Debates of March 14th, 2002

Supply

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate. Of course the whole issue with the Americans this time is divided into two areas. One is anti-dumping and one is countervailing duties to deal with alleged subsidies.

I was very pleased that the other day the Minister for International Trade launched an appeal against the anti-dumping portion of the claim. The anti-dumping claim is just as ridiculous as the subsidy claim. Experts state:

Dumping occurs when goods are sold in one market at prices that are lower than the price at which the same or comparable goods are sold in the home market of the exporter.

I hate to tell the Americans, but lumber is a commodity product that in North America trades roughly the same. In fact when we have a quota system like we have had for the last five years, the pricing in the domestic market is sometimes lower. In this case the Americans have investigated a number of companies in Canada and are alleging dumping. They have extrapolated that to say there is dumping going on across the whole spectrum of the forest industry in Canada. That is total nonsense and I am sure we will win that one as well.

We have won every single case that we have taken to a NAFTA panel or the WTO. It is fine for the members opposite to say they support free trade in lumber. Everybody in the House and everybody in Canada supports free trade in lumber. It is getting there that is the challenge, especially when we have a neighbour to the south who is a bully on this issue and who uses every trick in the book. We win at the panels, we win at the WTO and the Americans go back and change their trade laws so that they can win again.

I think we should hang tough. I hope we can have a negotiated solution that will provide free and unfettered trade in softwood lumber with the United States, but when we read about some of the things Americans are looking at, it sounds very complicated and quite unruly. They are talking about a sliding scale lumber export tax. They are talking about benchmark timber pricing. They are talking about a move to more auctioned timber. They are talking about a commission or some working group to oversee all of this.

I hope we can get there. Maybe we will. Maybe the Prime Minister today in Washington with President Bush can seal a deal that will give us this kind of unfettered and free access for softwood lumber. I have been involved peripherally and more directly with the countervailing duties issues since the mid-1980s. An interesting aspect of it is that when we have to respond on the countervailing duty issue to the Americans, we cannot really attack or question their system of pricing. I think if we could, we would have some serious questions.

For example, there is ample evidence that the U.S. forest service is selling timber to licensees, to forest companies, at less than cost. Also, they talk about the elegance and the beauty of the market in auctioning timber, but there have been times in the United States where the U.S. president has let companies off the hook when they have auctioned timber at an unrealistic, speculative price when it is clearly not economical to log the stand or the area at that price. They just say “sorry, you bid it up too high, you really don't have to honour that price”. This has happened, so how can we say we have an auction market when bidders are let off the hook? This has happened and I am sure it will happen again.

We know that in the United States, especially in the states of Washington and Oregon, there are huge demands for timber. The supply is being encroached on by various urban sprawl and environmental issues. We had the famous spotted owl in Washington state and Oregon. There, because of the need to protect habitat, acre upon acre and mile upon mile of potential commercial timber land were taken out of production. There are supply constraints in the United States.

We have supply constraints as well, but we are a bigger country and we have more timber. In fact, we have the most productive and most efficient mills in North America. I remember that when I lived in British Columbia, people were sent up from the United States to Lakeland Mills in Prince George, one of the most automated mills in the world. The Americans would marvel at it. It had huge production and huge efficiencies. That is one of the other reasons why we are able to compete so effectively.

We all know these countervailing duty actions have absolutely nothing to do with subsidies or dumping. They have to do with our market share.

Every single time Canadian producers exceed 30% of the market share in the United States, the U.S. producers, who have a huge lobby and are connected with all sorts of powerful senators, congressmen and women, come forward and demand countervailing duties because they cannot compete with our producers. They use every trick in the book to fight us and even try to change their trade laws. This is patently unjust and we need to fight this with all our tenacity.

I heard the Minister for International Trade say in the House yesterday that there will be a negotiated solution only if and when we have guaranteed unfettered and free access in softwood lumber into the U.S. market. He was absolutely categorical on that point. I and my colleagues on this side of the House, and perhaps all my colleagues in the House, are with him 100%.

Having worked in the forest industry, guess what would happen if one were to go down to Tennessee or Mississippi and talk about putting in an OSB mill, an MDF plant, a sawmill or a stud mill? The governor and about five people would escort us around Mississippi and tell us what they would do for us, and they would do a lot of things. They would give us low cost energy, sales tax abatements, cheap industrial land and property tax concessions. They might even give us some other tax holidays.

