Debates of May 7th, 2002

Government Response to Petitions

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

Canadian Safe Drinking Water Act

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-462, an act to ensure safe drinking water throughout Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table, in my name and on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, an act that provides for the establishment of national standards for safe drinking water in Canada and for the proper reporting and public disclosure of incidents of non-compliance with those standards.

The House may recall there was a motion similar to this initiative presented on May 8, 2001. Given that the government was unwilling to fill that legislative void it is incumbent upon the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to do just that.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of people in Alberta. The petitioners request that parliament ban human embryo research and direct the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to support and fund only promising ethical research that does not involve the destruction of human life.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by citizens of my riding.

The petitioners are asking the government to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which prohibits rural mail couriers from bargaining collectively to improve their working conditions.

Ms. Galarneau, a constituent from my riding who worked as rural mail courier for ten years, arbitrarily lost her contract and has no recourse.

If subsection 13(5) were repealed, as requested in the petition, Ms. Galarneau could have participated in a class action. I therefore submit this petition.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I submit a petition signed by rural mail couriers from all over the country.

These Canadians are asking parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which denies them the right to collective bargaining.

While they perform the same task as their city counterparts, the petitioners feel their most basic rights to decent wages and fair and equitable working conditions are being violated.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present two petitions today. The first petition is signed by Canadians who support a national day of prayer. The petitioners propose March 8 as a day to unite all Canadians to pray for our nation, its people and its leaders.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by Canadians who support a national teachers day on the first Tuesday during education week in May. It is a day to honour and thank all of our teachers and to recognize their invaluable contribution to the lives of our children and to show our appreciation and respect for the teaching profession.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to present a petition on behalf of the people of Lakeland constituency and elsewhere.

The petitioners ask the House that bail not be granted for all accused murderers caught in the act of committing their crimes and to give only maximum sentences for those convicted. This petition results from the death of Dana Fair in Lloydminster who was beaten to death by three men with boards. There were many witnesses to this crime. One of the people involved in this crime had a long history of violent crime before and yet he is out on $2,000 bail. The petitioners think that is completely wrong and out of line. They are petitioning the House to change that.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Vacancy

[The Speaker]

It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely Mr. Stéphan Tremblay, member for the electoral district of Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, by resignation effective May 7, 2002.

Pursuant to subsection 25(1)( b ) of the Parliament of Canada Act, today, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.

Supply

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should set up an assistance program for the softwood lumber industry and its workers, to support them in the face of the unjust decision by the American government to impose a 27.2% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United States, the program to continue in effect until such time as this conflict has been resolved.

Mr. Speaker, please take note that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Jonquière.

As you just mentioned, we are tabling a motion asking the government to set up, as soon as possible, an assistance program for the softwood lumber industry and its workers, to support them in the face of the unjust decision by the American government to impose a 27.2% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United States, the program to continue in effect until such time as this conflict has been resolved.

This debate was made necessary by the May 2 decision of the United States International Trade Commission to impose, effective May 23, 2002, anti-dumping and countervailing duties totalling 27.2%.

It is important to remind the House that this decision made on May 2 this year is the result of a long administrative process on the part of the American authorities and of an extremely fierce fight between the Canadian industry and the American industry, which started on April 2, 2001, that is more than a year ago, because the Americans questioned the forest management procedures of the federal and provincial governments, and their support of the softwood lumber industry in Canada and Quebec.

Obviously, it was evident right from the start to all provinces, the industry and the parties here in the House that these allegations were false. Moreover, in previous instances—for this conflict has been going on for 20 years now—Canada has always won out, except when it has got down on its knees and accepted the Americans' orders.

A year later, here we are faced with an outcome that will have disastrous impacts on the industry, the workers and the communities. It is extremely important to keep in mind that, in Quebec alone, there are 250 municipalities whose living is connected with the lumber and forest industries, and which will be affected. If the sawmill were to end up closing, this would be more than just the closure of one company. A whole community would be at risk of disappearing.

In this situation that is so difficult for the communities, it strikes me as totally normal for a responsible government to act promptly to put in place programs to support the industry.

