James Lunney

[National Security, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is about cancelled training. It is about suspended services to shipping. It is about outdated and broken down equipment that leaves hundreds of miles of unmonitored coastline. It is about honouring international agreements. It is about safety of life at sea and protecting coastal marine environment. It is about national security.

Staff are stressed by concerns that their inability to cover the bases could expose Canada or the U.S. to another disaster.

For the department to attack those pleading for help is downright abusive. Whoever went after Frank Dwyer for raising the alarm should be axed.

Will the minister withdraw the reprimand from Frank's file and fix the problem?

[National Security, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in late September, officers in Marine Communication and Traffic Services raised alarms about security issues on Canada's west coast. When the concerns went unanswered, one officer contacted his member of parliament.

These issues were raised with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Officer Frank Dwyer appeared before the committee.

After public hearings and touring west coast facilities, the all party committee concluded this systemic failure must be addressed.

Now we are shocked to learn that the department's first response was to formally reprimand Frank Dwyer.

Why is the minister trying to cover his department's negligence by attacking this coast guard officer?

[Softwood Lumber, December 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is great. The parliamentary secretary is complaining about the defence critic. He does not seem to get it. Our communities are in a stranglehold. When a person is choking it is a life and death matter. Sending help in a year and a half is a moot point. The funeral will be long past.

Dispute resolution is meaningless once our mills are gone. Closure of the E & N freight division now threatens the future of the passenger service, the tourism industry and what is left of our fragile economy.

Since the trade minister seems to be sleepwalking, will the transport minister step in to help save rail service on Vancouver Island?

[Softwood Lumber, December 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of mill workers have been idle for months because of the softwood lumber dispute, with more than 1,000 in Port Alberni alone. The negative economic impact is spinning out of control. For example, E & N Railroad serves a 181 kilometre route on Vancouver Island. It is our only rail service. Now reduced rail freight will force E & N to close its freight division in January. This means more job losses.

While the trade minister sits on his hands, families face a bleak Christmas and a bleaker future. When will the minister stand up for our jobs and for our industry?

[Softwood Lumber, November 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber crisis has risen to crippling proportions for Canadian mill and forestry workers. While Canadian officials sit back and wait for the referee to climb into the ring, the U.S. commerce department has our industry in a stranglehold.

Why is the government allowing the provinces to go like vassals with cap in hand to the Sheriff of Nottingham, Washington, without any central focused stakeholder game plan? Why has there not been a national stakeholder meeting? Why do we not at least put an equal 32% tariff on raw log exports?

It is unconscionable that our mill workers are idled while U.S. mills are geared up to process our logs. In Port Alberni mill workers are incensed to see truckloads of raw logs rolling out to be processed in U.S. mills. Angry workers are ready to block the roads and stop the trucks. If the government does not act soon, it is clear that the people will.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to raise this critical issue in the House tonight and to enter into the debate along with my hon. colleague who has just spoken.

The softwood lumber crisis has really influenced my riding. We have thousands of mill workers down in my riding who are very concerned. They are concerned about when or if they will get back to work, if they will have a job to go back to, if they will have a livelihood and if they can pay their mortgage. This is a serious issue affecting thousands of lives in my riding.

The job losses in British Columbia are mounting. On the coast we have between 12,000 and 15,000 Canadians out of work. We have 21 of 35 mills that are closed and another 5 may be closed in the next two weeks.

The latest employment numbers are now out. British Columbia has been hard hit with joblessness growing half a per cent in just one month to 8.3% in October.

Growth for the province, once projected to be close to 4% for the next year, is now predicted to be less than half that number by most bank economists.

Lumber companies have been hit hard. Virtually every company in the sector will lose money next year according to analysts at National Bank Financial.

The total hit companies are going to take will be in the range of $362 million.

The direct losses in the lumber industry are compounded by job losses in the support industries. As Brian Zak, spokesman for the B.C. Coast Forest and Lumber Association, said:

It's easy to see [the effect] if you go to Vancouver Island...you've got all the equipment suppliers shut down, you've got all the fuel carriers shut down, you've got all the power-saw shops and truck dealers shut down.

Mr. Zak is right. In my riding of Nanaimo--Alberni, thousands of workers and their families have been directly affected by this problem.

