Joe Comuzzi

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague across the aisle for his question. It is amazing and I do not know how the U.S. can get away with this.

I have here a letter written to the president of the United States which is signed by 51 senators. I have gone through the letter and without a lot of thought have underlined several areas where they are absolutely wrong in the accusations they make about the Canadian forestry industry. The information being disseminated by our friends in the United States is by and large incorrect.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but it really is counterproductive to what the House is trying to accomplish today.

If there is one issue that comes out of this debate, it is that Canada deals with other countries as a whole, that we do not become parochial in our negotiations and look after the interests of one section of the country over another section of the country.

I understand full well what the member has talked about in the area from which he comes, that is, his area has had free trade because of its ability to convince its American counterparts that it has private timber limits, as do many of the Americans. However, at the end of the day I hope that what he and his provinces, the maritimes and Newfoundland, have been enjoying for the last five years under the trade agreement would start to be enjoyed by every other province in Canada, by all of the provinces, that is, free access to the United States market without any threat of countervail, without any threat of anti-dumping.

Let us operate in the marketplace in the United States. Let us operate freely, openly and competitively and we will show what we can do as a country with respect to selling our product in the United States.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the debate today centres on what we perceive to be the softwood lumber industry but it is really a larger debate. Today what is being challenged by the expiration of the agreement on March 31 of this year really affects the forest industry in Canada.

Needless to say, and I am sure it has been said here today, the forestry industry is Canada's largest single industry. It employs more Canadians than any other industry. It has more communities directly involved in the forestry business than any other community. It adds about $25 billion to $27 billion a year to our balance of payments.

We are not talking exclusively about the softwood lumber industry. We are talking today about Canada's largest single industry of which softwood lumber is about half of the forestry industry.

When we talk about that and why the Americans are trying to influence our market penetration on this business, what we have to do is understand what happens in the forestry business when we harvest a tree and maximize its utilization. I want to explain why it is so important to the total concept of what the forestry industry is all about. It is not exclusively making 2x4, 2x6 and 2x8 lumber.

When we harvest a tree, the bark is stripped off and it is put through the mill. Out of the mill we will get 2x4 and 2x6 lumber, whatever that tree will provide. When that process is over, the residue of that tree is then turned into chips. Those chips are then shipped to the paper plants and used to make the fibre for our wood products, our crafts and so on that are so necessary for the total forestry business.

The bark that we stripped off that tree is presently being used as biomass to generate the very power that is running and operating these mills throughout Canada. That includes eastern Canada, the province of Quebec, Ontario and western Canada. We are not dealing exclusively with regions, rather with the productivity throughout Canada as it comes out of the forestry industry.

It has become our largest industry. On top of that, it is a sustainable development. By the very fact that we are utilizing everything on that tree, means we are being prudent in the use of a resource. Given the changes in our forestry practices over the last seven to eight years, Canada can be looked upon as the leading country in operating its sustainable forests and utilizing its natural resources to their maximum potential.

Let us stop beating around the bush in finding out just what we are trying to accomplish. What the Americans are trying to accomplish in the debate, although they use the softwood lumber as a ploy, is the release of the raw logs that we are collecting and harvesting in Canada. They want the raw logs shipped to the United States so they can use their manufacturing process by using our basic natural resource.

They want to eliminate our ability, proven over the last five years, to value add to the products of our forestry industry. Just take into account the rougher headed lumber that we were shipping to the United States. It was a value added product. Take into account the drill studs that we were sending to the United States. Those are all value added products that the Americans put an embargo on because they did not want them included in the 14.7 billion board feet quota system, that was allowed under the agreement. That is what they are trying to do.

The United States producers are using the softwood lumber debate as an economic advantage. In Canada, and to the credit of all of the softwood lumber industries in Canada from coast to coast, a good part of the profits in the last several years have been applied to the new technology that is working so well in our mills. A lot of the profits have been reinvested in plants. As a result, we have perhaps the best technology in softwood lumber production in the whole world. I could take anyone to a mill in Nakina, in the furthermost regions of northern Ontario, where the production methods are so sophisticated that one would not believe the amount of production that can come out of that one mill because of the advanced technology employed in that particular mill.

What the Americans have failed to do during this period of time in this particular industry, which they are complaining is being abused and injured, is that they have failed to take their resources and apply them to their businesses in order to produce more and in order to better this type of business. What they are trying to do is harm the Canadian industry and take away its competitive advantage, because in their industry they have failed to keep up with the rapid progress the industry needs.

The end result is that the Americans want to utilize our trade laws, a threat of a countervail and the threat of the anti-dumping legislation in order to enhance the position of their industry in the marketplace.

Our industry in Canada today takes up about 33% of the United States industry. That is because of the restriction to the 14.7 billion board feet. Let me explain why we get such a large section of the United States market. We get 33% of it. We could get a lot more if we had a free trade agreement with the United States without the threat of the countervail and without the threat of the anti-dumping.

First and foremost, Canadian lumber products and forestry products are the best in the world. There is no question that the softwood lumber we produce is one of the best products in the world. A little known fact is that when an average sized house in the United States is built and the carpenters insist on using Canadian lumber, they can take between seven and ten days off the production time of that house because of the sturdiness, quality and lack of water content in Canadian lumber. Our lumber is rigid, is treated properly and is more competitive than their lumber. It is better than American lumber and it sells on the floor of the hardware store at the same price.

They cannot compete with that today. As a result, they are using the trade measures that we have in Canada in order to harm Canada's largest single business.