On the government side, the Minister for International Trade tells us that industry was not affected. All the statistics are available. He has only to consult the Statistics Canada bulletins. Production has dropped, deliveries have dropped over the course of 2001, particularly at the end of that year, when the countervailing and anti-dumping duties were imposed temporarily.

These duties will amount to in excess of $2 billion annually for the Canadian industry as a whole, and in excess of $500 million for Quebec alone. These are duties imposed by the Americans.

According to the industry, 10,000 jobs would be affected, and close to 2,000 have already disappeared. All stakeholders in the industry, both labour and management, agree that this is an extremely serious situation.

I will quote, as an example, a press release from the Association des manufacturers de bois de sciage du Québec, which states the following:

Since September, Quebec's softwood lumber manufacturers have had to slow down activities, either through temporary shutdowns or by cutting shifts. The North Shore has not been spared. It is estimated that 6,800 jobs have been affected in the entire province. The figure for the North Shore is about 1,100 jobs affected, or 17% of the Quebec total.

The situation is dramatic, even from the employers' point of view. As for the labour point of view, here is one example, a statement by the president of the CSN's Federation of Paper and Forest Workers:

Thousands of people are at risk of losing their jobs. Temporary solutions must be made available to them, and to the affected communities and regions, if we are to get through this crisis.

Turning now to the FTQ Syndicat des communications, de l'énergie et du papier, we can quote this from the executive vice-president, Clément L'Heureux:

A strategy must be found to help workers. One way is to pay the surtax, another is to increase domestic demand for lumber by building social housing, for example.

So, the stakeholders are obviously unanimous in pointing out the need for an assistance program.

In the May 3, 2002 issue of La Presse , the Minister of International Trade is quoted as saying:

Something must be understood. Jobs are lost because of normal market restructuring. The government cannot necessarily step in every time there is natural restructuring of the market market in some industry. This distinction has to be made.

According to the minister, what is at issue here is not the softwood lumber crisis, not the trade dispute, but restructuring.

That is what appeared in La Presse . Of course, the minister may tell us that he was misquoted. Furthermore, that same evening, I took part along with him in a debate on this topic on TQS. He backed down, saying that this was not what he had meant. He meant that some jobs had been lost because of restructuring, and the others because of the softwood lumber crisis.

Unfortunately for him, I have the transcript of the briefing that he held on that same day. He said it clearly, as shown in this excerpt:

As of yet, there have been no job losses directly related to the situation with the United States. Exports to the United States are currently on the increase. Jobs were lost because of normal market restructuring. The government cannot step in whenever natural restructuring takes place in the market or in an industry.

This is extremely worrisome for sawmill workers, communities that live off that industry, and businesses. At a time when the Americans are telling us that, as of May 23, they will impose countervailing and anti-dumping duties of 27.2%, how can one be so irresponsible as to clear the Americans and downplay the impact of their sanctions? This is extremely disrespectful to the industry and to workers.

For the Bloc Quebecois, the situation is clear: we must strongly condemn U.S. protectionism. It is clear that the measures taken by the Americans are in violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or of the agreements that they signed with the World Trade Organization. We will win our case before the panels of these organizations. We must condemn American unilateralism regarding this issue and others. However, this does not excuse the government's irresponsibility in this issue.

This was to be expected, and this is what should have happened on May 2: the government should have reacted energetically to this American action by announcing a program to help the industry make it through this crisis, to help workers, so that they do not become the victims of the U.S. sanctions.

Instead, as I just read, the minister cleared the Americans. He had time to prepare for this. On May 2, the International Trade Commission merely confirmed the decision made by the U.S. department of commerce on March 22. So, the minister had over one month to prepare a response to this American action and develop a plan.

This is May 7, and he is still telling us that he is consulting, that things are going very well with the provinces, the industry and the unions. What I see is unions taking to the streets, be it in Chicoutimi or Montreal. All the press releases from the Quebec Lumber Manufacturers' Association or the Free Trade Lumber Council, the FTLC, are asking the federal government to set up an assistance program. As for provincial governments, they are all condemning the federal government's inaction one after the other, be it in Quebec or in British Columbia. So, it is time to act.