Unfortunately, the way the rules are stacked under countervail duties, we cannot attack their system. We can only respond and defend our own system. That is what bullies do. They define the rules and we have to respond. They tell us that we cannot attack what they do but that we have to go and defend ourselves. We have stood up to that in the past and we will again. We will not put up with it.

What is at stake is our national sovereignty. Who is going to tell us how to price our timber? The Americans talk about the wonders of the market. I believe in the markets. They do fail from time to time and that is why governments have to be there. If the market is so good and if the pricing of their timber is so sound, how can they explain NASDAQ? I am not sure that market worked that well. We know pricing on NASDAQ was based on totally fictitious profits or totally fictitious forecasts.

There are times when the market does fail and there are times when auctioning timber is not a bad idea but is it the only solution? I doubt it. The problem we have with the Americans is that they are telling us to go to full auction or that maybe 60% would be sufficient, in other words, they want us to be like them. We are only at about 14% or 15%. We have a totally different tenure system and a totally different forest policy regime. The Americans have a lot of arrogance telling us that if we do it their way they will not charge us any tariffs.

We have to draw a line in the sand and we have done so. It would be great if we could negotiate something. If we could have unfettered access to that market with no strings attached or with strings that we could live with, that would be very positive. Going through this year after year is sickening. It puts many jobs and many mills at risk. We need to find another solution.

If we fight this at the WTO through NAFTA and cannot achieve a negotiated solution, then we need to be prepared to help our industry. The best vehicle for that would be through the Export Development Corporation because the companies will need to put up bonds to meet the tariffs and some of them will not be able to deal with that.

There are tough times ahead. I hope we have successful negotiations. Let us not ever give up on free and unfettered access to the U.S. market for softwood lumber.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make reference to one of the final points the member for Etobicoke North just made. I appreciate his speech and his reference to some backstop provisions should negotiations fail.

The member also talked about the consideration for bonding in terms of tariff requirements. I want to make it clear that those requirements, after May when they would be implemented in the absence of an agreement, would actually be cash requirements not a bonding requirement.

Is the member aware of anything that Export Development Canada is planning to do or is initiating in the way of backdrop studies or anything else to further its ability to respond quickly on that issue, because everything that has been done up until now has been non-fruitful?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the EDC currently has some applications before it. I guess it is a matter of cashflow management and what programs EDC has or could custom make to deal with this issue. I will certainly be inquiring further as to what EDC is doing, although I believe it has responded already to some extent.

This is an important area and I for one will be taking it up with EDC. If EDC needs more capacity in terms of its mandate perhaps the government should look at that as well. However, we really need to do whatever we can to help these companies if we are left in a situation where we have to fight this through to the WTO. Some of these companies and jobs will be jeopardy.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one principle in which I believe and that is that one must be convinced one's self before one can convince anyone else.

I would like to remind the member who just spoke that, prior to 1993, the Liberals were in favour of ending the Free Trade Agreement—“scrapping” it, as they put it. The problem has gone on for a year now.

I am thrilled to hear the member talk about it today, but I wonder why he is doing so. Is it because the Ontario members were less concerned about this, given that it may not have been as important, or that it did not have as great an impact as in British Columbia or Quebec, where 25% of the production takes place?

Will he tell me why they took so long and why their resolve to convince the United States to do something is so weak?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of the arguments being weak. It is a matter of the Americans not listening or not being prepared to listen.

If we look at the free trade agreement, the Liberal Party has stood traditionally for free trade. I think history will judge whether the free trade agreement and the NAFTA were the right deals, but if we look at the volume of our exports to the United States, it has increased enormously under the NAFTA. In fact our exports of softwood lumber and other forest products have increased under the NAFTA.

I will not stand in the House and suggest that everything is perfect under NAFTA. There are some issues we need to examine, such as the fact that we have become so dependent on the U.S. market. Perhaps we should be looking to diversify to outside the United States.

In terms of the results of the free trade agreement, it has generally worked very well. More needs to be done but the results have generally been positive for Canada. The problem is that the Americans have become totally irrational and have become bullies on certain trade disputes, and certainly softwood lumber is one of them.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I will be sharing my time with the member for Jonquière, in whose riding also a number of businesses are affected by the softwood lumber issue.

First, I would like to congratulate the member for Vancouver Island North for his motion, as it appears to be a heartfelt appeal.

Some people believed that the Government of Canada wanted free trade in softwood lumber. Today, after everything that has happened, not only from the standpoint of businesses, who have lost profits, but even more so in terms of jobs that have been cut in our regional lumber industries, in my riding in particular, we have a picture of what is happening in the lumber industry in Canada.

