Pat O'Brien

[Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member's argument is so full of holes it looks like a piece of cheese. He talked about the problem being that there is not a good relationship between the Prime Minister and the president. Let me quote the American ambassador, Mr. Cellucci, who said that reports of a rift between the Prime Minister and Mr. Bush are absolutely “not true”. Mr. Cellucci says:

The point ...about the President and the Prime Minister not getting along and not having a good relationship, it just isn't true. I've been in the meetings. I've talked with the President about the Prime Minister. I've seen them. The chemistry is very good...It's just not true this stuff that's out there.

There was a conscious decision to let the softwood lumber agreement run out and the member ought to know by now that there is a strong national consensus to proceed on the track on which we are proceeding.

[Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Minister for International Trade to a question asked in the House of Commons on May 2 by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest concerning softwood lumber.

At that time the member wrongly mentioned that the government had nothing to offer Canadian lumber workers. He further stated that the Prime Minister had not taken a special interest in the issue.

Nothing could be further from the facts. The softwood lumber dispute with the United States continues to be Canada's number one trade challenge. On May 22 the United States administration imposed 27% countervailing and anti-dumping duties on our lumber exports following the U.S. International Trade Commission finding that the Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United States were threatening to injure U.S. producers.

The Government of Canada, the provinces and territories and Canadian industry reject the United States government's determinations relating to Canada's lumber exports. Our lumber is not subsidized, it is not dumped, and it is not injuring or threatening to injure the United States lumber industry.

In full co-operation with the provinces, territories and industry, the Government of Canada is challenging the U.S. decisions at the WTO and under NAFTA. We are challenging the U.S. preliminary and final subsidy determinations and we have initiated two more general trade challenges relating to softwood lumber. We are also undertaking two NAFTA challenges as well and are analyzing the threat of injury determination for possible WTO and NAFTA challenges. We are taking every step possible to defend our industry, and let me repeat, in full co-operation with the provinces, territories and industry.

In response to the hon. member's comments that the Government of Canada has nothing to offer our lumber industry and workers, I would like to remind the member for New Brunswick Southwest that on May 27 the Minister for International Trade announced that the Government of Canada would provide an additional $17 million to Canada's lumber industry so that it can carry out an education and awareness building campaign in the U.S. An industry led campaign is the best way to educate key segments in the United States that softwood lumber duties have a punitive effect on not only our lumber industry but on their domestic market in the home building and other lumber related construction industries.

The Minister for International Trade also announced $3 million in incremental funding for advocacy so that Canadian officials in our embassy and consulates across the United States can intensify our opposition to U.S. protectionism in softwood lumber and other vital Canadian trade sectors, including agriculture and energy. In essence this will help us raise the volume of our opposition to U.S. protectionist actions.

One month ago, the Minister of Natural Resources announced long term measures that will help our forest industry through diversification and innovation. His announcement will open new markets and foster innovation through enhanced research and development capabilities. The announcement included $29.7 million for the Canada wood export program, $30 million to support research and development activities, and $15 million for the value added research initiative for wood products for a total of $75.7 million over and above existing programs.

The member would portray this as a matter on which the Canadian government has not acted or has not acted effectively, on which it has just been riding off on its own. That is simply incorrect. By now the member ought to be aware of the concerted efforts of the federal government, the provinces and territories and industry to tackle this problem.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member enumerate the many speeches that he has given and the questions that he has asked and so on. I heard him say that there has been a lack of response from the government. That is simply incorrect.

There was wide consultation by the government before the softwood lumber agreement ran out. There was and still remains a national consensus. Even his own party critics agreed that to renew the softwood lumber agreement was not the thing to do, that it should be left to run out and then we would have free trade unless the Americans took punitive trade action. Unfortunately they have again done that and now we are pursuing every legal option available to us.

I would like to ask the hon. member to comment on this: If his party was so busy on this file, why were there at least two months a year ago when that party had no trade critic whatsoever? Weeks and weeks went by when neither that member nor anyone else could even get their House leadership to allow them to put a question on softwood lumber. These are verifiable facts. Maybe he could explain that inconsistency with all this concern of his party for the softwood lumber file.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Someone on the Alliance side says it is a little late. I say he has had a chance to raise it again because he has done so repeatedly now, as have several ministers.

