Claude Duplain

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, from what the opposition is saying, everybody should resign and we should call an election tomorrow. I do not think that the suggestions made by the opposition will help us solve all the problems. It is a very special situation, and I agree that we need to have the discussion that we are having today on the softwood lumber issue.

The riding of Portneuf will surely be severely affected by these duties. We are being told to act quickly. Emergency measures are being taken, and we also have the employment insurance plan. But what we need to do, and fast, is to sit down and find a long term solution. That does not happen overnight.

The consultations that have taken place so far dealt with the situation before the decision regarding the imposition of countervailing duties was announced. Now the situation has changed somewhat, and we must work together to find a better solution, and that is exactly what the government and the minister are doing right now, very calmly and very sensibly.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today and to have the opportunity to report the latest developments in the dispute that our government has taken before the WTO and the NAFTA panel to defend the softwood lumber industry.

We all know that the decision made by the United States is unjustified and unfairly punitive. Not only does this duty add $1,500 U.S. to the cost of a new house in the United States, which affects one of the few dynamic sectors of the otherwise lethargic U.S. economy, but it also exacerbates the economic difficulties that many regions in our country are facing right now. Sawmills have already had to shut down, and reports indicate that 22,000 workers have been laid off and that others could follow.

Ironically the softwood lumber production in the United States is not sufficient to meet the demand of the U.S. building sector. This means that, as the imposition of a countervailing duty reduces the supply of Canadian softwood lumber, American buyers will have to turn to other sources. We have already seen rapid increases in exports to the United States from third countries since the Americans have initiated their trade action.

We also know that the U.S. industry has made the same allegations of subsidies in the past, but it was never able to prove its claims conclusively. We all know that this dispute is the result of U.S. protectionism and that the case of the U.S. industry against our softwood lumber producers is weak.

In the latest case, which was settled in 1994, Canada appealed allegations of subsidies before a binational FTA panel and won. Following our successful challenge, the U.S. department of commerce accepted the panel's findings to the effect that provincial stumpage fees and lumber export controls were not countervailable subsidies, and it paid back over $1 billion, for countervailing duties that were improperly collected.

Despite this and the fact that stumpage rights have since been increased in Canada, we find ourselves faced with the exact same allegations. Once again, in close co-operation with the provincial and territorial governments, and with our industry, we are challenging these unfounded allegations.

This fight is being conducted before both the WTO and NAFTA. Allow me to first explain our representations before the WTO.

Our first representations to the WTO were made over a year and a half ago, when we challenged the claim by the United States that the monitoring of our lumber exports was a subsidy.

In June of last year, a WTO panel concluded that a restriction on exports, such as our lumber export controls, did not result in a financial contribution and could therefore not be a countervailable subsidy. This finding weakened the U.S. position and confirmed our lumber export monitoring program.

The second time we went before the WTO, we challenged a section of a U.S. act, on the grounds that it was incompatible with the obligations of the United States towards the WTO. The section in dispute precludes the repayment of certain countervailing and anti-dumping duties, should the WTO dispute settlement panel conclude that the initial decision to impose such duties was incompatible with the obligations of the United States under an international treaty. This challenge is already well underway and the final report is expected by the end of June.

A victory will give back to our industry the countervailing duties collected when, yet again, we successfully challenge the specious U.S. allegations made during the most recent investigation.

Third, we are also challenging the U.S. preliminary determination of subsidies, which led to the imposition of improper and unfair countervailing duties on our softwood lumber exports to the United States.

We contended that the U.S. department of commerce had violated the rules of international trade in its efforts to demonstrate at any cost that our softwood lumber exports were being subsidized.

In arriving at its conclusion, the U.S. Department of Commerce made many errors of law. In particular, the department mistakenly based its analysis on the conditions in the American market rather than those in the Canadian market.

Its analysis is completely incorrect and we are making this case to the WTO.

In the meantime, Canada is laying the groundwork for a fourth challenge to the WTO, this time regarding the final determination of subsidies.

On Friday, Canada filed its request for consultations on the final determination, and we expect the consultations to take place within 30 days. We then intend to formally challenge this American determination with the WTO.

Canada has also challenged the unfounded determinations of dumping. The last such determination, dated March 22, 2002, established a general rate of dumping of 8.6% for Canadian companies which had not been specifically investigated. Companies that had been investigated received individual dumping rates. The final determination of dumping, as well as the preliminary determination which preceded it, are both profoundly distorted.

On April 5, 2002, Canada held consultations with the United States in order to discuss the preliminary determination of dumping. Because this determination has now been replaced by the final determination, we are examining the latter for incompatibilities with WTO principles. To that end, we have corresponded with each of the six Canadian companies being studied by the Department of Commerce in its investigation in order to get their version. When we have received their observations, we intend to make a request for consultation on anti-dumping measures and to then file a formal challenge with the WTO.

Finally, there are two other challenges before the WTO which, although they do not arise from errors in the determination of subsidies and dumping by the Department of Commerce, nonetheless affect the softwood lumber industry. I am referring to the Byrd amendment, which requires that U.S. customs transfer to affected American producers the countervailing duties collected pursuant to a countervailing or anti-dumping duty order.

