Debates of May 28th, 2002

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I think the hon. member for Kootenay--Columbia has raised a point that may or may not entitle him to ask questions.

The Chair is very generous in allowing members to ask questions in the House, as the hon. member for Kootenay--Columbia is well aware, but it begs the question of who gets to answer. Any member can rise on the government side to answer. The Chair has no control over that. He might ask the hon. Minister of Natural Resources some question concerning British Columbia but the Minister of Finance might be the one to stand up and answer, or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, or the Prime Minister, or the Deputy Prime Minister or even the minister of state, the government House leader, who has books in hand and I am sure is ready to argue this point further.

In the circumstances I do not think there is an immediate answer to his question. I am prepared to look at it and come back to the House if necessary. However I am sure that he is not likely to get objections from the Chair if he frames his question and addresses it to someone specific, particularly when someone else gets up to answer which as he knows is commonplace in question period in the House and has been for as long as I can remember.

Board of Internal Economy

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that Mr. Don Boudria of the electoral district of Glengarry--Prescott--Russell has been appointed member of the Board of Internal Economy in place of Mr. Ralph Goodale, member for the electoral district of Wascana.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the proceedings were interrupted by question period, the minister was just coming forth with all the wonderful plans that his government apparently had for the well-being of the country.

I find it rather distressing that he exceeded in volume what he produced in substance. I would like to ask him to simply state what he was trying to say. He was so loud that we could not understand his words.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, I said a number of things. It is unfortunate the hon. member did not hear them.

Let me make it clear. In dealing with the issues of agriculture and softwood lumber the government needs to follow and is following three different processes.

First, we need to understand that the issue of agricultural trade is not simply a bilateral issue with the United States. Agricultural trade exists right around the world. Several countries are heavily involved in it. Several organizations within the global community groups countries together. As we deal with the U.S. farm bill, it is important that we have consultations with all those individuals because the impact is not just on Canada. It is on many nations around the globe. It is as negative on them as it is on us and we need to deal with them.

The second point is that it is important that we have an opportunity to deal with some of the long term issues that are involved in our industries in terms of agriculture, and I mention that one again. The agricultural policy framework is one such initiative to deal with the ongoing issues in agriculture.

To quote from the Speech from the Throne and again from the budget, we must stop dealing on a crisis management perspective and bring some long term stability to the agricultural industry.

That is why last June the federal minister of agriculture reached an agreement with his provincial and territorial counterparts in the Yukon and why they have spent the past year working toward developing that framework. They are making some good progress. Another meeting is scheduled for the end of June where hopefully they will make some additional progress.

The third component is to deal with short term issues. Structures are in place to deal with some of those short term issues. On the softwood lumber side, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, has a number of tools that can be used in that respect. There is a safety net program in terms of the department of agriculture to deal with that. There are the regional development agencies right across the country that deal with community adjustment. There is also existing programming and we are looking at the adequacy of that programming. We are looking at additional measures that we may need to take in response to some of the international issues that are happening.

The key point here, and the point we understand as a government, is that we do not simply react in a major crisis, as the Alliance would suggest we do. We take a co-ordinated and an all encompassing approach to ensure we have a clear strategy to deal with the issues that are being brought forth by the inappropriate actions of the United States, both in terms of agriculture and in terms of softwood lumber.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say to the member opposite that this is not a knee-jerk reaction. We have been asking the government for a long term comprehensive strategy for a long time. In fact we began asking for that years ago when the softwood lumber agreement was in place. We knew it would expire and that the government would need to have a plan, and that it did not have a plan.

As a result, workers are now losing their jobs, many of them in my riding. Would he not agree with me on that point?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we entered into discussions and negotiations as the softwood lumber agreement was coming to a conclusion. We did not do this in isolation. We did it with the provinces and with the industry. One of the things that they made clear to us was that we must work toward a free trade regime and not re-enter into an agreement such as we did five years ago. That was the strategic approach. It was accepted and supported by the provinces and the industry. That is in fact what the government has been doing, continues to do and will do in the future.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those questions and the answers provide me with an excellent opportunity to participate in the debate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to re-emphasize for the House the importance the government accords to agriculture in Canada.