I want to mention a couple of those workers to help put a personal face on this problem.

In my riding there is a gentleman who lives just a few miles from my home. He is a constituent who manufactures a specialty heat exchanger unit. The technology was honed on the logging and forestry industry over the past 10 years. His equipment is used in hydraulics and refrigeration, fluids, pulp mills, logging trucks and yarders.

Last year his business grew at a rate of 65%. Since the softwood lumber dispute, his business is down 98%. He had seven employees. He is now down to none.

He has an opportunity to supply heat exchangers for the latest U.S. military order for between 7,000 and 12,000 light trucks. He needs a patent to protect the type of heat exchanger that he would use in this order should it come through next year.

Should he last until next year, he would be able to hire 10 people on a full time basis, provide profitable sales for his company and retain the manufacturing rights for an invention which other engineers say is the best improvement in the industry in the last 10 years.

A second constituent, another gentleman in my riding, is a planer man at Coulson Specialty Mill. The Coulson sawmill has been down since the softwood lumber duty came into existence and accounted for 105 jobs.

The Coulson planing mill is now down and Darcy is one of an additional 75 people thrown out of pay. He has a mortgage he will not be able to pay. He has tried to run a B&B as a sideline but there will be no income from that until next summer. He has some EI benefits that he will collect but they will not meet his monthly bills.

I would also like to relate some of what the mayor of Port Alberni, Mr. Ken McRae, has been sharing with me. As the mayor of a town at the centre of the coastal lumber industry, he knows the situation all too well.

Mayor McRae says that 40% of the community is in the 30 to 40 age group and out of work and they are devastated. In the past, shutdowns were known to be for a certain period but this one is indeterminate. He also claims that there has to be leadership on the federal level but the appearance at this point is that there is none. He said that smaller companies who support the community will collapse. He says that we must stop the export of logs from private lands, a federal jurisdiction.

As well, the mayor said that western red cedar should be exempted from this duty. He says that it is not a trade irritant and is unfairly included in the products the duty applies to, simply for the purposes of increasing pressure on Canada to capitulate.

Mill workers in my riding are getting desperate. Many, including the mayor of Port Alberni, are calling for a ban on the export of raw logs to the United States. They are joined by several other municipalities, including Courtney, Duncan, Ladysmith and Tofino.

Jack McLeman, president of the IWA local, says “No more raw log exports”. In a two week period, October 9 to 23, there were 177,000 cubic metres of raw logs exported to the U.S. Jack has been doing his homework. That is enough to keep a sawmill with 400 employees busy for one full year. The problem is that sawmill is not in Canada. It is in the United States. Extrapolated, it will be one million cubic metres by year end. This is a substantial increase over what we have been exporting in the past. Normally there are three million cubic metres a year.

At a time when our mills are shut down, it is highly inappropriate and offensive to people to see U.S. mills gearing up to mill the logs with which our workers should be working.

The workers, the unions and the mayors hope to place pressure on U.S. mills to help reach a solution to this dispute. They believe our government needs to take a harder line.

A raw log ban is something that may have to be considered but there are three things the Government of Canada could do immediately before committing to such a move: get behind our industry with a guarantee for bonds, have the Prime Minister get personally involved and convene a national meeting of softwood stakeholders. We have been calling for that for some time. People at our end of the country do not understand why the government has been slow to move to this call.

I would like to focus on the third point for a moment. Last week we had a parliamentary secretary refer to some softwood producers as nervous Nellies. He claims to have apologized for that remark but in fact he did not. He then went on to say "We are calling on people not to play the east versus west divide game. That is what the United States is hoping we will do". I could not agree with him more.

With the second remark of the parliamentary secretary, we do want to present a united front to the Americans. If they are able to play off Canadian interests one against the other or Canadian provinces against each other we will surely lose. However, if the government really believes in presenting a united front, why not call a national stakeholders meeting that we have been demanding for many months now?

Unfortunately, the government will not do that. It tells us to trust it because it has the matter under control. The fact remains that we have had over five years to resolve this problem and we are no closer to free trade in lumber than we were the last time that the government caved in to American demands.

David Emerson, president of Camfor, which has just launched a $250 million lawsuit against the U.S. over the issue, has called on the Prime Minister to get personally involved. We have had some fine rhetoric from the Prime Minister but no action for five years.

