Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I want to congratulate the Bloc Quebecois for bringing this issue forward.
I will be sharing my time this afternoon with the member for Saanich--Gulf Islands.
As the hon. member who just finished speaking said, this is literally a life and death issue for thousands of Canadians who live and work in rural areas and in the forest industry right across Canada.
I do not know if the Prime Minister has been out to talk to the Canadians, whose jobs are in jeopardy, on this issue, but I have been and my colleagues have been. This is a real threat, both to a major Canadian industry and to men, women and families who count on the government to protect their interests when they are unfairly attacked.
Many of the workers in this industry have been laid off already. Many of our companies, small and large, simply cannot stay in business with their money locked up in American hands. Now they have the additional burden of dumping duties that are both severe and unjustified.
Two months ago, I went directly from meetings with British Columbia lumber producers to take Canada's case to Washington myself. I told Vice-President Cheney that this dispute, serious in itself, also risks undermining support in Canada for the very principle of free trade. I committed my colleagues to supporting a reasonable agreement either in Canada or at the World Trade Organization.
However, two months later, the Government of Canada has not moved this issue forward at all. As on so many cases, the only imaginative leadership has come from some of the provincial governments.
The Government of Canada cannot claim to be surprised. It knew the dumping decision was coming. It knew the former agreement was expiring and yet it sat back and let small Canadian sawmills and ordinary Canadian workers suffer because Ottawa was asleep at the switch.
The United States is the main customer of Canada's softwood lumber industry. We ship $11 billion of softwood lumber to the U.S. each year.
The latest blow to the industry was the imposition of dumping duties of 12.57%. It may be that the Prime Minister knows he lost credibility with the White House when he was so slow to respond to the terrorist crisis, but the answer to that is to build that credibility up again.
The Prime Minister has to act, not sulk. He has to rebuild Canada's relations with the United States, not force the thousands of Canadians who work in the softwood lumber industry to suffer because of his indifference.
There are two important points to raise with regard to free trade. The first one is that softwood lumber is not directly covered by the free trade agreement.
However, when the softwood lumber issue was examined in the context of the free trade agreement, Canada won. We also win most times before the World Trade Organization, even though these processes are extremely complex.
The problem today is that the United States has managed to circumvent the spirit of the free trade agreement. This means that we must strengthen the agreement and not let it go, because such free trade agreements are essential to the growth of the Canadian economy.
I would like to raise a second point and indicate that the problem is the result of an attack from American interest groups and not American consumers. On the contrary, American consumers support our position since we offer them a product at a much lower cost.
The terrible thing is that the government could have prevented this problem, had it been effective in mobilizing American consumers, our supporters, to counter the efforts of lobbyists employed by the American softwood lumber industry.
The Canadian government has simply failed in that regard. We have a passive government that does not defend the interests of the average Canadian. This government is drifting at a time when we need a strong and active government that is not afraid to vigorously defend Canada's interests against the United States.
Of course the issue is complicated. Provincial jurisdictions are involved. The interests of the industry vary from region to region. It makes sense to seek a united front on this issue but the national government cannot simply sit back on issues of this kind. One of the reasons we have a federal government is to take the lead in solving complicated issues. On this question, as on so many other questions, there has been no one home at 24 Sussex Drive.
Three fundamental failures by the government stand out. The first is a failure to foresee. The government knew the five year softwood lumber agreement was due to expire at the end of March this year and that we would be subject again to countervail, yet it took no effective steps to stop a countervail or to protect Canadian interests. It was as ill-prepared for this action as it was for the terrorist attacks, yet in this case it had five years warning.
The second is a failure to bring together the Canadian industry in a common position that Canada could carry aggressively to the United States. Instead, the minister preferred to rely on persuading Robert Zoellick, the American trade representative, who everyone knew would be of scant help to Canada because his major priority was to get, what used to be called, fast track authority on other larger trade issues from the very congressmen who support the softwood attack on Canada.
The third is the Prime Minister's personal failure to solve the dispute at the very highest level. The Prime Minister claims he has raised this with President Bush. He claims he is on the phone all the time. He should get off the phone and get on the road. The Prime Minister should take Canada's case directly to the president of the United States. That is where this issue will be solved.
As long as the Prime Minister of Canada sits back and lets people in the softwood lumber industry across Canada lose their jobs and lose their hopes then this issue will not be solved.