Pat O'Brien

[Free Trade Area Of The Americas, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, the Minister for International Trade has consulted very widely on this file. He has met repeatedly with provincial ministers. He has met with lumber people from every region of Canada. There has been a special parliamentary series of hearings on this issue.

Canada has been a leader in transparency on this issue. The minister is today pressing for more transparency in Buenos Aires.

[Trade, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, traditionally Canada does not make linkages from one sector to another.

As the Minister for International Trade has repeatedly said, we have an excellent case in softwood lumber on its own merits but the reality is, we would like to see a far better climate on trade with the United States which claims to be free traders.

[Export Development Corporation, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House today, in both official languages, the annual report for the year 2000 of the Export Development Corporation.

[Income Tax Act, April 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester has been quite persistent on this file, as have all my Liberal colleagues from Atlantic Canada. We have heard no shortage of concern about the maritime accord.

The member raised questions about the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement. He specifically mentioned the letter from the four Atlantic premiers concerning the codification of the provisions of the maritime lumber accord.

As the member well knows, we are now in a situation which would be quite acceptable to everybody if the Americans would accept it. We now have free trade under the NAFTA rules for not only Atlantic Canada but for all regions. That is what we want for all Canadian regions.

The exchange of letters in 1996 confirmed the procedures for U.S. recognition that should a countervailing duty investigation be initiated during the five year period the maritimes would be considered to have not subsidized. The U.S. action does not target any program in Atlantic Canada. We think that is great.

We will continue, as the member asked, to advocate free access for lumber originating in the Atlantic provinces as well as free access for all provinces as provided by NAFTA.

As the member knows, the Minister for International Trade is a minister for all Canadians. He represents all Canadians on this file and he has to take into account their concerns. When he met on February 26 with U.S. trade representative Zoellick the matter was raised by the minister. It was one of the first topics he raised and the Prime Minister raised it with President Bush. It has had a very high level of attention by our government.

The minister put forward the idea of envoys. At first there was no great enthusiasm from the American side. Now it seems there is more interest in it. That would be very important. There would be wide consultation with the respective governments, including all provincial governments. We will pursue the matter of free trade for the Atlantic provinces but we want it for all Canadians.

[Division No. 66, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, he represents one riding in the Atlantic provinces. The government has to govern for the entire country. Softwood lumber is of great interest to every region of Canada, not just to the Atlantic provinces.

I have no problem in acknowledging the fact that the premiers recently sent a letter. That is a matter of record. With the expiry of the softwood lumber agreement our trade is now under NAFTA rules. The exchange of letters in 1996 confirmed the U.S. recognition that should a countervailing duty investigation be initiated during the five year period of the agreement, the maritimes would be considered not to have subsidized. That will be of some comfort to the hon. member who represents an Atlantic riding.

The United States accepted that the maritimes would be considered not to have subsidized. Our job as a government is to continue to advocate for free trade in softwood lumber, for free access to the U.S. market for every region of Canada, not just the riding and the Atlantic region the member hails from but for every region of Canada where this is vitally important.

This is not an east-west issue. The member and anyone else who plays that game does a disservice to what we are trying to do nationally on this file. This is a north-south dispute; it is not an east-west dispute. Any MP that falls into that trap is making a very big mistake and is not helping the national cause on this file. I would ask my colleague to reconsider that.

This is about market share. Our lumber people have done very well in the United States. It means that we must have achieved too much of the market share for the American appetite as we are up to 34%. This dispute is about protectionism.

The Minister for International Trade has made very clear, we will continue to vigorously defend the Canadian lumber industry. We do not unfairly subsidize and that will be proven once again.

[Lumber Industry, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister for International Trade announced that we will be implementing a monitoring of all exports of softwood lumber to the United States.

Effective April 1, there will be the use of export permits which will allow us to collect some very important data to once again validate the case that Canada has demonstrated several times in the past, that we do not subsidize exports in softwood lumber.

[Lumber Industry, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, earlier today the member for Ottawa Centre tabled a report in the House from the subcommittee on trade, endorsed by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which calls on the Government of Canada to appoint an envoy. The envoy would have the opportunity to convene such a meeting as the member describes.

I am a bit surprised by the member's question because he was a full participant and supported the committee's decision yesterday.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the member's first question on chapter 11 of NAFTA, the member has been in the House on several occasions, as I have, when the Minister for International Trade expressed the same reservations and concerns about chapter 11, though certainly not to the degree of those who do not think we even need to be involved in this international trade discussion.

The minister has expressed reservations about the way the chapter 11 clause under NAFTA has been expanded by some of the rulings that have come out of that dispute. The minister has expressed serious reservations about signing any deal which would include a chapter 11-like NAFTA clause. He has made that clear. I am not sure if the member was present for those comments but they are very easy to see and I can make sure he gets—

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the member with whom I served for a time on the Canadian heritage committee. With all due respect to her question, I think she knows full well that the government has stood up for Canadian cultural industries time and again.

Important institutions, such as the CBC, the magazine industry, and many of the examples where we have stood up for the cultural industries of the country, answer very eloquently the member's question.

There is an important discussion about an international cultural instrument and the government is fully participating in that. The government will stand very strongly for the preservation of our culture. It understands very clearly just how threatened our culture can be living beside the behemoth that we live beside. We cannot change that. The government has always stood for Canadian culture and it will continue to do so.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this important debate where elected members of parliament from all parties have the opportunity to share their thoughts and concerns about this important process and to reflect the concerns and feelings of their constituents. This is the place for elected members of parliament to make their views known, and I am pleased to do so.

The Americas is one of the world's most dynamic regions. Though its 800 million people are not even one-sixth of the world's population, they account for more than one-third of the world's economic activity. At about $17 trillion dollars, the combined gross domestic product of the Americas is greater than that of the European Union. It is no wonder then that the leaders of the western hemisphere believe in the potential of the Americas. They knew that their countries could work together more efficiently on every front, social, political and economic, to promote democracy, development and growth.

