Debates of May 7th, 2002

Supply

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank the hon. member for his excellent speech.

Minutes ago, I was with some representatives from the CSN and the FTQ. They showed me, and the press, the problems they have with employment in Abitibi, in the Gaspé, on the North Shore and in the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region. In the latter, at Abitibi-Consolidated alone, some 1,600 jobs are threatened.

Given that reality, how can the member explain what the Minister for International Trade said last week—and he did not withdraw his words—when he stated that the job losses in the softwood lumber industry were due to normal restructuring?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, when I arrived in Ottawa this morning, there were clouds in the sky. I saw the minister on those clouds and he has still not come down. This is why he cannot see what is really going on in Canada. He does not see it. This is unacceptable.

If I were the Prime Minister, I would soon summon the minister to my office and reprimand him. I would tell him, “Go tell Canadians that we have a problem and that we will fight for them”. He will realize that jobs have been lost. If he does not realize that, this is because he spends too much time in the United States and does not come back to Canada to see the negative effects this has. Furthermore, there is something lacking in the consultations with companies.

Hopefully, the minister will come to the House this afternoon to explain his mistake. Somebody is not briefing him properly. Either he is badly briefed or he does not listen to the radio, watch television or read newspapers. It is well known throughout the country that jobs are being lost. How can the minister tell us that this is because of modernization?

Where has he been this last year? It is a shame to have in this House such a minister who does not even know what is going on in our country, where people are losing their jobs.

I take my hat off to the member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik. No doubt he will have his knuckles rapped this afternoon. Someone will rap his knuckles and it is going to be painful.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Hopefully not with a 2x4.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

He is aware that there is a problem in Abitibi. I hope that the minister, who is from the same party, will say to the member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, “Are there people losing their jobs in Abitibi? You should have told me”. Perhaps the member for Abitibi forgot to tell him, but I do not think so.

The minister should wake up and tell the House what he really intends to do for workers as quickly as possible.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am interested in the issues related to housing strategies and the idea that while we wait to challenge this U.S. duty decision at the WTO, which could take a year or two, we can in fact do something right now to encourage the domestic housing market at a time when we need it so desperately. We have so many people who are homeless or underhoused. The member spoke eloquently about that.

I am wondering about other methods in terms of the employment insurance fund and loan programs. What other methods does the member have in mind to help the workers in the forest industry as well as the owners of this crisis ridden industry right now?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, there is a surplus of over $42 billion in the employment insurance fund. The federal government this year has only taken $8 billion to pay its debt and balance its budget on the backs of the working people. The working people have only taken $7.2 billion. The government could make a ruling to prolong benefits by an extra five weeks.

At the same time the government could turn around and have a plan to build houses and create jobs not only for people working in softwood lumber but in construction too. We can put people back to work in our own country if we want to.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments and the passion that the member for Acadie--Bathurst brought to the debate. I would caution him that as good as the idea may sound we simply could not begin to take the surplus lumber that Canada would have because of the countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties. It would help but it would never make up for our trade loss to the United States.

I would also like to thank the member for Joliette for raising this issue today on behalf of the Bloc. As we will take all day to debate the motion, I would have hoped that it would have been a votable motion. It is extremely disappointing that it is not.

Certainly there is a greater issue here which is the unprofessional and amateurish way the government has handled this file. It has known this was coming for a long period of time and chose to sit on its hands and do nothing about it. Unfortunately since May 2 there will be a 27% duty made up of anti-dumping and countervail duties to be imposed on May 23 which will directly impact the four provinces under the old softwood lumber agreement. The anti-dumping duties will affect the other six provinces in Canada.

It is a Canada wide issue that the government has had a lot of time to deal with and has failed to deal with in any concrete way. It is an issue that especially speaks to the performance of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister for International Trade. These two individuals have carriage of the file. They have discussed the file face to face with the president of the United States and the American lumber lobby. They have completely and utterly failed in their duties to the softwood lumber industry and to the workers in the sawmills and the softwood lumber industry in Canada.

