Mr. Speaker, let me first address the issue by reminding everyone in House and beyond what the dispute is about.
The dispute is not about subsidies to Canadian industry. It is not about dumping softwood lumber into the United States. It is not about improper or inadequate environmental sustainable logging practices.
The dispute is about protectionism. It is about protectionism in the U.S and about congressional pressure on behalf of a small number of constituencies that support the softwood lumber industry in the United States.
The dispute is not about Canada. It is about the attitude of the United States.
Let us relate that to the end of managed trade just over a year ago. We heard from members opposite that the government was not acting in a planned way to deal with the end of that managed trade. Nothing could be further from the truth. We were unified by province, by the federal government and by industry to say that we did not want to renegotiate managed trade. We wanted free trade. That was our right. The Americans were protectionists and we wanted it to end. We were together.
We did not even have a president with whom to negotiate. Until last January we did not know who it would be, nor was there a U.S. trade representative until well into March. The main point is that we were not going to negotiate a new deal. We were going to demand free trade. We went into that together.
Let us look at some of the complexities and some of the issues that have been raised in order to counter the unfair protectionist subsidies and penalties or countervails and penalties by the United States. Some say that we should link it to energy. We would lose more public and private revenues, at least an equal amount, by linking it to trade as with softwood lumber. We just lose one to gain the other. We must have the two together with free trade.
Some say that we should link it to all trade. Eighty-seven per cent of our trade is dependent on the United States. Who will be hurt? We have huge trade surpluses with the United States. Who will be hurt by trying to have an overall trade war?
Others say that we should link it to Afghanistan. We are not about to deal away our sovereignty and our issues of decisions on our own security for linking to other trade issues.
Some say that we should put in an export tax. That would be fine perhaps in a negotiated settlement where it would be an interim tax and not an admission of just replacing countervails and penalties with a permanent export tax.
Some say that we should give subsidies to industry. We hear it today and we see it in the motion. If the U.S. is willing and anxious to put on 27.2% countervails and penalties without any justification, if we gave direct subsidies to industry without being immensely cautious about how we do it, does anyone think that they would not immediately add those on to the non-subsidies? This is a very complex issue and we need to pull these threads together.
What the government has done over the last year, with provincial, industrial and everyone else's support, although not with the opposition's support, was to go on three fronts. We have been litigating for our rights to free trade, and we will continue to do that. We are expecting, although these are long processes, to get interim rulings even within the next several months around a trade policy that is in our estimation illegal in terms of handing countervails to U.S. industry.
We are also continuing to negotiate, if we can, but we have made it very clear, and industries and provinces were with us, that we would not negotiate a bad deal. We would rather walk away from a negotiated deal than get a bad one.
We have had a policy in this country for the last several years of building a unified position. We need to hang together on that because it is immensely important. It is certainly important for my province of British Columbia, which many colleagues opposite also represent, because it carries the bulk of the impact of these unfair subsidies and penalties.
What else can we can do? Two weeks ago we saw representative Gary Miller from California come out strongly in favour of the American consumer and decry these duties. We have seen editorials in Dallas, Chicago, Detroit and Minneapolis-St. Paul over the last few weeks arguing the Canadian position, the unfairness of the American position and advocating to the American consumer. We have Home Depot and other builders and suppliers asking for our assistance. We need to build that coalition through increased advocacy, and that is what is going on.
We are looking for new markets. Last fall the federal government added $5 million to the $5 million from the government of British Columbia to promote new markets in China. We must look beyond our current partners.
The Minister of Natural Resources was in Mumbai, India last week at a Canadian forest products show to promote our forest products abroad. We must diversify our markets.
Although it has been incredibly criticized by members opposite, the Minister for International Trade is in Spain this week meeting with the European Union, our second largest trading partner in the world, to discuss greater diversification in our trade markets. Forty-five per cent of our GDP in Canada is related to international trade and we need to keep diversifying it. These are all coming together.
Yesterday in question period the Minister of Industry said that communities and employees who have been affected will be looked after. We will come together. We are looking at a broad package and these will come forward over the next few weeks.
Community Futures Development Corporations in 90 rural communities in the four western provinces bring local business people together with initiatives and small revolving repayable loans for diversified industries in those small and medium sized enterprises for value added manufacturing and for broader employee supports.
The Minister of Human Resources Development, although often decried by the other side, is making sure that those services are ready for employees as they need them. We need to make them more efficient and we need to expand them. However those supports are part of this government's policy and we will be rolling out more comprehensive programs in the next few weeks.
We did gain at least some toehold of respect in last week's decision for our free trade position in our litigation policy and our arguments before American officials. The ITC, the International Trade Commission in the U.S., has found only the potential for injury and not actual injury, and $760 million will be returned in bonds and cash deposits to Canadian industry.
This is not the end of the fight. It is only a clear indication that we have not been damaging the American industry to date. They were bogus arguments and we will take those forward to the litigation venues that we are already in. We are also in those venues at WTO and NAFTA. Panels are being established and we are making solid arguments for expedited hearings. If the U.S. has nothing to fear then let us have the decision sooner rather than later.
