Pat O'Brien

[Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, November 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to help my colleague assure his constituent Nellie that things are pretty rosy all in all. I would like to specifically answer what precipitated the changes. As my colleague knows, and I think he has a couple of years of wisdom on me, we live in a changing world. The situation that we face internationally in the export market is much more competitive.

These are necessary changes to update the CCC. It allows for the separation of two positions which, as the minister said in his speech earlier today, is normal corporate practice and really should have been done before, I suppose. The government wants to make that improvement.

The member spoke about funds and so on. This would give the CCC the opportunity to charge for its services and make it more in keeping with an approach that is necessary and more productive in the new world in which we are living.

[Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, November 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on second reading of Bill C-41. I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine.

Before speaking to CCC and Bill C-41 I wish to join others in congratulating the Minister for International Trade on his great success and the great success of the WTO at Doha, Qatar. I welcome the minister back from what was a very tiring schedule but a very successful ministerial meeting.

We see the launch of a new round of trade talks which is critically important, particularly in light of the tragedy of September 11 and the economic slowdown that so much of the world including Canada finds itself caught up in.

The Minister for International Trade showed great leadership in Doha. He was one of six facilitators who helped to cobble together the agreement, which meant many long days and evenings of work.

The Minister for International Trade is an indefatigable worker. He does not stop when it comes to pursuing a goal that he knows is very worth while. I congratulate him on his great work. It means hope for Canadian farmers. They may eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later, see a level playing field as we look at the issue of subsidies.

It means greater hope for the less developed nations of the world that stand to gain so much. Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the UN, said that the best thing we could do for the less developed nations of the world was to globalize and liberalize trade and to bring down barriers, which would allow them to raise themselves out of poverty.

I look forward with great anticipation as does most of the world to the Doha development agenda proceeding over the next several years. I repeat the great pride I have in congratulating the Minister for International Trade on his leadership and the great part he played and will continue to play in this important matter.

I would like to lay out the historical CCC background in light of some of the comments made by opposition colleagues. The CCC successfully met specialized international contracting and service delivery needs on behalf of Canadian exporters for more than 50 years. The corporation has shown its value to Canada in times of both war and peace.

The corporation has served Canadian interests very well ever since it was first set up by the Government of Canada in 1946 to help with international rebuilding efforts following World War II.

Today we are thinking about the fight against terrorism and the need for Canada to play a full role in supporting that campaign. CCC is playing a key role on behalf of Canada as we respond to the increased demand for the goods and services needed to win the fight against terrorism.

However CCC is not just about supplying war material. Its origins were humanitarian and it has a growing reputation today for its success in negotiating contracts to supply the non-defence procurement needs of the governments of other countries.

In 1946 the corporation's task was to facilitate the participation of Canadian companies in the international rebuilding effort, the so-called Marshall plan, that was necessary and highly successful in rebuilding the economies of Europe and re-establishing international economic prosperity after the enormous devastation of World War II.

It was during that time of international rebuilding that CCC began to develop a special expertise in public sector procurement including for the military. The corporation first worked with Canada's Department of National Defence to meet Canadian procurement needs. CCC became a key link between Canadian suppliers and the U.S. military and other foreign buyers of Canadian products during the Korean conflict in the early 1950s.

A few years later, with the signing of the Canada-U.S. defence production sharing agreement in 1956, CCC became the official agency through which U.S. Department of Defense contracts were processed for the supply of Canadian goods and services to meet U.S. defence requirements. This special mandate to manage Canada's participation in the United States defence market provided CCC with a very unique capacity to act on behalf of Canadian suppliers to meet specialized procurement needs.

General Motors Defense Canada is located in my riding of London--Fanshawe. It repeatedly tells me how necessary CCC is to the success of its contracts. Some 80% of its business is in export sales. It is lavish in its praise of CCC and the necessary role it plays in helping it secure these important markets and keeping thousands of Canadians in my riding and across the country working at good, well paying jobs. General Motors would want me to make that point because it repeatedly makes it to me.

CCC created the base for the corporation to broaden its business scope and to use its expertise in public procurement to seek new markets for Canadian suppliers outside the traditional defence and aerospace markets. Today almost 30% of CCC's new business is in areas outside the traditional defence and aerospace markets. The corporation is working with an ever expanding range of clients to promote a broad range of Canadian capabilities in high technology, environmental sectors, transportation and consumer goods to public sector buyers all over the world.

CCC supports Canadian exporters in the following ways. First, it uses its special status as a prime contractor to the United States department of defence. One of our colleagues in the New Democratic Party alluded to this point. We will have an opportunity to explain more fully for colleagues the special nature of this relationship when we analyze the bill and debate it in committee.