I would like to point out for the Liberal benches that we are dealing with people's lives and with communities. There are 350 communities across Canada that are dependent upon the forest industry to provide them with sustenance and livelihoods. There are 373,326 direct jobs in Canada: 101,417 in British Columbia, 24,499 in Alberta, 88,473 in Ontario, and 108,916 in Quebec. The rest of the jobs are in the other six provinces across the country. In Nova Scotia, the province I hail from, softwood lumber is a billion dollar industry, not something to be ignored at all.

We have a $47.4 billion export market for softwood. A large percentage of it is in the pulp and paper industry. There is $11.4 billion directly attributable to softwood lumber. If we think about the scale and the amount of dollars involved in trade, a significant part of Canada's trade surplus is made up of softwood lumber. We have a government that has totally failed its commitment to Canadians on this file.

The motion presented by the member for Joliette reads:

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 made 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.

Whether one agrees with the Bloc motion or not, it raises a good question and one that has not yet been asked in the House today. Again I will speak directly to the government benches.

The NAFTA hearings scheduled for this important issue will not take place until February 2003. When we are talking about until such time as this conflict may be resolved we are almost a year away. After that the process could continue for another one to two years. Let us go to 2004-05. Now we are talking about supporting communities for an extended period of time. That type of support asks and begs for a plan, a plan the government has not shared with anyone else. If it has one it is keeping it close to its chest. It certainly is not allowing someone else to have a peek at it.

I have looked at the chronology of events. It is interesting to look at them and go backwards. The government has gone backwards on this file. In February 2003 there will be an initial hearing under chapter 19. We hope that Canada will win that hearing, but when we go to court anyone can win the final decision. That is the problem with going to court. That is the problem with not having the savvy, the intelligence, and the ability to deal with this before it ever gets to court.

The next most important date moving backwards from 2003 is May 23. That is the day the U.S. department of commerce will publish anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders. The ruling has been there since May 2, however that is the day the enforcement begins.

The spin that the government has put out is interesting. Somehow we have won a little with the May 2 decision because the commission found a threat of injury from Canada to American lumber producers rather than actual injury. That is like saying we have pneumonia but we are probably not going to die from it. We are not quite sure.

There are a number of important dates in the softwood lumber file. We have to backup and look at the U.S. department of commerce revising its final determinations on countervailing duties and anti-dumping from 27.2%. We can go all the way back to March 31, 2001 when the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement file expired. The government at the time was saying it was not a problem. We would have free trade in softwood lumber.

Well, we need free trade in softwood lumber but we do not have free trade in softwood lumber. What we have is a country that is taking its largest trading partner to a higher authority called the WTO. There we hope we will get a favourable decision for the softwood lumber industry, its workers, the families who are affected, and certainly Canada's trade relationship with the United States.

If we look at the issue and break it down into segments, then perhaps the government will more easily understand it. The duties collected by the U.S. under the agreement will exceed $1 billion per annum, coming from the softwood lumber industry in Canada. Somehow we are supposed to exist under an agreement like that and our industry is not supposed to suffer.

I find it totally amazing when I look at the response of the government to the direct requests from members from all the opposition parties on this side of the House for some form of assistance to the industry through HRDC or some other government agency to industry workers. We have to be careful about the type of assistance we give to the industry whether we give direct assistance or not.

When we look at the impact on direct jobs across the country and the number of interventions that have been made, there has been a total lack of response from the government. It is nothing short of a shameless response by the Minister for International Trade and an inability of the Prime Minister to even grasp the significance of the file.

There have been a lot of requests for assistance. I would like to read a letter from the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party which spells out the measures to help victims of the softwood lumber dispute. The leader wrote to the Prime Minister on March 22 more than a month ago. The letter reads:

Dear Prime Minister:

I was surprised by the refusal today in Parliament of the Minister for International Trade to spell out measures the Government of Canada is taking to assist people and communities who will be hit so hard by the failure of the softwood negotiations. For hundreds of Canadians, that failure means their jobs ended when their shift ended today. Thousands more people, in communities across Canada, will be in a similar situation soon. They need to know, urgently, what help will be available to them, as they try to pull their lives back together.

