treated equally under the softwood export tax and correct the record?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. We are not going to renegotiate the situation of Atlantic Canada that has been exempted. We are trying to exempt the rest of Canada. That is the objective of the government.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if only he could do that job he would he a hero but he has not been able to do it.

Anyway, the record is straight. There is not equal treatment across the country.

However the export tax design draft dated February 4, yesterday's date, says “A key feature of the export tax design would be to discourage production during times of low lumber prices. To do this the export tax should increase as prices fall”.

Will the minister confirm that his proposal for a fluctuating tax rate will be determined by a U.S. publication and that Revenue Canada will be collecting this Canadian tax as calculated using the U.S. information?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, what the government wants is unrestricted access to the United States market for softwood lumber. What the government will not do is what the Conservatives did in 1986 when they imposed an export tax and did not solve the problem for the long term. Now we are at it every four or five years.

Airline Industry

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government currently presides over the most disastrous airline policy in the history of the country. From higher prices to the failure of Canadian Airlines, to unending user fees and security taxes, the government has brought the airline industry to the brink. The minister refers to it as a little turmoil.

Today Air Canada slapped a for sale sign on its Jazz subsidiary to continue its dogfight with WestJet. Air Canada itself has run up a $12 billion debt.

What specific steps will the government take to protect the air travellers and the airline industry in the country?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the airline industry around the world has faced turbulence since September 11, 2001. It is being exacerbated by the current tensions in the Middle East and the spiral of fuel prices.

When the hon. member talks about airline policy, I might remind him that it was his party, the Reform Party in 2000, that supported the government and Bill C-26. As the Alliance, it supported us on Bill C-23.

I thought the opposition was supporting the government, so we spoke with one voice on airline policy. I think the Alliance members should recognize the truth.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we did not support the $24 tax, this cash cow for the government that brought the airline industry to the brink.

Once again the employees of Jazz face an uncertain future. The former minister of finance imposed the $24 tax while milking the industry with higher airport rents.

How can Canadians trust the government when it continues to treat the entire airline industry as a cash cow to put into general revenues? How can Canadians possibly trust the future with this minister or this government?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the hon. member could have added more to the debate than just the rhetoric of going after the air security charge, which the Minister of Finance has said is under review.

The fact is that there are two major airlines in the United States under chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. There have been failures around the world. There are international tensions. We have to work this issue out and we have to be supportive of the airline industry.

However the end result will have to be a restructured Air Canada so we can have long term viability in the airline industry.

Agriculture

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the discussions on the agriculture policy framework have stalled. The minister decided to throw his weight around. Farmers are worried and do not like it that what they had negotiated with the Quebec government is being called into question.

Will the Minister of Agriculture listen to all the stakeholders in Quebec and agree to channel the financial mechanisms he is proposing through the Financière agricole du Québec, yes or no?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, as a government we have said very clearly that we will treat every farmer in similar circumstances in Canada the same with the federal support.

Even the minister in the province of Quebec in 2001, at a federal-provincial ministers meeting, agreed that we needed to move to a basic program of crop insurance and the NISA, including a disaster payment.

However, that does not prohibit provinces, such as Quebec, as they have in the past and can continue to do in the future, from supporting their producers as they see fit above and beyond that. We live in a country where the provinces can do that if they so wish.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is brushing aside objections by the farmers' unions and the provincial ministers.

Is it not time for the Prime Minister to step in to avoid having the farmers pay for the intransigence of this minister, who no longer seems to care about the interests of farmers?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, more consultations have taken place with the ministers and the agricultural industry in the last 18 to 20 months than have ever taken place in the development and the design of the present and the future business risk management programs that we have. That has been very successful. We had a very successful agriculture ministers meeting last week in Toronto.

There is still more work to be done and more progress to be made but I can assure the member that we have accomplished and met pretty well all the desires of the primary producers, and we will continue to do the best job we--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I beg to disagree. The government is hanging our farmers out to dry with this agriculture policy framework. No agreement has been reached with either the provinces or the farm groups regarding safety nets. The April 1 deadline is fast approaching with no agreement. The federal safety net proposals to date will have farmers paying higher premiums for lower benefits.

Why is the federal agriculture minister shoving a bad deal down the throats of our farmers?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member, as a member of the committee, had a presentation this morning which showed, for example, that the amount of money that a farmer needs to invest to ensure stabilization and disaster coverage is considerably less on an annual basis than it has been in the past. It will also give coverage to producers for back to back disasters if that unfortunately is the situation. It will also give immediate coverage for beginning farmers. It will be very affordable. It will be more trade receptive than we are at the present time. I could go on.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister could go on but the farmers will not be any better off. I can guarantee that.

The $1.1 billion that is supposed to come out every year is in a program that has a rolling effect to it. In fact, if the money is not paid out, it rolls to the next year and then to the next year. What we will be seeing is farmers not getting $1.1 billion a year like they have in the past.

This agriculture policy framework is putting less money into the pockets of farmers and the minister had better explain to farmers why that should be.