On reflection, I think the attitude of the Minister for International Trade, like that of the federal government, is entirely in keeping with the whole strategy they have had in place since the start of this crisis. What they have failed to understand is that this is not about traditional negotiations. This is, above all, a political problem. All of the commentators and analysts are saying that the upcoming elections in the United States will considerably hinder Canada's chances of a negotiated solution to this dispute.

So there has to be a plan right now. We cannot wait until more jobs are lost and more bankruptcies occur. There has to be a plan to help the industry. We have proposed a number of measures. There was one for big business, one for small and medium business, one for forestry companies, one for secondary and tertiary processing and a whole series of measures to change some of the employment insurance rules, which everyone has long been calling for, to help the workers in this industry and the communities involved get through this crisis.

I hope the Liberal members, like all the members of this House, will support our motion in the context of this debate.

If the federal government really had the concerns of Canadians and Quebecers at heart, it would respond immediately by setting up this assistance program. We are prepared to support it. But no, this government prefers propaganda and to spend $600,000 on a people's almanac to commemorate the glorious life of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who divided the country in two.

I call on this House in its entirety to support this motion. I call on the Minister for International Trade and the government to wake up and announce right now an assistance program to get through this crisis so that, in the end, when all proceedings are done, we will win at the WTO and under NAFTA.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Joliette for sharing his time with me during this debate on softwood lumber. I congratulate him on his hard work and fine performance ever since this issue has been with us. This has been a clear message for workers and businesses in Quebec that the Bloc Quebecois is standing up for them. Once again, I congratulate the hon. member for Joliette.

As my colleague just mentioned, the softwood lumber dispute with the Americans has been simmering for a long time. In 1996, the Canadian government accepted voluntary penalties just to prevent any trade dispute with them. But the Bloc Quebecois has always held that these stop-gap measures were not a real solution. We have always stood for the principle of total free trade in softwood lumber with the United States.

Unfortunately, the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled last Thursday to uphold a 27.22% tariff on Canadian lumber. Clearly, this will have a serious impact on jobs in the forest industry throughout Canada and more particularly in Quebec. In Quebec alone, it could cost the industry as much as $550 million a year and result in the layoff of 10,000 workers.

I take the floor today also as the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development. My region, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, will be devastated by this situation. It has 30 lumber plants with a capacity of at least 10,000 cubic meters each. Some 2,452 plant workers and 2,435 forest workers work for them. Therefore, of all the regions in Quebec, mine is by far the one that will be the most severely hit by American sanctions.

This fear is unfortunately justified since, as soon as the temporary sanctions took effect several weeks ago, between 12,000 and 20,000 workers lost their jobs according to Canadian lumber industry estimates. This number could rise to 50,000 if U.S. sanctions become permanent, and there is every reason to believe that they will.

I was extremely sad to hear the international trade minister say that those job losses may not be the result of U.S. sanctions but rather due to a natural restructuring in that sector of our economy. You have to be completely disconnected from reality to say such things. The minister should come to my region.

I remind hon. members that during oral question periods, my colleague from Joliette and other members of my party invited the minister to visit their respective regions to talk with workers in the lumber sector. However, the minister did not even answer nor did he accept the invitation.

The government will wake up to a brutal reality if it tells workers such nonsense. People protested last week. I remind the House that in my region, in the Chicoutimi area, hundreds of workers protested and asked the government to take its responsibilities and help workers and businesses face what the Americans are doing. They protested in the streets and they know full well that if they lose their jobs during the weeks to come it will be solely because of the U.S. surtax if nothing is done.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking, on this opposition day, the government to rapidly implement a program to support, until the end of the conflict, the lumber industry and its workers against the unjustified decision of the Americans to impose a 27.2% tariff on Canadian lumber exports to the United States.

These measures are necessary because, with the inhumane restrictions of the EI system, these people are unable to qualify. The measures are necessary in order to ensure the vitality and economic health of Quebec's regions. Many of these regions depend on this industry alone, which is a source of job creation. In Quebec, 135 towns and villages depend directly on these processing plants.