As was just discussed, I need to remind members that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been working non-stop for the past year with his provincial and territorial counterparts to develop the policy that they all agreed to in principle last June in Whitehorse. It is a policy that will take Canada's agriculture sector from the 20th century truly into the 21st century.

As the secretary of state just said, the importance of this agricultural policy framework, as it is called, lies in its ability to galvanize the agriculture sector and to increase its competitiveness and profitability in the long term. It is a strong, integrated policy that focuses on food safety and quality, innovation and environmentally responsible production. Such a policy is this sector's best security for the future. The government recognized this in the December budget when it made a commitment to provide its share of predictable long term funding to support such a policy.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his provincial colleagues continue to make progress toward signing an umbrella agreement on this framework next month.

This new integrated policy is essential for the continued growth of the agriculture sector in Canada as it faces unprecedented challenges. This is not something that can be accomplished piecemeal. No matter how well-meaning, knee-jerk reactions are not the way to go.

Our farmers work in a very complex world environment today. We all know about the U.S. farm bill. We all know about drought, globalization and the increasing consumer concerns and demands. Those are tough challenges but Canadian producers have always turned challenges to their benefit by treating them as opportunities. They have always used ingenuity and innovation to come up with better ways to meet the bottom line. That is how the farmers, not governments, built our agriculture and agrifood sector into a multi-billion dollar business, accounting for 8% of the gross domestic products. It is the largest manufacturing sector in seven out of ten of our provinces and the third largest agrifood exporter in the world.

The agriculture and agrifood sector is a major economic driver in the country. The proposed agriculture policy framework recognizes this and will lead to even greater growth and profitability.

When the nation's agriculture ministers met last June in Whitehorse, they shared a sense of urgency, fully aware that agricultural policy in Canada did not square with the challenges and opportunities that the new millennium held. What united the ministers in Whitehorse was the recognition that new times called for new measures. They left Whitehorse with an agreement in principle on an action plan to help Canada be the best in the world at meeting the demands of the marketplace.

Over the course of the last year the response to their vision has gone from being cautious initially, as one would expect, even skeptical in the first place, to wide acceptance and broad support among the stakeholders. I stress the stakeholders. I am not talking about wide acceptance and support among politicians.

The reason for that development over the year is quite simple. It is because this approach makes sense. It is the logical approach and the sector sees it as the approach that will increase profitability by equipping it for success in the 21st century marketplace driven by the new expectations of consumers and tight global competition.

A year after Whitehorse, agriculture ministers across the country remain committed to the plan and are determined to make it work.

Only three weeks ago they met in Ottawa to confirm the direction of the proposed framework and review the input that came from the first wave of national dialogue with stakeholders. There still remains much work and analysis to be done and they continue to involve stakeholders as they move forward.

As I said earlier, the proposed agricultural policy framework is about turning challenges into opportunities, opportunities to use our Canadian ingenuity and innovation to out work, out think and out perform the competition so that we can be the world leader in food safety, innovation and environmental sustainability and thereby increase profitability in the sector.

Many of the programs and initiatives captured by the framework are already in place. It is no secret that Canada already enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of its food, the superiority of its agricultural research and the respect farmers show for the environment. This is the strong foundation on which we plan to build an even better agricultural sector, a sector that will be first in the world in the eyes of consumers.

The five elements have been identified as keys to the success of the framework: food safety, business risk management, renewal, innovation and the environment. Instead of those elements being dealt with piecemeal they will be integrated to be most effective.

The proposed policy would allow practices, procedures and processes to be modified over a transition period, but it is clear that the sooner the framework is fully operational, the sooner the sector and all Canadians can reap the rewards.

Under the policy framework, farmers would have access to the tools they need to meet the challenges in food safety and the environment. The renewal element would offer a range of programming to help farmers acquire new skills, grow their businesses and seek new opportunities.

Science would be expanded beyond traditional productivity applications to deal with emerging challenges and opportunities in a bio-economy. Long term integrated risk management programming would provide a stable, predictable planning environment.

I can assure the House that the government will not leave farmers fending for themselves. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food is looking at all the options available to help producers move forward with greater security.

Other countries are well on their way to drafting their own responses to the new realities of this new century. Canada cannot afford to wait at the starting gate in the race for global business. That gate is open and we have to get a move on right now. With the agricultural policy framework we have the means to get out in front and stay out in front. It is the agricultural sector's best opportunity ever for long term success and profitability.

