Gerald Keddy

[Fisheries, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that answer.

The minister has to know that most of the $100 million spent on the east coast of Canada in licence buy backs did not buy back active licences. That is the problem with the original program.

We need an active licence buy back program and we need input in that program from grassroots fishermen who are actually out there fishing the resource and wanting to have some input.

[Fisheries, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The minister is aware of the dire straits the east coast fishery faces. As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans he has to know that an active licence buy back is one tool in his command.

Once again I ask the minister to commit his department to an active licence buy back.

[Fisheries, February 19th, 1998]

That answer, Mr. Speaker, does not help one single fisherman today. When will this government come to a clear decision? When will this minister put the interest of east coast fishermen ahead of those of the foreign fleets?

[Fisheries, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

This government has destroyed the fishery on the east coast. A positive step in rebuilding this resource would be a realistic plan to buy back fishing licences at today's market value. Many senior fishers would take this opportunity to leave the industry with dignity thus reducing pressure on an already stressed resource.

Will the minister commit to a licence buy back program?

[European Common Market, February 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in summary, I think there are several issues at stake which all members of the House, especially the members on the government side, should be aware of.

The reason I worded the motion to deal with forest products with bark and needles attached, specifically relating to the Christmas tree industry, is that there has never been a proven link between the Christmas tree industry and the introduction of pinewood nematode into Europe.

For members here today who may not be completely cognizant of this issue, pinewood nematode is a parasite that lives in the gut of wood boring insects such as the sawyer beetle. That was the reasoning behind European plant protection measures asking to identify bore holes in the wood. They thought if the vector was not there or the insect was not in the wood that would reduce the incidence of transmission.

I deliberately spoke about the value of the lumber industry and the potential to transmit pinewood nematode to Europe versus the Christmas tree area of this motion.

I want to state this once again. The reason the motion is made on Christmas trees is that Christmas trees should not have the same classification as lumber. I will deal with the lumber issue in a minute. Christmas trees are a separate issue. There has never been a proven link by plant health Canada or by the European plant protection agencies that they can transmit pinewood nematode into the European forest. Therefore we should be opening that door in order to get the rest of our lumber supplies into Europe.

I would like to make a few comments on the government's actions since December 1996. I am in agreement that the government has instigated a study. The lumber suppliers I have talked to have felt that the studies have been bogged down and that there is no heart on behalf of our scientists to push this as a real relative issue into Europe. They feel there is definitely something we should be doing here. As parliamentarians and as people who represent our constituencies and the rest of the nation, it is our job to bring those points forward.

There are a couple of things we need to understand. Plant health Canada spent $800,000 on a study to prove that heat treating eliminated pinewood nematode in our forest products. There is a big difference between heat treating and kiln drying. The European plant protection organization enforces the kiln drying law. Kiln drying is a longer process. It is much more expensive. There is no comparison in the two processes. The only certification we get out of kiln drying is when we put the kiln dried seal on a piece of lumber it certifies that there is less than 20% moisture content in it. There is no certification of heat. There is nothing else there. It is strictly a certification of moisture content.

The least we should accept for the Canadian lumber industry is the certification of heat treating which would be a lot cheaper and would allow our product to go to Europe without that extra cost of kiln drying.

The other point I do not think we can speak enough to, and I realize I have only five minutes, is that we have traded with Europe since the Vikings were here in the 10th century. We have traded with Europe for 500 years of recorded trade. If there is any danger of transference of pinewood nematode into the forests of Europe, surely this House would agree it is there now.

We have never had any significant studies by the European plant health organization that it is not already there. It has not proven to us that it does not already have the problem. If it does, it is not a foreign pest. It is a cross-border pest and the plant health organization regulations would not apply.

Look at our history of trade with Europe. We used to ship millions of board feet of lumber across the ocean in log barges with the bark attached. We have exported Christmas trees to Europe for 75 years. The last market to fall was when Italy joined the common market in the early 1990s. Until that time we sold Christmas trees to Italy.

All of a sudden the door closed. They said no, now that we have signed a piece of paper, we have a trade agreement, we are a member of the European Union, your treaties are no longer acceptable. Nothing changed. They were not a threat the day before, they were not a threat the day after.

In conclusion, I would like once again to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this motion votable.

[European Common Market, February 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House a trade irritant that has cost the Canadian softwood lumber industry $700 million per year. This amount does not include the numerous other industries related to softwood lumber as well as the Canadian Christmas tree market. I am referring to the non-tariff trade barrier imposed by the European Union on Canadian softwood lumber.