The government says it was pursuing a two-track negotiation.

In this case, I think both trains are on the same track and it is not a pretty sight.

It goes on to say:

It was always evident that the first track could fail, and a prudent government would have set up contingency plans to help the victims. Apparently that has not yet been done.

It is one month later and it has still not been done.

The leader of the Progressive Conservatives went on to say that he understood that not even a committee of cabinet was considering the issue. There is still no response.

The letter goes on:

--considering that issue, or pulling together the resources that can help the individuals, industries and communities whose livelihoods are threatened.

I am writing to request that you spell out immediately a package to help the victims of the softwood failure. I hope you would also identify the Committee, or other mechanism, in your government that will co-ordinate a program to sustain forest workers and communities through this crisis.

We are still waiting and I suspect in a month's time we will still be waiting.

Let us take a look at what the government is doing today. We have already know that the Prime Minister has been completely unable to recognize the importance of the file and has been totally inept in his handling of it.

The largest file that we have on the table with our trading partners around the world is the softwood lumber file. Where is the Minister for International Trade? He is in Spain, and I do not know what he is doing there. I hope it is something important. Where should he be? He should be negotiating with the Americans and trying to end this completely devastating attack on the softwood lumber industry in Canada.

The only good thing is that he is in Spain with the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister will certainly not handle this file. If he is out of the country, maybe we can get something done. Maybe somebody else on that side knows the phone number for the president of the United States or the international trade arbitrators and could call them. In the meantime we hope they do not totally ruin the file.

What has the government done? The Prime Minister was at a hockey game the other night and said that part of the problem with the Canadian softwood lumber file was that we beat the Americans in Olympic hockey. That is an absolutely scandalous statement to make. Obviously the Prime Minister does not recognize the importance of this issue.

We have not negotiated with the U.S. and every overture we have made has been rejected on behalf of the United States. Is that the way to negotiate difficult issues? The government loves to sit back and benefit from the dollars that come in from free trade, but it would have been completely unable to negotiate that agreement. It actually voted against it. That agreement took some vision and understanding of how to deal with our trading partners.

That is not the only issue on the board which the government is not dealing with in forestry. I brought up the softwood lumber agreement issue at committee in 1999, two years before the agreement was set to expire. I said at that time that our natural resource committee should be travelling through the United States, looking at its sawmill industry and listening to the power of the lumber lobby, especially in the southern U.S.

However this was not important. It did not matter. The government had other things to do. There were a million and one reasons why that did not happen but the real reason was there was no will on behalf of the government which controlled the committee.

I brought up a number of other things at a meeting on May 6, 1999. One was the number of links to forestry sustainability in Canada and certification. I wanted to know what had been done about this because it affected our exports to the EU and would affect our exports to all our major trading partners. Right now it affects a number of our exports into the U.S. I wanted to know how this would affect our cross-border trade with the United States and why companies were getting around the countervail by increasing their exports of round logs into the U.S. so they would have some cashflow and make a few dollars.

The one thing the government finally did move on was the $500,000 capital gains exemption. However we have compliance checks at the border. We have a number of things that threaten our industry.

As my time is up, I will wrap up by making one statement, which has been made by other members when they have spoken to the issue. What absolutely epitomizes the government's understanding of this file was May 2, the day the decision came down four to zero in favour of the Americans.

Our government is under intense pressure to react. Outside the House of Commons the Minister for International Trade rejected calls from the opposition for government aid. He said “there were no direct job losses linked to the situation with the U.S.” That is amazing.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments of the member for South Shore. Today he is on side with us and the sentiments he has expressed are in the correct direction. It was interesting how he outlined the letter from the member for Calgary Centre. Of course it is a little late after the fact in that the Canadian Alliance has been on this issue since away back before the last deal was made and when quotas were being put together. We were questioning the wisdom of that then. It is interesting to see the late arrival of Conservative members on this matter but we really appreciate their support.