The last hike in the countervailing duty smacks of desperation on the part of the Americans. They know we will beat them at the WTO just as we have beaten them at tribunals three times before. They know the commerce department will settle on a much lower permanent duty than the present countervail. However, to sustain our industry, we need the government's help.

We need a guarantee on bonding for our smaller producers. We need a national stakeholders meeting. We need strong leadership from the trade minister and from the Prime Minister.

Canadians, I am afraid, are losing faith in this government to do what needs to be done to protect Canadian jobs, Canadian families and Canadian interests. Perhaps they are right. Perhaps the government has been in power too long. Perhaps the nervous Nellies are actually those sitting on the government side of the House unwilling to lift a finger in case they may rock the boat.

I remember when the first countervailing duty was introduced and the Prime Minister said that he had telephoned President Bush, had talked tough with the president and had told him what our feelings were in Canada about free trade in softwood lumber. The president said to him, “Tell them you gave me hell”.

I heard the trade minister say just yesterday in the House that he was going to talk tough to the U.S. trade representative.

We need more than posturing. We need real action. Canadians are looking to the government to provide leadership on this issue. The government must bring us some resolution so that our mill workers can have a future and our families can have a Christmas to look forward to.

[Health, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the very serious and deliberate breach of our Canadian patent laws, has the Minister of Industry instigated a full inquiry into the Apotex fiasco? Who will be charged?

[Coast Guard, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the United States has asked Canada for help on a number of fronts in the battle against terrorism. One area in which we have been asked to lend assistance is marine communications and traffic services.

This branch of the coast guard functions as our eyes and ears by monitoring all vessel traffic along our coasts. It is an essential link in our defence of vital seaways such as the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the gateway to Vancouver and Seattle.

At a time when circumstances call for heightened vigilance it is shocking to learn that further cutbacks in services are being contemplated. Unfortunately the coast guard's traffic service has been underfunded for years and the situation has reached crisis proportions.

This morning at committee witnesses expressed their concern that the crisis could lead to an otherwise preventable disaster. I encourage the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to restore funding immediately. Effective monitoring of vessel traffic along our coastlines and into our ports is more important now than ever.

[International Actions Against Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion which states that the committee take note of the international actions against terrorism. It is unfortunate that we have to address this issue at all, but the reality is such that we had the terrible and horrendous events of September 11. They drove home the reality of this international threat and therefore it is necessary that we have this debate.

Canadians have always been proud to make an international contribution from the Boer War at the end of the 19th century to this new war on terrorism at the beginning of the 21st century.

Among our finest moments of distinguished service during the second world war were Vimy Ridge, the liberation of Holland and Italy, and Canada's role in the landings at Normandy. Many historians believe that those terrible years were the time when Canada truly achieved nationhood.

While military capability and involvement are not the only measure of nationhood, it is the critical issue in the face of the kind of evil that Canadians face in our world. Whether it is the events of September 11, genocide based on ethnic or tribal hatreds, or even belligerent nations with philosophies contrary to our own, the dangers faced by our citizens at home and abroad have grown and not shrunk in recent years.

We are beginning to realize that international terrorism has consequences not only for people from far off lands but for our own families too. It is important to remember that among the many thousands of innocents who died at the World Trade Center were many Canadian mothers and fathers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters.

It is also important to recognize that we are just as vulnerable in Canada to bioterrorism as the recent victims of anthrax in Florida and New York. Even on the Hill today alarms were raised, security forces were called and there were emergency responses on at least three different occasions.

Unfortunately we are vulnerable in a number of other areas too. National security and defence ought to be the number one priority for any national government. Unfortunately we have taken this priority less and less seriously since the end of the second world war, to the point that we are barely able to make a minor contribution to this new war effort.

It seems that our contribution to the current military coalition may not be sustainable for more than about six months. While we are proud of the dedicated crews of our warships, the pilots of our planes and the elite soldiers of our joint task force two who are being deployed, it seems plain that we have too little in the way of resources, both troops and equipment, to make the kind of contribution that should be expected of us.

Our navy is short about 400 technical personnel. We are sending one of only two supply ships, which means that we will forgo normal operations on one of our two coasts. Based on our experience with East Timor, our air relief operations may be extremely limited. Our aging Sea King helicopters may pose a greater threat to our pilots than to terrorists.

