Joe Volpe

[Interparliamentary Delegations, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Canada-China Legislative Association regarding the fourth bilateral meeting held in Canada in October 2001, and I might add that it was a most successful one.

[Petitions, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek unanimous consent for the opportunity to go back to presenting reports from interparliamentary delegations.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to follow my colleague from Ottawa Centre, in part because he has given a big city member's perspective on the issue but, more important, because he has begun to focus the debate.

For me the issue has not been so much about how we should say woe is us and look at the plight we are in. We should not point fingers at government inactivity or activity that is perhaps not what we would have liked. The member instead did something no one else has done. He said the ambassador is presumably following this debate. The issue is of interest to the Americans and it should be.

What message would we give them? Should it be that we are whining, finger pointing and playing partisan politics? Should it be that we are ready to cast blame on the Prime Minister or other members in this place if not the industry itself? No, it should not.

Thanks to the member for Ottawa Centre we now know what we should be doing. The message the ambassador and the embassy should be getting, as well as the people in the U.S. commerce department who are entrusted with this file, is that the resolve of the Canadian public, Canadian parliamentarians and Canadian industry has never been as firm as it is now.

The hon. member indicated, as has my colleague from Thunder Bay--Superior North, that the industry is of vital importance to Canadians. Of course it is. Everyone knows that. Some 350 communities throughout Canada rely exclusively on the industry. It is important to everyone in the House. Eight per cent of our GDP relies on the timber industry. I am not yet taking into consideration the after market or downstream industry that develops from it.

Mr. Speaker, you were on our natural resources committee about a year ago when we studied this issue. You will know and understand where I am coming from. The city of Toronto consumes about $1 billion of lumber on an annual basis. We consume about $.75 billion worth of plywood, an additional $200 million worth of wood panels and $1.5 billion worth of pulp and paper.

The industry is important to all of us. Yet in terms of international trade, as the U.S. secretary of commerce has said, it amounts to only about 2% of trade between Canada and the United States. My colleague will correct me if I am wrong because we went down with delegations of parliamentarians to meet with our counterparts in the U.S. congress and senate.

The U.S. secretary of commerce said lumber was an important issue but that it accounted for only about 2% of the trade between our two nations. Our response was that he was right but that for this 2% he was buckling under the pressure of one timber lobby that operates primarily out of three states.

He was doing so because the U.S. system allows him to knuckle under to the bit of pressure some people may bring to bear as a result of whatever contributions they make to the democratic process during an election. For that 2% he would skew the entire relationship of two partners on the same continent.

I would be embarrassed to admit that if I were in a position of authority. I would be ashamed to admit it if I were a congressman or a senator. I would have to look those people in the eye and ask wherein lies the interest of the American people and American industry. I would have to ask wherein lies the interest of the political and economic relationship we have with our neighbour to the north. It certainly is not in the pocketbook of the U.S. timber lobby.

Thank God Canadians are prepared, as are many of my colleagues here, to say no to the government. Those of us who went down to the United States to meet with our counterparts are prepared to say no to the government. Under no circumstances will we give in.

We go to the WTO. My colleague from Thunder Bay--Superior North asks why we go to the WTO. It is because it is the one institution whose rules have an impact on American legislators and whose decisions carry with them the concept of precedence.

We do not go to NAFTA. We have already won at NAFTA. Hon. members and my colleagues on the opposite side of the House know well enough that we have won at NAFTA not once, not twice, not three times, but every time we have gone to an FTA or NAFTA panel. We do not have to apologize for anything.

What is the problem? It is not a Canadian problem. We are playing by American rules that were designed for Americans in an American system. It is a system where the executive must respond to congressmen and senators who insist that the commerce state department come up with the figures and facts that will support their contentions, invalid as they might be.

What defence do we have? We have one defence. We go to the WTO. That is where we have said our interests lie. That is where all of us have said we find resident those decisions on which we will all abide while we concurrently pursue legal actions in American courts. It is costly but 350 communities depend on it.

Canadian industries, including those in your riding, Mr. Speaker, are among the most competitive, innovative and technologically advanced in the entire world. That is why they are causing difficulties for the Americans.

Our counterparts in the U.S. senate told us when we went down there that they would abandon everything. They told us not to drill holes and put grooves in our lumber. Why not? It is because those holes and grooves reduce the cost of housing by about seven days worth of labour. While American industry has been shipping logs to the Asian market, Canadian companies which do not have the same access to the Asian market have been improving their technology. They are the most competitive and environmentally sound worldwide.

What happens? Instead of being rewarded for this they are being penalized. The Canadian government must come to the aid of such industry.

