EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 3, 1996

.1536

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): Mr. Cowper, we now have members from the government side and from the opposition, so we will officially open this meeting.

I understand you have an opening statement you would like to share with us. Following that statement we'll begin our questions. Tradition is to begin with the opposition and then the government side.

I can't call it a round table meeting, but it will be a very unique meeting for this committee. I think we're breaking ice here. We may be saving taxpayers a lot of money by getting information from expert witnesses such as you. So please open with your statement.

Mr. Stephen Cowper (Executive Director, Northern Forum): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I had previously submitted a written statement for the record, which I faxed to Janice Hilchie, I believe, yesterday, but as I told her, I would like to proceed more informally today and of course invite a free range of questions at the end of my presentation.

First I'd like to thank the committee for its interest in the views of the Northern Forum. By way of formal introduction, I'm Steve Cowper, and I am presently executive director of the Northern Forum, among other things.

I want to go into a brief history of the Northern Forum - how it was founded, what its purposes are and what its current activity level is.

Back in the 1980s, the Hokkaido government had started the idea of an interregional organization among the northern regional governments. This was of course not very practical during the Soviet Union phase of history, because the Soviet regional heads of government weren't really allowed to travel all that freely, and since Russia occupied such an enormous amount of the Arctic, it seemed sort of specious to have an Arctic organization or a northern organization that didn't include Russia.

As everybody knows, in the late 1980s that all changed radically. As a result of that, we had a meeting called the Northern Regions Conference, which I actually hosted, in 1990. I believe there were close to 600 attendees, and quite a number from Canada. That conference was really the first one in which the Russian regional governors had been fairly free to participate, and they did in fact voice their opinions.

.1540

As a result of that meeting, it was decided to start a permanent organization based on the ideas presented at that meeting. That organization became the Northern Forum, which was officially begun in 1991.

There were quite a number of Russian members to begin with, and the organization, as many do, sort of floundered around in search of a purpose for a while. I think it's fair to say some false starts were made, but as organizations do, this one matured over time, and I believe it has a true and steady course at this point.

Our membership is made up of the regional governments across the north. We have a broader definition of ``north'' than just the Arctic. Therefore we have representatives in the organization not only from the Arctic nations but also from China, Japan and Mongolia. South Korea, the Republic of Korea, has a national membership more as a monitoring arrangement than anything else.

The organization has begun to pick up new members over the last few years. We have members from 10 nations now, counting Korea. I have listed in my statement the membership, and I won't go over it again. We do have, I believe, 11 regional members from Russia. In Canada, at least at the present time, our members are Alberta and Yukon, and I've been engaged in fairly intensive talks with the Northwest Territories government in Yellowknife to try to bring in the Northwest Territories as a member. Part of that was a result of a reduction in fees for regional governments that represent fewer than 100,000 people. We thought it best to knock the membership fee down to $5,000, which made it a little bit easier for those governments to join.

Well, what do we do, beyond having a membership meeting every year? The purpose of the organization really is to set up an ongoing means of communication among the members of regional governments. It's been fairly successful. As you probably know, it's a little difficult to get into some of the Russian regions, but because of our direct relationship with the governors or the heads of the administration, we can do probably a better job than anybody trying to get through.

In any event, the communication situation is one we are working on. We want to see a better communications method established in the governors' offices across Russia. In other places it's fairly easy for us to communicate. We're putting in a private network system as we speak today, and it will make it easier to transfer data through e-mail and other electronic means of communication among our members.

We have a peculiar take on what goes on in the Arctic. Our people are of course the governors of the regions, and particularly in Russia, all of the governors are beginning to be saddled with the responsibility of delivering the goods in terms of the economy and jobs and of solving practical problems that exist in common throughout the Arctic and throughout the north.

That means the focus of this organization is much more on practical problems and communicating news about technology that's been developed in one part of the northern region that can be applied to other regions.

In terms of projects, we have had an ongoing and very useful environmental monitoring project in northeast Asia, the purpose of which is to determine the source of acid rain. That is a project that is being participated in by Heilongjiang, by Hokkaido, by Alaska, by the Sakha Republic, or Yakutsk, in Russia, and by Sakhalin. We hope the result will be that we're able to pinpoint some, if not all, of the sources of acid rain pollution in that particular area of northeast Asia. In fact, the result of that test may have larger implications, but we'll have to wait to see on that one.

.1545

We also have a cooperative wildlife management project. The State of Alaska has quite a bit of experience in managing wildlife. That experience, at least some of it, is transferable to Hokkaido and to some of the Russian regions and some of the other areas that have had perhaps less experience at the regional level with the management of wildlife. We are assisted in that project by some of the Scandinavian regions.

We've been working on northern tourism development. At the moment the Northern Forum has a project through which we train the tourism officials in the Kamchatka region of Russia. They have a beautiful area that has a lot of tourism potential, particularly in the area that has been designated of late as for ecotourism. They don't have much of an infrastructure. They don't have much of an idea about what they have to deliver to attract fairly well-heeled tourism groups from the west and also from Japan. We're helping them in that respect. It's an ongoing project.

We've also had a project that relates to east-west air routes. It has had some direct results. We've seen a route from China - actually Heilongjiang to Vladivostok - result from those efforts, and we believe pretty quickly we're going to have a direct route, a non-stop flight, from Yakutsk, in the Sakha Republic, to Anchorage. As certainly the people in this committee know, east-west airfare is difficult and expensive, especially across the Arctic, and we're trying to do what we can to remedy that situation.

We're also working with the Sakhalin government, which is going into major oil and gas development in a big way. Their regional government wants to know such things as how do you divide the money up; who ought to get what part of the money; what kind of regional laws should we put down in order to ensure environmental protection; what about enforcement of environmental regulations? We are not only sending information there from Alaska but soliciting that information from northern Norway, which has a cellular level of experience, and from Alberta. We understand that same experience won't transfer directly to Sakhalin, but it's helpful. It's helpful to know what your neighbours are doing.

On what your neighbours are doing, one of the other things we do, usually through the Northern Forum secretariat, which is located here in Anchorage, is try to find out what our members' technological needs are. There are quite a number of Russian regions, for instance, that are looking for efficient generating units for small communities or for large industrial projects which are taking place in their areas. There are a number of Russian regions that are also looking for mining equipment for supplies for petroleum projects. We try to represent the regions and not the businesses, so we try to bring to that search some kind of competitive process so our members can see what there is out there. Of course after that they can make their own decisions about what they want.

For instance, in Alaska we've been looking for small waste water units for our villages for quite some time. Lo and behold, it turns out Finland has been producing them for quite a number of years. Some of them are situated in British Columbia, pretty close to Alaska; and of course Alaska didn't have a clue. Through the Northern Forum now we are aware of this Finnish technology and we're able to bring it into Alaska. I do believe that is going to take place.

.1550

We also sponsor and cooperate with existing conferences that relate to the northern territories and to the Arctic. We are serving as the secretariat for the so-called ISCORD meetings that will take place in Anchorage in May of this year. That's a circumpolar organization that's kind of engineering in nature, but it takes up a lot of northern technology. We don't want to duplicate what's already out there. We expect also to be a sponsor or co-sponsor of a circumpolar agricultural conference that will take place in Alaska in 1999.

We assist with the planning, we help to put together the speakers, and perhaps more importantly, we publicize those conferences and try to bring people there so they can get some benefit from it.

In the long run we want to be able to access Arctic databases and transfer them to our members. We want to be a communications centre based on the regional governments we represent.

Let me go into our views of the Arctic Council, because I think it's important that the Arctic Council and the Northern Forum work very closely together.