For example, the multinational corporation Bowater has facilities in my riding. There are also privately owned producers, such as the Richard Pelletier et Fils sawmill, Denis Lebel inc, a large company, Bégin et Bégin inc., another sawmill, and Le Groupe G.D.S. These are groups that are involved not only on the U.S. market, but also on the Canadian market, because the conflict with the United States also has an impact on the Canadian market.

I think that the wording of the motion has been very well drafted, in the sense that is does not try to blame the government for what has been done up to this point, but it seeks to reassure the House of Commons that the Prime Minister, in dealing with what I will call “the American elephant”, when he or the Minister of International Trade meets with U.S. President Bush, will not agree to any unacceptable concessions.

If, in the coming weeks, we were forced to accept another compromise, such as the one that was reached last time in 1996 and lasted for five years, I think that everyone would feel ripped off. This is what is contained in the motion, that agreements must not run counter to the free trade agreements by not granting free and unfettered access to the U.S. market. The motion basically stipulates that the will expressed in this House by all parties be carried out in practice. However, this has yet to happen. And it is very dangerous that this has yet to happen.

Why? Because at this time the federal government is showing signs that is quite possible that it will accept a compromise. If ever free trade is not included in this compromise, if we again have to deal with something that will have to be renegotiated in five years, we will have really missed the boat. We will not have responded to what people have been calling for.

I remember the tour of my riding I made last fall with the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. We visited some sawmills, where the workers told us, “The position that is currently being defended is the right one. The Americans have to give in. There has to be access to free trade”. We explained our position to them and informed them as well that there is a sizeable lobby in the United States that supported our position in favour of free trade. We felt we had people's support on this.

If, however, next summer we go back to our ridings and an agreement has suddenly been reached, one in which the workers feel they have been had, one that has caused them to lose weeks of work and has gained them nothing in the end, and we could just as easily have given in three years ago, then this will not be acceptable. The proposal we are looking at today addresses this.

It is necessary for the Canadian government to reach a conclusion that will lead to a return to free trade. If this is not one condition of the agreement, I feel that our commitments will not have been met.

I remember that, at my request, a spokesperson for a pro-free trade council, the Conseil pour le libre-échange pour le bois d'oeuvre, Carl Grenier, came to meet with the promoters at Rivière-du-Loup. There was an exchange of views on the entire matter, as well as a debate on the small private sawmills, as opposed to the major operations in this area. Obviously, the bigger operations may have broad enough shoulders to withstand this and get through the crisis, if ever a decision by the appropriate legal bodies on the free trade agreements is required. It is a lot harder for the little sawmills to survive.

I was very pleased to hear the hon. member opposite refer just now to an assistance program. We would indeed have to ensure that the negotiations have not put us in a lesser position, but rather come up with something that will allow a return to free trade. If ever the Americans do not want to go that far, there must have been provision made for assisting our businesses and our workers.

In fact, solidarity cuts two ways. In the Lower St. Lawrence, where my riding is located, one in four unemployed workers, 25%, are reaching the end of their EI benefits.

The softwood lumber situation has meant that workers went on employment insurance earlier in the fall. They accepted that. They will work later in the spring and they have accepted that too. However, there are people who will be without any money coming in for four, five, six or eight weeks. These are not principles. This is not a war between Canada and the United States. It is the real life situation workers are facing.

We in the Bloc Quebecois suggested that the number of benefit weeks be extended for these people. I think that solutions must be found so that workers can get through this period and continue to support a free trade position. Ultimately, what matters the most with these free trade agreements is that people see that there are dispute settlement mechanisms allowing a smaller country to prevail over a larger one.

Before there ever was any free trade agreement, the United States would not even have bothered about our reaction; they would have imposed their duties and we would have had to live with them.

Solutions are within our reach. This is the final decision. We know that we are right. We know that we can win the legal battle. Canada must not decide to make unacceptable concessions. It must put its money where its mouth is. When the Minister for International Trade says something, it has to translate into action. If this decision is not made, nobody is going to want to wage this battle again in three, four or five years. We will have been had by the government and nobody will be happy.

On another note, I want to add that Quebec is realizing what would have happened if it had been sovereign during the last round of negotiations on this issue. The Americans recognized that Quebec had almost no countervailing duties. Its system was working and most of the problems were due to the situation in British Columbia.