Second, it facilitates access to international public procurement contracts for Canadian companies. Third, it provides a guarantee of contract performance to public sector buyers around the world on behalf of Canadian exporters. I alluded earlier to how critically important that is to firms like General Motors and many others. Fourth, it facilitates access to bank financing for Canadian companies that need working capital to finance export contracts.

These are four critically important ways that CCC supports Canadian firms hoping to export in a pretty competitive market. We need only reflect that some 43% of our GDP is directly tied to exports in goods and services to understand how important the work of CCC is to the healthy economy we are determined to see continue.

The availability of these unique services under one crown corporation roof provides Canadian exporters with an equally unique set of advantages in international markets. Last year CCC facilitated some $1.3 billion in export business on behalf of Canadian businesses, 70% of which were small and medium size businesses.

Over the years CCC signed export contracts on behalf of thousands of Canadian companies. The corporation facilitated export sales of over $30 billion to buyers in more than 100 countries. These export contracts created or maintained employment in many Canadian communities from coast to coast.

I do not believe the bill presents contentious changes. It presents necessary, common sense improvements. I noted with interest the remarks of colleagues opposite, particularly the member from the Progressive Conservative Party who made such positive points. We look forward to working with opposition members in committee to help make sure we have a strong bill that will make an even better CCC.

[Trade, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the parties involved will receive the report by the end of the week and WTO members will receive it within two weeks when it will be made public to them, so I cannot comment on the report now.

I can make very clear the commitment of the government to Bombardier, to its employees across Canada, and I can tell the House that in the face of illegal Brazilian subsidies the Canadian government will stand up for Bombardier, its employees and clients right across the country.

[Health, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely incorrect. The government has put forth language which will achieve exactly what the member is calling for.

The government is on record as wanting to help the countries that are facing pandemics. The minister will be making that point very clearly in Doha.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate the issues put forward by the hon. member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques.

The member's motion on softwood lumber is timely and important for all Canadians. The Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute is ongoing and it continues to be our country's latest trade concern with our neighbour to the south.

Last week's decision by the U.S. department of commerce, while not surprising given its protectionist leanings, is punitive for our industry in terms of job loss and mill closures and for U.S. consumers who will pay needlessly high housing prices to cover unwarranted duties.

This dispute, the fourth in 20 years, directly impacts hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs and many more indirectly. Over 300 Canadian communities are at least 50% dependent on a strong lumber industry and on positive softwood lumber trade relations with the United States. Almost one million Canadians' livelihoods, or one in 16 jobs, are related to the lumber industry. Canadians in these communities know first hand of the impact that the U.S. trade action has on our country's economy, on their individual communities and on their families at home.

I will speak today on what the Government of Canada has done to defend the interests of its industry and what it will do in the days ahead.

Since the U.S. lumber industry petitioned the U.S. department of commerce in April of this year alleging that our industry is subsidized and is dumping lumber into the United States, the government has responded forcefully and clearly that these allegations are false and not based in fact. During the past 20 years three previous cases have not been sustained. Once again these allegations will be refuted. Based on protectionist sentiments, the U.S. industry's trade action has brought uncertainty, mill closures, job loss, reduced exports and lost opportunities to Canada's lumber industry.

Having said this, let me say that we in Canada are not the only ones hurting. As a result of the U.S. trade action, American consumers are feeling the impact of a needless dispute. As a result of U.S. duties on our lumber, American consumers will have to pay higher lumber prices and, accordingly, increased housing costs. The United States will see reduced housing starts, the only shining light in a lagging economy, and a weakened ability of hundreds of thousands of Americans to buy a home.

What impact does this have on those who want to purchase a home, a couple's first home, let us say, or on those who are concerned about affordable housing? The coalition American Consumers for Affordable Homes and other housing groups in the United States estimate that 32% duties on Canadian lumber will needlessly raise housing costs by up to $3,000.

Incredibly, the levying of duties by the United States administration on Canadian producers will greatly hurt the U.S. public, who will have to pay up to four months' mortgage just to cover the cost of needless trade action against Canadian lumber producers. Ironically, in an attempt to satisfy big lumber interests in the United States, the U.S. department of commerce has indirectly hurt those who are bystanders in this trade dispute.

In the face of the trade action and the difficulties it causes on both sides of the border, I would like to congratulate the many Canadian interests that have stood together prior to the investigation and since the trade action began in April. Canadian lumber producers, the provinces and territories and the Government of Canada have met regularly to determine the next steps. They have worked in a united fashion and have indicated in clear terms that we will fight the U.S. trade action based on the merits of our case, a case that has been successful for Canada many times before.

I am proud to say that our government has been active in defending our interests and in leading the way forward. To those say “what more can we do?”, I will summarize what we have done already and outline what we can do together in the near future.