By doing nothing, the Minister for International Trade is telling us that he could care less about these communities in the remote regions of Quebec, as he so disdainfully referred to them during the last election campaign.

Where I live, in the Lac-Saint-Jean area, there is a ghost town, Val-Jalbert, which shut down its sawmill and is now a tourist attraction. We do not want to see all the towns and villages directly affected by the softwood lumber dispute going the way of Val-Jalbert.

There is no doubt that we must continue to press for a return to free trade. But as Frank Dottori, co-chair of the Free Trade Lumber Council and CEO of Tembec said in October:

We’ve been told by Canadian government officials for the last two months that there is a new will on the part of the U.S. government to settle this dispute more reasonably than in the past. A reasonable observer would surely say that the Americans continue to play the only game they know in trade negotiations: hardball.

Given that the Americans are behaving like cowboys, a negotiated or legal solution is clearly not imminent. The odds are that a settlement is still months or years away.

Softwood lumber workers are in no way responsible for the situation in which they find themselves. So why is the government leaving them to fend for themselves without jobs and without coming to their assistance in what is, after all, an exceptional situation?

What is this government actually doing? The federal government, with the help of the very generous Minister of Human Resources Development, is plundering the EI fund, which belongs to workers and employers.

This year alone, $4 billion will be used for purposes other than helping the country's unemployed. It is time to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's. This EI fund surplus must go to softwood lumber workers who have lost their job.

Knowing that we must help these workers and the regions of Quebec that have been affected by the softwood lumber crisis, the Bloc Quebecois has proposed immediate measures to support them. Why does the Minister of Human Resources Development not use the $700 million available for support measures to provide special incentives for employers to hire workers who have been laid off because of the softwood trade war?

The program proposed by the Bloc Quebecois calls for a six month grant to cover the full salary, which would be given in conjunction with six months of half of the salary and a conditional commitment by the employer to keep the employee for at least another year. These are good suggestions.

Why does the Minister of Human Resources Development not increase by one year the duration of benefits for older workers who cannot be retrained, and are affected by the crisis and awaiting a real support program for older workers?

Why does she not extend the EI benefits by five weeks? If the government does not want to go ahead with our suggestions, then all it has to do is say that they are the product of the fertile imagination of the Minister of Human Resources Development or the Minister for International Trade.

What is most important is that we help the regions of Quebec, because I and all of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois believe in regional development for Quebec. It is neither the workers nor of the regions that are to blame for the softwood lumber conflict. It is up the to Government of Canada to propose solutions to help businesses and workers.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member referred in her speech to the Americans as acting like cowboys. Cowboys are really not that bad. I found that a rather strange comparison. In this instance we are sitting back watching bullies guide us around by the nose and our response is not strong enough to drive home a point.

I do not blame some people for trying to protect their interests when it comes to delivering and receiving valuable natural resources. However we expect the government in charge to watch out for the best interests of our people and our industry, which supplies the livelihood for thousands of families. However it has neglected to do so.

I know both the Bloc Party and the Reform Party in the past reminded the government over and over again that the deadline was approaching and that the agreement was coming to an end. We asked what preparation was in place to ensure that the interests of Canada were guarded.

All these months and years have gone by and we still see total inaction. There has been no plan or proposal other than the government saying that it would see that fair and free trade existed. What specific action is the government taking? In my view government members are doing absolutely nothing and they should hang their heads in shame for protecting the interests of Canadians so poorly.

Does the member agree with that?

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance by telling him that there are little cowboys, big cowboys, as well as good and bad cowboys, known as good guys and bad guys. The Americans are behaving like the bad guys.

It is true that the government has not been as proactive on the issue of soft wood lumber as it should have been. What happened was predictable. When answering questions in the House, the Minister for International Trade said, “They will abide by their decision, we almost sure of it”. The government should have sought alternatives.