Does the member have some very specific solutions that he could suggest at this time? We all agree that the Liberal government has dropped the ball. It may be reflective of political priorities that in some respects it really does not need the west. It may be that it is making a very crude, calculated decision concerning resources and that it will just tough it out and hope it goes by because politically we really do not count in its basket. Could the member expand on what he wanted to say and give us some specific solutions rather than just decry the bad situation in which the government has left us?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting comment, and it amazes me. When we are trying to organize something in the House and all parties are speaking basically on the same issue, why would someone would come up with that type of condescending attitudinal question. However I will answer the question.

First, the member for Calgary Centre spoke before and not after the fact. The hon. member should look up past records of the House and he will see which party first brought up softwood lumber. There is a complete record of all committee meetings and everything that takes places in the House of Commons. I challenge the hon. member to do that.

This is not about one party or one person's file. This is about finding a solution. One of the most outstanding issues that the government has failed to address is the whole argument about American and Canadian stumpage rates. Canadian Alliance members failed to address that when they were speaking earlier today and since Canadian Alliance members had the opportunity to go first as the official opposition, we would have thought they would have put all of their arguments on the table at that time.

We were beaten up on the issue of American and Canadian stumpage rates which should never have happened. The stumpage rates in the U.S. refer to the selling price of the timber in the U.S. market. In some instances, because it differs from state to state, the buyer is not necessarily responsible for logging roads, environmental remediation or the planting of trees; the U.S. forestry service is responsible. That gives the U.S. a huge advantage on this file.

Canadian stumpage rates, which Americans like to say are too low, refer to the average price paid for timber to the government and any province. There is no difference between Nova Scotia and British Columbia when the stumpage is being sold on crown land. The buyer of the timber is responsible for putting in logging roads and any remediation of the roads when they move. In many instances where there is not sufficient regeneration, the buyer is also responsible for the planting of trees after the land has been logged. That is one concrete point where we have failed on the file. We have been unable to convince the Americans that we have a fair rate for stumpage and they have an unfair rate which tends to distort the price of timber south of the border.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned communication with the Americans. I have been on Capitol Hill. I have been in those white stone buildings in Washington, D.C. I have debated this issue with congressmen. I learned to appreciate that they really only received one side of the story. A lot of this has nothing to do with the technical points of who is really accurate on the ground. It has to do with politics and money raised for congressmen, and pressure groups. Part of the issue is a political dimension which the government has totally failed to appreciate.

Does the member have any ideas about ways of communicating the truth to the electorate who support the congressmen who are pushing forward a very narrow interest?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the member, having been down to Capitol Hill in Washington, realizes that pushing trade positions is a difficult sell to the American public.

I cannot speak directly for the softwood lumber industry in B.C. However, I know that under the Webster-Ashburton treaty between Maine and New Brunswick and the association between the maritime lumber bureau, which is made up of all of the maritime provinces, and the New England area of the U.S., we can make very good headway, not necessarily sawmill to sawmill but industry to industry. The government has failed miserably in that respect.

If we push our ideas and our claim to free trade to the right people in industry, we can be fairly successful. We were very successful in eliminating tariffs in the Christmas tree industry with the United States. We went to the producers and suppliers. It was very successful.

We need to have head to head meetings. The way to start is by having meetings between congressmen and parliamentarians so that everyone gets both sides of the story. The power lies in the sawmill industry, especially in the southern states of Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. The power is not in the Pacific northwest but rather in the mid-southern timber lobby.

There is an opportunity to put smaller players together so they understand the issue. Four or five huge conglomerates in the U.S. are very much in control of the American timber policy. People on TV talk about 150 American mills being shut down. They are not being shut down because of a cheap supply of Canadian lumber; they are being shut down because of productivity. They did not change with the times and are not competing with us on an even footing. That is the problem. That is what has led to their own demise. They want Canada to be the bogeyman, but that just is not true.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from South Shore suggested that the Government of Canada failed to make the right arguments in Washington and failed to get the support of American legislators. I wonder whether he really believes that is the case.