First, we think the Arctic Council is absolutely necessary. Our members are all in favour of the Arctic Council. They believe the council will serve as a permanent organization through which national governments can communicate their views. Hopefully in time there will be some permanent agreements that will give us a consistent set of rules throughout the Arctic.

One thing all of us understand is that we do not want to have a situation in the Arctic where there is competition for resource development, and the key variable is that one of the competing regions doesn't have any environmental controls. None of us wants that. It isn't a benefit to anybody. That is the kind of negotiation we believe is perfect for the Arctic Council.

Having said that, we believe the Northern Forum represents a group of governors throughout the north - not necessarily, as I mentioned, from the Arctic, but most are from the Arctic - and that particular group of people will have to be full partners if there is going to be any timely application and implementation of what the Arctic Council does.

We live in a world that is changing very rapidly. Because of communication improvements, we're finding now that there is an ongoing devolution of power in government. Everybody uses that technology, but it basically means that federal governments are beginning to have less power. Many of the decisions that were previously made at a federal level are being made, at least in part, by regional governments. That's a trend that probably is not going to stop.

For that reason alone, we think it would be useful if the Arctic Council would allow the Northern Forum at least sufficient access to its proceedings to make our views known when it's necessary. In order to do that we have suggested a category called ``permanent observer''. We have suggested this through several of our regional governors, incidentally including the Government of Alberta. The Arctic Council has not seen fit to allow us to have that category. Instead, we're in the same category as, I believe, the nineteen separate environmental organizations. That basically didn't go over all that well with some of the governors. It's a passive kind of role. Our members feel that the nature of our organization merits a little more status there.

I've gone into that in some detail in the written testimony, and I think I'll leave it at that.

.1555

I'd like to say that I was asked to go up and make the keynote speech at the Nunavut trade show in March in Iqaluit, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I've wanted to go to Baffin Island ever since I was about seven years old and discovered it in an atlas. Anyway, not only did I get to go, but somebody paid my way and fed me as well.

The people in Iqaluit wanted to know if once the Arctic Council got started it wouldn't simply subsume whatever the Northern Forum was doing and that would be that. I told them I didn't think that the Arctic Council was ever going to concern itself, for instance, with moving an innovative new Yukon roadbed technology to Scandinavia or to Russia. I told them the council wasn't going to do that sort of thing but that we did do that. So the Arctic Council has its very important purpose and the Northern Forum also has its purpose, perhaps at a different level. We concern ourselves with perhaps more practical and immediate applications.

That's a long way of saying that actually these organizations both have a separate and complementary purpose and we need to work together. We need to have some institutional way to work together.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my somewhat informal testimony. I'd like to ask for questions on whatever subject your membership deems appropriate.

Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): Mr. Cowper, thank you for that very detailed presentation. We're glad we can meet you at least through the video medium, because in our travels throughout the north and the Arctic, we've heard about the excellent work of the Northern Forum since you took over. How long has it been under your chairmanship now?

Mr. Cowper: For a little better than a year. I took over in September 1995.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): Whatever you're doing, keep on doing it. We heard very positive comments about the work that the Northern Forum is doing.

Our first questioner will be Charlie Penson from the Reform Party.

Mr. Penson (Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cowper, I would like to welcome you as well and I thank you for being part of this afternoon.

I should just tell you that my riding in Peace River, Alberta is about 50 miles from mile zero of the Alaska Highway. We have a couple of main supply routes to your area in the Arctic through Alaska and also through the Mackenzie Highway in to the western Canadian Arctic. I realize the importance of the Arctic region, the amount of its natural resources, and the future role it's going to play in the development of both Canada and the United States.

Do you have the support of your United States government to incorporate this forum of yours into the Arctic Council?

Mr. Cowper: I think the succinct answer is ``not yet''. I think it is a question that, frankly, is going to have to be decided by all of the participant nations, but I think there's some resistance to having a higher level of participation in the Arctic Council proceedings.

Frankly, I intend to talk to Bob Sensiney about that in January. That part of the State Department is one that I deal with on a regular basis, because I'm also apparently the standing chair of the Pacific Rim fisheries conference, and the same guys are in that same division so I have to deal with them on a regular basis.

But the quick answer is no, not yet.

Mr. Penson: I'd like to follow up on that. In our case, provinces like Alberta and British Columbia and, of course, the Yukon Territory do have a very big stake in this. Although the provinces may not be Arctic in nature, as I said earlier, we do have major supply routes. Tourism is a big industry in your area and in our area through the Alaska Highway, so I can see that there is some merit in this.

.1600

I would like to go through your proposal, as we just got it this afternoon. It was interesting to hear. I'm not sure just what can be done to incorporate your group, but I think we should have a good look at it because it brings into play some players that wouldn't necessarily be involved.

With that, I'll pass to my colleague or whoever else, Mr. Chair.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): The next questioner is Lee Morrison, also from the Reform Party.

Mr. Morrison (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): My question doesn't relate directly to the reason for your presentation, but it's not every day we get a chance to ask something perhaps a little controversial of the former Governor of Alaska.

The question of the Porcupine herd has been a continuous bone of contention between the Yukon and Alaska for many years, and indirectly between Canada and the U.S. What are your views? Do you feel that development of an oil industry in the calving area would indeed have a deleterious effect on the herd, or do you think we may be overreacting? What is your opinion?

Mr. Cowper: Let me refer to some testimony I made before the U.S. Senate back in 1989. I remember the date well because it was right before Exxon Valdez, which incidentally happened on my watch.

My view is that exploration and development of that area can be done in a way that doesn't disturb the calving of the caribou herd. The caribou herd is an enormously important resource. It was there on the surface long before the oil companies arrived. There is technology available today that makes it possible to explore and develop that particular area without having much of an impact on the herd itself. Whether the companies will do it or not depends on the level of government surveillance, which I emphasized before the Senate committee before which I testified. If there is not appropriate government oversight, then I think there is a danger. If there is appropriate government oversight, then that exploration and development can be done perhaps without any effect on the caribou.

The caribou are not there, of course, through much of the year. They migrate in during the summer. They calve on the north slope or on those hills, and then they migrate through to get into the water so they can get rid of the bugs. I believe that migration pattern should not be disturbed at all.

The thing is that most of the exploratory work we do in Alaska is done in the winter; otherwise, you have a fairly major impact on the tundra. You can't move the equipment across the tundra in the summertime; otherwise you have tracks there that last for hundreds of years, maybe thousands. We don't allow it in Alaska.

I guess the short answer is that I think it can be done in a way that does not disturb the caribou herd. We certainly don't want to disturb it.

By the way, my testimony, which I made before the Congress in 1989, was not received well by the Alaska congressional delegation at the time. They thought it was a soft-line position. I told them it was my position regardless, and I was the one who had to fight for the votes to get elected. So my view doesn't necessarily prevail in Alaska - that is, that there should be strong governmental oversight of any exploration and development in that area. I also said that I believe there ought to be a part of that - I won't call it delicate, that's not right - critical calving area that ought to be off-limits, but not the whole coastal plain. I think that's overkill.

.1605

Mr. Morrison: Thank you, I appreciate that.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): The next questioner, Mr. Cowper, is Beryl Gaffney from the government side.

Mrs. Gaffney (Nepean): Good afternoon, Mr. Cowper. Welcome to our committee. Even though you're a long way off, we feel as if you're right here in the room with us.

I was part of a team that went to Russia on circumpolar issues. One of the biggest disappointments of our trip was the fact that we never got into Murmansk. We were supposed to go there, but we were fogged out and couldn't go.

I understand you've been doing a lot of work within Russia. I wonder if you would share some of the things you have learned or that you are studying.

Before I hand it over to you, I want to comment, with regard to the Arctic Council and the Northern Forum, that there's also another forum called the Barents Euro-Arctic Council. You're probably familiar with this. The Scandinavian countries and Finland are part of the Barents Council.