I will speak for a moment about Ontario. We need a government that says yes, we will go to the WTO. Yes, we will be in trouble over the next while. My colleague from B.C. says we are losing thousands of jobs. There is no one on either side of the House who is more sorry that is the current situation, but we must look beyond today.

The way we look beyond today is to say we have the methods available to us. What are the methods? We have EDC. We have financing abilities. We must give all these companies the opportunity to come up with the appropriate bonds while we pursue long term solutions.

Will we be criticized for this? When someone is drowning we do not worry about where the life jacket came from. We make sure it gets on the drowning person. That is what we are doing. That is what we will do. That is the message we must give to embassy officials, the ambassador and all Americans watching today. There are no milquetoasts on this side of the House.

My colleague from Thunder Bay indicated there are provincial governments that want to do much more and some that have quite frankly left leadership to others. That is not our problem. Ontario wants to be aggressive. As a member from Ontario I support that position. We know it is a solid position that can be supported by members from Quebec. We know it is a position that industry leaders from the Atlantic provinces would support because it is a long term solution.

All of us who have taken the issue to heart and want to defend the interests of our constituents at least as aggressively as those American senators, few that they are, want the Americans on the other side of the television screen to know we have resolve.

Senator Graham, the one who wanted to be president, said that if one believes in free trade one must take everything that comes with it. We in my party are free traders.

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member wanted to express a greater view on what the net effect of some of the regulations might be in other areas of the world. I took particular interest in his discussion of the sub-Saharan AIDS epidemic and the impact that some of the companies here might be able to have on that were they given the tools to do it. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2001]

West of the 427.

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2001]

Winnipeg, the hotbed of reform. I think it is just outside Toronto. The member raised a couple of very important questions which I think deserve our attention. First, from a philosophical point of view there is some disagreement. Second, I am not sure it is very productive or useful to discuss the issue of battles that have been fought and lost, as we cannot redo those.

The issue I wanted the member to raise and wondered whether he would address himself to it was his perception of the material impact of the maintenance of the regulations under Bill S-17 with which he appears to disagree so wholeheartedly.

In the interest of maintaining a discussion that is factual and has something to do with the health care system and the health of Canadians, would he be substantive enough to give us an indication of the specifics about how that would work or would not work. Otherwise, we are left to assume that there is nothing wrong with this.

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate. I think members on both sides have taken the opportunity to express their views with respect to how this piece of legislation does work, will work and ought to work.

I was a little disappointed that I did not get a chance to intervene when my colleague from the Conservative Party spoke a few moments ago. Again, as in the discussions the other day, he made allegations that were personal in nature but steered away from the importance of discussing the issue itself. The member who just spoke is from Edmonton Transcona.

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful place for bombast to be continued. I recognize that a lot of members engage in it so that the practice will not go into disuse. However, in the course of generating the necessary requirements for engaging in bombast, we sometimes overstep the bounds, as I said the other day, of reason.

We have on the table an order that will be delivered for 15 search and rescue Cormorants which will replace some of the equipment that the members opposite are saying is obsolete, even though it is still functional.

For the member to suggest that there will not be a delivery of equipment that is world class, necessary and appropriate for Canada's needs is to engage in bombast of the worst variety. Maybe she should reflect on the negatives that she is putting forward by perpetuating this perception and a wrong-headed view of what is going on.

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is not much to say. I can only applaud the member for having a philosophical position and basis for her discussions. Philosophy is a good point of departure for any debate. However, as I said earlier, I thought we were going on the facts and issues relative to the bill. That is what I focused my comments on. I am willing to acknowledge that other people have different philosophies.

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the member is confused. I indicated earlier on, to my great my surprise, that this was one of those few bills that seems to have the support of opposition members. Members of the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois have said that they have absolutely no qualms at all about the bill.

Members of that party come into the House with no analysis and no deductions but all kinds of presumptions. I do not know what analysis they have because I have not heard them. I have only heard character assassinations and that they will support the bill.

A member of the House, no matter what side of the House he or she is on, may have a view that, without false modesty, is based on a modicum of research. Members may assail such a view and say that it is not based on thorough research, but it is based on research nonetheless. The view may not be consistent with what the members think the government wants, but it might be well reasoned and draw support for the government.

I have been sitting here all morning and members from the opposition have been slagging the government for virtually everything it has done. I am surprised we are still breathing. If one has a view and reasons it out in debate, which may be a novel word for members of the opposition, then one exercises the opportunity. Debate allows people to vent and voice their views and it lets members know their views are not ignored.

The opposition is incapable of performing its minimum duty. There are absolutely no negative consequences to expressing a reasoned and reasonable view in the House of Commons. We in the government do so without false modesty and with the backing of all who have supported us. That is an alien concept to the members opposite. In my own defence I can only refer to the introduction of the member. He is confused.