Members on all sides of the House have been working on the issue and making arguments. The minister and his officials have been to Washington. For the past year or more they have been working on this issue. The softwood lumber industry is the minister's top priority. We know how much political weight the industry has in the U.S.

Does the member think there was an openness to hear our arguments? Does he think the Americans were determined to have the tariffs come in during the period between the tariff initiation and the WTO decisions?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, without question, whenever we are dealing with the U.S. especially on trade, it is a tough sell. The Americans are ferocious negotiators and are totally protectionist, which should not have come as a surprise to us.

When I say that the government dropped the ball on the file, I mean that it dropped the ball on the file. In the middle of an American election the Prime Minister made comments on the outcome of the election. That was a huge mistake regardless of who was going to win. The Prime Minister was linking trade. That was a big mistake. We cannot link trade. We cannot link softwood lumber to oil. We cannot link fish to softwood lumber. That was a huge mistake. That is what I meant when I said the file was not handled properly.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I am pleased to rise today to address this motion. Rather, I am doing so with some sadness, because the softwood lumber and forestry industry is so important to Quebec, and particularly to my riding of Champlain. We were hoping that all the work undertaken in the past year would have yielded some results and that today we would not have to debate an issue that is at the core of our economy and that could pose problems to a large number of companies and workers who depend on the forestry industry.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Joliette for presenting this motion and for working on this issue for over a year, that is since we first saw all this coming. My colleague worked with his usual skill in providing assistance to the Minister for International Trade, so that this issue could be settled without having to go through what we are now experiencing.

As I read the motion introduced by the hon. member for Joliette on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I realize that it does not even condemn the government. Once again, the hon. member for Joliette, along with his Bloc Quebecois colleagues, did a thoughtful job. We are suggesting that the government take the necessary measures, so that the unfair and, in my opinion, immoral U.S. decision impacts as little as possible on workers and industries in Quebec.

Earlier, I was surprised to hear the minister responsible for regional development boast about the government's actions and react as if we were condemning his government. He said that everything had been done to help the workers and the industry get through this trial.

Let me first say that if the term “lie” was allowed in the House, I would use it. But since it is not, I will refrain from using it.

What should be unparliamentary is not using that word, but doing what it refers to. If one did not lie, there would be no need to use unparliamentary language.

The motion by the hon. member for Joliette reads as follows: 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.

As hon. members can see, we are calling for assistance, not just empty words. I know that the hon. member for Joliette and the members of the Bloc Quebecois, after touring Quebec, have given some thought to a program to help the industry get through this. We are offering this program to the government. We are offering as well as the necessary cooperation to get this program accepted.

I think it would be important for the government to seize the opportunity to announce that it will do everything in its power to help the industry to get through this trial and to help the workers.

For over a year, if not longer, questions have been raised in this House on what was coming for the softwood lumber industry, and the American threat. I remember what the minister has said already “We are going to win out, anyway. The Americans are not right”. He reminded us of a previous decision where the U.S. government had to reimburse the industry, if I recall correctly, $1.2 billion for having taxed it unjustly.

I asked another question about where the money had gone. The problem in this is that, after being faced with this unfair American tax and after watching their plants close, workers in Quebec and in the riding of Champlain will not find another job, even if Canada wins before the WTO in a few months or a few years.

They need help today. It is not their fault the Americans made a bad decision. It is also not their fault that the government badly managed the matter, and this has to be recognized, as things have failed.

Workers in my riding and in Quebec are not responsible for this failure. This is why the member for Joliette is proposing measures to the government to come to their assistance, so that the doors of the industry will again be open, once the problem with the Americans is settled.

Do we have the means to do what is being proposed. The employment Insurance fund has a surplus of some $47 billion. With a fund that is so rich—that would be so rich, had the government not emptied it into its coffers in order to pay its debts with money that belongs to workers—with a fund that has this much in it, do we have the means to support business? Can we afford to help the workers? I think so.

