Joe Comuzzi

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to my colleague from Halifax West in his chronology of events leading up to the situation we are in today and the efforts to resolve if that the government is trying.

Today is an opposition day and the Bloc has chosen to talk about softwood lumber. This is not about softwood lumber in the same way as the issue was not Prince Edward Island potatoes a year ago or hot house tomatoes from British Columbia ten months ago or the steel issue that happened three months ago and was basically resolved. The issue of agricultural products will make the softwood lumber dispute pale in comparison if we allow the Americans to subsidize their agricultural products as they anticipate doing in the coming months. Those are the issues.

What all parties in the House of Commons should be talking about today is a new dispute resolution mechanism to resolve disputes that come from the United States. During an election process in the United States the dispute resolution system fails to work. What does the member suggest we do to find a new dispute resolution mechanism that is not politicized by the system in the United States? How do we find a system that will be ongoing, fair and equitable to all parties in the House and to all citizens, both in Canada and the United States? I submit that is what we should be doing.

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure that I am recorded as voting with the Liberals on the amendment.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my friend across the way. I know how concerned he is today about what is going on in Washington because he comes from the heart of an area that is so dependent not only on softwood lumber but on other forestry products.

However I wonder if he would consider one element in the comments he just made. I think it is something that we should always remember in the House when we are discussing and talking about this dispute that we have with the United States.

I am absolutely convinced, and I wonder if he is, that most of the members of the house of representatives and of the senate in the United States, who have to go out and get elected, like we do, are sympathetic toward our case?

Where we really come into some difficulty as country is not in dealing with the president, the members of the senate or the members from the house of representatives but in dealing with the department of commerce in the United States. When we get into the area of the interpretation of NAFTA, we fail to realize that it is the department of commerce that has jurisdiction. It is dealing, as our minister has over the last year and done an admirable job, with Mr. Evans, the secretary of the commerce department; Mr. Zoellick, the trade commissioner for the department of commerce; and, most recently, in dealing with the former governor of the state of Montana, a friend and ally of Senator Baucus who was asked by the president to try to bring some conclusion to this very difficult trade dispute.

When my colleague talks about the United States, does he not think he should perhaps couch his remarks? Should he not be talking in more specific terms, at this particular period of time, after one year, about the people in the department of commerce in the United States, the leaders in that area, and not about our friends in the United States generally?

[Tony Seuret, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in this House we pay tribute to outstanding individuals who make great contributions to our communities and to our lives. One of those people is Tony Seuret of Thunder Bay.

He excelled in education, starting as a professor at Lakehead University, becoming chair of the school of business and eventually being honoured by a fellowship from the university.

After leaving the academic field, he served in broadcasting with distinction at Thunder Bay television and CKPR radio for 25 years during the formidable years of communications.

In the community, Tony has served the Economic Developers Council of Ontario and in every area that has benefited the people of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario. Tony Seuret is retiring tomorrow. We wish him and Ann all of the very best.

Mr. Speaker, I have given him a message on your behalf that his contribution should not stop and that he should play a very active role in the community in the future.

[National Security, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today on behalf of the House and on behalf of all Canadians we extend a very warm welcome to Governor Tom Ridge, director of homeland security for the United States of America.

President Bush created this office and appointed Mr. Ridge to that position. His responsibility will be to co-ordinate the security of the United States against all terrorist activities, and this is Governor Ridge's first visit to Canada. The budget yesterday clearly illustrates Canada's commitment to work with Governor Ridge in this important undertaking.

I would be remiss if I did not say that this was just an ongoing venture with the United States. Canada and the United States have worked very closely together since after the second world war with the Distant Early Warning line and working together with NORAD. This new undertaking is just another step in securing safety for the citizens of all of North America.

We welcome very warmly to Ottawa and to Canada Governor Tom Ridge.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Minister for International Trade who will follow me in this debate.

It is a privilege to participate in this debate today inasmuch as it may be the most serious economic matter that is facing our country and has faced our country since April 1 of this year. It continues to be a very strong irritant in our relations with our friends in the United States.

I keep repeating this, but the forestry industry is still Canada's largest single industry. It employs more Canadian men and women than any other single industry. It contributes more to the balance of payments with our friends in the United States than any other single industry in our country. It is Canada's foremost and most vital industry. Canada was born on the forestry trade and it still is the backbone of what we are as an economic unit in world trade. It goes without saying how important the forestry industry is to us.

We are faced, as we have been over the last 15 years or so, with that horrible dilemma of having to defend ourselves again because of the unfair subsidies that the Americans claim are being forced upon them, causing unfair competition and anti-dumping in their country. As we know, and as we have proven over the last 15 years, this is so untrue.

In this instance, by the very fact that the Americans have launched this claim against us again, it is no different from any other action. Our industry started to suffer the moment the claim was launched by the United States on April 2. All of a sudden our banking facilities became weaker. People who financed us did not want to continue with their financing.

People who are creative of new innovations, which we are so good at and of which we should be so proud, are no longer spending money on research and development to enhance our forestry industry. This is one of the few instances where we see that the start of an action is where the penalty begins. That is why it is so important that we bring this to a conclusion.

I agree with everybody in the House that it has gone on too long. There are many people in the Chamber who say we should have done some other things. Maybe we should have prepared for the advent of the ending of the softwood lumber agreement a couple of years ago. That may be true.