I do not believe this is the time for short, rapid, knee-jerk solutions. This is a time for an integrated, co-ordinated approach to agriculture which is so varied and so rich all across the country.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the reality of the situation is that thousands of farmers and thousands of softwood lumber workers are out of work. They need some measure of stability from the federal government to offset what the United States has done to our country.

My question for the member is quite simple. Besides fighting these deals in the international court systems, such as NAFTA or the WTO, what is the Liberal government prepared to do now to put food on the table of those people who are suffering because of these American injustices?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker I know the hon. member is concerned about people who are unemployed and people in all industries who have been affected by rapid changes in the marketplace, in technology and so on. However I would point out to him and his constituents that this is a Canadian Alliance opposition day. It is a Canadian Alliance motion we are debating.

I will read the hon. member a quotation. The blue book of the Reform Party, or the Canadian Alliance as we call it today, says the party resolves to:

--investigate the feasibility of replacing the compulsory, government operated, privately funded taxpayer subsidized unemployment insurance program with a voluntary, personally financed, privately administered, government regulated registered unemployment savings plan.

The motion today purports to be concerned about the changes brought about by relations between the United States and Canada in these critically important industries. Yet the party putting the motion does not support the unemployment program we have today. I agree with my hon. colleague that the present program is a minimum for people who find themselves in these terrible circumstances.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will rebut the comment of my hon. colleague. He quoted a document from quite a long time ago from the former reform party which is now the Canadian Alliance. The Liberal government has made the EI qualification process much harder and reduced benefits to a much lower level.

I will ask the hon. member a question about softwood lumber which follows up on the comment of my hon. colleague from the NDP. There are a number of mills in my riding and a number of people who will be out of work shortly if there is no resolution to the dispute.

One thing brought to my attention when I visited a plant called Chasyn Wood Technologies was that workers get upset when told their jobs may be lost as a result of the trade dispute. Remanufacturers need to get their wood products on the open market like anyone else. Unfortunately, independent remanufacturers are being lumped in with the trade dispute. They will become uncompetitive overnight when the tariffs take effect, particularly in the first month.

Would the hon. member not agree that people in this group have been affected in a way that puts their livelihood at risk? Would he not agree that the government needs to address the issue immediately?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said to my hon. colleague at the end of the Chamber, it is one of the roles of government to support people when they are in the kind of difficulty we are seeing in the lumber industry and some of the maritime industries.

However what I hear from over there is sucking and blowing. The hon. member said his party, whatever it is called at the moment, is no longer against EI. Yet he wants support for unemployed workers. Today's motion calls for offsetting trade injury measures for the agriculture and lumber industries. That means support for the industries, something I support. At the same time the Canadian Alliance says an Alliance government would end corporate welfare subsidies because it is not the place of government to pick and choose which businesses should have the advantage over others.

What I hear over there is sucking and blowing at the same time. That is not easy, even for members of that party.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

I am pleased to respond to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. As we know, the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute is a tough issue and currently our most difficult trade challenge. However Canada and the United States have had 20 years of conflict and litigation over the export of lumber to the United States. Even prior to Confederation Canadian softwood lumber exports were a trade irritant for some in the United States. Regrettably, there are protectionist elements in the United States that want to perpetuate the conflict and have no intention whatsoever of advancing the issue to secure a long term agreement.

Resolving the softwood lumber dispute is a priority for the Minister for International Trade and the Government of Canada. Many Canadians and the communities in which they live depend on this important industry and are seeking free and fair trade with our neighbour to the south.

I will speak today to the lumber trade challenges we are facing, the actions we are pursuing to defend our industry, and the path we are taking with the provinces and the industry to seek free trade in softwood lumber.

As members know, on May 2 of this year the United States International Trade Commission found that Canadian softwood lumber exports posed a threat of injury to U.S. lumber producers. As a result 27% countervailing and anti-dumping duties have come into force.

The Government of Canada believes the decision is fundamentally flawed. Our industry is not subsidized, it is not dumping and it is not causing or threatening to cause injury to U.S. producers. The international trade commission's decision was not at all unexpected given the protectionist nature of many U.S. softwood lumber decisions in the past year. However it does not make it any less damaging to our industry.