A compromise was accepted by Canada as a whole, with the exception of the Maritimes, which were not affected. Quebec therefore lived with this agreement for five years. If there had been a sovereign state back then, it could have argued with the Americans that Quebec should not have to accept such measures, because we were not doing anything wrong.

We are aware that the federal government and the provinces have been playing fairly with the Americans under the current system. However, I believe that a sovereign Quebec would have had the opportunity to extricate itself from this quagmire much sooner, thereby avoiding the situation that we have had to endure for seven or eight years.

I feel that it is important that today's vote on this motion be virtually unanimous. I hope that after all of the speeches have been given, we will focus on what is important and say with one voice that the House of Commons believes that an acceptable agreement is one that leads to free trade, an agreement that does not contain compromises that will prevent us from having free trade in softwood lumber.

We want to send a strong message to both the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States, to let them know that for people from here, for our constituents, it is important that we have access to free trade and that our lumber can be sold on the free U.S. market. We know that we can be incredibly competitive; we are capable of selling on the U.S. market. We are capable of ensuring that houses in the U.S. are built at lower costs. However, in order for this to happen, we cannot give in right when we are in the process of winning this battle.

I hope that this is the message the Prime Minister will give to President Bush so that we will not be left with a bitter taste in our mouths and the feeling that all of our efforts were in vain. I hope this will translate into a vote in the House that will make the message very clear.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

I agree with the hon. member that we must help those companies that are facing challenges in the softwood lumber industry.

Does the hon. member think that there is a risk that, if the Export Development Corporation helped these companies, the Americans would sue? They might argue that this is a subsidy. Is there a risk that this could happen?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He can be proud of his French, because he has made good progress.

It is important to tell the Americans that we will not be bullied, to tell them “If some of our companies are penalized because you do not accept a return to free trade, we will help them”.

As we are getting closer to the deadline for the final decisions, we are in a strong negotiating position. Our main problem is to make it through the current period. I am well aware that many sawmills are having a very difficult time. People are asking for an interim agreement to be able to continue to survive economically and create jobs, as they usually do. But we must send a clear message to the Americans that we will not give in.

We will have massive support for our people, our businesses and our workers. This, I think, is something that the current government did not promote enough. It was mentioned that there would be programs to help businesses, but we have yet to hear about programs to help workers. Currently, the government is helping them collect employment insurance benefits as quickly as possible, but this is not the kind of help that they want.

What I am looking for is the kind of help that will enable these people to have an income to bridge between jobs, when they are unemployed as a result of a war of strategy between Canada and the United States. They need to be protected.

Could the Americans retaliate, as my colleague has suggested? It is possible. We will not, however, win the battle by bowing to the Americans; what we need to do instead is to show clearly that we feel we are right and that, if they do not agree to a return to free trade, they will have to pay the price some other way. We do not have to bear the brunt of it.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his call for unanimous support for the motion. It is the right message to be sending.

I want to comment on the part of his talk about government support, a government backstop. The obvious question which comes to mind was asked by the hon. member for Etobicoke North. Will this not be attacked as a subsidy by the U.S.?

The reality is that if the program is set up in a fashion that has already been quite detailed in its proposal to the government, this backstop would be in the way of a government guarantee of loans from commercial lending institutions. The actual amount of any subsidy that could be configured into that would be so marginal it would not really be worth pursuing.

Besides that, the U.S. is prepared to play hardball on this issue. Why would we not play some hardball as well? Maybe they would just want to use the WTO and that supports the whole thing.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in connection with assistance to businesses, this must indeed be approached correctly and rationally by the Government of Canada, to develop the mechanisms that are the least likely to be challenged.

I do, however, believe that it is up to this parliament and the Canadian government to say that we want a return to free trade. We are prepared to examine some transitional phases if need be, but we will not under any circumstances accept an agreement that obliges us to go through the same kind of debate in four, five or six years.

This is why we are calling for unanimity on this motion. I feel it is important to repeat that a very clear message must be sent.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion by my colleague from the Canadian Alliance, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. I congratulate him on his motion, because it makes a lot of sense.

Today, as the Prime Minister is meeting with President George Bush, we must make it clear to the Prime Minister that all parliamentarians in this House are saying the same thing and share the same view on this issue. We are saying that the softwood lumber issue must be settled.

As the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques said, parliamentarians must give their unanimous support to this motion. It is important and urgent that members from all parties in the House who will address this motion today stress the importance of settling this issue, for the future of Canada and also the future of our regions.

