Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech, and I would like to tell him about a number of experiences, which show that caution must be exercized in that area.
Three years ago, Canada entered into an agreement on lumber exports with the United States. That agreement was reached at the expense of Quebec and of the four provinces that were forced to take part in the arrangement.
Today, both Canada's free trade lumber board, headed by Tembec's CEO, and Quebec's Association des industriels du bois de sciage want to go back to free trade, because it is an interesting option and they would rather get out of the existing agreement.
I hope the Canadian government will choose that option and do so within a few weeks, so as to send a clear message to our industries with respect to future investments.
As for the NDP motion, I do not think that not being present at the table is the right approach. We understood a long time ago that Quebec must be present at international tables to effectively ensure that what is negotiated by the Canadian government does not adversely affect Quebec, since Ottawa's interests often differ from those of Quebec and other regions of the country.
My question is this: Does the hon. member remember that the free trade agreement, which is very good for all of Canada, was achieved because Quebec's sovereignists supported the idea? Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry displayed true leadership, with the result that Quebec is now less and less dependent on the Canadian political space and gradually finding its niche in the North American economic environment.
The federal government should be open to ideas such as the pan-American dollar, which would help stabilize the economy and give an even greater push to our exports.