There almost seems to be an overlap of councils or forums. It makes me wonder if everybody is chasing after the same thing or whether they actually doing something different. Maybe you would care to comment on that too.

Mr. Cowper: Thank you. Let me take the last inquiry first. The Barents Council has two levels. There is a federal level through which the national governments participate. There is also a regional level of communication between the Norwegians - I believe the Finns are in it too - and the Murmansk and Arkhangelsk regions. I don't know if Karelia is in that or not.

They've been quite successful in negotiating quite a lot of economic initiatives that are joint in nature that may involve Norwegian investment or Finnish investment in technology into Murmansk and Arkhangelsk.

Part of the reason for the Barents group is a dispute over the boundary as it relates to fisheries jurisdiction. One of the major reasons we think it's important is that it's the first time, to our knowledge at least, that Russia has compromised its fisheries jurisdiction in order to serve a greater purpose. This is the management of the fisheries in the Barents area.

We are negotiating for a formal relationship with the Barents group. My current deputy director is moving to Bodo, Norway next month. She will be serving part time as the Northern Forum staff there. She'll be working part time with the Barents group. She's quite fluent in Russian and has a lot of experience over there, so that's probably why they want her. So we will be working very closely with the Barents group.

Actually, some of the things they do are in fact the same. What we try to do is not so much duplicate it, but include some more of our people, such as the Komi Republic - it's not a member of the Barents group - in some of those joint projects. It's probably going to be up to us to get the funding for the Komi participation.

But we don't like the duplication of effort. When we see that somebody else is doing something that's useful, we want to just be able to hook our people into it. We think there are few enough of us out there trying to resolve some of these northern problems, so let's not have conflicting jurisdictions.

Your first question had to do with what's going on in Russia. Let me give you kind of an overview as I see it. This is particularly relevant to the north and the Far East. Most of the governments in these regions are in our organization.

For quite some number of years, the north was regarded as a resource storehouse for the centre, and of course the Far East was regarded as a kind of military stronghold, a sort of last bastion against its presumed enemies from that direction. Therefore, the regions were not allowed to develop as perhaps they naturally would have. In addition, the centre was in control of the resource development and of course they got the money from it as well in all those areas.

.1610

As the Soviet Union broke up, the centre in Moscow was unable to send the kind of money out there that they had sent in the past. They had basically subsidized the entire economy in the Far East and also in the north, in return for which they got the benefit of the resources. Now they're saying they don't have any money and can't send them any. The regional governors are saying since they can't send money any more, they want the benefit of their resources. The result has been quite a number of separate agreements between the respective regional governments and Moscow.

At the same time, there are other things happening. For instance, in Tyumen, which is a province in central Siberia - and incidentally the province of Alberta has a trade-off there, for which I commend them - they have two subregions. Khanty-Mansiysk is one and Yamal-Nenets is another one. Most of the oil and gas in Russia comes out of those two subsidiary okrugs, as they're called. They're called autonomous regions, but of course they're not really autonomous, which is kind of confusing to us.

These areas want to split away from Tyumen. They wonder why they should send money down to the capital. This is a refrain that's heard in other areas, of course, so there are political divisions occurring even within the context of regional governments there.

The danger I see is that there isn't really any system any more in Russia. The overall danger is that Russia has to redefine itself and there's no clear direction there. The immediate danger for the northern and far east regions is that the cashflow that has always come through a government source is now going through arguably private sources and the government doesn't have any handle on it. It doesn't really have any internal revenue system. Some people I know in our country would applaud that, but it really doesn't make much sense in the context of a government.

I think the establishment of a sound common accounting system throughout Russia, within certain limits, a way to assure not only the central government but also the regional governments of an ongoing source of revenues, is a critical thing. Because of the historical secretive nature of Russian society, they don't really want to get a contractor, like one of the big six or seven accounting firms, to design for them a system that works. They don't want to tell Deloitte & Touche or one of those companies what they have to know to design a system that's going to work for them.

I think it's critical for us to be fully aggressive, but not overly so. Governments have to get in there and help Russia as much as they can, because I really think there's a clear and present danger of the whole situation falling into chaos. It can probably be remedied, but the west will have to put more of its resources into that effort.

Thank you.

Mrs. Gaffney: Thank you very much.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): Thank you, Mr. Cowper.

The next questioner is Sarkis Assadourian also from the government side.

.1615

Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): I gather from your presentation that the Northern Forum has two objectives. One of them is construction of housing, and the other is bringing the relationship east-west rather than north-south. Am I right?

Mr. Cowper: We want to be sure that relevant technology that's developed in the north is spread around to the other regions; that's correct. We want to be a communications centre for knowledge relating to the north.

Mr. Assadourian: If that's the case, the four councils my colleague mentioned earlier - the Barents Council, the Nordic Council, the Arctic Council and the Northern Forum - how do you differ from these organizations? Why can't these two objectives that you mentioned be done within the four and we have to create a new one? That's my first question.

Mr. Cowper: If the Arctic Council desires to take on the function of being a conduit for technology in the north, that's fine. It isn't clear what the Arctic Council is going to do, so it's difficult for me to make a judgment. My opinion, however, is that this is the kind of function that is much better achieved in an organization that represents regional governments and not national governments.

Regional governments are by the nature of things closer to the ground in terms of what is needed in their areas. In Alaska we would be quite concerned, for instance, if the U.S. State Department was the one through which we had to negotiate for the availability of technology. We wouldn't want them doing it. We would much rather be members of an organization like the Northern Forum for that purpose.

The Arctic Council has a very important purpose. We are enthusiastic about it, but we don't think it's very likely that the Arctic Council will become a clearing house for practical technology in the north. I guess that's my answer to that question.

Mr. Assadourian: You have nine countries and maybe twenty regional governments. How do you go about making a decision? Do the regional governments decide or do the countries decide for the regional governments?

Mr. Cowper: Major policy decisions are made at the annual board of directors' meeting. At that meeting the governors of each region vote on the proposals as presented by the secretariat. That's simply a general rule. The secretariat functions under the constricts of that policy. There are also quite a number of projects that involve three or four of our regional members, and we coordinate that activity.

We are not a policy-making body. We don't make pronouncements about Arctic policy. We do come forward as a body if we believe that decisions are being made that are adverse to the interests of our people, but we don't discuss overall policy for the Arctic. It simply isn't what we do. That's a function that's properly the jurisdiction of the Arctic Council.

Mr. Assadourian: One quick point, if I may: I just counted, and Russia has eleven representatives and the States has one. How do you live by that?

Mr. Cowper: How do I live by that?

Mr. Assadourian: Russia can vote eleven times more than you. How could you allow that to happen?

.1620

Mr. Cowper: The answer to that, of course, is that each state is sovereign and nobody gives up any rights, certainly within the context of the Northern Forum. If they tell us to do stuff, we don't do it. That's what it amounts to.

Mr. Assadourian: Thank you very much.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): Thank you, Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Cowper, could we take advantage of your presence here with the committee to have you share with us any ideas the Northern Forum has about what should go on the agenda of the Arctic Council for the first two years, since Canada will be the chair? If we put the wrong items on the agenda, it could stall creative thinking and productive ideas. From your experiences talking with the various northern Arctic regions, what issues do you feel should get priority within the first two years?

Mr. Cowper: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is the intent of the Arctic Council to bring into its jurisdiction the ongoing AEPS and CAFF talks. I think that's certainly an appropriate subject.

