Charlie Penson

[Softwood Lumber, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there are reports today that a deal with the U.S. on softwood lumber could be reached within weeks. The last softwood lumber agreement with the United States included quotas and other market restrictions to Canadian softwood lumber.

Could the trade minister tell us today whether the rumour is true and whether he has given up on free trade in softwood lumber?

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona alluded to the idea that the opposition parties, the Conservatives and the Alliance, are eager to see the member for LaSalle—Émard become the next prime minister, but I would remind the member that the former finance minister raised the level of spending in the last three years that he was finance minister, in the range of 8% to 9% per year, levels that we have not seen since the time of the late Trudeau era, which put us into all this financial difficulty to begin with.

I would suggest to the member for Winnipeg—Transcona that this is not what we would like to see at all. We are looking for the earliest opportunity to change the other side of the House and move over so we can accomplish some fiscal responsibility in this country.

[Technology Partnerships Canada, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. It is serious enough that the Minister of Industry needs to address it in a better manner than he did.

We already know that political pressure was applied from at least one member of Parliament to approve the grant.

I am sure this must only be a coincidence, but on June 7 the Minister of Industry endorsed the new Liberal leader and 12 days later the Minister of Industry gave the Liberal leader's company a $4.9 million grant.

Will the Minister of Industry stand up today and table the TPC contract with CS&E so that we can all see it?

[Technology Partnerships Canada, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, over the summer CSL subsidiary Canadian Shipbuilding & Engineering Ltd. was given a $4.9 million grant from Technology Partnerships Canada.

The new Liberal leader appears to have benefited directly from the TPC grant, so much so that the ethics counsellor was consulted before the grant was made.

Given that there is a common clause in most government contracts that no member of Parliament should benefit from grants and contributions, can the Minister of Industry advise the House whether the CS&E contract contains such a clause?

[Agriculture, October 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been over four months since the American border was closed to Canadian beef. Although boneless box beef has been allowed to cross the border for about a month, that only accounts for a very small percentage of traditional exports to the U.S.

One thing is certain. Until the border is fully reopened, Canadian cattle producers and their communities will continue to suffer economic hardship and loss.

Beef is a very big industry in the Peace River country and at this time of the year many people in my riding depend on selling their livestock for cash flow. A reopened border is vitally important to my constituents, as well as many other Canadians right across the country.

I urge the government to renew its efforts to make sure the border gets reopened fully, very soon.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will direct a question to my colleague. My understanding of the rationale here is that the federal government would back out of this area of excise tax on gasoline, which would allow the provinces to pick up that tax, if they wanted to, in order to provide money for the municipalities. Doing so would respect the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces, where money would not be transferred directly from the federal government to the municipalities. The intent would be that by the federal government backing out of the excise tax area the provinces would have an extra source of money in order to fund the municipalities in terms of infrastructure.

Does my colleague agree that it is important to respect this aspect of it in order to provide the municipalities with a source of funding?

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has raised the key aspect of the debate today. This really is a true emergency for an awful lot of people. It does not end at the farm gate, as he has just pointed out. It ripples right through the entire economy. I know many people who are feeling the effects of this, because if farmers do not have money they do not spend money and they cannot pay their bills.

I would have to say that I think the current Prime Minister has been part of the problem and is part of the reason the border has not been opened. I think it is really up to the prime minister in waiting to talk to Canadians about what he would do about this issue. He has said he feels that there is alienation in some parts of the country. I am sure we would like to hear his point of view on how he intends to resolve this issue. It is not good enough to fly over the country at 40,000 feet and say, “I'm doing my royal tour”. He has to get down on the ground and he has to find out from people what they need, how they are going to make it through the winter, what government support is going to be required, and how he intends to get the borders opened.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the question from my colleague from Lakeland, I think that has been one part of this whole sad business we have been through all summer that has been very rewarding. Canadians got behind our cattlemen to a very great degree. Beef consumption has gone up. The Canadian public is not scared by this issue. Canadians realize exactly what issue is: one problem animal in a herd of 15 million. They have reacted accordingly. They have responded accordingly and they have supported the cattlemen.

I just wish that the federal government would now find the resources. The government ended its support program at the end of August. That is not good enough. The Canadian public wants to see our cattlemen supported through this tough time.

It really means that the federal program is going to have to be continued, because there are many calves that normally come off pasture this time of year and would move to market. This is the time of year that farmers have income to pay their bills. If they do not have a chance to pay their bills, the farm equipment dealer does not get paid and the fertilizer dealer does not get paid. It ripples through the whole economy.

Even worse, there is an infrastructure built up for a certain size of cattle herd to be put through the winter. If cattlemen are going to have to carry that livestock over a longer period of time, they really do not have the resources for the extra numbers they need. They do not have the resources for the extra feed they need. It is a tremendous burden.

I think the federal government has to step up to the plate. It was not good enough to end its program at the end of August. This problem has not been resolved. The resolution of the problem will be when live cattle are allowed into the United States. Hopefully that is going to be sometime soon. In the meantime, in the interim I think the federal government has a responsibility and it would be supported by the Canadian public in doing just that.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think where I left off in my speech was in regard to the all party delegation that should go to Washington to resolve the BSE issue in terms of opening up access for our beef cattle into the American market. In particular, it is in regard to live animals. That is where the pressure is these days.

This is vitally important to the people in my riding of Peace River. There have been many people who have diversified and switched over from cash crops and gone into the cattle sector. All of a sudden they find themselves on the wrong end of a border being closed which has the effect of depressing prices greatly.