This is clearly incompatible with WTO principles and incites the U.S. industry to make and pursue claims against all types of imports, including those of Canadian softwood lumber producers.

Canada, in conjunction with the European Union, Japan and several other countries, is presently challenging this American measure, and a final report from the WTO panel is expected for the middle of this summer. Canada is also using the NAFTA framework to challenge unfair allegations by the United States.

On April 2, 2002, Canada filed a request for reviewing the American subsidy and dumping notices. We then lodged a formal complaint with the NAFTA panel that is examining the final determination of the subsidy. Other parties, such as provincial governments and industrial associations, have included Canada's claims in the complaints that they have filed. Submissions will be filed at the beginning of August and we are expecting a decision as soon as February 2003.

Finally, I believe it is worthwhile noting that Tembec, Doman and Canfor have all filed challenges under chapter 11 of NAFTA against the United States about the current dispute. These challenges all suggest that American disregard for fair and free trade principles enshrined in NAFTA boils down to forcing adversely affected businesses out of their market.

That Canadian businesses should be prepared to take such an approach shows that the federal and provincial governments, as well as the industry, are all committed to working closely together to fight the unfair American measures.

Our ultimate goal is free trade for softwood lumber without any threat of harassment. We will continue to work toward that goal and we will make the best use possible of existing and future legal proceedings to reach it.

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, we live in a century of rapid change. Mention must be made of the efforts that have been made for the farming sector, be it research, or committees that have been struck under the auspices of the agricultural research group and the minister of agriculture, carrying out research and consultations across the country. These are real accomplishments by this government.

In fact, time is being taken to go out and speak to people where they are at, in order to be able to meet their expectations. It is not merely a matter of answering a phone call and then getting into an immediate panic because of a fear of change. The time must be taken to consult, to look at the data, and then to create new programs to meet the needs.

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, as you know, I am a new member, having arrived after the last election. I had the very pleasant surprise of discovering some wonderful things when I arrived as a member of this government.

When I arrived here, I was particularly interested in rural communities. It was a very important issue to me. I discovered just how well we could work together. The government members work together to find ways to ensure that rural communities survive and flourish.

I also discovered things that make the work difficult. Indeed, I often hear the opposition talk about things they have not even taken the time to learn about. When it comes time to debate and pass bills, the opposition raises arguments that they claim will do this, or they claim will do that.

However, what about arguments that have been thought out on paper, based on real facts and on which people work? The members are assisted by competent people. They work with researchers. Often these researchers come from their riding. Often, the opposition shouts and argues with us, but they should know that these ideas come from people from their riding and their communities, people who work tirelessly and who understand what is happening in the community and who are often in contact with people in their region. As such, they have developed these bills with the evolution of rural areas in mind.

This is why I would like the opposition to be more progressive with the government, so that they can indeed improve, rather than always contest, what the government is trying to build in rural communities.

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain what the Government of Canada is doing for rural Canada, especially farming communities, in response to concerns about the environment. Good farming practices go hand in hand with healthy farming practices.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is working with all stakeholders to increase the farming sector's capacity to manage its soil resources, to provide the public with better access to a safe supply of water, to adjust to climate change, and to support the adoption of practices which will maintain soil and water quality.

The sustainability of the environment becomes particularly important when one is confronted with exceptional situations such as the drought which, once again this year, is of tremendous concern to many rural communities.

The measures we are taking to protect the environment cannot prevent drought, because no one can control meteorological conditions. But these measures can help to attenuate the effects of a possible drought. We must therefore have methods and programs in place, because writing a cheque is no guarantee of rain.

In order to put such measures in place, the federal government is working in partnership with the provinces and territories, with the sector, and with interested Canadians to develop a national strategic agricultural framework.

The agriculture strategy framework will build on our past successes in order to create a more solid structure for success. It is based on five key components which are integrated one with the other. These are risk management, food safety, renewal, science and innovation, and environmental management.

The federal and provincial Ministers of Agriculture have committed to working together to achieve a set of common objectives which will make it possible to improve the environmental performance of agricultural operations. The purpose of these concrete and quantifiable objectives is to enhance the quality of our water, our soils and our air, as well as ensuring compatibility with biodiversity.

To that end, the strategy framework contains provisions for greater use of regional environmental management plans, and improved practices relating to the use of manure, fertilizers and nutrients.

The framework encompasses the following: advantageous practices for pest-control practices and pesticide use; reduced fallow periods; increased use of no-till methods with a view to soil conservation; better management of areas along waterways, and range land and water use; and the adoption of better management practices in order to reduce odours and particulate matter emissions.

The proposed government objectives would make it possible to improve the long term sustainability of our farm operations during drought years and non-drought years alike.

This approach is based on the progress already made, thanks to the programs and practices that protect farmers against drought, and that incorporate weather conditions and other environmental factors in the farmers' daily planning and risk management processes.

