Ted Menzies

[Trade Compensation Act, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise me when we hear a litany of dollar values thrown at the industry. I do not think that is the point. Government members can stand up and bluster all they want but it has not been effective.

What I observed was our Prime Minister waiting two months to even phone the President to raise the issue. It was long, long overdue.

I have never found it very effective to negotiate or to even talk about an issue when one cannot even pick up the phone and call the person with whom one is having the disagreement. It is most unfortunate that our Prime Minister has never actually had a formal meeting with the President to discuss softwood lumber. Why--

[Trade Compensation Act, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question to which I did not get an adequate answer. The question I am referring to was on softwood lumber. We have had a lot of discussions in the last little while about softwood lumber, but we would all have to agree that we probably have not heard the end of the debate. I am not the only one certainly on this side of the House who feels there has not been an adequate answer to that question.

I would have to echo the comments we are hearing from the industry itself. It has been mentioned by some of the members here this evening that the industry has been left to defend itself.

Many, many questions have been asked in the House in the last few months about what the Liberal government is planning to do to help the softwood lumber industry. Frankly, we have not heard an adequate answer. The industry has not heard an adequate answer.

Today we heard the announcement of $1.5 billion. I am not too sure where it is coming from, but it was another surprise announcement. Will this solve the problem? Absolutely not. There was criticism all across the country from the industry that it does not solve the fundamental problem. Once again it is a band-aid fix on a much larger problem.

The Americans still have $5 billion-plus of Canadian softwood industry money. I have spent time in Washington talking to congressmen. A number of Conservative members of Parliament have travelled to Washington to talk to congressmen to find only that these congressmen really do not understand the issue. They have not been lobbied by the Government of Canada. They have not been informed of how much this is hurting these industries in Canada. They encouraged us in the opposition to speak louder than our government has, because even they felt that our government was not representing that Canadian industry.

We have tried, but maybe when we come back here in the new year as the government, we will be able to do something other than just throw money at the situation. We have not seen this money in any one of the three budgets so far this year. We would like to know where the money is coming from and how it will fix the problem. The way we on this side of the House see it, this will not fix the problem.

I have not mentioned many of the other issues at which the government has failed. There is a long list, but I have less than a minute to say that we have not solved the BSE problem. The shrimp producers in Newfoundland are still facing a 20% tariff in Europe. I do not think I have heard the trade minister even mention that issue. A lot of issues have not been addressed. These are only a few.

[First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, November 23rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-71, the first nations commercial and industrial development act.

The reason I feel so privileged to speak to this on behalf of the Conservative Party is because of the work the Conservative Party has done to bring the bill forward in the dying days of what has been a very frustrating legislative period.

We had lots of opportunities throughout this Parliament to bring this forward. The critic for the official opposition, the member for Calgary Centre-North, recognized that this legislation had virtually stalled in the House. It was through his efforts that it has been brought forward and we are likely and certainly hopeful to see the bill passed.

I also need to recognize the amount of effort put into this and the background work done by the specific first nations named in the bill. I will read the names out because I think it is most important to recognize the efforts of the first nations in bringing this forward. These are forward-thinking nations who understand that the present Indian Act is not working for them and not working for any of the first nations in this country. Accolades go to the following first nations: the Squamish Nation of British Columbia, the Fort McKay First Nation, the Tsuu T`ina Nation of Alberta, the Carry the Kettle First Nation of Saskatchewan and the Fort William First Nation of Ontario.

I would like to bring it to the House's attention that the Tsuu T`ina Nation, which is within my riding, is a very proud, individualistic group that have put forward some of the best initiatives that, frankly, we have seen. Not only does it have one of the most beautiful reserves within my riding, it has an incredible view to the west of the Rocky Mountains, second to none in this country, of course.

I have spent a great deal of time working with these people and have a great deal of respect for them. I am very proud to say that they were one of the main proponents of bringing the bill to the position it is at today. They recognize that they have great opportunities ahead of them. Therefore I strongly endorse the legislation so they will actually have the opportunity to seek a better future for their children. We all seek that but this old Indian Act that we are dealing with and have been dealing with for years is outdated. It does not allow these people the opportunity to plan for their future.

The other one that needs to be recognized is the Fort McKay reserve with a $4 billion project in conjunction with Shell oil sands. This is one of the shining lights in Alberta, and I am sure the House is well aware of it. However this opportunity will not be within the reserve's grasp if we do not move the legislation forward, which is why we on this side of the House were so concerned that the bill had been stalled and why we are pushing it forward to actually get it to move ahead. Certainly some other pieces of legislation have not made it quite that far.

We would strongly encourage all sides of the House to support this legislation. It is a great opportunity for all of these first nations to actually seize their future and to control the future of their nations and their children.

[Trade, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of International Trade are threatening to boycott crucial WTO meetings because of the upcoming election. In the last election, the Challenger was fired up for Hélène Scherrer and the Prime Minister jetted off to a G-8 meeting. What has changed?

