House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
The Environment October 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the task force findings will of course go before provincial and territorial stakeholders for their views. We will however move forward as quickly as we can to implement the $9 million made available in the 2000 budget by the Minister of Finance to maintain and establish a system which will measure significant progress on the environment. We will have improved capacity to collect, manage and use that environmental information.
Softwood Lumber October 4th, 2001
Madam Chairman, there was only one member from that party in the room other than the hon. member. I wonder where these several are.
Softwood Lumber October 4th, 2001
Madam Chairman, perhaps the words were the sincerity of the hon. member. If that is the phrase in question, I am happy to say I stand by it. I think he is a sincere member. I do not know of any other words, nor has anybody I have spoken with or seen in the room suggested that any other word was used, but if there were any words used that were inappropriate, I of course would immediately retract them.
Softwood Lumber October 4th, 2001
Madam Chairman, it is strange that this member should rise, as I recollect he is the only one of his party that I praised in what I said and with some reason. I appreciate the fact he has brought forward the motion.
I am happy to have the record checked, but certainly nobody I have spoken to in this room has heard profanity. Maybe this is the type of problem the Alliance has: they keep seeing these imaginary conspiracies in central Canada and hearing imaginary words.
Softwood Lumber October 4th, 2001
Madam Chairman, I take my place in the debate as senior federal minister responsible for the province of British Columbia because of the importance of the forestry industry to the economy of my home province. The forestry sector's contribution to provincial tax revenues is nearly equivalent to the provincial government's entire expenditure on all education costs from kindergarten to grade 12.
Forestry activity affects 14% of the workforce in British Columbia. Fourteen per cent of British Columbians are employed directly or indirectly in the forest industry. The industry is worth some $17 billion to British Columbia's gross domestic product.
Excluding the GVRD, the forestry industry dominates the economies of more than half the communities of British Columbia, possibly even two-thirds. In many such communities forestry accounts for 50% of the economy. In the greater Vancouver area alone forestry makes a substantial contribution in terms of 120,000 direct and indirect jobs. It is a critical issue throughout the province.
In British Columbia we have 850 mills, many of which are closed. We have 47% of the total Canadian exports of softwood lumber. Some 16,000 people have been directly laid off since the United States imposed a 19.31% duty on softwood lumber on August 9. The importance of softwood lumber to British Columbia cannot be exaggerated.
I will deal briefly with the previous speeches and move on to what has been done. I was deeply disappointed by the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. He represents a British Columbia constituency. If he wishes to come from Alberta to British Columbia and represent the people of the province he should take his responsibilities as a British Columbia elected official seriously. I was deeply offended by statements which set one region against another by suggesting if this had happened in the heartland of Canada the government would have acted instead of doing nothing.
The comments of the hon. member who preceded the last member were similar. Indeed the previous speaker made the comment that if there were closer ties with the Prime Minister's Office something would have been done. The effort to smear hon. members of the House and suggest the issue is being ignored because of its regional importance in British Columbia is despicable.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition has not asked a question in the House on softwood lumber since April 23 of this year. Yet he spent the entire time since we returned to the House in September on a wild spy chase. He has gone into every part of the country desperately trying to find a connection between security in the United States and possible errors of Canadian officials. He spends his time doing that while the softwood lumber problem has become worse because of the actions of the United States.
He should be ashamed of that type of approach. As a British Columbia member he should be ashamed. It is clear why so many of his members have decided his leadership is something they can no longer tolerate.
Canada should take a united front on the softwood lumber issue. I congratulate the premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell. I congratulate the minister of forestry for British Columbia, Mike de Jong. I congratulate the industry in British Columbia. I congratulate the Minister for International Trade who has done a splendid job representing Canada on this file.
The type of performance we have had from the official opposition is simply not good enough. It has been pounced on with glee by our opponents in the American softwood lumber industry as an example of how we in Canada do not have a united front and how we can continue to be horsed around by the types of actions that have taken place over the last few months.