Let me say this. I mentioned earlier that it's important that there be a consistent set of environmental standards for development in the Arctic. It is not in anybody's best interest to have a competitive resource development situation where the key variable - I mentioned this once earlier - is that one of the countries doesn't have any environmental safeguards. That's not a good situation, and that is, I believe, one of the most important subjects to be tackled by the Arctic Council. We'd be glad to help them in that respect, particularly since the regional governments are being handed more and more responsibility, not only for development but also for the oversight of Arctic development. We think it's a very important and timely subject.

The matter of the jurisdiction of aboriginal peoples is certainly an appropriate subject. My own personal view is that this is likely always to be decided by national governments, because each country has a separate history vis-à-vis its minorities. It's certainly a subject that the Arctic Council should discuss and is discussing.

I'd like to see the Arctic Council go into the subject of the proper disposal of nuclear waste, much of which is in the Arctic region. Nuclear waste disposal is a horrible problem in the Arctic. A certain amount of it is overboard, in the ocean somewhere. Nobody knows what's happening to it. It's a problem that isn't necessarily confined to the Arctic. All a person has to do is to take a look at some of the Russian regions, and you'll see that the Arctic, like it or not, is already a dumping ground for radioactive material.

There are quite a number of other items, Mr. Chairman, but I'll let it go at that.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): When the committee was in Yellowknife we had an excellent fashion show of furs from the north and the Arctic. We were very impressed with the modern, futuristic styles - furs mixed with cloth material, etc. This is a great industry that could really help the economy of the Arctic and the north, and also help preserve the lifestyle of the aboriginal people. As you know, we're continually having difficulties with the European Union. What has been your experience? Have you had any successes that you can share with us to convince the Europeans that by boycotting our furs they are driving some of the aboriginal people to suicide and to alcohol and to drug addiction because we're killing their livelihood?

.1625

Mr. Cowper: If you'll bear with me, I'll start with an anecdote. I was at a place called Arctic Village, in Alaska, some years ago, which is a long way from anything. It was basically a convocation of native peoples who depend on wild furs for their livelihood. There was a Cree representative, I believe from northern Quebec, and there was some discussion about this ban on wild furs by the European Parliament. There was one telephone in this village, and your Cree representative said ``Well, I'm going to call Mrs. Thatcher on that.'' And he did. He called Mrs. Thatcher and got her on the telephone, from an outdoor telephone booth in Arctic Village, Alaska, and I believe successfully solicited her support against the ban.

To follow up a bit on that, Alaskans also are involved in the harvest of wild furs, and are in that business. We support efforts by Canada - and we hope by other nations - to persuade the Europeans that these harvests are not done by cruel methods and that they also benefit the traditional lifestyle of our aboriginal people. Sometimes the animal rights lobbyists are not very receptive to that argument. Nevertheless, the trapping industry is legitimate. It has been in place a long time, and it's certainly valuable to our aboriginal people, so we're with you on that.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): Mr. Cowper, if you could bear with us, we do have a problem. The U.S. Marine Mammals Protection Act prevents the import of marine mammals products into the United States. Canada and others have tried to get this changed over the years, without much luck. Have you any comments on that?

Mr. Cowper: I know the Northern Forum would support you on that. It is, by the way, a subject that has been brought up in Northern Forum meetings. Incidentally, I'd like to buy a narwhal tusk myself, but....

I think it's a subject that the Alaska congressional delegation intends to bring rather forcefully to the attention of the current administration. We understand that difficulty, and we'd like to do what we can to ameliorate it, at least to the extent of being able to trade back and forth among Arctic territories and Arctic regions.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): Thank you.

There have been accusations in the past that the reason it took so long to establish the Arctic Council was because of Alaska not being on side concerning protecting the rights of indigenous people and moving faster in the areas of sustainable development. Listening to you, I would think that Alaska would have been in the forefront on these issues. Where do these misperceptions come from, or was there some truth to it in the past?

Mr. Cowper: Alaska, as you might imagine, seldom speaks with one voice. We're about as contentious as most northern peoples are. But I think there was a feeling in Alaska - and certainly among the three members of the congressional delegation - that they basically didn't want the national governments negotiating away matters that they thought should be properly in the purview of the state government here. To put it a little more bluntly, they were kind of suspicious of the State Department.

In any event, they now understand that there is an Arctic Council - that it will be ongoing, and that the United States has an appropriate role in those proceedings. I think we now have a situation that will lead to cooperation from the Alaskan congressional delegation. By the way, all three are major committee chairmen, so people have to pay attention to them.

.1630

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Francis LeBlanc, has a question.

Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso): Thank you and welcome, Mr. Cowper. I have one question and possibly a second.

We were in the Yukon on this circumpolar study in May of this year, and we were told by the Yukon government that they had dropped out of the Northern Forum. They thought it was a good idea, but they felt they were not getting any real benefit from it. Earlier in your remarks you mentioned that the Yukon was part of the Northern Forum. Have they rejoined or have they always been a member?

Mr. Cowper: No, they came back in. We know because we got their money about two weeks ago.

I think there was a dispute between Tony Penikett and his successor. I reopened the subject after I got there, and I think we got good results. I think Yukon is going to benefit once again.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): Mr. LeBlanc, this videoconference is going so well that the chairman would like to see if our system is working in both official languages. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could ask his next question en français and Mr. Cowper could let us know whether he's receiving the appropriate translation.

[Translation]

Mr. LeBlanc, in French, please.

Mr. LeBlanc: I was not expecting to have to ask my question in French, but I will do so anyway.

Since our witness was governor for the State of Alaska, I would like to know more about the relationship between the US central government and the Alaska government with regard to the US position on circumpolar cooperation. For instance, what about the environmental issues that affect both sides of the border between Canada and Alaska, such as the habits of cariboos and porcupines, and some of the ideas you yourself mentioned, Mr. Chairman?

I would like our witness to tell us whether the American position on circumpolar issues and the Arctic Council itself was put forward by the State or mostly by the American government. Thank you.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): Mr. Cowper, you've already answered the questions around the caribou herd. The parliamentary secretary came a little late, so that's why he repeats it. Don't feel that you have to answer all of his question, just the parts you didn't address earlier.

First of all, how was the translation?

Mr. LeBlanc: First of all, how was the French?

Mr. Cowper: It was very clear and excellent. Merci, Monsieur LeBlanc.

.1635

In Alaska, the jurisdictional lines are related to land ownership more than anything else. The federal government owns a very large percentage of the land in Alaska, 60%, while the state owns 28% and native Alaskans own 12%. If you do your math you will find that there's not much left.

The Arctic National Wildlife Range is on land owned by the federal government, so decisions relating to the Arctic National Wildlife Range are made by the Congress. It stands to reason that the Alaskan congressional delegation seeks to have a major voice in those decisions. Nevertheless, they are made in Washington.

In terms of environmental standards, the way that normally works is that the federal regulatory agency, the EPA, adopts certain minimum standards, and the state - in our case the Department of Environmental Conservation - standards must be at least as high as the EPA's. We are free to adopt tougher standards, which by the way we have done in certain areas. If the standards are approved by the federal government, then the state regulators take over the actual monitoring of compliance.

In terms of the initiatives with respect to the Arctic Council, my understanding is that these stemmed from an earlier statement by President Clinton that he would agree to United States participation in the Arctic Council. As you probably know, the United States had not agreed to participate in those talks until that time.

Basically that was a federal decision - a good one, I think - and from there the State of Alaska will have to make itself heard as best it can. The State of Alaska has been attending Arctic Council meetings as an observer, and ultimately I think the state would like to see the Northern Forum awarded a slightly higher level of participation so that the concerns of all regional governments can be brought into the process.

Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): Mr. Cowper and ladies and gentlemen, this brings our videoconference with Mr. Cowper, executive director of the Northern Forum in Anchorage, Alaska, to an end.