As my colleague of the Canadian Alliance said, the government waited too much. Instead of being proactive, it chose the wait and see approach. How do you expect us to negotiate with a country such as the United States when we have nothing on the table to convince them that if they do this, we will do that?

The federal government representatives are not good guys. They are little cowboys who do not care about the workers' interests, and act only in their own interests.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Madam Speaker, I quite agree with my colleague from Alberta. This is very unfair to cowboys. I worked as a cowboy many years ago and I know cowboys. They would be horrified to think that they were being compared to what is happening here this morning. It is very unfair to cowboys of both genders, no matter where they work in Canada.

I will be sharing my time with the Secretary of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Unfortunately, I will be speaking only in English. However, I believe my colleague will speak only in French, so that will even things out.

I am very pleased to rise on the motion of my friend opposite on the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. All of us in the House, everyone in the lumber industry and Canadians across the country, cowboys included, are extremely frustrated by the American attitude on this issue.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade has spared no effort to find a solution. My colleague, the Minister for International Trade, has worked with all stakeholders, provincial governments, the industry, the unions and the communities involved to develop a unanimous position to take into the negotiations. The Prime Minister spoke with President Bush about it on several occasions, as colleagues know. Our government has been solidly behind the industry, the communities and the stakeholders in the fight for free and fair trade with the United States, but as yet to no avail.

The Americans have rejected all fair and reasonable offers for a settlement and have imposed this outrageous tariff. It is a pure and simple case of protectionism on behalf of the American lumber industry. Our government has taken its case to the World Trade Organization and we will also be taking it before a NAFTA panel. We are pursuing all legal remedies in support of the communities and the industry. There continues to be a good team effort by the government ministers, ministers in provincial governments, union representatives, industry representatives and community representatives. What we all want is for Canadians who are in the business of shipping lumber to stay in business.

It seems that every few years the American industry feels the pinch of competition and runs to its government for protection. What is truly outrageous to many of us is not that the industry would do that but that the government of the United States would follow its wishes every time, even though it has lost the case so many times before. Some of our government to government negotiators have even commented that they have felt that they are negotiating with the U.S. industry instead of its government.

We have won the case before and I have no doubt that we will win it again. We are not without allies in Washington. Members of congress are also urging the administration to support free and fair trade. We all hope that the administration will start to listen. I also believe that Canada's case will have a great deal of support at the WTO which after all has been set up to ensure that there is fair and free trade among all the nations of the world.

In the meantime there are several different programs in place to support individuals, businesses, families and communities which are most affected. The Minister of Industry has pointed out that for those who face unemployment as a result of this unfair U.S. decision, the employment insurance program will be available, as it is for all Canadian employees. Human Resources Development Canada also offers worker adjustment programs to, among other things, help individuals make the transition to other industries when the ones they are in face limited opportunities. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development supports development among our first nations communities where this decision is having a particularly negative impact as well.

In addition, the government has been working with provincial governments, the industry and communities across the country to provide support and assistance. For example, the Western Diversification Office, as members will know, is working with local partners to help smaller businesses with such things as value added wood processing. The idea is to help those companies develop other products for markets in Canada and around the world, including many in Asia-Pacific such as China.

There is the WoodTEK Business Development Centre in Prince George which serves as a local incubator for entrepreneurs. It provides access to things like kiln drying, subdimensional cutting and fibre mixtures as well as technical and business training, management and marketing assistance.

Another value added wood manufacturing facility has been set up in Quesnel, B.C. where entrepreneurs can use leading edge wood manufacturing equipment. It also offers help with developing the commercial potential of new products. Western Diversification also works with the Western Canada Business Service Network to provide a wide range of financial and other services to forest related businesses.

There are also projects to help diversify the economies of several communities in the area through initiatives to create greater tourism as well as to encourage national and international filmmakers, for example, to develop their projects in the area as well as a host of other initiatives.

As some members will know, we have established community futures development corporations which are locally run, independent, non-profit societies that deliver programs and services on behalf of many levels of government and several different private and public sector agencies.