Other people have said we should have been at the World Trade Organization long before we were and used the new procedures under the World Trade Organization for an accelerated process. That may be true. There could be other things we could have done.

In the area I represent, which is Thunder Bay--Superior North, the most vital industry is the forestry industry and the softwood lumber industry. I can say unequivocally that from the time we have been involved the Prime Minister has said that this is the most important file that he has on his desk. He wants the file resolved and will do most anything to get it resolved. He is abreast of developments. We talk on a regular basis about the softwood lumber dispute and how concerned he is about it.

We can be partisan, but I have to come to his defence in this sense. He is very cognizant of everything that is happening with this file and truly wants to see a solution to it. He knows the injury it has caused our companies because of the actions by the United States.

One of the important issues we may not have considered is the issue of ownership of all these companies involved in the forestry industry in our country. It is something that we as parliamentarians sometimes fail to realize. Although we have these huge corporations that through management rights, timber limits and so on claim they own the forests and would like to think so, they do not.

Every tree in Canada is owned by every Canadian. Since forestry is under provincial jurisdiction, all the trees in British Columbia are owned by the people of British Columbia. All the trees in Alberta are owned by the people of Alberta. All the trees in Quebec are owned by the people of Quebec. All the trees in Ontario are owned by the people of Ontario. That is critical to our debate. Unless people feel they are getting advantages out of owning this huge natural resource, the advantages of having and living a better quality of life, they are not interested in carrying on with the ownership of these companies. What we have to do is guarantee our people that they will have a better quality of life because of these natural resources.

Having said that, let me say that sometimes we have to be parochial. As we know, over 8,000 people in northwestern Ontario rely directly on the forestry industry. We have to get parochial about Ontario because we know, Mr. Speaker, you and I, that we do not subsidize in any way, shape or form the harvesting of trees, thereby not giving an unfair advantage to anyone. If there is an advantage through the stumpage rates in Ontario it goes to the people of Ontario. We in Ontario are very comfortable with having any kind of review of the stumpage rates in the province of Ontario.

I would like to impress this upon the minister, because I think it is his position. In the discussion process being taken on today with the former governor of Montana, since forestry is a provincial jurisdiction Ontario should retain its right, in any discussions and any proposed settlement, to carry on with the eventual goal that we have all agreed on in this House. We have agreed that it is time we had free trade in lumber under the NAFTA rules without using the areas of NAFTA under chapter 19, the dispute resolution mechanism on anti-dumping and the countervail. We in Ontario reserve the right to make this determination.

The U.S. has started the fight. We must take this determination to its final conclusion. We can have a review and go to the World Trade Organization. Let us carry our position forward to an eventual resolution. I am sure the Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade and the opposition would agree that we must finally have free trade with the United States. We can do this if we stay together as a nation, as provinces. It can be accomplished and it has to be accomplished now. There should be no further argument with respect to free trade in lumber going to the United States.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation to two very special meetings held in Washington in June and July of this year.

The purpose of these meetings was to impress upon our parliamentarian friends in the United States the harm they were doing with respect to our forestry industry, particularly softwood lumber, which is one of our most important industries.

It was also to impress upon our friends in the United States that this is just one natural resource which goes along with our other natural resources such as mining, electrical power, oil and natural gas, and that we cannot look at one natural resource in isolation of another.

I would like to say that on such short notice the committee staff with whom I work, Carol Chafe, June Dewetering and John Christopher, were absolutely superb. As Canadian parliamentarians we can be very proud of the people we have assisting us in the House of Commons.

[Mark Conliffe, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the events of the last few weeks have brought out many unsung outstanding citizens across the country. I want to refer to one such outstanding person in the community of Thunder Bay, Reverend Mark Conliffe, who is retiring after almost 50 years of serving communities throughout northwest Ontario as a minister of the Anglican faith. He is retiring not only as rector of St. Michael's and All Angels Anglican Church but also as archdeacon of Thunder Bay, a position he has held since 1987.

Reverend Conliffe has served in many capacities such as chaplain for the armed forces and many other worthy organizations. His untiring efforts on behalf of all citizens of northwestern Ontario regardless of faith will always be remembered. I am sure everyone in the House will join in offering Mark and Ena best wishes for a very happy retirement.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group and pursuant to Standing Order 31 I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report on the meetings held in Canada from May 17 to May 21.

Never in the history of the House has the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group played such an important role. It will continue to play that role in the future.

[Corpus Christi Parish, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on Christmas eve 1951 the new parish of Corpus Christi in Thunder Bay celebrated its first mass. This year, 2001, Corpus Christi is celebrating its 50th anniversary. It was created under the diocese of Sault Ste. Marie and is now under the diocese of Thunder Bay.

For the first 25 years the parish was led by three outstanding citizens: Father Regis St. James, its founder; Monsignor Roy Carey; and Father Mike Murtagh.

Over the past years it has had many pastors: Fathers Bourguignon, Carroll, Donnelly, Kennedy, Ronquillo, Mahoney and Campeau.

Corpus Christi is more than a building located on Red River Road. It is a parish of more than 700 families strong. It administers to spiritual needs, and never more so than during the recent world crisis of September 11, 2001.

Our pastor, Father Pat Stilla, is loved and respected by everyone. We are all proud and fortunate to have him as our leader.