Mr. Cowper, had you been here or we in Anchorage, the only difference would be that at the end of this meeting we could have exchanged business cards. Since we can't do that, however, I want you to meet our clerk, Janice Hilchie. Should you find yourself in Ottawa, you can track down any member of the foreign affairs committee through our clerk here.

Thank you for sharing your ideas with us, and please congratulate the participants in your Northern Forum for the excellent pioneering work they've been doing. We're pleased that you feel there is no duplication between what you, the Arctic Council and other groups are doing. It's a case of working together and coordinating all of the research that's out there, and hopefully we will have a better planet to live on. So on behalf of the entire committee, thank you for sharing your expertise with us.

Mr. Cowper: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Flis): Ladies and gentlemen, that this brings this portion of the meeting to an end.

Before we break up, Mr. Penson gave me notice at the beginning of the meeting that he would like to briefly discuss a motion he would like to put forward. I'm calling a one-minute break while the chairman takes over. During the break, Mr. Penson can share the motion with the other members.

.1639

.1642

The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.

I understand Mr. Penson has a resolution he'd like to introduce.

Mr. Penson: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring this to the committee. I realize there's not much time to discuss this, but in the brief time we have I would like to briefly discuss the softwood lumber deal with the United States and the impact it's having on our forestry industry.

Back in the spring, when this was first negotiated, the minister told us this was the result of consulting with industry, which wanted some kind of a deal because they were afraid they were going to get countervailed by the United States. The reason was that the United States had done an end-run and changed their domestic legislation so that we would not win a panel dispute with NAFTA, all of which is true.

My contention, Mr. Chairman, is that the industry did not fully understand the impact of the quota system - putting that complex industry under a supply management type of system rather than a market economy. This whole agreement was negotiated by the United States to keep four or five big multinationals happy in the United States, and raise the price of lumber, which it certainly has done.

I believe the industry in general - the industry associations may have known, although I doubt it - knew there was an alternative to this problem other than to accept a quota system, and that would have been to take this dispute to the World Trade Organization if we had been countervailed. I've talked to a number of people in the industry who said they simply didn't understand the consequences of this. Some of them didn't understand that the World Trade Organization was comparable to a NAFTA panel in terms of resolving these disputes. They thought it was something less and didn't realize it was an alternative.

I would suggest that there are a lot of problems in the softwood lumber industry. About a week ago I sent out a fax survey to about 500 companies that have softwood lumber quota allocations. We have 110 back, and it's tailing off now. Of those who responded, 90% say they're not happy with this quota system. On the second question, when we asked if they would be prepared to walk away from this deal and if we're countervailed take it to the World Trade Organization for resolution, about 75% to 80% said they would favour that method.

.1645

There are a lot of big companies that have deep pockets, some of which, by the way, are U.S. foreign-owned companies operating in Canada. About 40% of the companies operating in Canada are foreign-owned by U.S. companies. They are certainly not going to respond that they want to walk away from this, because they stand to gain big-time in the United States, and they are doing just that.

I would contend that there is another alternative the industry didn't really know about, or if they did know about it at the time, they've started to change their minds about the way this deal is working, because it's causing them all kinds of problems, especially small companies. We should use the systems Canada negotiated and put in place.

It took nine years and the last go-around of the GATT to get a World Trade Organization and a rules-based system, something we agree needs to be done. Canada is a trading nation. Canada has been one of the main proponents of these rules-based organizations, and now we have a chance to use it. We are being negligent if we don't.

I believe this softwood lumber dispute is only going to get worse as time progresses. It's time for our committee to have a look at this with the objective of scrapping the agreement.

The Chairman: May I just ask a question of Mr. LeBlanc?

In the absence of the parliamentary secretary to the trade minister, are you comfortable with carrying this, or would you feel better if we discussed this issue when we have Mr. MacDonald here?

Mr. LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, I certainly couldn't support a motion that's dropped on us like this that deals with a matter as complex as this softwood lumber agreement, with all of the trade implications it has, even if I were to agree with the statements Mr. Penson has just made.

I think the motion is quite inappropriate, just dropped on us like this. Perhaps the matter of the softwood lumber deal is a matter the committee should study, but I don't think it's proper for us to deal with a motion like this with notice of no more than one meeting. I don't want to deal with the substance of the motion, because I don't think we can possibly make a decision like this as a committee merely on the basis of a two-minute discussion with the person who's proposing it.

If the motion is put, I will urge that we vote it down, although I would be prepared perhaps to consider that we may want to talk about studying the matter over a longer period of time. We can't make a decision like that, as a committee, with so little information.

Mr. Penson: Could I just make a quick response?

The Chairman: Yes, if that's all right with Mr. Sauvageau. Yes, why don't you quickly respond to that observation, and then we'll go to Mr. Sauvageau?

Mr. Penson: Some of the difficulty has been that we have been asking questions in the House along this line for some time.

An hon. member: There is an urgency.

Mr. Penson: As my colleague has just said, there is a certain urgency. Small companies in particular are telling us they can only survive for a matter of weeks. Some of them didn't get any quota at all.

I have a mill in my riding that spent $1 million on new timber allocation. They were down last year because of getting ready for this, they spent $400,000 on preparing and upgrading their mill, and they got no allocation. There's a special hard chip case section. They tell us at the department it will be two to three months before they can get any resolution to this, and these small companies are telling us they're in dire straits and they are going to be out of business in that time.

The Minister for International Trade, as you know, is rarely in the House these days - only one day out of about 15 or 20. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister for International Trade hasn't been here for some time.

The Chairman: I'm informed he returns tonight. He'll be here tomorrow.

Mr. Penson: Yes, that may be.

I agree it may not be fair to drop it on the committee in this way, but in terms of studying this for two or three months, I don't think it's appropriate, because a lot of companies are going to be hurt very badly in this process. There isn't time to do it in that manner.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Sauvageau (Terrebonne): I think Mr. Penson and Mr. LeBlanc summed it up very well. We are going to spend eight or nine months on circumpolar issues. Mr. Bergeron told me you spent several months discussing Haiti. I don't think we should be obliged to make a decision within the next 10 minutes on something as important as this.

.1650

Also, even though lumber producers are very strong lobbyists, we must try to be impervious to them, but hold our discussions quickly and as rationally as possible. I am not against discussing the matter, but I think it is unwise to adopt a firm position today in just two minutes. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Flis, then Mr. Morrison, then Mr. Dupuy.

Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): I don't know the details of the issue, but the motion doesn't make any commitment of this committee. All it's asking is to urge the government. It's not saying you have to do it. So it's good wording from that standpoint.

We all do have caucus meetings tomorrow, and this committee meets Thursday. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be wise to take this motion to caucus so each member can get the opinion of their caucus, and then maybe we could spend 10 minutes passing it or not passing it on Thursday morning. There is an urgency to it.

The Chairman: If we are going to at least put it off for some time - because, as you say, between now and 5 o'clock, to seriously err on something as great as this....

Mr. Penson, is it possible for you to provide the committee with reasons as to why you're of the view that a WTO panel would have a greater latitude to rule in Canada's favour than a NAFTA panel? Obviously somebody has advised you of this. I would be surprised if the law applied by the WTO panel would be any different from that of a NAFTA panel.

The people would be in the position where this thing would be reserved for a year while we went through that process. As I understand it, the duty would be collected in the United States anyway, and then you'd have to try to get it back, as we did the last time.

I think the members of the committee would want to know about all those complicated features. You remember the last time we got into this with the United States. They collected the duty and then we tried to get it back. It was $6 billion. It was wild.

Mr. Penson: But remember, Mr. Chairman, we did get it back. In every case where we've gone to the dispute panel with the United States, either we've won or they've withdrawn.