I am the Bloc Quebecois critic on regional development. I want to tell people from all regions of Quebec who are affected by this situation that the Bloc Quebecois has a very firm position on the softwood lumber issue. We have always been in favour of a complete return to free trade for softwood lumber, as set out in NAFTA.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the continuing uncertainty regarding the Canadian position in the negotiations is adversely affecting these negotiations. In fact, the Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to go ahead with the support plan announced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade.

The Bloc Quebecois is again asking that the employment insurance benefit period be extended by an additional 10 weeks. As we know, most of the workers affected by this issue, whether they work in the bush or in plants, are seasonal workers.

This dispute with the United States has caused huge job losses in Quebec and in all the regions faced with this problem. We are asking for a 10 week extension, so that these workers do not wind up in the gap twice. We are talking about the spring gap. This is the result of the restrictions imposed by the employment insurance reform. Under this reform, the number of weeks that people have to work to qualify for employment insurance has been increased, while the number of weeks during which they can collect benefits has been reduced. It is important that the government put this position on the table.

In Quebec, we have 250 plants creating jobs in this industry. Over 35,000 jobs in plants and in the bush are attributable to softwood lumber; 250 municipalities in Quebec are developing around the wood processing industry. It accounts for 100% of manufacturing jobs in 135 cities and towns. Softwood lumber brings $4 billion to the regional economy. Quebec is the second largest producer of softwood lumber in Canada and is responsible for 25% of Canadian production. Forests cover 446,000 square miles in Quebec. Softwood lumber production in Quebec in 2000 was 17,077,000 board feet.

In Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean, where my riding is located, 6,300 jobs have been created in the bush and in plants. The present dispute leaves these 6,300 jobs hanging in the balance. According to the Association des manufacturiers de bois d'oeuvre de sciage du Québec, 6,800 workers have lost their jobs since the dispute first began. There are approximately 40,000 jobs associated with this industry in Quebec.

I think that this opposition day is extremely important. I do not know whether the Prime Minister of Canada will be more convincing in his meeting with the President of the U.S. today because of our arguments. But I have not found him very convincing recently.

I am not questioning the position they took and what they did, but the Americans are going to have to understand that they cannot, after five years have gone by, revisit clauses on which entire sectors of our natural resources depend, which affect our plants and our workers. We cannot allow jobs in this country to be jeopardized.

The U.S. government, the global “elephant”, must understand that it has to come to the table and negotiate a return to free trade. In my opinion, it is imperative that this dispute be resolved.

Early this week, Statistics Canada released figures showing that more and more Canadians are moving to cities. As we can see, all the jobs associated directly or indirectly with plants and sawmills are rural jobs. This is one more argument in favour of keeping these jobs in rural communities, so that these communities can grow and so that we can stop the exodus of young people.

As well the ministers of Industry and International Trade will also have to be concerned—as they said during the last campaign—with the distant parts of Quebec. This is one more argument that could be added to the Prime Minister's tool kit. He needs to tell them that it is important, he needs to stand up and, with conviction, tell the Americans “That is enough. What we have on the table needs to be respected”.

In the past, there have been other verdicts by the WTO supporting Canada's position. Let the Prime Minister base his position on this, then. Let the Americans stop their strong arm tactics all over the place. Let them respect the exchanges we want to have with them, so that in future we can all be on a level playing field and can work together in order to make some progress.

I wish to reiterate my position and that of the Bloc Quebecois, and to call upon all members of this House to vote unanimously in favour of the motion of the member for Vancouver Island North in order to throw some more weight behind the Prime Minister of Canada, so that he can make the U.S. president listen to reason. He must not limit his discussions to golf and sports, but must tell him “I have the unanimous support of the members of the House of Commons, and of all stakeholders, and I want you to understand this”. This is what we want to see happen.

This is the position of the people in the regions, particularly those working in this field, the plant workers, the forest workers. They want to work and they do not want to depend on inconsistent arguments that no longer hold water. This concerns the jobs of people in our area and people in all the provinces of Canada. We want to deal with the Americans and we want to provide them with softwood lumber, but it must be done via an exchange like this. We want to move ahead with firm negotiations that will have long term results.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the member for Jonquière for her enthusiastic speech on this issue. I really liked the points she made, particularly her regional perspective.

She comes from a region—and the situation is the same in the lower St. Lawrence, Abitibi and other regions—where not only young people are leaving, but, according to Statistics Canada's reports, they are also moving to major cities in Quebec and elsewhere. This is what is happening at present.