Western diversification continues to work with local forest communities to help develop and commercialize different products, to encourage entrepreneurship as a viable alternative to working for someone else, providing seed funding for local diversification within forest dependent communities and investing in forest product research and development.

The federal government intends to use all existing programs to help these communities and, if need be, shall do what is required to make sure that they are protected from this unreasonable American action.

I would point out that there are different initiatives now in place to support the employees in the industry. All levels of government are working together to address the fallout.

Discussions are underway at the present time with provincial governments to develop further ways to ensure that the communities are protected as best we can.

As has been said many times in the Chamber, the problem is not here, it is in the United States. It has rejected negotiations. It has rejected binding dispute resolution which is a bedrock of a rules based trading system. It continues to take “a my way or the highway” approach to the matter.

I believe all 30 million Canadians are rallying around our industry because we know this is yet another patently unfair attack by the Americans on an industry that is consistently better run and more competitive than their own.

The Government of Canada is fully focused on the problems that this is creating in many communities and is taking action and will take further action.

At the same time, I think all of us in the House should continue to speak out at every chance we get to tell the American industry, congressmen, senators and the American government that what they are doing is not only unjust and unwarranted but that it is greatly tarnishing their reputation as one of the world's leading proponents of free and fair trade.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech of the government member. I agree that the U.S. government took an unfair decision on softwood lumber and used its huge power to impose protectionist measures. It did so because it felt strong and supported by the softwood lumber people in the United States.

However, what has this government done? The member gave the background of the dispute, saying that the government understood, that it was going to do this and that. He mentioned economic development corporations and the fact that the government is aware of all this.

However, what has the Canadian government got on the table today? What is it proposing to help our businesses and our workers? I would like to hear the minister on this issue.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is a totally fair question and I respect my colleague.

Indeed, I described some assistance projects and programs, but it is quite obvious and expected that we will be taking other action.

I ask the question very sincerely. For example, does my colleague want us to also impose an export tax on this product? Could this help people working in the industry in Quebec and the other provinces? Are her party, the other parties and herself in favour of a tax on softwood lumber exports? Would this allow us to recover enough money?

I am asking her very sincerely. I know that she has is not entitled to answer my question, but I see that three other people also want to ask questions.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear a presentation by the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific, although it is a little surprising that the government's lead speaker would be someone who is responsible for Asia-Pacific, when we would have expected that the Minister for International Trade, who is the one responsible for dealing with the softwood issue, would have been the lead speaker.

Perhaps it is not surprising given that the Minister for International Trade has stated publicly that he does not believe any jobs were affected by the dispute in the lumber industry, that this was simply an industry adjustment that presumably would have taken place anyway.

Does the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific agree with that statement? Is he prepared to stand in the House and say that he does not believe there have been any job losses? If he does, I would sure like him to come to my riding where there has been a tremendous amount of job loss or, alternatively, if he disagrees with the Minister for International Trade and recognizes there have been job losses and that there will be a lot more, what would he suggest his government should do about dealing with the impact on individuals, companies and communities that have been affected by the job losses that his colleague does not think have occurred?

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Minister for International Trade is in Spain today otherwise he would have led the debate on our side.

There undoubtedly will be jobs losses, and the Minister for International Trade knows that as well as my hon. colleague.

As my colleague knows, one of our problems in terms of Asia--Pacific is that we should have developed markets in that area long ago. Somebody told me the other day that Shanghai needed a million board feet of softwood lumber for its exploding housing industry. We should be developing that market. We have put in money into developing that market and I hope we put a lot more into that market and other markets in Asia--Pacific.

As the member knows very well, once we get to 30% of the American market this happens repeatedly. I would request that when those on the other side stand up to speak they should tell us whether they want us to impose an export tax to recoup some money so we can help communities, or do they not want us to go that route.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Madam Speaker, how in the world is it that we think we can justify this by just ranting against the Americans and saying how dreadful those big, bad bullies are? What are we going to do to fight against this 27% tariff?

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are going to the WTO and to NAFTA. Unfortunately, as my colleague knows, that takes a long time and the export tax--

[An hon. member]

Right now.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order, please. Resuming debate.