The Chairman: Yes, but you put it absolutely accurately: the NAFTA rules allowed them to change their legislation after, and they did change it. That's why we're in this pickle. I would have thought that change would be equally effective in front of a WTO panel, that there's no more likelihood of a successful ruling before a WTO panel than a NAFTA panel.

I am merely giving a guestimate on that issue from the chair. I'm not trying to suggest I know any more than you do, but I would have thought the members of the committee would want to know about issues such as that before we could come to any vote on this resolution.

Mr. Penson: I think that's a subjective thing. Canada negotiated for nine years to get this type of process in place. Now, when it's time to test it to see if we are right on this issue - and we have been found to be right in every case where it's gone to a panel before, or else the United States has withdrawn - we seem to hesitate in taking it there.

I know the likelihood of being countervailed in the interim. You would have to be countervailed in order to refer to the WTO. There's every reason to believe we would win at the WTO panel, because they would take into account that the United States has done an end-run to change their domestic law. I think anybody who's reasonable would see that as a way the United States is trying to circumvent a win by Canada. They've changed it so we can't win at that forum any more.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Morrison, Mr. Dupuy and then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Morrison: I'd like to address a couple of the political aspects of this question.

We all know this particular agreement was tailored to suit the giant lumber lobby in the United States, which incidentally controls, as my colleague said, about 40% of the industry in this country. So it's an incestuous relationship as far as this is concerned.

.1655

But there are very powerful political interests in the United States who hate this deal as much as we do, such as consumers' associations and builders. They don't want this agreement, because it has run the price of domestic lumber to the moon. So we could look for allies. It might not even have to go to the WTO.

In other words, they could back down because of domestic politics, but you won't find out unless you put your toe in the water.

The Chairman: Mr. Penson.

Mr. Penson: As a way of resolving this, I'd be happy to withdraw this and take Mr. Flis's suggestion that we have a chance to deal with it at our caucuses tomorrow. It can be brought back for Thursday if that's suitable to the committee.

The Chairman: We have NATO enlargement and very import issues to come to grips with, so if we were to deal with it, we'd have to be pretty strict and say we'll take half an hour for this and start a bit early or something. We certainly wouldn't want to eat into our NATO enlargement time.

Mr. Penson: The difficulty, Mr. Chairman, is if we don't deal with it soon, we are soon going to be out on a Christmas break for seven weeks, and the clock is ticking on a number of these companies.

The Chairman: I understand that. We can certainly use the time between now and 5 o'clock to air a few more views on it, but I would think we're not likely to, in the short space of time available, have it dealt with in anything other than a summary way.

Mr. Dupuy.

Mr. Dupuy (Laval West): Mr. Chairman, I think I can be fairly brief, because much of what I had in mind has already been said about the complexity and the history of this thorny problem.

Basically the point I would like to make is I have indeed a great deal of sympathy for some of the firms that might go under. I have myself received some information from Quebec firms that are anguished. That being said, our purpose is to protect global Canadian interests, and however much I feel for these firms, we must bear in mind that we're coping with a huge industry.

This is a terribly long tale. At times we thought we would succeed; at times we thought we would not. By and large, travelling the dispute settlement route we've done well, but where we hit a problem is not in the rules of the game, but in the political situation in the United States. We have to be realistic about this.

Of course we have no time tonight to evaluate these dimensions, but I would be concerned, quite frankly, if we moved hurriedly without having an opportunity to look at what are admittedly very complex dimensions. We commit this committee in urging a course of action. We express a strong view.

As a footnote, I would also recall that this committee has created a subcommittee to look at trade disputes. I happen to have your confidence, because you've asked me to chair it. We had to slow down this process in order to give priority to SIMA, but your trade dispute subcommittee is there and will get off the ground next year, when we resume.

I know this is no answer to what Mr. Penson is putting before us, but I thought I should mention the possibility this committee offers for very thoughtful discussion of this major trade issue between us and the United States.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Chairman, I would like to say very quickly that the matter raised today by Mr. Penson is extremely important. It is a very relevant issue that deserves our utmost attention. Its importance should not be belittled and that is why I object to making a hasty decision this evening. We can't allow ourselves to do that.

However, I fully agree that it is a somewhat urgent matter; we therefore can't plan on doing comprehensive, long-term study as we did for small businesses or international financial institutions, or as we are doing right now for circumpolar issues.

.1700

I think this is a particular issue that requires us to present a resolution to the government. We should do the exact same thing as we did for IFOR, for the extension of NATO or for Haiti, in other words we should hold a hearing specifically on softwood lumber and perhaps invite expert witnesses who could enlighten committee members who may have questions on that. Afterwards, we could discuss the matter among ourselves and come up with a resolution for the minister.

Even though this matter is urgent, I don't think we should minimize the importance of other matters on our agenda, such as the extension of NATO, which is scheduled for Thursday, and especially since Canada's ambassador to Paris is to appear before the committee. So I do not think we can deal with Mr. Penson's motion today in 10 minutes, nor can we shorten the scheduled meetings even by five minutes.

I therefore suggest, Mr. Chairman, that between now and the end of the session, we set aside half a day to deal with this, because I agree with Mr. Penson that we cannot leave it until we return in February. So we could spend half a day discussing it. We could hear experts from the Department of International Trade and the Secretary of State, and at the end of that meeting, we could draft a resolution for the government on this critical matter that would be satisfactory to all committee members.

The Chairman: Fine, that's one suggestion.

[English]

Mr. Assadourian: I withhold the question.

Mr. Penson: If we can come to some satisfactory resolution of how to deal with this in the next short while, I would be happy to withdraw the motion as I put it. I just want to tell you again there is some urgency to this. I agree with Mr. Bergeron that if we could do it before we break for Christmas I would be happy.

I wouldn't want to have just department officials here. There have to be some industry people who are affected. We certainly need to hear the testimony of those people who are in dire straits as a result of this. But if we can do that I'd be happy to -

The Chairman: The clerk has advised me if we did NATO expansion this Thursday afternoon, we could take on this subject maybe next Tuesday afternoon where we had NATO expansion.

I certainly agree with Mr. Bergeron's observation that if we're going to do it, we really have to get some serious input. I think we should hear from industry people as to what the frustrations are with the system, but we should also hear from at least somebody who could come to tell us ``Yes, if we do this...'', and the WTO is a reasonable choice.

Mr. Flis.

Mr. Flis: I am against adding any other meeting or any other subject from now until December 13. We came here today, and when it was time to begin there was one member present. All members are very busy now trying to cover two or three committees at the same time.

The urgency has been expressed and we have the motion in hand. I think we could delegate our chair or the parliamentary secretary to take this to the minister, point out the urgency, and let the minister take it from there. I don't think as a committee we have time to devote another half day to it. It could be a minister or a deputy minister. There are other people who can look into this while the minister is away. I know people are calling for more meetings, but I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, I refuse to come to a meeting when there is one member present.

.1705

The Chairman: This would not be an additional meeting, but would be sort of moving things around. This would be in a regular time slot for the committee, Mr. Flis, if we did this. I agree with you that between now and Christmas we can't add.

To begin with, we must remember that the next week Mr. Sauvageau, Mr. Penson and I will all be in Singapore anyway.

Mr. Penson: We are at the point, Mr. Chairman, where we are trying to advance the cause of further trade liberalization with better trade dispute mechanisms when we're not even using the ones we have now.

The Chairman: Mr. Penson, maybe since you're going to be at the WTO in Singapore, you should find out about this while you're there and come back and report to the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: If I understand correctly, the meeting on softwood lumber should be next Tuesday, but you and the critics on international trade from the Bloc Québécois and the Reform Party would not be there. That would be somewhat of a problem.

The Chairman: Yes, a serious problem.

[English]

Mr. Assadourian: You can have it in Singapore.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: Yes, why not?