Canadian industry has questioned the U.S. trade actions, as we all have, by asking a simple question: How can the Canadian industry threaten the U.S. industry when we have a stable Canadian share of the U.S. market? The U.S. lumber market is strong and the U.S. industry is profitable. In response to the U.S. determination Canada is conducting a review of the international trade commission's reasons to determine whether the ITC has violated international trade rules under the WTO or NAFTA.

In response to the international trade commission's decision and previous ones by the U.S. department of commerce the Government of Canada is challenging the U.S. trade actions in all legal venues open to Canada. We are taking all necessary steps available to us. We are doing everything possible to defend our industry including: a NAFTA challenge of the U.S. final subsidy determination; a NAFTA challenge of the U.S. final dumping determination by Canadian industry; and a WTO challenge of the U.S. preliminary subsidy determination.

Canada recently launched another WTO challenge concerning the flawed U.S. final subsidy determination and its imposition of countervailing duties on Canadian producers. We are working with the industry to determine whether we can launch a WTO challenge of the dumping decision. As mentioned earlier, Canada is conducting a review regarding a possible challenge of the international trade commission's final injury determination under chapter 19 of NAFTA and at the WTO.

Other general trade issues not exclusively related to softwood lumber include: a WTO challenge of the Byrd amendment which would allow U.S. customs authorities to distribute duties to American producers; and a WTO challenge of U.S. duty deposits policy.

We believe we have strong cases and that positive decisions for Canada will bring the United States government back to the negotiating table in a serious manner so we may achieve a long term, durable solution to the dispute.

As we have heard in the House and as the minister has said many times, the Government of Canada is extremely sensitive to the impact U.S. duties are having on Canadian industry. We know of the burden being carried by communities and families who depend on healthy trade with the U.S. We are aware of the impact the issue has had in terms of lost jobs and mill closures. Although in the immediate and short term we are confident we have the necessary programs in place to assist displaced workers in communities, we are monitoring assistance measures closely and keeping all our options open.

As the minister of human resources said in the House, she is currently tracking employment insurance claims in the softwood sector so we can have an ongoing and accurate assessment of the extent of the dislocations and their impact on communities. In addition, $13 million will be made available to provide support and services to softwood workers in British Columbia.

Two weeks ago the Minister of Natural Resources announced $29.7 million for the Canada wood export program, $30 million to support research and development activities, and $15 million for the value added research initiative for wood products. These are long term measures to help ensure the prosperity and competitiveness of Canada's forest industry through diversification and innovation. Diversification will open new markets for our forest products and foster innovation through enhanced research and development capabilities.

It is not only in Canada that communities, companies and workers are feeling the impact of U.S. lumber duties. In the United States consumers, builders, workers and others have been hurt by punishing U.S. lumber duties. This has not been well understood in the United States up to now. Yesterday the Minister for International Trade announced $20 million in funding to ensure Canada's message about the need for free and fair trade in lumber and other vital sectors is heard and understood in the United States. The Government of Canada is supporting Canadian industry in its education and awareness building campaign in the United States regarding the punitive impact duties have on both countries.

With softwood duties in place we must redouble our combined efforts to resolve the dispute. We must work against U.S. protectionism in a range of other vital Canadian trade sectors including agriculture and energy. The industry led campaign will inform and educate key segments in the United States about the punitive impact the duties have had on them and their interests. When U.S. decision makers realize softwood lumber duties favour the few at the cost of the many we hope the Americans will see the need to resolve the dispute in a reasonable way.

We are all extremely sensitive to the impact of the unwarranted U.S. lumber duties on Canadian workers, firms and communities. While we remain open to pursuing negotiations leading to a long term solution, the United States must demonstrate a willingness to re-engage on a basis that is mutually acceptable.

The Government of Canada has not received any new proposal or expression of interest from the U.S. administration to resume negotiations. When we do we will consider it. In the meantime the Government of Canada will continue to act on behalf of our workers and lumber dependent communities. We will continue to explore all options to assist them in this time of need. We are challenging U.S. decisions at the WTO and NAFTA. We will continue to defend the interests of Canadian industry.

With softwood duties now in place we must redouble our combined efforts to resolve the dispute. We must work against U.S. protectionism in this vital Canadian trade sector. We must continue toward our goal of free trade in softwood lumber.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from across the way for her speech. Although she talked about trade she did not mention too much specifically about agriculture. I come from an agricultural riding and I would like to pose a question that was posed to me this morning as I spoke to one of my constituents in the Provost area of Crowfoot. The question was this: How bad does it have to get?