At the Miami summit of the Americas in 1994 leaders endorsed a declaration and plan of action that expressed their common commitment to strengthening democracy and creating greater prosperity. They also committed themselves to practical measures to improve health care, to increase access to quality education, to protect biodiversity, to take collective action against the scourge of drugs and corruption, and to expand and deepen the dialogue with civil society on regional priorities.

At the second summit in Santiago in 1998 this co-operation was carried forward and deepened. Once again leaders endorsed action to support the development of democratic institutions, protect human rights, and enhance transparency and respect for the rule of law. They gave specific instructions to begin the process of negotiating the free trade area of the Americas. Once it is complete the FTAA will be the world's largest free trade area.

The summit of the Americas process offers numerous opportunities to further enhance Canada's openness to the western hemisphere. The FTAA is one of the most tangible opportunities on the economic front with its potential for enhanced market access for Canadian exports.

If there is one sector where new access could lead to significant benefits for Canada and Canadian business, it is services. The services sector is a key engine of Canada's economy. It is responsible for more than two-thirds of Canada's GDP, almost three-quarters of employment, 10.5 million jobs and nearly 90% of new job creation in Canada. It is leading the transformation of the Canadian economy into a knowledge based economy.

Many employees in the services sector are highly educated and enjoy weekly earnings well above average. Services are at the heart of Canada's innovative society. For example, telecommunications, financial services and technical business services are among the most innovative industries in Canada.

As a leading trading nation Canada counts on its services exports to strengthen its prosperity. Not counting Canada's direct investments abroad in services companies, Canada is the 12th largest exporter of services in the world, exporting some $51.8 billion worth of services in 1999 alone.

Canadian companies like SNC Lavalin, Teleglobe, Enbridge and Hydro-Québec are among the world's leaders in their fields. Their expertise is sought across the hemisphere.

Those services exports only account for 12% of total Canadian exports. Canada's trade in services is increasing at a much faster pace than our trade in goods. Given the importance of trade for our economy we can say without fear of exaggeration that improving market access abroad for our services providers is vital to sustaining our prosperity.

The argument for supporting Canada's services exports is particularly strong when it comes to the Americas. Canada's commercial services exports to FTAA countries, excluding the United States and Mexico, were worth $1.9 billion in 1998, up from $787 million in 1993 and growing at an average annual rate of 19% during that time. Countries such as Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil are all key existing or potential export markets for Canadian services providers.

Three sectors are particularly noteworthy: telecommunications, financial services and engineering services. The Canadian telecommunications sector is enjoying tremendous success, exporting services valued at over $2 billion per year and employing some 104,000 people. As a consequence, since 1993 the sector has been growing by over 9% per year.

Canadian exporters of telecommunications services face market access and regulatory restrictions in some countries of the hemisphere in part due to the presence of telecommunications monopolies in addition to a lack of transparency, predictability and timeliness in the process for awarding operating permits and licences or prohibitive fees for licensing or interconnections. Reducing such barriers would significantly increase export opportunities for Canada's telecommunications companies.

In recent years Canada's financial institutions have been very active in Central and Latin America. One leading example is Scotiabank which is active in Argentina; Chile, where its subsidiary is the seventh largest bank in the country; Brazil; Costa Rica; Belize; El Salvador, with 33 branches in that country alone; Guyana; Panama; Peru; Uruguay; and Venezuela.

Another good example is the National Bank which recently teamed up with three U.S. venture capital companies and a local Chilean partner to form the Corp Banca Consortium to purchase banking institutions in South American countries. The same is true for the insurance sector. Our insurance companies have in fact identified Latin America as a growth market for the future.

Another sector where Canadian expertise is renowned around the world is engineering and other related services. Canada is currently the world's third largest exporter of engineering services. The very high calibre of Canadian engineers is internationally recognized. Business opportunities are significant, especially in Central and Latin America where Canadian engineer expertise in resource based, energy related and infrastructure projects is in high demand.

In this regard Hydro-Québec's recent acquisition of Chile's Transelect, which owns 50% of Chilean power transmission lines, is a good example of the type of business opportunities the countries of the western hemisphere have to offer. This is why Canada is actively participating in services negotiations under the free trade area of the Americas.

Canada has much to gain from the establishment of a comprehensive set of rules on trade and services under the FTAA. Canada's general objective in the services negotiations is to seek improved market access for Canadian services providers under a transparent and predictable rules based system. In the elaboration of FTAA rules on services Canada will be guided by its existing rights and obligations in the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement and the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services, more commonly known as GATS.

These objectives can be achieved without putting at risk the values all Canadians cherish. The FTAA services chapter will allow countries to file exceptions for those measures they wish to maintain. In addition, and I wish this to be very clear, nothing in these negotiations will jeopardize our health and public education systems. They are not negotiable.

We have heard fearmongering as late as today at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. It is absolutely ill-founded, incorrect scaremongering to suggest that our public health system and our education system are on the table. They are not negotiable.

I have shown how much services and service exports contribute to the dynamism of the Canadian economy. I have shown how world competitive Canadian telecommunications, financial services and engineering services, to name only three sectors, look to the Americas for their market growth. I have tried to show how we will shape the rules of the game to achieve our objectives without imperilling the things we hold dear.

Let us join the hemisphere's leaders in having confidence in ourselves and in our region. We now have the stability, the transparency and the economic growth record that allows trade to increase and thrive. The countries of the region are good economic partners for Canada and for each other. For all of us, the FTAA is a vote of confidence in our common future.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate. I can tell the House that the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I are taking very careful note of what hon. colleagues raise this evening.