In fact, I talked to someone shortly before I returned to Ottawa who shipped an animal and that individual received $88 for one cow. That is approximately 10% of what that animal was worth. It is like the Depression era where farmers would ship an animal and get a bill for freight. That would be their net loss in terms of income because there was no market there.

We have to remember that this is a very important issue for a lot of producers in the country. The request to have an all party delegation go to Washington was endorsed by the leader of the Canadian Alliance in question period. I think it is a good request. It means that more work must be done to put pressure on opening up that border for our products. We feel that this is a safe product. This has been clearly demonstrated. Canadian farmers rely on the government to make those kind of requests come true.

Before question period I was talking about the poor relationship that has developed as a result of an antagonistic Liberal party deliberately antagonizing the United States administration. It is not only the administration, but I would add the American people which is even worse.

We have the new Liberal leader who was basically all but elected on Saturday. He is on his grand tour, his royal tour across the country. He is out in Alberta and B.C. He is on his way to see the forest fires in British Columbia. He is about a month late though. Those fires have been put out by a lot of rain.

I can just imagine when he flies over Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba at about 35,000 feet, and he says, “Oh, that is really nice scenery down there. Look at all those nice cows”.

A lot of those cattlemen would like to see their cattle moved into markets in the United States which represents a $4.8 billion export a year. We need a little bit more from the soon to be Liberal Prime Minister than just platitudes. We need him to make some clear statements on what he intends to do about this serious problem.

When the new Liberal leader is out there looking for ways to solve the western alienation problem, I suggest he make a few stops along the way and talk to some real people out there. The cattlemen are concerned about the loss of income and how that border will be opened up.

I suggest the new Liberal leader should spend a sizeable amount of his time talking to Canadians. He should suggest some real solutions to a serious problem.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. This issue affects a lot of producers, basic products in Canada that make a big contribution to our financial well-being, particularly in the rural areas but it certainly does not stop there.

The motion today is to send a delegation to Washington to try to get the border opened up. I take it in the spirit in which it was developed. I think it is a good idea. I see some difficulties with it in terms of how that might play out but I will deal with that in a moment.

As the trade critic for our party, I realize that overall we have an excellent relationship with the United States. It is a big customer for a lot of our products. In fact, there is trade of about $2 billion a day that crosses the Canada-U.S. border both ways. Most of that trade happens without any incident or difficulties at all but there have been some longstanding disputes. Steel is one of them. Softwood lumber is another that has been going on for 25 to 30 years. Of course now there is the BSE incident that occurred. My colleague from Lethbridge talked of the matter of one cow being found to have BSE, or mad cow disease, which interrupted trade between Canada and the United States. That is a very big market.

The cattle industry is one of those integrated industries that has allowed product to flow freely between Canada and the United States for some time.

My riding of Peace River is in northwestern Alberta. Animals from the United States have come up to be on grass or pasture there. We know that animals from the United States have come up into our feedlots, into southern Alberta and vice versa. Cattle from Canada have gone down to feedlots in the United States. This has been an integrated industry, as it should be. Both countries have benefited a great deal from having that industry integrated as it was.

It shows how vulnerable we are when an incident of one animal upsets a tremendous market. It represents exports to the United States alone in the beef industry of $4.5 billion per year. We export about 80% of what we produce. There are 15 million cattle in Canada. It is a big industry. Exports amount to 80% and 60% of that goes to the United States so it is a big market for our product. However, we only make up about 5% of what the United States needs so it is not as big a matter for the Americans, but it represents a livelihood for hundreds of thousands of Canadians. I know many people personally in my riding who have diversified and gone into the cattle business. It has been a good industry for them.

The goal is to get the border open to live animals as it has been in the past. We have to keep this matter in perspective. Yes, we had one incident in the past about 10 years ago with an animal that developed BSE. That animal was imported from Britain. Now another one has been found, one animal out of 15 million animals. There may be more but that is all that has been found at the moment and there is extensive screening going on.

Let us please keep this matter in perspective. There are 15 million animals with one animal affected by it. It has turned our border into a fortress with the United States, a market that we need very badly.

What is the answer? Today's opposition motion suggests that a high level delegation go to Washington to try to reopen the border. I think it is a good proposal but one which we have tried before. In fact, in the summer the leader of our party went to Washington with a number of our trade people to try to do just that. We need to continue to work on it. We need to ask the Americans what criteria need to be satisfied for the border to be opened.

We asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on a number of occasions in the House that very question. He either cannot or will not answer the question. I am not sure why.

Surely countries that have that kind of close relationship in trade, as there is with Canada and Mexico, and we have NAFTA, should be able to get to the point very quickly. What exactly is keeping that border closed to our product? To date he has not done that.

Let me just take a moment to deal with the prospect of the Prime Minister leading a high level delegation because that is a problem right at the start. It is part of the reason the border has not been open before now. It goes beyond the Prime Minister.

Many members of the Liberal Party sitting opposite have spent the last year or so insulting our American neighbours, not just the administration. There have been references to the administration and to the President. It seems to me the Liberals have gone beyond that. They are insulting the American people. It is a finger in the eye of the American public.

Then we wonder why it is so difficult for us to get the border open when insults have been hurled from the Liberal Party across the way at our very best customers. It does not make any sense at all. Until this current administration is out of here, we will not see any success in getting the border open, so the sooner it moves on the better.