Before concluding, I will share my time with the member for Sherbrooke.

The government must give some thought to the measures we are proposing. It could provide some help to the industry by offering loans or guarantees, perhaps, so it could continue its work and show the Americans as well that we will not always let ourselves be had.

It makes no sense to decide to close our plants with the remark, “If we do not make our case at the WTO, you will win”. But when we do win, perhaps 50% of our plants will have disappeared. Perhaps many of our workers will be gone, having decided to do something else or struggled to manage to do something else. Many of these people will be older workers, who will have trouble retraining.

In my riding, there are older workers aged 55, 57 or 60, who have worked in forestry. It is just about the only work they have done and they are extremely good at it. Can we expect a worker such as this to pick up other job skills easily if the industry in which he works closes down?

This is the time to show our solidarity. We must remember that it is workers and the industry who are contributing to the EI fund, not the government. This money is to help them through hard times. That is what people in the riding of Champlain and in the Mauricie region and elsewhere in Quebec are now going through. Over $300 million in revenues and salaries are paid by this industry to workers in my riding and in the region.

We are looking at some difficult times. The government should have the courage, the compassion and the honesty to take a portion of the EI surplus, which is there to help workers, and set up the assistance program being suggested by the member for Joliette to help the industry and workers throughout Quebec.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member for Champlain on his excellent speech.

Does he not think that, at this time, an assistance program is essential to keep the consensus that has developed in Canada and in Quebec in favour of a complete return to free trade?

Without such an assistance program, it seems to me that, in a few weeks or a few months, when people are laid off and many plants are forced to shut down in British Columbia, Quebec, Alberta or elsewhere, industrial entrepreneurs and perhaps even labour unions will start asking the Canadian government to go back on its knees to negotiate an export tax and quotas with the Americans or even to simply accept the decisions made by the United States.

Does the member think that, at this time, an assistance program for the industry and its workers is essential to keep this consensus in favour of a complete return to free trade in the softwood lumber industry?

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously essential. One of these days, there will have to be true free trade. We cannot keep on going back to the negotiating table.

These agreements were negotiated, and we want people to believe in free trade because I think that it is the way of the future. If we do not want people to back away from it and to start believing that free trade hurts them instead of helping them, then we must be able to support the industry and its workers and make the Americans understand that we really want true free trade, without restrictions as is the case now with softwood lumber.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my Bloc colleague for his comments on this very important topic.

I have several mills in my riding. The softwood lumber dispute is causing a lot of damage and a lot of harm. Since 1996, when the agreement was first put in place, the government absolutely and completely failed to have any forethought in seeing that this deal would expire. It did absolutely nothing in that five year period and now we do have workers losing jobs, in my colleague's riding, in my riding and in ridings across this country.

I ask my friend how the government can possibly defend its do nothing approach to this major trade crisis that is causing so much harm and hardship for people across the nation. Could my colleague comment on the government's do nothing approach to solving such an important issue?

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, no matter where we live in this country, we see how this tax and the government's inaction are putting us in a dead end.

I know the member's region a little. If 25% of the softwood lumber is processed in Quebec, there would be 75% for the rest of Canada; I know that his region is badly affected. The government keeps telling us: “But wait”. Last week, it told us: “Let us wait and see if job losses are caused by the tax”. Come on!

Everyone now thinks that we have already started losing jobs. It even began a year ago, because there were talks about what was going to happen to us. There is no need to wait any longer to take action.

I totally agree with my colleague on this issue. Unfortunately, we do not have a government that likes to take quick action. It prefers to find excuses to justify what is happening to us.

The minister said that everything had been done and that unemployment insurance was there to help workers. Come on, seasonal workers are no longer being helped through employment insurance; there is almost no one left who manages to get help. It is time to act.

We are proposing, among other things, a program that would solve the problem temporarily before we can solve it definitely.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I congratulate my illustrious colleague for the work he has been doing for several months on the softwood lumber issue.