The truth is that the Liberal government will not stand up for Canada's farmers, ranchers or forest industry.

Does the Prime Minister support this Liberal WTO boycott? If his ministers cannot be bothered to go, will he agree to send me in their place?

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member from the Bloc for raising those concerns. Once again, this is a very important debate we are holding today, simply because the Liberal government has failed to recognize how important and how fundamental agriculture is to Canada's economy.

Having said that, I still have concerns with the motion. Certainly, I support supply management. I will be one of the proponents if our ministers actually dare to show up in Hong Kong. I will be there with the minister supporting supply management. You can be assured that I will be there speaking on behalf of farmers, Mr. Speaker.

The motion, I fear, will tie the hands of our negotiators. In my estimation, it is too restrictive. Let me give an example. Whenever I buy a piece of farm equipment or a car, I do not offer the highest dollar I am likely to pay for it. In my estimation, the motion will tie the hands of our negotiators. They have no room to make an offer, knowing that will probably not be the bottom line. It concerns me greatly that our negotiators do not have a little latitude in the difference between their beginning offers and where we hope to end up.

We certainly hope that supply management will be protected, but we also need to recognize, as the members from the Bloc have confirmed, that there are other sectors of agriculture that have to be recognized as well.

The question I would like to pose to the hon. member is, how confident is she that our ministers will do their job and actually show up at the WTO?

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to publically acknowledge the warm reception I received when I visited with some of the farmers that the hon. member represents. Certainly, we heard some concerns from corn producers who are looking at the government and asking what it is doing to stop the dumping of U.S. corn that has dropped prices incredibly low. We met with dairy farmers and we reassured them of the strength in this caucus on this side of the House that will stand up, even if those ministers claim they cannot go to defend the interest of supply management. We would be proud to do that.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy questions from my hon. colleague on the other side of the House. I know that he has a great deal of agricultural experience, growing potatoes in Prince Edward Island, and representing the socialist side of agriculture that does not believe that there is a future in agriculture without protection.

The rest of us understand that we are a trading nation and that the future of Canada being able to compete on an international scale is providing opportunities for those farmers, opportunities that market access can and will be negotiated in Hong Kong whether or not our agriculture minister is there. There is no reason on earth why our agriculture minister, our trade minister, and our Minister of International Cooperation cannot be in Hong Kong. The precedent has been set.

The Prime Minister travelled to a G-7 conference in the middle of the last election. I would ask any hon. member in the House to give me a reason why this meeting in Hong Kong is not important enough for the government to defend not only agriculture but all industries in this country? If the Liberals are not willing to stand up for Canadian industries, they better not expect to ever govern again.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge my hon. colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for bringing forward this motion. I have had the privilege of travelling with the member and recognize his understanding of the agricultural issues.

It is a great opportunity for us to rise in the House and represent our constituents. Many of my constituents are farmers, as am I.

I have some concerns with how narrowly focused the motion is. It certainly speaks to one sector of agriculture, but we need to recognize that there is more than one sector of agriculture in Canada. Despite the rhetoric we are hearing from the other side, the Conservative Party is very adamantly supporting supply management, as it is supporting all sectors of agriculture. In fact, 24 of the members from this side of the House are farmers themselves. They do not just represent rural ridings, they are farmers themselves. I think we understand of what we speak.

As we approach the federal election campaign, and we all recognize there is one soon to be upon us, I would like to contrast the ambitious Conservative approach to agriculture and trade policy to the utter failure shown by the Liberal government on trade and agriculture.

The motion should be broadened, as I have mentioned, to show the government's failures not just regarding supply management, but also regarding our export oriented sectors. The grains and oilseeds sector, beef and value added products have been left completely out of the motion.

The Government of Canada should reiterate its support for supply management. We have heard a bit of the rhetoric, but I am not sure that can be classified as solid support for this sector.

The Government of Canada must ensure sufficient flexibility to retain supply managed production after the conclusion of the current WTO round. The government must also recognize that nearly 90% of Canadian agricultural producers rely on exports. The Government of Canada must mandate our WTO negotiators to ensure the elimination of export subsidies by a specific end date and ensure substantial reduction of trade-distorting domestic support under clear definitions of what constitutes a subsidy. We must get clear rules for tariff rate quota administration, with the goal of increasing clear market access for Canadian agriculture products in foreign markets.

The Liberal government has not supported supply management. It has not supported any sector of the farming community. Liberal support has resulted in probably the largest farm crisis that we have faced in decades. It is not much to be proud of.

Liberal support has resulted in repeated trade challenges from our closest trading partners. With this kind of Liberal support, the farm industry could probably do quite well without it.

There are politics in all things, according to the Minister of Agriculture, but farmers cannot afford to wait while the Liberal government gives out untendered contracts to the likes of David Herle so he can poll to find out what international trade policy might win the Liberals the most votes.