I would like to give her more time so she can explain to me the impact of this on regional finances. In a statement he made yesterday, the Minister of International Commerce seemed to say that, in the end—in the spirit of the second point made by the member—members opposite do not seem to have very strong convictions. The minister responsible says he does not think there is much chance that negotiations will lead to an agreement, following the meeting today between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the U.S.

I would like the member to comment on this kind of opinion and to tell us whether she considers such comments useful, because they seem to mean that we are already admitting defeat.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. Truly, this is harmful to our regions.

Earlier, I referred to statistics. In Quebec regions alone, the softwood lumber industry represents 35,000 direct jobs in plants and in the bush. Thanks to this industry and the jobs it creates, $4 billion is injected into regional economies. This shows how urgent the issue is. This government must take the remote regions of Quebec into consideration, because their survival is at stake.

We talk about the exodus of young people, but sawmills and plants now offer high tech job opportunities. This industry is offering high tech jobs in the regions. However, because of what is going on right now, there are layoffs, and young people are deciding to leave their villages to seek job opportunities in the cities, because they cannot afford to live without income. This is especially true during the so-called spring gap, when they go without any income for several weeks. So, we see that this is part of the mechanism that has to be developed for the benefit of our regions.

Moreover, the International Trade Minister did not look convincing yesterday. Neither did the Prime Minister, who, I thought, showed weakness. He did not show any determination to address and solve the problem. This is why I say that the members of parliament who will rise today will say that they are ready to give their full support to the government, because they want it to deal with the issue and find a solution.

So, I hope that will help the Prime Minister and the International Trade Minister find the energy they lack and finally show their determination to solve the problem.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I just do not know where the hon. member has been during the last day or two. I want to give her a chance to comment. Maybe it is what we call in English a cheap shot.

The Prime Minister is not going to talk about golf and sports with the president of the United States as she seems to think. I can assure the hon. member he is going to talk about some very serious business.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Not this time.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Perhaps the Bloc members could listen to me as I listened attentively to them.

I want the hon. member to comment on the press conference of the Quebec forestry minister yesterday. He congratulated the Government of Canada, the Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister for the outstanding leadership they have shown on this file.

Why is the member being so negative? Why is she being so petty, when in head office the Quebec forestry minister has seized the reality and is being a little more generous in acknowledging the efforts of the minister of trade and the Prime Minister?

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised at the parliamentary secretary's comments. I think that he did not understand. I think that he did not get the interpretation. I never said such a thing. I said that I hope they he will not only talk about golf, fishing and hunting. I hope that he will talk about softwood lumber. I hope that he will say that all parliamentarians from the House of Commons are behind him. I want to provide some wind for his sails. I hope that the parliamentary secretary will listen to what I said and that he will understand.

I want to provide the Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of International Trade with some additional steam. Sometimes when we get close to the finish line, we run out of steam. I would like to give them that final push so that they can cross the finish line and settle this. I hope that the parliamentary secretary will do the same thing.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak on a very serious issue affecting Canada. This is certainly one of those issues that affects Canada nationwide. Every single province, to some degree, is active in the forestry industry and is feeling the effects of what I consider to be U.S. bullying tactics on the softwood lumber issue.

I think the disappointment that a number of members of parliament and certainly a number of Canadians have felt is that the softwood lumber agreements that were previously in place expired before we ever saw any real action to get the U.S. moving in a way to allow open access. From that perspective, there has been a lot of disappointment.

However, from the perspective of Canada's position I must say I actually have been pleased that we stood firm and I am pleased that the minister says he is standing firm. Because what we so often find is Canada buckling under to the U.S., there is concern that in these last minutes and last hours of the fight, and actually I think it will be the last months of the fight, Canada will buckle under. I was extremely pleased to see the forestry ministers from the provinces put out a firm position yesterday, saying to the minister “Don't buckle under. We must take the U.S. head on”.

The forestry industry companies and those workers are the frontline soldiers in this war against the U.S. and its attack on us regarding trade agreements. Often as New Democrats we are accused of not being in favour of trade and we are slammed for wanting to have all these protectionist measures in place. That has never been the case. What we want is fair trade that recognizes all partners need to have fair and reasonable rules in place so countries can reflect what they value. We are not opposed to fair trade. We are not opposed to there being an even keel on forestry products being sold between Canada and the U.S.