Our Prime Minister has frequently personally engaged President Bush on the trade dispute at every opportunity. As the Prime Minister said in the House today and as he has said repeatedly, he had the opportunity to raise this issue a week or so ago in Shanghai with President Bush and has committed to again in the next few days raise this issue with the U.S. president. Let there be no doubt that the Prime Minister is personally engaged in this issue in a most serious way and has repeatedly raised this matter with the American president.

Our Minister for International Trade has forcefully made our case and has engaged in high level discussions on numerous occasions with commerce secretary Evans and U.S. trade representative Bob Zoellick. In answering a question in the House today, my colleague the Minister for International Trade indicated that he had met with the new special representative, Marc Racicot, appointed by President Bush. He indicated that they met earlier today and that Mr. Racicot now knows in no uncertain terms from the Minister for International Trade just exactly what are the concerns of the Canadian lumber producers, the Canadian workers and the Canadian government in this dispute.

Our minister and officials have been holding regular federal-provincial meetings. I applaud the provincial governments for sticking together in tough times and for advancing our common interest with the Government of Canada.

In order to counter protectionist views, we have built alliances with U.S. consumer groups and with companies that are dependent on Canadian lumber. For example, Home Depot, the large U.S. lumber retailer, has been a great supporter of our position and has actively lobbied members of the U.S. congress on the need for free trade in softwood lumber. That is the best answer: free trade in softwood lumber. Home Depot was instrumental in the recent team Canada mission to Atlanta. It has been a key player in the United States, advocating for free trade and not for trade action.

In response to the U.S. allegations, the Government of Canada has filed over 250,000 pages of evidence refuting categorically U.S. industry allegations. We have helped individual companies prepare applications for exclusion from the countervailing duty investigation and recently submitted 334 applications to the U.S. department of commerce.

Our embassy in Washington and our consulates across the United States have been very active in lobbying decision makers and in educating the American public on the impact that duties will have on them, U.S. consumers. To date, some 115 members of congress have agreed with the position of the Government of Canada. As well, many articles supporting the Canadian position have appeared in U.S. newspapers.

This is a new phenomenon and a positive one compared to the last time we had this dispute with the United States. The American public and the American congress are more informed now and we are actively building and cultivating an alliance south of the border that supports us in arguing for free trade in softwood lumber. They just want their government to stand up to what it says it is and be a free trader in softwood lumber like it is when it chooses to be so in other commodities.

Canada's answer to the preliminary determinations of subsidy of the United States department of commerce and to its trade action has been to level the playing field so that big U.S. lumber does not rule the day. Our decision to challenge the United States on its protectionist softwood lumber rulings before the World Trade Organization is the best means of achieving success for our industry once again.

I know that we are challenging U.S. law and department of commerce rulings on five separate measures before the WTO. Our challenges are directly related to softwood lumber and I am pleased that the WTO has already ruled in our favour with respect to log export policy. In conjunction with a dozen other countries we are challenging another measure of U.S. legislation that impacts softwood lumber, the infamous Byrd amendment. While we are fighting the countervailing duty case on its merits, the Government of Canada in conjunction with the provinces is working to seek the individual exclusion of hundreds of Canadian companies from this trade action. Our government's success in having all of Atlantic Canada's producers exempted from the subsidy case is a recent victory that we hope to extend to the many Canadian producers that should not even be considered a part of the United States trade concern.

What are Canada's next steps? I agree with my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, and with the assessment of our industries and provinces that we should continue to fight the U.S. trade action with every single legal means at our disposal. Continued challenges before the WTO and a pending free trade agreement challenge of the U.S. relating to softwood lumber should also be in the works.

The meetings and discussions with U.S. officials to try to find a long term solution to the situation between our two countries can only help, not hurt, our industry. The series of ongoing discussions is part of the two track approach to this problem that the government has been engaged in for some time now: litigate if necessary and start the procedure necessary to do that, but also discuss at the highest level, from the Prime Minister, to the minister, to officials both American and Canadian, involve the industry widely in consultation, which the minister has done, and involve the provinces widely as part of these discussions to see if we can find the root causes once and for all of what is it the Americans do not accept. They have been repeatedly proven to be incorrect when they challenge that we subsidize.

Once and for all, let us get to the root problem. Let us come up with a solution that will be long term, that will give us free trade in softwood lumber and that will not find us back in these positions every few years fighting and winning this old battle once again, which is what we have had to do.

We understand why the United States industry continues to make false claims about our industry. We know that its concerns are based on protectionism and fear of losing market share. This is all about market share. Our producers have an excellent product at a good price. They have managed to capture 34% of the U.S. market and the American producers do not like it. It is not the fault of our producers that they do such a great job. They want free trade, they deserve free trade and the government will continue to fight for free trade for all Canadians.