The time to begin to reinvest in our military is certainly now. We must invest in new supply ships, in replacing our older Hercules aircraft and in the immediate purchase, or lease if necessary, of new helicopters. We need to bring our troop strength up substantially, including beefing up our joint task force 2.

September 11 has exposed the many years of neglect our military has suffered. We need to reinvest in our military and to restore morale and funding. We need to supply our fighting soldiers with the very best of equipment.

The enemy we face in terrorism is a new and uncertain threat to Canada. We should all be aware of the chilling words of Osama bin Laden who said recently “We have thousands of young men who are as eager to die as Americans are eager to live”.

We are dealing with a ruthless and evil mindset. There is no reasoning with this type of mentality.

There are those in other nations of the world who have dealt with terrorism for decades. They have learned through bitter experience the brutality, the carnage and the horrendous atrocities unleashed by terrorist mindset. Perhaps we can learn from their experience.

I would like to quote former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who describes in his recent book

Fighting Terrorism: The Top Ten Measures for Fighting Terror.

First, on the international scene, sanctions should be imposed on suppliers of nuclear technology to terrorist states. We need to eliminate the supply of such things as laser triggers and enriched uranium from western nations, China, Russia, et cetera, to countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

We should also be more concerned about other potential weapons of mass destruction. For example, it is clearly possible to buy many biological warfare agents by mail order.

Second, diplomatic, economic and military sanctions should be imposed on terrorist states themselves. Canada has a been a participant in invoking this measure in the past. We need to join with the international community in isolating those nations that harbour and collaborate with terrorists.

Third, we need to neutralize terrorist enclaves. While the United States and our current international coalition are engaged at the present moment with Afghanistan, it is clear that much more will have to be done if we are to reduce the threat of terrorism and enhance the security of our citizens and our world.

Fourth, we need to freeze financial assets in the west of terrorist regimes and organizations. We encourage their governments to take steps in this regard, but there are many other terrorist organizations that must be added to the current list.

Fifth, we need to share intelligence. While the intelligence Canada possesses about various terrorist groups may be considered less than important because the groups may pose little threat to Canada or have seemed to in the past, the information may be extremely valuable to other countries that are attempting to protect their citizens, particularly our neighbour to the south. We should be assured that intelligence sharing with other nations will indeed benefit Canada as well.

Sixth, we need to revise our legislation to enable greater surveillance and action against organizations inciting violence, subject to periodic renewal. Such a proposal includes outlawing terrorist fundraising and fund transfers, investigating groups preaching terror and tighter immigration laws. In Canada this will require also the enforcement of such laws.

Seventh, we need to actively pursue terrorists. It is easy to do when we have the events of September 11 fresh in our minds. Will we be as committed a year or a decade from now? It has been said over and over that this will be a long war. It is a different kind of war and it certainly appears that is exactly what it will be.

Eighth, jailed terrorists should not be released. They need to serve their full sentences. The punishment must fit the crime.

Ninth, special forces should be trained to fight terrorism. Again we need to beef up our joint task force 2. We also need to ensure that security personnel at airports, borders, ports, public institutions and other potential targets are properly trained to prevent and defend against terror.

Tenth, we need to educate the public. We need to clearly describe terrorist threats, the immorality of what they are doing and the necessity of resisting them. Probably nothing will be as eloquent as the events we witnessed on September 11 in helping all our citizens understand and drive home the reality of this threat.

This is advice from the nation with the most experience in combating terrorism. We support the government's response to the call to join the international coalition. We wish our troops, our forces Godspeed, divine protection and a safe return.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on the government's new anti-terrorism legislation that was tabled just this morning. We welcome this initiative and the debate. As we have declared in our national anthem, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. We must now ensure that we fulfill that mandate to protect our citizens at home and abroad. We must take our place among the nations in resisting and defeating this virulent enemy.

[Softwood Lumber, October 4th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, the umbrage and bombast from the minister on the other side is certainly inappropriate and highly offensive. For him to use this occasion on a very serious debate to attack the Leader of the Opposition is rather outrageous. In fact the patronage of his party has been well known.