Mr. Dupuy: There is another problem we should also think about. There is an agreement between the United States and Canada. You cannot simply dismiss an agreement that was the result of extremely tough negotiations. We are not just dealing with something remotely connected. We are challenging the outcome of very long negotiations. I just wanted to point that out, because obviously...

Mr. Bergeron: I was referring to a resolution that would be satisfactory to all parties. I don't want to speak on behalf of Mr. Penson, but I do not think he planned to table a motion that would be defeated by this committee.

Mr. Dupuy: Of course.

Mr. Bergeron: I think he wants to apprise the minister of the urgency of the situation. If we can get a motion that is acceptable to everyone, a unanimous motion, it would have much more clout. I do not think we should go as far as requesting the complete withdrawal of the treaty or the...

[English]

Mr. Dupuy: It should be immediately struck.

Mr. Bergeron: I know. This is the wording now. What do you think?

Mr. Morrison: I think people are perhaps getting a little bit spooked by the motion. The motion, if you read it carefully, is not that harsh. We're really only asking the minister to do something, anything, and to waken up.

If we perhaps take out the word ``scrap'' and put something a little more innocuous in there, I don't know whether Mr. Penson would agree with that. But all we're doing here is asking the minister to do something.

The Chairman: I have Mr. Assadourian and then Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Assadourian: Thank you very much. I'd like to suggest a change, if it's possible and if you're happy with it, that this committee urges the chair -

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: No, we are not going to draft it right away. We will do that next week.

[English]

The Chairman: If you don't mind, we'll have Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau: Perhaps I did not see the...

[English]

The Chairman: You're getting into amending the resolution. You want to recommend a change.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: Let him finish; he will climb on to the table.

[English]

Mr. Assadourian: All right. I recommend that you write a letter on our behalf expressing our concerns to the minister. Would that be satisfactory to you?

The Chairman: Have you decided that you have a concern?

Mr. Assadourian: Pardon me?

The Chairman: Have you decided that you have a concern? If I were called upon to vote on this, I'm not at a point yet to determine whether I really would go along the line with what Mr. Bergeron said. I think Mr. Penson accepts that before I decide whether I have a concern I'd like to hear from the industry people, and that before I decide whether we have another route open to us I'd like to hear from the ministry people. I would like to hear from both those before I go down the road. Other members of the committee obviously can decide what they like about that.

Very briefly, Mr. Sauvageau, you were ahead, and then Mr. Penson.

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau: As Mr. Bergeron pointed out so cleverly, perhaps we could put off the meeting on softwood lumber until Thursday afternoon, when you and I will be there, Mr. Penson? The meeting on NATO could be held on Tuesday.

.1710

I had not seen the English version. Perhaps the word "scrap" was used, in English, because it would mean, for the Liberals, that we should also harmonize our standards with the United States.

[English]

The Chairman: I have no trouble with that suggestion. I would suggest as chairman that maybe we should get a three-party committee to consider whether a letter to the minister or some other form of action might satisfy the purpose of the meeting. If not, we could go ahead. The clerk says we could do something Thursday afternoon if we can pull it together quickly enough.

In your view, would the industry association people be able to do something between now and Thursday afternoon?

Mr. Penson: Mr. Chairman, if we were going to take half a day, I don't think that would be adequate time for them to come here to....

Mr. Bergeron: Yes, but we want to do it quickly.

Mr. Penson: Mr. Chairman, this is not something new. We've been under the quota system for over a month. Members who have been in the House have heard that we have asked questions on this issue. Anybody who has cared to check with the department would find that the department has some very serious problems with this quota system. We're phoning over there and they're telling us that it's almost crisis management trying to work this thing out. In addition to that, I don't have a scientific survey, but we have heard from 110 companies out of 550, including many from Quebec, that say this deal is not working for them.

All we're asking for is something we are fully entitled to through the free trade agreement we signed with the United States. We agreed that we would do something...take something less than our full entitlement, which is 88% of what we are entitled to through last year's markets, for example.

There is an urgency here. The companies that are going to lose their business, I don't know if they could be convinced to hop on a plane tomorrow and come down for Thursday. That's the difficulty, I guess. But I do think the members around the table should be aware that this is an urgent situation. I'd be happy to have each of us take it to our caucuses, talk about it and come back on Thursday for another go at this, but I don't think there's time to get the companies down here.

The Chairman: That might be the best. If you're offering to withdraw it for the moment, we'll raise it internally amongst our various parties and we'll decide at our next meeting where we're going to go.

Mr. Penson: I think that would be the best way.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: But we don't just want to have people who talk to us...

[English]

Mr. Dupuy: Mr. Chairman, I wish to simply flag that there were exhaustive consultations with the industry before the negotiations came to a head with the United States. This has been very thoroughly investigated.

Mr. Penson: Four companies.

Mr. Dupuy: This is not the information I have. Obviously, if you hear some people who may be hurt, you may have to hear as well other people who think this is the only way of travelling. To think that we can dispose of it as a minor item on an overloaded agenda, I think, is to be quite unrealistic.

That being said, I can reassure Mr. Penson that I think he is doing the right thing in alerting us to the difficulties some Canadian producers are experiencing. It is quite legitimate that we should have a look at it, but to jump from there to major recommendations is quite a bit to travel.

The Chairman: It seems to me we're in this position in terms of our time constraints. We can't go on too much longer this afternoon because we have other things to do. We're pretty well committed between now and the end of the session. Three of us, two of whom are the actual critics in the matter of trade, will be absent next week. So we either do something this week or probably we are not going to do anything.

I think the consensus of the committee members is that to do something as a committee, where we adopt a formal resolution, probably would require some sort of hearing, which may not be possible to arrange between now and the end of the week. Would it be satisfactory -

Mr. Bergeron: But we will try.

The Chairman: If the members want to do that, I'm certainly open to that as your chair.

I was going to recommend as a possible halfway measure that I would write a letter to the minister on behalf of the committee saying that this has come up in committee, the way Mr. Assadourian suggested, and that there is a consensus in the committee that without adopting a formal resolution on the matter, we have heard concerns and we would like the government to have a look at those concerns and pass on the suggested resolution.

.1715

Mr. Assadourian: If you don't want to say ``by the members'', say ``some members of the committee'' and get it over with.

The Chairman: What will probably happen otherwise is that if we don't have a hearing, people are going to vote it down, because they will say they don't have enough information to vote one way or another. Then you'll lose the benefit.

Mr. Bergeron: Will you write our letter from the discussion we will have on Thursday, or will you write it from the discussion we had just now?

The Chairman: From the one we had just now.

Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. LeBlanc: Personally, I would not want you to bind the committee to a position without having at least had the benefit of witnesses or some discussion of the substance matter. I say this as a member of the committee.

The Chairman: I know.

Mr. LeBlanc: While I may be persuaded that this is a serious matter, as Mr. Penson has indicated, and perhaps I'll be persuaded after some discussion that his solution is the right one, certainly I'm not persuaded of that now. I would want to hear some evidence to make up my mind.

If you're going to write a letter on behalf of the committee without the committee having hearings on it, then all you can really say as chairman is that some members of the committee have brought this up.

If you want to have a session on this on Thursday, which would allow you to have a discussion within the committee, I know the parliamentary secretary will at least be in town on Thursday. I'm not sure if he has other commitments.

Also, we could use the technology that we're using this afternoon to perhaps bring forward some representatives of the industry who might not be able to make it to Ottawa for Thursday.

Mr. Penson: In view of the discussion that's been happening here in the last 15 minutes, I don't think the members want to make time to have those people come in from industry. I don't think it can be done on one day's notice. It's almost impossible.

In view of that, I propose we move to this motion. If you choose to defeat it, that's up to the committee, but we would stay with this motion. If you decide to take some other course if it's defeated, that's entirely up to the committee.