This trade barrier is disguised as a plant protection measure. I am speaking of the kiln drying that the European Union imposes on all softwood lumber being imported from Canada.

First let me give a summary of the pinewood nematode. The presence of the pinewood nematode in North American prompted the European Plant Protection Organization to assess the risk of transmission from North America to Europe via the lumber and the wood chip pathway of pinewood nematode.

Assessments by the European Plant Protection Organization identified the pinewood nematode as a quarantine test and recommended kiln drying as the only accepted quarantine measure. This was based on the belief that lumber, with only pinewood nematode and no insect vector, posed a risk of transmission by other carriers. The United Kingdom did not support this conclusion and continued to allow imports of green material under a visual grub hole program which eliminated the insect carrier.

Other member states continued to accept lumber with only freedom of bark and still allowed the presence of grub holes. With trade harmonization of the European community, all member states began to focus on the plant health risks of the pinewood nematode.

The first regulation enforcing kiln drying as the only acceptable plant health measure was imposed in 1989. Canada did not support the kiln drying as a plant health measure since kiln drying is a commercial mark and is based solely upon moisture content. Canada maintained that moisture content was not the element which eradicated the parasite but that heat was the important element. A Canada-European Union joint research program was started in 1990. Canada invested $800,000 to determine that 56° centigrade for 30 minutes was the temperature that pinewood nematode dies.

In 1993 the European Union required all coniferous lumber except cedar to be heat treated to 56° centigrade for 30 minutes. Cedar was exempted based on survey information of non-incidence of pinewood nematode in cedar trees. This information was supplied to the European Union by the Plant Health Committee of Canada.

In April 1993 the European Union extended the regulation for visual inspection to eliminate grub holes by four months. However this was revoked in June when live larvae were found in the United Kingdom in green Canadian imports certified to be free of grub holes.

The loss of the program for visual inspection of grub holes resulted in a $400 million loss in trade since all green coniferous lumber destined for the European Union, except for cedar, had to be heat treated. To this day Canada continues to maintain that heat treatment is unduly trade restrictive based on the actual risk. Canada and the U.S. have disagreed with the European Union on a number of scientific arguments related to the risks of pinewood nematode in the forest of Europe.

In September 1993 the governments of the European Union, Canada and the U.S.A. convened an international panel of experts from China, Japan, Europe and North America. The discrepancies between the conclusions of these experts and the earlier 1998 meeting were the result of extensive scientific research conducted between 1988 and 1993.

The first discrepancy was that the European Plant Protection Organization assumed the moderate risk of pine wilt disease north of the 20°C mean summer isotherm and concluded that pine wilt could possibly occur in northern Europe if certain conditions prevailed. The ultimate conclusion was that northern Europe was not at risk from pine wilt disease and the economic impact of pinewood nematode was restricted to southern Europe.

The second discrepancy was that the European Plant Protection Organization's 1988 assessment indicated that there had been interceptions of pinewood nematode into the European Union. In fact pine wood nematode was intercepted on one shipment out of 630 surveyed.

The survey was designed to survey the worse case scenario. Therefore the survey results had no statistical validity. In order to determine a statistically valid incidence level Canada surveyed its export lumber between July and December 1993. In those six months no pinewood nematode was found in 1,157 random samples. This translate into a 99.7% reliability level. Canadian lumber is free of pinewood nematode. The conclusion was that pinewood nematode is rarely, if ever, found in Canadian lumber exports.

The third discrepancy was that the European Plant Protection Organization's 1988 assessments concluded that nematodes were capable of active, independent movement and could leave the wood which they inhabit to move to adjoining or nearby wood.

The European Union, Canada, U.S.A. and international experts met and concluded that the research demonstrating this was inconclusive. In the experts' view there was no supportive evidence of natural transmission without the carrier except through root grafting.

The European Union technical team therefore concluded that the risk of transmission of the nematode without the carrier was negligible, meaning not worth considering. The conclusion was that the pinewood nematode could not move independently and that the insect carrier must be present for transmission to occur. Therefore eliminating the carrier will eliminate the risk of transmission.

Since 1989 Canada has lost billions of dollars in exports and has invested millions of dollars in research to demonstrate that the presence of pinewood nematode poses a negligible risk to the European Union and any associated risk can be managed effectively through appropriate mitigating measures.

Heat treating meant that Canada lost 71% of its market share for solid wood products in the first year and the market was closed permanently to other products such as Christmas trees.