That is the problem, but what should we be doing about it? Let me offer a couple of suggestions. In Canada, with the market conditions we have seen in the last several months, and with the new technology, e-commerce, we have seen what has happened in the marketplace in the last weeks. Every time this happens, Canadians and the Canadian economy have to revert to where we began. We are a resource based industry. What are our natural resources? They include natural gas, and its shipment to wherever we can. They include the production of crude oil and its shipment to countries that want to buy crude oil. Our natural resources include all the products that we mine from the ground. Our natural resources also include fresh water, which we have in abundance, particularly in the northern parts of our country.

The point I want to make is that these are the natural resources of Canada. At the bargaining table, whether it is with the United States or any other country, we cannot isolate those areas that are natural resources at the expense of every other national resource.

When we deal with our friends in the United States, we deal in natural resources, which include mining, forestry, natural gas, oil and the production of electricity.

[Pornography, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in October of last year Corpus Christi Church and St. Margaret's Church in Thunder Bay, led by their pastors, Father Pat Stiller and Father Donnelly, and their committees, led by Elizabeth Bortelussi and Rosalie Douglas, organized a white ribbon campaign against child pornography.

Hundreds of citizens wore those ribbons, signed them and returned them to their parishes, and I, in turn, delivered them just recently to the Minister of Justice.

It was never the intention of this parliament, when it passed the charter of rights and freedoms, to allow any form of child pornography in this country. I would hope that by the actions of these two parishes in Thunder Bay the benches will take judicial notice of the intent of parliament when it comes to making decisions with respect to child pornography in Canada.

[Charlie Grant, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention today the story of a great Canadian, a fine citizen of Thunder Bay and a very good friend.

Charlie Grant was born in Winnipeg in 1918. His first job was selling newspapers to help support his family. He married his childhood sweetheart, Dorothy, in 1943. They have 5 children and 12 grandchildren whom they love very deeply.

Charlie worked for the CPR and was transferred to Thunder Bay, thank goodness, in 1949. Every award that can be bestowed upon Charlie Grant by the city of Thunder Bay has been bestowed upon him. He was a builder of his church and was involved in little league baseball, the minor league hockey, Boy Scouts, Red Cross, United Way and so on. He was a teacher at Confederation College. When he retired he went into business for himself and now owns several travel agencies throughout Ontario. In his spare time he is up at 6 o'clock in the morning and finds his way home some time around 10 o'clock in the evening.

The real tribute to him is that like you, Mr. Speaker, in his spare time he reads Hansard . His motto in life is never retire. He is a wonderful person. I wish him luck.

[Emergency Service Volunteers, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give a very warm welcome back to my colleague, the right hon. member for Kings—Hants. We have had different debates in the House over the years and although we sit at different sides of the table at this particular time, as he well knows in politics things change rather rapidly. I was pleased to hear his remarks. I see that during his hiatus from the House he did not lose his sound logic and great eloquence in addressing important issues, not only to the House but to the country.

The issue before us is one that is very dear to my heart, which is why I felt compelled to get up and speak about it inasmuch as volunteer firefighters, men and women right across the country, especially those from a remote or rural community, are the lifeblood of the community.

I represent an area in Thunder Bay that is looked upon as the second or third largest riding in Ontario. Some of the places in my riding are Hurkett, Dorion, Pass Lake, McKenzie, Nipigon, Red Rock, Marathon, Terrace Bay, Schreiber, Nakina, Geraldton, Beardmore and Jellicoe. The one common denominator in all those places is that they all have a volunteer fire department. These volunteers put in untold hours for the safety and protection of their fellow citizens. I say, without fear of contradiction, that whenever I am asked to do anything on their behalf or attend any function, I do everything I can because those members are so valuable to each and every community in the country.

I also heard the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Finance respond to my friend's question about allowing a tax deduction for these workers. I hope the member understands that the only thing I can express to the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Finance is the very important job that volunteer firefighters perform. I will also try to stress the amount of time given on a voluntary basis, the amount of training they go through and the amount of personal sacrifice that every volunteer firefighter gives to his community.

Hopefully we will be able to reconcile some of the little differences that we have in order to come to some arrangement so that these very important people will be honoured perhaps a little more than they are today.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, to comply with the requirements under Standing Order 34, I have the honour today to present the annual report of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group which took place between May 19 and 23, 2000.

Needless to say, there were five ongoing working groups that worked between those periods of time. They dealt with e-trade, transborder issues, crime across the border and all those things that deal on a day to day basis with our relations with our friends in the United States.

I have the honour of presenting this report. It is such an important committee that I would ask that every member of the House should belong to it.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour pursuant to Standing Order 34 to present in both official languages the report of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group at its fall conference held in Washington on September 12 and 14.

Mr. Speaker, I know you would like me to carry on, but I will just table the report as it is.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 20th, 1999]

With those words of support, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit the report in both official languages.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present the 40th annual report of a meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group which took place in Quebec City from May 20 to 24.

I would just like to explain some of the topics at this very important function. It was a success, not only because of the venue of Quebec City but also because it drew the largest contingent available from our colleagues in the United States. There were 27 congresspersons and senators there from the United States Congress. This is the largest group of United States legislators ever to attend a meeting outside their particular jurisdiction.

The important decisions that were reached, as I have reported several times in the past and which are very important to members of the House, were regarding the implementation of section 110 of the United States immigration and naturalization act. We all know the harm that could come if that was implemented by our colleagues in the United States.

I am pleased to report—