It is not just New Democrats who feel that the trade agreements have not ensured that Canadians benefit from these trade agreements. A proposal was sent to the government, I believe, from the trade lumber coalition. It stated about the forest industry businesses that:

The businesses that will fail will be the victims of inadequate trade agreements negotiated by the Government of Canada with the United States, leaving companies exposed to unfair protectionism and crippling financial harassment. They need, and merit, government assistance and the government needs to provide assistance as part of a sound and sober international trade policy.

The position that we as a country and right now the industry are taking, that of standing firm against the U.S., is the right position, but we have to make sure that those frontline troops, the forestry industry and those workers, have the tools to survive this war with the U.S. The government is failing to do that. The changes to the EI system mean that a number of workers are not able to qualify for EI. There is no additional possibility of dollars going to the forestry workers, but there could be the possibility if the government would see fit to do it by allowing some flexibility in programs to ensure that more dollars could be there to assist forestry workers. The government is not doing that.

There needs to be a system. One was devised in regard to the Export Development Corporation. The proposal was put to the government and stated:

The Government of Canada could extend its EDC loan guarantee facility, presently available for companies to post bonds, to guarantees for commercial bank loans so that companies will be able to post cash deposits should they become required in May 2002. It should be able to fashion the program so that the government assumes some risk, but would not have to make financial contributions to companies. The assistance could have no adverse effect on the current litigation, and might not create any subsidies exposure in the future. Instead, hundreds of companies and thousands of jobs could be saved while Canada stands down unfair U.S. trade practices.

What we are dealing with now is an industry that is standing firm and is willing to take its fight to the U.S. The government needs to support that industry and those workers and it is not doing that. On top of the delay in getting on with the issue of dealing with softwood lumber in the initial days of this agreement coming to an end, the government is now lagging behind in putting in place programs that will support the industry. The government cannot do that. We have to support this industry.

I firmly believe that what happens within the softwood lumber industry and our stand with the U.S. will have an impact on trade deals in the future, whether that be in the steel industry, the dairy industry or the potato industry in P.E.I. What happens here will set the pace for what is to happen in the future. If we can show that we are a strong, united country in doing this and that the government will support its industries, we will have a chance against the bullying tactics of the U.S.

We have a very strong case. It is very strong when an entire industry from one end of the nation to the other agrees that we are doing the right thing, that we are not doing anything wrong and we will win this, but that we need some help along the way. If they are starved out, if those companies are allowed to go bankrupt, we will have accomplished nothing. We will have destroyed our industry. We will have made it open season for foreign companies to come in and buy it up later to do whatever. It is crucial at this time that the government support the industry and put in place programs to do that immediately.

I will not go on much longer because I know others want to speak on this topic and it is crucially important that everyone gets that opportunity. I want to take this time to thank my colleague from the Canadian Alliance. We have had discussions before on the softwood lumber issue. We know the seriousness of the issue and we know that we have to get some action from the government for those support programs. I want to thank him for pushing for this to be an opposition day dealing with the softwood lumber industry. I hope we will see support for the motion.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. This issue of softwood lumber is very important for all Canadians, particularly people like me who come from British Columbia where it is so absolutely important to the survival of the province. Many communities in B.C. depend on softwood lumber.

The hon. member talked about the bullying tactics of the Americans. I tend to agree. I have seen it happen on two fronts since I have been in the House, on fisheries as well as on softwood lumber. We have had this unfortunate situation in dealing with these two files with the Americans. At the same time, Americans are our neighbours. I think we need to co-operate and have a co-operative environment on various issues. We need to have free trade with them. We can always create a synergy of our resources and approaches with our neighbours.

First, I would like to know how the hon. member would balance having a co-operative approach, because the softwood lumber issue will be affecting various other industries and many other items on the agenda of co-operation and friendship between our two countries.

Second, how does the member see this hardball approach the Americans are taking with us, such as they did on Bill C-55 in the past, which affected the steel, plastics, textiles and agricultural industries and so on? What impact on other industries and free trade with America does she see as a result of this file not being dealt with properly?

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated previously I think it will have an impact if we do not stand firm when we know we are right and in a strong position. What would that say to our neighbours to the south?

We are good neighbours of the U.S. Nobody could ever deny that there has not been an excellent working relationship between Canada and the U.S. and there should be an excellent working relationship. However, being good neighbours does not mean becoming the doormat for those neighbours. We are not here for them to wipe their feet on any time they want their way, or when they do not want to treat us the same way they want to be treated if they think something will benefit Canada more.