It is obvious that the federal government must take action as quickly as possible. May 23 is the fateful date where very high duties will take effect against the lumber industy in Canada and in Quebec.

Of course, the Canadian government intends to challenge this decision. But how long will it take to settle the issue? At least several months, but it could take as long as two years. Meanwhile, what will become of the lumber industry as a whole, namely companies but most of all the employees whose livelihood depends on the industry?

The lumber industry in Quebec comprises 250 plants and 35,000 jobs. The governments simply cannot leave these people to fend for themselves while the lawyers are arguing with each other.

For the benefit of those following the debate on the prestigious parliamentary channel—and as we know millions of people do so every day during their lunch break—I remind the House that the United States is blaming the Canadian government for charging lumber producers stumpage fees that are too low.

However, we must not forget that the American forest industry is comprised of several large landowners who for years have been charging high prices for their wood in order to protect their own interests. These prices are high and may even ultimately be too high.

Therefore, when we analyze the situation, we compare our prices based on our natural resources, which are abundant, to the high prices charged in the United States. Also, if we take into consideration the efficiency of our employees and our lumber plants, our costs appear to decision makers to be much lower than those in the United States.

However, we know that in the United States the forests belong almost exclusively to large businesses. Here, in Quebec, 90% of the forests are public lands and, of course, the government determines stumpage fees on the basis of the wood market. At first glance, this creates no problem. Fees are determined on a market basis. However, because prices in the United States are high, too high actually, it is difficult to compare the two situations.

One has to wonder what was, exactly, the role of the negotiators for the Government of Canada in these negotiations. Could it be that they were not aggressive enough? I do not mean this badly. Could it be that they were not forceful enough? Were they not able to prove that, obviously, the lumber industry in Canada is not subsidized, or is not overly-subsidized compared to the United States, and that everything was fine? The decision is, to say the least, unfair to Canada and Quebec.

There is another problem that exists. May 23 is fast approaching. Currently, the softwood lumber industry is experiencing something pretty unusual. Indeed, softwood lumber exports from Canada and Quebec are booming. Really booming.

What will be the impact of this in terms of short term problems? Not only are softwood lumber exports booming, but it is not just any old lumber being exported. It is the grade A select lumber. It is quality lumber at a price that benefits the U.S., but in the end, also benefits the industry here.

What will be the overall impact of this? Two things may happen. Obviously, a shortage. It is now the month of May, construction work is beginning. There is a great deal of construction and the prices have already been guaranteed.

Of course the shortage may have the effect of pushing prices up both in Quebec and in Canada. Around $15,000 worth of lumber is used on a $125,000 house. This may rise to $20,000 in the near future. This may have considerable consequences on the construction market too.

Second, there will be more second and third grade lumber. We know that poor quality lumber is more difficult to work with than a Liberal member of parliament, we can be sure of that, with the exception of a few colleagues. Incidentally, I wish to thank the member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, who supports the Bloc Quebecois motion, unless I am mistaken. Is that not what I heard earlier? Yes, there are a few members who do bear their full load. Therefore, I congratulate the member.

Nevertheless, the problem affects the entire construction industry. In the short term, we know there are major problems.

I admit that what I have done recently is just a quick analysis. Things in the Eastern Townships are a little better, but certain regions in Quebec and Canada are going to be considerably affected. At this time, of course, there must be assistance for the softwood lumber industry workers. There is no doubt that times are going to be hard. If things drag out for two years more, 24 months, there is a risk of a shortage, after this period of heavy exports to the States, and soon there will be a drop in demand here as well.

I have analyzed one of the solutions and recommendations by the Bloc Quebecois. There have been investments in affordable housing and in construction. However, the government could, in addition to direct assistance to workers and industry, also commit to major social housing construction projects, ones even bigger than initially planned.

According to a rapid calculation, the price range on these could be, depending on whether there were four or six units, from $13,000, to $15,000 or $16,000 in lumber per unit. At the moment, there is a need in Quebec for approximately 8,000 social housing units. This is in addition to any promotion of new residential construction for potential first time homeowners.