My constituent was speaking about the agricultural crisis facing western Canada and Canada as a whole. The individual I spoke to this morning talked about the farmers around his area who had no grass, no pasture for the cattle and no feed for the cattle. He said that just immediately around his ranch he can count between 2,000 and 3,000 cattle for which there basically is no pasture and no feed.

The municipal district of Provost now has declared an agricultural disaster because of the drought. Other municipalities in my riding have done the very same thing. My riding is in central Alberta, but over the last four or five days there has been heavy frost in northern Alberta and farmers are reseeding up to 500 or 600 acres of canola.

The government continues to play the blame game. We have had subsidies in the European Community and in the United States before. The government blames the Americans for subsidies. Now we see that the Americans are increasing the subsidies and again it continues to blame the Americans.

The headline in today's paper states that farm cash receipts have hit an eight year low. What is the government going to do to combat the Americans, to combat the Europeans, and to show that there is the support from and a will by the government to step forward to save the family farm and to save agriculture in western Canada?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first let me begin by giving perhaps a basic lesson in negotiating trade agreements and dealing with the United States.

We must remember that when we negotiate trade agreements, it is about negotiating away protections, but the most important thing one has to remember is that we will never be able to negotiate away protectionism, especially when it comes to the United States.

I am surprised that the member asked about what the government actually is doing about the farms. Where has he been? It was this side of the House, initiated by the member for Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant, who went to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister directed him to set up a task force on rural Canada. That task force travelled across the country and talked to people. It talked to farmers. It wanted their input as to how we can work together to find the best solutions. That ended up in an interim report and that interim report is now available for all Canadians, not just rural Canadians but also urban Canadians, to look at and to realize just how important rural Canada is to each and every Canadian's life, to realize what we need to do and what issues need to be addressed.

Again I am quite shocked to be asked what we are doing and when we are going to act. We have been acting. We have been acting throughout. We have been responding constantly at all times to emergencies. We have seen our minister of agriculture work together with the farmers. With all due respect, I think the question is unwarranted.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is what the member does not recognize. Last year we had farm families come to our caucus. There was a young 12 year old boy there whose father was a farmer. Twenty-two thousand family farmers left the land two years ago; that was before the subsidy. I asked the young man if he would be farming in the future. He said no. I asked if anyone in his school would be farming. He said no.

My question for the hon. member, for whom I have great respect, is this: Who does she think or who does the government think will be the farmers of the future in this country?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again I will repeat to my hon. colleague across the way that we are working together. The government, this side of the House, has recognized how important rural Canada and the family farm are. That is why more than a year ago we started the rural task force, the Prime Minister's task force, directly reporting to the Prime Minister.

We have also participated in the House's emergency debate on agriculture. I believe we were here until 2 o'clock in the morning. It was not just members on the other side of the House who were here, but also members on this side of the House.

I have a great deal of respect for the member, and with all due respect to him, we need to work together to find these solutions. We will do so by doing just what his caucus does: speaking to its farmers and constituents. We too will continue to speak to Canadians, but I think it is even more important that it not be just a rural issue. It is a Canadian issue. I think it is time that all urban members also participate in the debate and find out just how important the family farm is to us.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak on the issue of American protectionist policies as they relate to softwood lumber.

Many Canadians and the communities in which they live are directly affected by the punitive duties imposed by the United States. I want to assure them that the Government of Canada will continue to press a strong case under the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization.

Resolving the softwood lumber dispute is a priority for the government. As I said in the House a few weeks ago, we must look at not only the short term support but also long term support, such as stronger political advocacy to the American public, market diversification to make us less dependent on the U.S. market, and more research and development to help deal with these issues.

We all understand that in the long term we must develop new markets. We must make sure that we have value added products. That is why on May 16 this year the federal government announced an investment of almost $75 million toward three new measures that will help secure the long term prosperity and competitiveness of Canada's forest products industry.

At the B.C. softwood summit I attended in Vancouver on May 6, we received the following strong and consistent messages. First, the development of new markets is key and we should focus on Asian markets such as China, India, Korea and Taiwan through wood marketing and government to government engagement. Second, research and innovation are important, not only for the value added sub-sector but also for sustainable forest management.