From 1993 to 1997 Canada lost 92% of its historic market share to Europe for solid wood products alone. This amounts to an excess of $700 million in trade. Millions of additional dollars of lost trade are incurred through eliminating the potential exports of other valued forest products.

This brings us to 1997. In September 1997 the Canadian forest products industry, working in co-operation with provincial governments interested in resolving this trade barrier which is disguised as a plant protection measure, agreed that the Department of International Trade should exercise its World Trade Organization options and explore a solution to dispute settlement.

This is one instance where industry and provincial governments are in full agreement that enough is enough. There have been enough studies, enough time, and enough market shares have been lost to warrant action by the federal government. To date the Minister of International Trade has not indicated his acceptance of these recommendations. Canada has not yet requested formal consultations with the European Union on this important trade irritant.

I urge the Canadian government not to give up on this critical issue. The demand for Canadian lumber is being replaced by exports from northern Europe, the Soviet Union and former satellite countries of the Soviet Union.

There are some who would argue that the American dollar has had a great effect on this situation. It has certainly allowed the American market to replace our traditional European market. This has been further assisted by the results of the American embargo on softwood lumber, which did not apply to Atlantic Canadian lumber exports.

Let us not allow ourselves to be co-opted into thinking the Canadian dollar will stay at 69 cents. No one in business and certainly no country can afford to lose market share.

There is still a demand for softwood lumber in Europe. Heat treating rather than kiln drying should be the least that we accept from the European Plant Protection Organization. Plus it has never been proven that Christmas trees are carriers for pinewood nematode transfer and should not be part of the embargo.

If our lumber, wood chips, round wood, pulp and Christmas trees could possibly introduce pinewood nematode to Europe, obviously after 500 years of trade to Europe it is there now. If this is the case it would be a cross-border pest and not applicable to a European plant protection embargo.

It is time that the Government of Canada stood up for the loss of a $700 million industry and called the European Union to task. At best, this should be a minor trade irritant. Instead it is a blatant example of protectionism in a non-tariff trade barrier.

In conclusion, I urge the Parliament of Canada to study this very important issue which has a significant impact on the Canadian economy.

[European Common Market, February 16th, 1998]

Yes.

[European Common Market, February 16th, 1998]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should instigate a study of non-tariff trade barriers to the European Common Market, specifically the ban by the European Common Market of Canadian forest products that have bark or needles attached.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

[Louis Riel Day, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to reply to Private Members' Motion M-108 of the member for Rimouski—Mitis, that, in the opinion of this House, the government should revoke the verdict of guilty of high treason pronounced on Louis Riel on August 1, 1885 and commemorate him by declaring November 16 of each year to be Louis Riel day throughout Canada.

Certainly this is one of the definitive questions in Canadian history and one which affects the way we identify ourselves as Canadians.

The member for Rimouski—Mitis has raised two issues. Since the motion is non-votable, I will deal with one. Should we pardon Louis Riel.

I have no illusions about the sensitivity of this issue to the Metis nation and have heard from the Métis National Council members personally. I also fully understand the struggles of Conservative leaders from John A. Macdonald who ultimately allowed the death penalty to be carried out, to Joe Clark who on March 9, 1992 recognized Louis David Riel as the founder of Manitoba and a contributor to the development of Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to speak from my heart on this matter. I commend and applaud the member for Rimouski—Mitis for raising this important issue. Time is past due that we deal with this piece of Canada's history.

I have been and I still am an avid reader of history. With that said I would like to go on the record as being appalled by some of the revisionists and plain bad history that is being written by so many so-called historians today. History should be understood in the context that it occurred, analysed and remembered. History should not be revisionist, whitewashed or politically correct. History is a record, it is not a judgment.

As much as I disdain the revisionists of this world, I fully support efforts that lead to a more correct interpretation of events. In 1650 when Oliver Cromwell told his portrait painter Peter Lely to paint his portrait warts and all, he was sending a message to posterity. History is about facts. Historians, parliamentarians and all Canadians need to be careful of demonization and cautious of canonisation.

It is because history is objective that I support part of this motion even though it is not votable. Certainly the government is able to revoke the verdict of guilty of high treason. The question is, should we pardon Louis Riel? I say why not. I have heard criticism that this would lead to a plethora of requests for other pardons, but I disagree. Louis David Riel is a unique case. He was elected to the Parliament of Canada three times but never took his seat and only succeeded in signing the register of this Parliament once.

His case in all respects is uniquely Canadian. It speaks of the beginning of the Metis national identity at the battle of Seven Oaks and the difficulty and unease between the original First Nations of Canada and the French and English traders and settlers. Riel speaks from a page of Canadian history that should be read and understood warts and all by all Canadians.