He might stay for just a minute to hear that in my riding in British Columbia, we had arts and culture week in March. People wanted to know why, when $76 per head is the national per capita given for arts and culture, Quebec got 147%, Ontario got 107% and British Columbia received 34% of those dollars. The comments made earlier do in fact have a basis. It is a pity that the minister tried to cover for this with umbrage and accusation.

On behalf of my constituents, mill workers and industry workers who are suffering in British Columbia, I am pleased to enter this softwood lumber debate. I will say right off the bat that this is hurting people in my riding. Since we have been here the past few weeks, hundreds of workers have been idle in my riding of Nanaimo--Alberni. We have saw eight mills close in Port Alberni over the last number of years. Of 1,025 mill workers employed just a few months ago, there are now only 200 working.

In Port Alberni there were 950 loggers gainfully employed and now there are 185. Right now communities in my riding are hurting. They are sitting idle wondering when or if they will get back to work because of the situation that has arisen.

The problem has roots stretching back many years and the government has been inactive on this file. It should not have been surprised by it. We have had five years to prepare for this.

I noticed earlier the minister said that the government was waiting to see what the U.S. would do. Of course we know that the old softwood lumber agreement expired in March and we saw what the U.S. did. It immediately responded with a 19.2% tariff.

Having seen that, mill workers in my riding want to know why Canada did not do anything. Why did it not have a plan ready to take action? Many people in my riding would like to know why the government does not step up to the plate and take action to get our mill workers back to work. It is time to offer some leadership and it is time to get behind the industry.

One of the suggestions put forward was the issue of bonding. If our mills are going to be allowed to export into the United States, the regulation by the department of commerce and customs requires that they have to put up a bond immediately. People in my riding want to know why the government has not stepped up to at least help the companies put those bonds in place.

The bonding issue for the big companies is perhaps something that can be negotiated with banks regarding loans, but many of the smaller companies are simply not in the position to deal with that. They do not have the capital base and many of the marginally profitable smaller producers may be pushed over the edge. Jobs will be lost and families will suffer.

I will quote Rick Doman, the CEO of Doman Forest Products, one of the largest employers in my riding. He said the bonding guarantee is an important issue. This was stated in the Victoria Times Colonist August 25. Mr. Doman stated:

As a short term fix for companies struggling to post a bond, pending a final resolution on the duty, federal aid is being considered in the form of the Export Development Corporation.

That corporation gives bonding at commercial rates but it isn't specific to any one company or industry and it would be optional whether companies took advantage.

That's great news, according to Rick Doman, chief executive of Doman Industries, Vancouver Island's largest lumber producer.

Doman said he's been pushing the B.C. and federal MPs to consider this route as a way of delivering foreign aid without aggravating the Americans.

We would like to know why the government has not stepped up to the plate to help our industry in this manner is an issue?

Canadians have suffered because of the inaction of the government on other issues: the farm crisis; leaky condos in British Columbia; continued high debt and high taxes; the immigration crisis; the low dollar; and the decaying military response and ability. It is time to demonstrate some leadership in this area.

On the bonding issue, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was quick to come to the plate in Vancouver shortly after the tariff was announced. I will quote him from the Vancouver Sun . He said:

A loan guarantee financed by the federal and provincial governments could help firms avoid insolvency while Canada fights the duty before international tribunals.

Our mill workers and mills cannot afford to wait one and a half years or two years for the WTO process to work its way through.

We heard the umbrage expressed by the minister over allegations that the government is much quicker to step up to the plate on behalf of industries in other parts of the country. People in my riding watched the Bombardier-Embraer events unfold. The government stepped up to the plate to support an industry in another province. It even offered low interest loans to American firms to secure purchase of regional aircraft. Those people want to know why the government cannot step up to the plate to offer some temporary support to keep our mills open and our workers working while we work through the dispute resolution process.

Unfortunately, we have not seen action that has been helpful to our members at the present time. Believe me, people are hurting, families are suffering and many people are wondering whether they will have a job to go back to.

Members of the House recently received a letter from a U.S. senator suggesting that we sit down and negotiate a settlement. Reaching compromises is appropriate at times but in this case we do not need to compromise. We have a binding agreement but we need some support to get through this dispute mechanism which is already in place with the World Trade Organization.

We will win the argument with the WTO but what will our mill workers do?