We have listened to our partners, the industry, the provinces and individual Canadians, and the initiatives that the Government of Canada is taking focus on diversifying our export markets and on innovation and development in the re-manufacturing sector.

The first key to ensuring prosperity and long term competitiveness is diversifying our markets for wood products. Currently about 80% of production is exported to the United States. In the course of the last 20 years, we have developed Japan as our second largest trading partner for our wood products and we know that countries like China, Taiwan, Korea and India present tremendous new opportunities for our wood products industry, opportunities we must begin to tap into.

In March of this year we began the groundwork to do that with the announcement of our $5.3 million investment in the Canada-China wood products initiative. This initiative is helping to build markets in China's burgeoning housing and construction economy.

To expand our markets beyond the United States, the Government of Canada is committing an additional $29.7 million in funding for the Canada wood export program. The program is a co-operative, cost shared effort with industry associations, which will invest $70 million over the next five years in export market development activities.

We will increase our international markets in three ways. First, we will increase the offshore presence of the Canadian industry, giving the industry better visibility. Second, we will provide increased support to the industry to ensure that it has scientific and technical data to include Canadian species in foreign building codes and standards. Third, we will increase our promotion of the North American wood frame building system and provide technical inputs to codes and standards. This investment will provide opportunities to market wood flooring and other value added products for use in traditional non-wood buildings. In total the Government of Canada is putting $35 million toward opening new markets for our wood products over the next five years.

The second key to the long term prosperity and international competitiveness of the forest products industry is research and innovation. Canada already has a strong track record in innovation, particularly as a developer of value added wood products. Our goal now is to work with our industry to brand Canada worldwide as a preferred source for top quality and innovative forest products.

To do this, the Government of Canada will invest in two research and innovation initiatives. The first is an investment of $30 million in Canada's three national forest research institutions: the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada, Forintek Canada Corp. and the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada.

These institutes will use the research and development funding to work on activities that will strengthen Canada's competitive position in the world market. These three institutes are the major centres of forest products research in Canada and are key engines of innovation. The funding will help these institutes improve Canada's long term competitiveness in both the wood products sector and the pulp and paper sector.

The government is investing another $15 million over five years in the value added research industry for wood products. This initiative will support applied research conducted through Forintek and the universities of British Columbia, Laval and New Brunswick. The key part of the strategy is putting this expertise out into the manufacturing sector to improve technology for manufacturing products from lumber.

The initiative will help the value added subsector of the Canadian wood industry, which includes mostly small and medium size companies that produce products such as hardwood flooring, moulding and trim. The program is specifically designed to help the subsector become more competitive in the long term and increase the value of its products. Through this program we will create jobs in British Columbia, Quebec and other provinces.

All of these initiatives will help secure the future of the wood products industry. We have consulted widely with the forest products industry and the provinces on these initiatives. We are confident these measures will put them in a stronger position to be leaders in long term competitiveness and innovation for the forest products sector. We will maintain this team Canada approach as we continue to work on this issue to help the workers, the communities and the companies that are important partners in the industry.

It is not only in Canada that communities, companies and workers are feeling the impact of U.S. lumber duties. In the United States consumers, builders, workers and others are also hurt by these punishing U.S. lumber duties. That fact has not been well understood in the United States.

Yesterday the Minister for International Trade announced $20 million in funding to ensure that Canada's message on the need for free and fair trade in lumber and other vital sectors is heard and understood in the United States. The Government of Canada is supporting Canadian industry in its education and awareness building campaign in the United States on the punitive impact duties have on both the U.S. and Canada. When the U.S. decision makers realize that softwood lumber duties favour a few at the cost of many, we hope Americans will see the need to resolve the dispute in a reasonable way to the benefit of both countries.

The Government of Canada is extremely sensitive to the impact U.S. duties are having on Canadian industry. We know the burden on our communities and families that depend on healthy trade with the U.S. We are aware of the impact this has on job loss and mill closures.

Although in the immediate and short term we are confident that we already have the necessary programs in place to assist displaced workers and communities in need, we are monitoring assistance measures closely and we will keep all options open. The government continues to make sure it is working. The Minister of Industry, the Minister of Human Resources Development, we are all working together to determine what more we can do in terms of helping the workers and the communities.