While our exports have remained steady at about one-third of the U.S. market, this being the fourth attempt to erode our industry we know what the game is all about. We will not stand by while misinformation about our industry attempts to rule the day. Our government and indeed all MPs have a duty to set the record straight and defend the best interests of our industry. Our communities, the jobs that build them and the families that depend on a strong lumber industry deserve no less.

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief. I listened to my colleague with interest. I thought he knew but having heard his speech I want to assure him again that the government is very strongly committed to the WTO, to the launch of a new round at Doha.

When I met with Director General Mike Moore he indicated that Canada is considered one of the strongest supporters of the WTO. I think our track record there is quite a good one.

My colleague brought in softwood lumber and the unfortunate dispute we are in right now. He mentioned the five year agreement on softwood lumber that expired some months ago. He indicated that we ought to be proceeding at the WTO. That is exactly what we are doing. We are proceeding at the WTO. We launched a request for a panel on October 25. We have six specific fronts on which we are proceeding.

My colleague seemed to suggest that we should not make any kind of short term agreement such as the last softwood lumber agreement. At this point the government is determined to continue to move on the two fronts: the WTO and a series of high level discussions with officials.

I want to ask my colleague directly, is he advocating something less than going the distance at the WTO on softwood lumber? Is he advocating a more short term solution, such as the last agreement? There are some, who are in the minority, who are starting to propose a short term agreement on softwood lumber. Could my colleague clarify if he feels that is the way to go or should we see this through to the conclusion at WTO?

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, my hon. colleague kept saying the chief negotiator should be here. Of course one has to be a member of parliament to sit in this Chamber, and the Minister for International Trade was here earlier today to lead off this debate. The Minister for International Trade took 10 minutes of questions, the normal allotted time for questions. At the request of the House, the minister agreed to a further 10 minutes for questions and answers because he was so interested in hearing the views of members on both sides of the House.

I have to confess that when I listened to the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois, it sounded like a 19th century explanation of why the nation state is the wave of the future. Indeed it is not the wave of the future. We are now into a supra national world of larger groupings such as the EU. Canada is trying to become more involved in a number of fora. With his philosophy, I understand why he said that.

However my recollection is that Quebec is a very important province of this country. It willingly joined Confederation in 1867. The people of the province of Quebec understand very clearly that it benefits them greatly to remain a part of this great country.

It saddens me to hear the member's comments given that the Minister for International Trade is a proud francophone Quebecer. The Prime Minister is a proud francophone Quebecer. They are talented and dedicated enough to defend the interests both of their home province of Quebec and the greater interest of this entire country, which they are so proud to serve. I find it a bit sad to hear the member espousing 19th century philosophies but that is his prerogative.

The member says the Bloc is for free trade and the Bloc is for the poorer nations of the world. Could the member explain to the House why the Bloc Quebecois very recently voted against the latest bilateral free trade agreement on Canada-Costa Rica? This is a poor nation that needs this trade and will benefit greatly from it. It will certainly benefit Canada.

There were some concerns expressed about the potential impact on our sugar industry and those concerns were noted. However they hardly justified turning down what was a very good trade deal. Could the member enlighten the House on that because he certainly did not have much to teach us on the history of Canada?

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Unless I am mistaken or unless there is a different set of rules under committee of the whole, this is the second time my colleague has made reference to the attendance or non-attendance of hon. members.

It is inappropriate, particularly given that the Minister for International Trade led off the debate and agreed to an extra 10 minutes of questions and answers. That is how interested he was, that with a very busy schedule preparing to go to Doha, he agreed not only to the first 10 minutes of questions and answers but to a second 10 minutes of questions and answers.

It is a cheap shot and the member ought to refrain from taking it.

[Ireland, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Ireland Interparliamentary Friendship Group which I am proud to chair has met many key political figures from Northern Ireland during the past four years, including president Mary McAleese and Ulster Unionist Party leader David Trimble who seeks re-election tomorrow as first minister of the Northern Ireland assembly.

As Canadians we pray for the success of the peace process in Northern Ireland, especially those four million of us who are of Irish ancestry from both traditions.

Today I congratulate the leader of Sinn Fein, Mr. Gerry Adams, for his outstanding contribution in advancing the peace process in Northern Ireland. Mr. Adams will meet once again with our Prime Minister later today. I ask members to join me in welcoming to Ottawa the leader of Sinn Fein, Mr. Gerry Adams.

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member has been, but on October 25 the Minister for International Trade filed for a WTO panel on the softwood issue. The member is a little behind the times in calling for legal action.

The series of discussions is ongoing because we do not think that we should only tie ourselves to the legal avenue. We need a long term durable solution to this, which will respect the fair trade that we want in this country and for which the Americans claim to stand.