Mr. Chairman, I definitely do not want to criticize the Atlantic provinces for having done their homework, so as to be excluded from procedures undertaken by the U.S.
In my opinion, what the Americans should be criticized for is the main reason that made them go after Quebec and British Columbia in particular, namely the fact that our forests are managed differently than U.S. forests and that, in their eyes, public management, which incidentally gives excellent results, is tantamount to subsidies.
I was able to see this for myself when we met U.S. officials in Washington. In their mind, it was a simple equation: private forests means subsidies. To which Canada and Quebec reply that managing our forests differently does not mean that we do so in an unfair way. I think we must be clear on this.
As for the anti-dumping issue, we know that it is businesses themselves that are directly involved. But I think that the federal and provincial governments have a responsibility to support businesses at a political and technical level.
I know that a lot has been done. I met with Tembec officials, among others, who are targeted by this anti-dumping procedure and they told me that they received very substantial technical support from both the Quebec and federal governments. I think that we should continue in that direction.
In my opinion, the whole anti-dumping process is a measure to increase pressure on the Canadian industry. A settlement based on a return to free trade would put an end to all these procedures.
I am not psychic, but I hope this is what will happen, because it is an extremely dangerous and arbitrary process. The investigation is focused on a few companies but the rights will be imposed on the whole industry.
We will have to keep a very close eye on this situation.