These programs include initiatives such as the Environmental Farm Plans, which apply to over 20,000 farm operations in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces; Quebec's Clubs conseils en agro-environnement, which include over 4,000 farmers and encourage them to develop sustainable farm practices, while also supporting them when they make representations; and the promotion of an integrated environmental approach of agriculture, through the Agriculture Canada Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, in western Canada.

Since the catastrophic droughts of the thirties, the Agriculture Canada Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration has helped farmers greatly increase their ability to deal with the unexpected forces of nature. Thanks to increased knowledge, technological progress and better management practices, we have now significantly reduced the consequences of droughts.

On a practical level, we have built dugouts specially designed to help farmers put up with two years of drought, and irrigation systems made up of dams and reservoirs that supply water to farmers. When there is a risk of drought, it is critical to use sound soil conservation methods.

So, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada co-operates with other stakeholders to develop and promote management practices, such as conservation tillage—which allows the soil to retain water and prevents it from evaporating—chemical fallow—which helps the roots of dead weeds retain water—plans to use nutrients, grassed waterways, grazing management of native grasslands, cross slope cultivation and contour farming.

The Soil Conservation Council of Canada, which has its headquarters in Saskatoon, has set up a national network of soil conservation organizations and is trying to promote the conservation and enrichment of Canada's soils for the benefit of present and future generations.

The use of healthy, ecological soil management practices can appreciably reduce the levels of greenhouse gases and help attenuate the effects of drought.

The federal government encourages producers to adopt practices which will increase the amount of organic carbon deposited in soils and vegetation. It also encourages producers to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane, which are by-products of farming. These practices also lessen soil disturbance and increase crop yield and the effectiveness of fertilizers.

Other methods are used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as reducing soil tillage, incorporating more forage crops in crop rotations, planting more windbreaks, switching to grass and forage crops on marginal lands, and improving management of pasture land.

The national strategic agricultural framework being proposed emphasizes these initiatives and promises a healthier agricultural environment and a healthier society. It includes an exhaustive plan for the accelerated adoption of environmental protection measures. This plan covers Canadian farming operations and will help us to meet the measurable objectives applying to all facets of our environment.

Let us be clear. Healthy ecological practices are not just good for the environment. They also make good business sense. Consumers the world over are demanding that food production methods respect the environment. A more rational use of resources could reduce costs and increase the revenues from new green markets. By adopting these methods, the sector will become more cost-effective.

In conclusion, the Government of Canada will continue to support our farmers and their efforts to manage the environment with respect. Their efforts and their proper management of the environment, through the programs we have put in place, as well as the promise of a new approach to our environmental responsibilities, will strengthen our agricultural sector, a key component of rural Canada.

[Francophone Culture, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a Canadian play is doing well at the box office in Lebanon at the present time. People are flocking to see Le collier d'Hélène , and I want to point this out.

Works like the one by Quebec dramaturge Carole Fréchette are contributing to making francophone culture known worldwide. I feel that our creative people need to be acknowledged for their contribution.

As hon. members are aware, the Francophone summit will be held in Beirut this coming fall.

I am pleased to learn how dynamic the francophone culture in Lebanon has become, and this augurs well for the great success of the Beirut summit, I am sure.

[Wind Energy, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that the Murdochville area provided the largest wind energy compatible site in Quebec.

Can the Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec tell us how he plans to contribute to the development of this industry in the Gaspé?

[Honneur au Mérite Competition, April 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in March the Beauport--Côte-de-Beaupré Chamber of Commerce gave out awards to the winners of their “Honneur au mérite” competition.

The main purpose of this competition is to honour the spirit of entrepreneurship among the business people of Beauport and Côte-de-Beaupré .

There were awards in six categories: retail, industrial, startup business, service, tourism and job creation.

I felt it was important to mention this excellent demonstration of the dynamism of the business people of Beauport--Côte-de-Beaupré.

[Extension of Highway 35, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the extension of highway 35 is receiving a lot of press coverage. Some citizens formed a pressure group so that this project can become a reality. The Mayor of Saint-Jean, Gilles Dolbec, is actively involved in this priority issue for the Haut-Richelieu region.

It is important to give these people our support. My colleague, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi, has been giving his support to Mayor Dolbec for several months.

In fact, last fall he organized a working session for a delegation from the Haut-Richelieu, during which the extension of highway 35 was discussed.

These people care about the economic development and prosperity of their region, but also of Quebec.

Like the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi, let us support them, so that they are finally rewarded for their valiant efforts.

[Rendez-vous de la Francophonie, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, from March 11 to 24, everyone is invited to the Rendez-Vous de la Francophonie, which takes place around the Semaine nationale de la Francophonie. The Journée internationale de la Francophonie will be on March 20.

This is the ideal opportunity for those who love the French language to come together and celebrate it. Let us all demonstrate that our language is very much alive here in Canada, and that it is important for it to remain so.

Over 9 million Canadians speak French, including 6.6 million for whom French is their mother tongue. Their contribution to Canadian culture is both incredible and beyond compare.

Throughout the country there will be many activities around the Rendez-vous de la Francophonie, and I invite all Canadians to take part.