Louis Riel was born on October 22, 1844 to Jean-Baptiste Riel and Julie de Lagimodière. At age 14 Riel was sent to Montreal to be educated at the College of the Suplician Fathers, the oldest college in Montreal. He became a student at law in the office of the famous leader Rodolphe Laflamme of the Rouge Party in Quebec. He met Louis Joseph Papineau of the 1837 rebellion.

Riel was accepted in Quebec Catholic society but only to a point. He fell in love with Marie-Julie Guernon, but they broke up in 1866 after her parents refused to allow her to marry a Metis. In that same year Riel returned to Manitoba and immediately became a leader in the Metis community.

It is not my intent to present a history of Louis Riel's life. It has been well documented. My intent is to portray a unique and truly Canadian story.

Riel belonged to a new nation, the descendants of French and Indian and Scots and Indian marriages. There were two groups, the mainly Protestant Metis supporters of the Hudson Bay Company and the the mainly Catholic Metis supporters of the North West Company. I identify these two groups in the House today to highlight the typically Canadian dichotomy in the Metis nation. The Metis were not without religious suspicion and a language barrier. I state this to point out the similarity of the greater Canadian experience.

In 1869 Riel returned from Montreal and became secretary of the National Committee of Metis. In December 1869 he became president of the provisional government. A significant date in Riel's chronology that would later become a forerunner to his fate was March 4, 1870.

On that day, Riel as the president of the provisional government ordered Thomas Scott, an Orangeman and thus a Protestant, executed for leading a rebellion against Riel's provisional government. This act would force Riel into exile.

Riel, in exile in the United States and despite a bounty of $5,000 on his head offered by the province of Ontario, was elected three times. I repeat this. He was elected three times in the House of Commons, representing Manitoba. By 1878, he was back in Manitoba, the province he helped to bring in the Confederation in 1870. He led the northwest rebellion in 1884 and he was hung for treason in 1885.

This is only a thumbnail sketch of Louis Riel. Like many others before and since, Louis David Riel was caught in the currents of history and swept to his death. Eventually his order to execute Thomas Scott fueled by religious and linguistic intolerance led to his death.

Sir John A. Macdonald himself agonized over the decision to execute Riel. In the end he made the decision that he would be able to carry out damage control in Quebec for, without question, Quebeckers led by the young Wilfrid Laurier rallied to Riel's defence. Macdonald, however, had a greater problem and that was assuaging the Protestant Orange vote in Ontario, who were crying for retaliation for Riel's execution of Orangeman Thomas Scott. Sir John A. Macdonald eventually succumbed to that pressure.

It is worth nothing that Riel was only tried by 6 jurors and not the mandatory 12 established in the Magna Carta. We should note he was declared insane but refused to admit insanity at his trial and, therefore, accepted responsibility for his actions.

There were some inconsistencies in the trial of Louis Riel, but certainly there were also some inconsistencies in the man himself. In 1870 he had Thomas Scott executed. In 1885 he ordered one of his own Metis leaders, Charles Nolin, executed but never carried through with that threat.

It is important to acknowledge the role of the other Metis in the rebellion and their contribution toward raising the profile of the Metis people. The military expertise of Gabriel Dumont played a crucial role in the rebellion, as did the leadership of Charles Nolin and Louis Schmidt. As well, Chief Poundmaker exemplified the courage and tenacity of the Metis and the Indian people.

What Riel accomplished was not without the help of others and their roles should not be forgotten. Should we pardon Louis Riel? I say yes, we should. This is not 1885 but 1998. Times have changed and events once clouded in racial and religious bigotry can now be seen objectively. Louis David Riel was and is an important figure in Canadian history and a driving force in bringing Manitoba into Confederation.

Like most men, he made some mistakes and carried his own baggage of personal biases and weaknesses. He led an ill fated rebellion against the government of Canada, but he led it to defend and represent his people. We in this House and the other place hold the power to pardon him. A pardon at this time in the history of our nation would show progress, maturity and reconciliation for all people. This pardon is not about a judgment. This pardon is about reconciliation.

One hundred and three years have passed. Let us move on. Let us move forward. Let us, in this House, pardon Louis Riel.

At this time I also would like to ask for the unanimous consent of this House to vote yea on the motion before you.

[Louis Riel Day, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if I can take a moment to draw the attention of the members of the House to the members of the Métis National Council who are sitting in the gallery.