Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester has been quite persistent on this file, as have all my Liberal colleagues from Atlantic Canada. We have heard no shortage of concern about the maritime accord.
The member raised questions about the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement. He specifically mentioned the letter from the four Atlantic premiers concerning the codification of the provisions of the maritime lumber accord.
As the member well knows, we are now in a situation which would be quite acceptable to everybody if the Americans would accept it. We now have free trade under the NAFTA rules for not only Atlantic Canada but for all regions. That is what we want for all Canadian regions.
The exchange of letters in 1996 confirmed the procedures for U.S. recognition that should a countervailing duty investigation be initiated during the five year period the maritimes would be considered to have not subsidized. The U.S. action does not target any program in Atlantic Canada. We think that is great.
We will continue, as the member asked, to advocate free access for lumber originating in the Atlantic provinces as well as free access for all provinces as provided by NAFTA.
As the member knows, the Minister for International Trade is a minister for all Canadians. He represents all Canadians on this file and he has to take into account their concerns. When he met on February 26 with U.S. trade representative Zoellick the matter was raised by the minister. It was one of the first topics he raised and the Prime Minister raised it with President Bush. It has had a very high level of attention by our government.
The minister put forward the idea of envoys. At first there was no great enthusiasm from the American side. Now it seems there is more interest in it. That would be very important. There would be wide consultation with the respective governments, including all provincial governments. We will pursue the matter of free trade for the Atlantic provinces but we want it for all Canadians.