I would like to suggest as well that we are being good neighbours to the numbers of people and organizations in the U.S. that want to see Canada succeed. They are the lobbying groups in the U.S. who support Canada's position because it allows them to benefit from prices coming out of Canada so that people in the U.S. can afford to build homes and do different things they would not be able to do if they did not have the products coming in from Canada at a reasonable price.

We are not talking about a low cost dumping price, because I think Canada is on the right track and is not doing that, and that is supported. We can be good neighbours, not just to those companies in the U.S. that are lobbying the government, not just to the lumber companies trying to get big bucks for their lumber in the U.S. and wanting to increase their prices. As well we are being good neighbours to the literally hundreds of thousands of Americans who want access to our products at a reasonable price.

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that our free trade agreement with the United States and all aspects of our trade with the Americans should be done on principle. In any case where an unfair trade practice is undertaken by one of our trading partners, we should, within the rules and confines of our trade agreements, vigorously defend our position and our right to have free, open access to the markets of our trading partners.

However, my point here is that the NDP has taken a stand against free trade. Its members always spout this anti-American rhetoric despite the fact that Americans are our largest trading partner, our friends, our neighbours, our allies, and in fact even increasingly our relatives. Saskatchewan is good testimony to this because we in Saskatchewan have had a socialist government, in perpetuity it seems, and the NDP is responsible for the fact that we just keep exporting people from Saskatchewan, a lot to Alberta but many to the United States. Increasingly my constituents are telling me that their sons and daughters are going to the U.S. because of the socialist, backward mentality of the NDP in Saskatchewan.

I want to read into the record a brief statement made by Tony Blair, the leader of the social democratic party in Great Britain. When he addressed the House last year, he said:

It is time that we started to argue vigorously and clearly as to why free trade is right. It is the key to jobs for our people, to prosperity and actually to development in the poorest parts of the world. The case against it is misguided and, worse, unfair. However sincere the protests, they cannot be allowed to stand in the way of rational argument. We should start to make this case with force and determination.

I agree with the prime minister of Great Britain that NDP members have their heads screwed on backwards, and we should, as vigorously and intentionally and strongly as he did, make the case against their misguided rhetoric.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, there was a rule when I was growing up that if one does not have anything good to say one should not say it. I will go beyond acknowledging there are people in our country, even members of parliament, who are so blinded and naive and ignorant of reality that they will make statements that just are not accurate.

As I indicated in my comments, the NDP has never been opposed to trade. We have never said there should not be free trade or there should not be any trade. What we say is that there has to be fair trade. There have to be rules in place that are beneficial to both sides or to all the partners involved.

When rules are put in place that only benefit one side, it defeats the purpose. From the early days, from the beginning of the New Democratic Party and the CCF, we have strongly supported trade with our neighbours. We have strongly supported it and my hon. colleague should have been listening in his history classes in little Unity, Saskatchewan. I know that they were being taught about what was really happening in Canada within political parties because one of my assistants went to the same school, I believe. Somebody was listening, but it was not my colleague from the PC/DR coalition. What is surprising is that they have not found a chair even further outside of the House to put him in and then we would not have to listen to his ignorant comments.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I would caution hon. members on the use of certain language in the House of Commons.

As well, if we want to get everybody in we will have to keep it brief.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the NDP member that we could have a little better decorum from the member she referred to, but I had trouble keeping a straight face when she said that if one cannot say anything good one should not say anything at all. I would encourage her to follow her own advice. Her track record is not that strong.

I want to ask her specifically, is she is aware of the efforts of the Canadian government through our embassy in Washington, through this government directly, through repeated delegations from the House of Commons and through a number of delegations from the Canada-U.S. parliamentary group that we have here on the Hill? Is she aware of these repeated efforts over the past two years to educate the American public about the unfair costs they pay for softwood lumber for protectionism in the United States? Is she aware of our efforts to educate American congressmen and senators? There has been a concerted, determined and pretty successful effort carried out by the government.

Given her earlier comments, I did not think that she was aware of this and I would like her to comment.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am aware that a number of things have been happening to try to get the representatives of the U.S. government to see exactly what has happened to the U.S. people. I mentioned the number of organizations in the U.S. that have been lobbying to see the support of Canada's position, because it is the right position. I am certainly aware of that.

As I indicated, I am pleased that the minister is standing firm and is saying that he will stand firm. This is supported by the provinces nationwide.

Even though we will stand firm with the U.S., we have to make sure that we will support our industry as we take this fight. We have to make sure those frontline troops in the battle on the forestry and softwood lumber issue are able to survive the fight with the U.S. That is what is crucially important right now.