In conclusion, the Government of Canada will continue to act on behalf of our workers and lumber dependent communities. We will continue to explore all options to assist them in time of need.

We are challenging U.S. decisions at the World Trade Organization under the North American Free Trade Agreement. We will continue to defend the interests of Canadian industry. However, with softwood duties now in place, we must redouble our combined efforts to resolve the dispute. We must work against U.S. protectionism in this vital Canadian trade sector and continue toward our goal of free trade in softwood lumber.

We hope the Americans come back to make sure we resolve this through negotiation. It is not in the interests of either Canada or the U.S. to continue in this way. I have been to Washington to send this message to many of the politicians. I have also been to communities across British Columbia, to Port Alberni and Prince George, to personally and directly hear from people who are hurting.

We as a government will not let them down. We will ensure that we provide them support so they can get over this difficult period until we have a final ruling either through NAFTA or through the WTO.

As a government, we have made this our number one priority to make sure that we help the communities and resolve this issue for the long term for Canadians.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the Minister of Natural Resources. I was at the same meeting as the minister in Vancouver on April 29 at the premiers summit. I took away something entirely different from that meeting. People were not asking for all of the measures the minister was talking about, the self-justifying $90 million announcements over the last week and a half which are a smokescreen for government inaction on this file. They were looking for what the government would do to address those very real issues that are addressed in today's opposition motion which calls for, among other things, implementing offsetting trade injury measures for the agriculture and lumber sectors. The lumber sector was obviously the subject of that meeting.

Multiple government speakers have all avoided that substantive part of the discussion. Another phenomena has been at work, which is that all those Liberal members of parliament from forest dependent ridings are tending not to speak to the motion. This concerns me very much.

Why is the government continuing to avoid entering into dialogue and discussion on putting in place programs to assist workers and programs to deal with the tariffs, particularly when the minister endorsed such a program as recently as March 29?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was at the summit. Clearly, if the member would look back at the press conference and the stories, a couple of very important themes came out of the summit.

One is market diversification. I think the hon. member will agree there was a very strong consensus at that meeting that we need to develop new markets. We need market diversification. This is something the industry has applauded. In fact people in the industry said they had been working on this and it is extremely important for them. It will leverage new money because the $35 million we have put in will be matched by the industry. We are looking at anywhere between $70 million to $100 million over the next five years that could be put in. That was something extremely important. There was a very strong consensus on that.

The other point that was agreed to at the summit was we need to put more money into research and development. That is what we have done. In addition there was very strong support for advocacy programs. We have done that.

Are there other things we need to do? Absolutely. We need to go beyond what we have done. We need to look at long term measures to make sure we are competitive. We need to look for new markets. We need to look at other programs to help the industry, the community and those people who will find difficulty.

The government is looking at those options. We certainly want to take in any views the opposition members have on specific proposals they think the government should carry out. I would like to hear those specific proposals. I have not heard them. They have said we need to help, but they should give us specific proposals. What can we do for communities? What can we do for individuals? What about the industry? Give us some specific proposals. We are looking at it. We are reviewing it. We are very much engaged in this and we want to respond to Canadians who will be hurt by the protectionism of the Americans. The opposition talks about the Americans all the time and how they believe in free trade. The Americans talk about free trade but their actions show otherwise.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister is very aware that my riding has been very hard hit by this. There are four Doman mills in my riding. I know that he has had extensive conversations with the chairman and CEO of that particular industry, Rick Doman. I know that Mr. Doman has been asking the government for a long, long time for loan guarantees.

It is all right to talk about market diversification. It is all right to talk about spending $20 million to educate the Americans about how good our forest practices are and what is going on. All of that kind of stuff does not help the immediate problem in my riding of mills shutting down and workers being laid off. I have constantly asked the government, ministers of the crown, to come up with extra protection for our workers, but we get nothing.

Will the minister from British Columbia, purporting to represent British Columbia industries, give us some hope that our workers will come out of this without losing their shirts and their homes?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly recognize the effect in the hon. member's riding, the whole Nanaimo area and the coast, where we produce high end lumber products, high end cedar products. They are affected more than any other part of the province of British Columbia or the country because they produce premium products. They are affected by the 27% tariff more than other areas. I am very much aware of that.