Mr. Morrison: They've already made up their minds for Thursday anyway.

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, if we sit until 9 p.m., we can discuss the motion.

[English]

The Chairman: I take it that Mr. Penson is saying he should take the question. We've already stretched it over 20 minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: Can we agree that, at the very least, you will write a letter on behalf of this committee saying that the matter was raised? The motion might be defeated, which could well be the case, but I do not think that reduces the urgency and importance of the issue raised by Mr. Penson.

So regardless of whether the motion is carried, you could follow Mr. Leblanc's suggestion and write to the Minister to tell him that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is concerned about that and has been asked to study the matter further.

[English]

The Chairman: Absolutely. I don't want Mr. Penson to think he could make political capital out of the fact that most of the committee refused to hear it. Of course, I don't believe he would do this. In fact, the committee is more than willing to hear it within the constraints of our timeframe, and it's just a matter of trying to accommodate that.

Mr. Penson: [Inaudible - Editor] ...Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I appreciate that, but to be fair to the committee, that's not the members' fault. People are saying that if we can do it on Thursday we will do it.

Mr. Penson: I'm not the only one who's aware that this is a serious issue. A lot of MPs are hearing this and -

The Chairman: Sure, it's a serious issue. All you have to do is pick up the newspaper to know that. We all know it's a serious issue. Believe me, quite apart from within our own political organizations we've heard about it and we all agree with that.

Mr. Penson: I suggest we move on with the motion and discuss the course of action afterwards.

Mrs. Gaffney: Mr. Chairman, it is a very important issue. For us to move on this motion as it is presently written is just not right. We should move a motion that this motion is inappropriate at this time. It's a very important issue that the committee needs to deal with in depth. We do not have the pre-material on it. I really don't think it's appropriate that we vote on this motion.

.1720

The Chairman: I'm in the hands of the rules, however. The clerk advises me that if Mr. Penson wants to put his motion now rather than withdraw it for further study, he's entitled to do that, in which case we'll just have to vote on it. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might come back with a statement at the next meeting on what the government's position is on this issue and address it that way. I think at this point in time if that's Mr. Penson's desire, as the mover of the motion, it has been duly moved and seconded -

Mr. LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, I want to have it put on the record that on behalf of the ministry, we would be prepared to do our level best to bring in witnesses to discuss this matter as early as Thursday in order to deal with this properly. We could use that as a basis for some expression of the sentiment of the committee on this issue if the members of the committee are prepared to do that.

It's totally inappropriate for us to receive a bald motion as this, with no notice, and to ask us to vote up or down on a motion that has no preamble, no explanation.... In fact, as early as last week we had a steering committee meeting, at which the Reform Party was present. It considered the agenda for the committee, at which time we could have rearranged our agenda to include this matter if it was so important.

Mr. Penson: I'm surprised as parliamentary secretary that you wouldn't be bringing this to the committee. You should be on top of this issue in your department.

Mr. LeBlanc: The parliamentary secretary for the Minister for International Trade is very much on top of this issue and could be here to speak to all these issues that have been brought forward. The fact of the matter is that this motion has been dropped on us with no notice, so there's no way the parliamentary secretary for international trade, who knows all about this, can even be here to explain the situation of the government and enlighten the committee.

The Chairman: Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Assadourian: This issue was brought to the House of Commons on a few occasions. He knew about this issue before anybody else, probably better than anybody else. But he does a total disservice to the cause when he brings this issue the way he is doing it.

I am very concerned with it. Everybody is very concerned with it. It's totally unfair for him to bring this right away and say vote for it. If we don't vote for it, he's going to make an issue out of it, which is totally unfair to the committee and totally unfair, above all else, to the issue itself. If he really cares about those people working in the industry, he should not be doing this for his own sake, for his own concerns.

I ask him to withdraw the motion and bring it the way it is written on Thursday. It's totally unfair.

Mr. Penson: Mr. Chairman, we've had discussion for some 20 minutes to try to facilitate how we're going to do this. The parliamentary secretary has suggested that we can bring people as early as Thursday. There are companies in Alberta and British Columbia and Quebec, for that matter, that simply aren't going to drop in on one day's notice. If we had time to move this far, I would say, yes, there's no problem with it. But we simply haven't the time to hear those people with one day's notice. It won't work.

The Chairman: The fact that three members will be absent the following week doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible to hear it the following week, does it?

Mr. Penson: No, but that's not what we were talking about.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, from what I gather, Mr. Penson is telling us we have to act quickly, but not too quickly. Given that somewhat negative attitude, I think he would like the motion to be defeated. So let's defeat his motion and we can discuss it again more seriously at a later date.

[English]

The Chairman: I think we are in that position. Unless Mr. Penson wants to withdraw his motion, it has to be dealt with, and I don't think any further discussion is necessary. Did you wish to pursue it?

Mr. Penson: Yes, I do.

The Chairman: Very well, then, the motion reads as follows:

That this committee urge the government to immediately scrap the softwood lumber deal with the United States.

Motion negatived

.1725

Mr. Assadourian: Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion on my own motion.

The Chairman: Yes, sir.

Mr. Assadourian: The motion is that this committee condemn the Reform Party's performance in this committee on the softwood lumber issue.

Some hon. members: Grow up.

Mr. Assadourian: Let's have a vote on it. It's a different motion from yours. I don't want to go from this committee, Mr. Chairman, being blamed for not doing my job here for Canadian citizens.

The Chairman: I think the record will clearly show that the members of the committee were struggling to try to find a way to accommodate this. I expect that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for International Trade will come to the next meeting and we will certainly try to make time briefly for a statement on this issue.

I agree with Mr. Penson that this is an important issue and I agree with the other members.

Mr. LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, what I will undertake to do for the next meeting of the committee, given that this has been brought up, and that we appreciate the seriousness of the issue and the members' concerns, is bring forward some statement on behalf of the government that will bring the committee up to date with its version of this issue for the purposes of the committee. How does that sound? We'll do that for Thursday.

So the members of the committee will table the statement on behalf of the government that will explain the situation up to that point. It's not going to say whether the government agrees or disagrees with the idea put forward by the motion, but it will at least allow the committee to know in the form of something they can put on the record what the government's approach or position is on this issue at this point in time.

Mr. Penson: That's fair.

The Chairman: We presently have nothing on on Thursday afternoon.

Mr. Penson, you're not saying that you think that if we were able to put together something between now and Thursday -

Mr. Penson: All I'm concerned with is if we were going to bring witnesses in.... Mr. Chairman, I just don't think you can pick up the phone and say, can you be here Thursday afternoon. This is Tuesday afternoon and -

The Chairman: I appreciate that.

Mr. Penson: We don't all live in Montreal.

The Chairman: No, I appreciate that.

Mr. Bergeron: I know that, but don't assume that they won't come.

Mr. LeBlanc: They don't have to come to Ottawa; we have videoconferencing. That's why we've developed this technology.

The Chairman: What about videoconferencing, on the one hand? Wouldn't a lot of them have industry representatives? Wouldn't you get an industry spokesperson who would be here in Ottawa and who would speak for the industry?

Mr. Penson: I think that's part of the difficulty, Mr. Chairman, that the departments spoke to a few industry spokesman, speaking on behalf of all of them. And in your response from the department you'll find, I believe, that there are many individual companies that were never consulted by their industry associations; they are very unhappy with this deal and it's not working for them.

The Chairman: There is not necessarily always a unanimity of views within these industry associations. Of course that's true.

I think we've taken it as far as we can, then, for the moment.

Mr. Penson: Okay.

The Chairman: We're adjourned until 9 a.m. on Thursday.

Return to Committee Home Page