I just have one question for the Leader of the Opposition. Given today's motion, a rather sweeping motion that is a little off base, I wonder what his view is of a colleague of his who was the World Trade Organization spokesperson and who said on agriculture that Canada should agree to open up its now protected dairy, poultry and egg markets. He said:

It is critically important that agriculture be on the table and be totally on the table.

I am not sure that in much of Canada that would be seen as standing up for Canadian farmers. Does the Leader of the Opposition share the view of his colleague in the Alliance?

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me take my first opportunity in the House to welcome back the Leader of the Opposition. He was elected in 1993 when I was. I wish him many, many years of success in his current job. He is happier now. The last time I saw him we talked in an elevator and he was missing home et cetera, as I think many MPs do. It is good to see him back and I wish to congratulate him.

I want to tell the House that despite the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, as late as this morning the Prime Minister again had an opportunity to raise the agricultural situation, the unacceptable farm bill and the ongoing softwood crisis with the president of the United States.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have two brief points and then a question. The member seems to be unaware that the Cairns Group has already issued a statement against the U.S. farm bill. He is a bit behind the times on that.

U.S. Secretary of State Veneman has said that even though the U.S. industry is against the mandatory labelling for country of origin the administration would support it. That is why advocacy is so important in the United States. That is why we have been doing that for some time.

The hon. member for Peace River in September 1998 stated that he was against renewing the softwood lumber agreement. He said it simply did not work and did not make sense. What does his colleague think about that? If renewing the softwood lumber agreement was not the answer, and we agree it was not the answer, then obviously free trade is the answer.

Since the United States will not support free trade at this time we are pursuing every legal option at the WTO and NAFTA. I do not understand what my colleague's problem is with us pursuing all these legal options.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, fortunately I get to speak for myself. The hon. member does not get to do it for me.

First, let me tell him that my former riding, of which he seems totally unaware, was called London--Middlesex, and 20% of my constituents are farmers. I invite him down to London, Ontario some time. The county of Middlesex surrounds the northern part of London. Elgin is to the south, Lambton is to the west and Oxford is to the east. This area has some of the most thriving, diverse agriculture in the country. I hear all the time from farmers in that area, many of them personal friends of mine, about the unfairness of this U.S. farm bill. One does not have to hail from the beautiful part of Canada, western Canada, to have some touch with agriculture. That is the first myth I wanted to debunk.

The member said that the government did not care, that nobody did anything, that nobody talked to the farmers and that nobody had any interest in the issues. That is just silly.

Last week three ministers personally travelled to western Canada. One was in a conversation by phone. We had four minister consulting with farmers in the prairie province of Saskatchewan about the crisis, the scope of it and potential help from the Canadian government.

I do not think the member is being fair at all when he says that there has been no interest from the government. He may not like the actions taken or not taken, but to say that there has been absolutely no effort and no interest is just simply the second myth I wanted to debunk.

Third, he made these comments. He quoted--

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

I defy you to find that in

Hansard.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Nobody said that.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of my colleague. While I actually agreed with some things he said, I am afraid he took too much credit for the previous Conservative government. If the Conservative government had dealt with the root causes when it had the opportunity, we would not be in this position today.

Does the member not understand that this government has built the strongest national consensus on this issue ever, unlike the previous Mulroney government that he proudly cites? It did not deal with this in a long term solution and that is why we are back in this problem today.

Does the member not understand that there was a conscious decision of the provinces and industry to let the softwood lumber agreement run out, which would then gave us free trade? Except the Americans refused to accept that, refused to live up to being the free traders they claimed to be and launched these punitive actions.

I want to correct one point. For the U.S. trade representative, Mr. Zoellick, to say that Canada is not interested in trade talks is simply wrong. I do not know if my friend is quoting him correctly but I hope not because Mr. Zoellick knows better.

Canada is prepared to sit down when the United States is prepared to look at meaningful progress in these talks, otherwise we will fight this out at the WTO.