The idea he has put forward in terms of loan guarantees to support the mills that can continue to operate even under these difficult circumstances is an option we should look at. It is an option the government will review.

If the opposition members are very serious about this, then let them put forward a detailed proposal as to exactly how to do it. I have not seen that from them. Rather than just make general comments, let us see the specific proposals they want to put on the table. We are willing to listen. We want to make sure that we respond. If they want to really participate, let them put something on the table.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to split my time with my seatmate, the member for Nanaimo--Cowichan, who as we all know is one of the most hard working and effective MPs in the House.

Today we are speaking to the opposition motion:

That this House has lost confidence in the government for its failure to persuade the U.S. government to end protectionist policies that are damaging Canada's agriculture and lumber industries and for failing to implement offsetting trade injury measures for those sectors.

Today's debate reminds me of that old saying that failure to plan is a plan to fail. We see failure on a number of levels and we will talk about some of those levels today. We see it in both the agricultural sector and the softwood lumber sector. I will talk about agriculture today for the most part. We see failure on two national levels. We see failure in the United States with the new ineffective and defective farm bill. We see failure here with the ongoing inaction and lack of vision with regard to both of the issues but particularly with regard to agriculture.

We see a failure in the U.S. A year ago as we were working toward the Doha talks, the U.S. was pretending to lead the way. It wanted to have free trade. It wanted to lead into that to reduce subsidization. The Americans took a strong position apparently at those talks. Now we find they are going in a different direction. We may have to look to the Cairns group for the support we need to turn back some of the subsidization which the U.S. is engaging in now.

The Americans have pulled off a new farm bill as basically an attack on their neighbours and friends. I would suggest they are giving us the impression they are free enterprisers but that is a phony impression from what we see in the bill. We can see there are some closet socialists in the United States on their way to a wreck. Apart from the farm bill the Americans are running a $100 billion deficit this year and we all know that cannot continue. Their deficit and their farm bill have been brought about by a lack of vision.

The United States' agricultural subsidization over the years has not saved its rural areas. In a lot of ways it has destroyed its rural economies. In a small town across the border from us a lot of people put their land into the CRP. They let their machinery sit or else they sold it off. When they brought the land back out of that program, they did not have the money to buy new machinery. They did not have the money to get back into farming so they turned the land over to their neighbours and the farms just get bigger and bigger. The massive amount of money that has been spent on the U.S. side has not saved its rural economies.

The bill is a complete failure. We keep hearing there is about $180 billion in the bill but it has been suggested it will be a lot higher than that. It has been suggested it may rise as high as $400 billion U.S. over 10 years.

I would like to quote a couple of U.S. agricultural economists. Daryll Ray is from the University of Tennessee's agriculture policy analysis centre. He has great concerns that they have vastly underestimated the amount of money they are going to spend in the farm bill. The second person who has a concern about this is John Dittrich, who serves as a policy analyst to the American Corn Growers Association. He said in Better Farming :

If ending stocks for program crops remain in the same range or higher, as they have been for the last several years--10% for corn, 7% for soybeans, for example--then the average annual cost of these farm bills could be around $32 billion [U.S.] per year. I think Congress has underestimated both bills' cost by more than $10 billion per year.

That is an almost 50% miscalculation by congress on the cost of the program. This is not a solution. Dittrich also added “These bills maintain and then add to the distress in farm country which means these distresses will accumulate”.

The farm bill will be a complete failure. We not only have failure in the United States though, we have failure here as well. That is the failure to lead in the agricultural sector. In the agriculture department we see once again there is a complete failure and a complete lack of connection with the farm community.

A few weeks ago the assistant deputy minister came to the agriculture committee. One of the questions he was asked--and he had to be asked it a number of times before he would answer it cleanly and clearly--was whether he had a plan to deal with the drought situation. His answer once we got it out of him was that no, they did not have a plan. It is one year into a drought in Saskatchewan and two to three years into a drought in Alberta and the agriculture department does not even realize it is a situation for which it should be planning.

Another $15 million has been spent on the implementation of the new APF and the farmers were basically excluded from the closed door consultations.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important debate, crucial to two very important segments of our economic production and there is hardly a government member in the House to listen to it. I think we ought to call in the members.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Debate shall continue.