I believe the hon. member for Vancouver Island North who proposed the motion is sincere in his concern for the industry, unlike the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Let us look at the opposition leader's performance on the issue. He has not asked a question about it in the House since April. Yet he comes in here and criticizes my colleague the hon. Minister for International Trade.
The minister has been working on this file day after day, week after week and weekend after weekend in contrast to the absolute absence of activity by the Leader of the Opposition. The opposition leader's critical remarks suggesting this is somehow a regional issue are thoroughly improper.
That is my view of the approach taken by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I do not know how long he will remain here or how long the members who have spoken will continue supporting him. However if he keeps this up the people of British Columbia will reject him firmly and clearly.
As to the approach taken by the Canadian government, we will continue to fight this U.S. trade action wherever we can. We are willing to discuss with the United States, not negotiate but discuss, any aspect of the issue it wishes to discuss with us. We want a long term and durable solution that avoids litigation.
We will continue to mobilize U.S. consumer groups to increase advocacy efforts in the United States. We will continue to defend our industry wherever we can. We will fight in every legal venue available although our preference is not to get involved in litigation.
The Prime Minister has kept on this file time after time not just with President Bush but with his predecessor President Clinton. The Minister for International Trade has done exactly the same thing with his counterparts in both the Bush and Clinton administrations. Thanks to their efforts the U.S. is fully aware of our concerns.
We have every reason to believe the imposition of the 19.3% duty on Canadian softwood lumber is unfair, punitive and wrong. Furthermore, it fails to meet the standards of the World Trade Organization the United States alleges it adheres to.
The decision to impose duties on the entered value and not the first mill value is contrary to longstanding U.S. practices and adds yet another unfair burden on our Canadian producers. We will continue to press on behalf of our remanufacturers at every forum and in every way to get back to the first mill value.
We categorically reject as having no basis in fact or law the decisions of the U.S. department of commerce that Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United States are subsidized by provincial and federal programs. We have gone into the issue time after time. We have won every time, but the United States in a protectionist move has changed or varied the rules so it could come back at us yet again.
We will be challenging the United States contention regarding stumpage and every other practice of our provincial governments. We will be doing so in the United States and before the WTO.
Some have suggested there should be short term bridging solutions such as an export charge. There is no consensus for such a measure among provinces and industry because it would not get to the root of the problem.
Canada and the United States need a long term solution. That is exactly what my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, supported by me at every turn as the minister responsible for British Columbia, will work to get.
Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act October 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting in favour of this motion.
The Environment October 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the dramatic economic developments of the last few years which have so expanded the Canadian economy, have also expanded greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. That means we have a greater challenge.
What would the hon. member prefer? Would he prefer to have the greater challenge of dealing with greenhouse gases or to have the greater challenge of dealing with an economy that was in the dumps, as it was when we took office and which would have remained so had their opposition remained in power?
The Environment October 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister made available $1.1 billion for one area of environmental activity alone, namely the climate change file.
We have indeed moved forward on a number of other fronts. I would be happy to provide the hon. member with information on those but I would point out that when we have an issue such as the security issue after September 11, inevitably there will be a review of budgetary priorities.
The Environment October 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, if I could advise the hon. member to read my previous answer in Hansard he will get part of the response.
With respect to the overall program, I welcome the report of the commissioner. She has accepted the concept of an ecosystem approach. There are, as I mentioned earlier, things that still remain to be done but at the same time there has been measurable improvement.
With respect to financing, we have increased financing and I would refer the hon. member to the $1.1 billion made available by the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for climate change measures within the last 18 months.
The Environment October 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the negotiations with the province of Ontario have been successfully concluded and I expect shortly to be signing the Canada-Ontario agreement.
We invested some $40 million in last year's budget and the state of the Great Lakes report suggests that the ecosystem of the lakes is now cleaner than it has been since the second world war.
We will continue to work with the American, Ontario and Quebec governments to clean up some of the problems that yet remain.