It is clear that the Liberal government is not up to the job any more. The Liberals have lost the moral authority to govern and we on this side are ready to take up the reins of government and bring policy back to the best interests of Canadians.

Farmers, agri-business and average Canadians just are not buying the Liberal hype any more. They see through the Liberal threats and they are ready for change. They will not accept the crass politicking from the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of International Cooperation having threatened Canada's farmers, non-governmental organizations and business communities by saying they will not attend the WTO meetings in Hong Kong in December. That is unacceptable.

The Conservative Party stands four-square behind Canada's farmers. We have members such as myself who have actually attended ministerial meetings before. I was a farmer representing the agricultural industry at the Seattle trade talks in 1999 and again in Cancun in 2003. That of course was before I was a member of the House. We have actually made an effort to talk to other countries. We have tried to build bridges with no backup from the agriculture minister.

On this side of the House we have the experience and commitment to negotiate free trade agreements that benefit, not harm, Canadian agriculture. A Conservative government would not threaten to boycott WTO meetings for partisan political gain. The Liberal government has consistently played the interests of Canadian farmers against each other to achieve its objectives.

The Conservative Party does not believe that consulting our trade partners is an acceptable negotiating ploy. The Conservative Party of Canada would mandate Canadian negotiators to table proposals at the WTO, not hang around simply on the margins hoping to ride on someone else's coattails.

The Conservative Party of Canada is committed to making Canada a good faith broker on the international stage. According to former Liberal trade ministers and negotiators, it is embarrassing to see how little Canada counts at the WTO. According to former Canadian trade negotiator Bill Dymond, Canada has become essentially marginalized.

It took 12 years of Liberal government to destroy what hard-working Canadians have achieved in almost 150 years. It is time to stand up for Canada. That means it is time for a Conservative government.

The Liberal government has been in power for over 12 years. Farm incomes have dropped all the while. Trade irritants have grown and have been grossly mismanaged by the Liberal government. Producers in agri-business have rejected the Liberal farm support programs, have questioned the Liberals' lack of trade vision, and have demanded real action on policy reform. After over 12 years, things are just worse for everyone. Canada needs a Conservative government to clean up this mess.

Because the Minister of Agriculture refused to come to the House of Commons on November 22 and account for Canada's farm income crisis, Parliament is unable to debate what solutions might be available for this crisis.

The Minister of Agriculture voted against a Conservative motion to drop the deposits on the CAIS program. We were willing to accept that this may work, but the minister, recognizing its failure, would not support a motion because it did not come from his side of the House. The Minister of Agriculture voted against a Conservative motion to return the lands appropriated for Mirabel airport to Quebec farmers.

Canadian farmers have suffered from poor ministerial representation at WTO negotiations. An example of the Liberals shirking their duties to Canadian farmers was the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of International Trade at the mini ministerial meeting in Kenya on March 2 to 4 of this year. At this meeting member countries discussed their commitments to the Doha round of the WTO. The international trade minister and agriculture and agri-food minister were not at the meeting because they were attending a Liberal convention. Under the rules of the mini ministerial meeting, without a minister present, no other representatives of that country are allowed to speak officially.

The Liberals have done a poor job of showing other countries that Canada's supply managed sectors ought to be exempt from WTO negotiations. The proof is that many other countries believe that supply management is purely a government subsidy program when in fact it is not.

These ministers' poor showing at the WTO imperils the livelihoods of all farmers. Canada is the third largest agricultural exporter in the world. Given that the two ministers have given mixed messages at the WTO and member countries, it is not surprising that Canada is losing its credibility among WTO countries.

A former Liberal international trade minister, Roy MacLaren, went on the record in the Globe and Mail on November 8 by saying, “Canada has mysteriously disappeared from the global trade arena”. He also said:

Canada's current policy of ambivalence--offering little in terms of liberalization, free-riding on what others negotiate, and implicitly protecting our preferential access to the U.S. market by not pushing for an ambitious global deal--may buy short-term political peace.

I leave members with one final question: do we not all deserve better than the Liberal government has given us?

[Softwood Lumber, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have mismanaged our relationship with the White House for over 12 years and it is our foresters and ranchers who pay the price. The Prime Minister's record with the President is meetings on the margins but nothing to show for it.

If he cannot get the job done, will he appoint a special envoy and demand a formal meeting with President Bush in Korea? On behalf of Canadians, I say do not bother to come home without that $5 billion cheque.

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is fundamental that those who are willing to step forward are able to do so. We have seen recently where that has seriously impacted one individual's life. That would be the individual who took a step forward, knowing full well that he was not protected at that time. He paid the price for doing so. That individual needs to be recognized and rewarded rather than penalized for blowing the whistle on what he recognized as inappropriate use of taxpayer money. We need good solid legislation in place. That would be one of the initiatives a new Conservative government would put forward, as most bills will soon die on the order paper.

The Conservative Party suggests that this protection is needed to ensure that there is accountability for any government that is in place. We would be very supportive of that type of legislation.