An action plan could be drawn up, therefore, to assist in development and construction per se, in order to compensate for part of the shortfall. We realize that this will not cover all the costs of exporting to the States, which would come to some $500 million.

A multitude of measures should be initiated in order to remedy the problem in the short term, and the medium term of course. I trust that, in the meantime, the government will not stop its efforts to demonstrate to the Americans that the price of Quebec and Canadian lumber is a fair one, considering our natural resources, the efficiency of our industry and the work done here.

It is high time that the government stopped twisting like a 2x4 made of fir. I always had problems with the French expressions “se faire passer un sapin” and “se faire passer une épinette”. I have always used the first one, while others use the second one. I have solved the problem and I know why.

At Christmas time, when we go and get a fir tree, we might get a spruce tree instead. However, when we build a house, we want spruce. If we get fir, the house will be all crooked and twisted.

I hope that the Liberal government will not try to “nous passer un sapin”, but that it will ensure that softwood lumber and the softwood lumber industry in Quebec and in Canada will be adequately defended.

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

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the government has followed a strategy that has the support of all the provinces and the industry throughout Canada. Even Quebec supported our government's strategy of negotiating and taking legal action.

The government is taking all possible legal action both at the WTO and under NAFTA. Apart from the protests made by the Canadian industry before NAFTA authorities about the United States' final decision confirming the existence of these subsidies, there is a lot more more being done.

Does the member not recognize the action taken by the government?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me ask a hypothetical question. If the Liberal government has done everything it can in terms of negotiating over lumber, if it is taking every legal measure possible to try and resolve the immediate conflicts over lumber, what is it willing to do to help workers, the industry and businesses and to maintain its financial assistance through various major housing programs, like social housing or home buyers programs? It really begs the question.

Let us suppose that the work was well done. Now, we need concrete measures to ensure that the industry and laid-off workers can continue to earn a reasonable living. To do so, we need new housing programs, where we would be using our lumber here, and other programs to help those who will be temporarily unemployed find their way through the labyrinth of government programs and not hit a wall.

We hope the government will take into consideration the Bloc's recommendations.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to qualify what has been said about Quebec's support to the Canadian strategy. It is clear that like the Bloc Quebecois, Quebec has always supported the federal government's will to return to free trade.

I think that one of the achievements of the present round of negotiations is that, so far, we have managed to maintain this consensus in Canada. There is no question of export taxes, quotas or agreements, as was the case in the 1996 agreement. It is something that has been settled already, and the Minister for International Trade is to be congratulated on that.

This is now phase two. Despite all of our efforts—and the Quebec government proposed important changes to its forestry development plan—the Americans rejected our proposals.

Does the hon. member agree that, to ensure the consensus on a return to full free trade is maintained, we need an assistance plan to help the industry, the workers and the regions get through this crisis? In this regard, Quebec has called on the federal government to take its responsibilities.

Is this assistance plan necessary for the consensus on a return to full free trade to be maintained?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the exceptional situation we are facing requires action from the government.

The U.S. is said to be a free trade country. It is all very well when the flow is going one way, but when it starts flowing the other way, protectionism takes over. Imports alone account for 11% of the GDP in the United States. This clearly shows that when the Americans do business with other countries, it is not to buy their stuff but to sell them theirs.

If the softwood lumber industry is going relatively well in the United States because prices are high and the industry has some degree of control, I would not say that there is collusion, but they keep prices high. The American government just imposes countervailing duties to protect its own market.

It is obvious that we should return to full free trade.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

Today, we are debating a motion tabled by the Bloc Quebecois member for Joliette and asking that the government set up an assistance program for the softwood lumber industry and its workers, to support them in the face of an unjust decision by the American government.

The hon. member for Joliette is cautious in his use of terms. He is using the word “unjust”, but I would go further. He is right when he says that it is unjust, because this decision attacks the credibility of our forestry workers.

I would go further. I would say that, with this decision, President George W. Bush is engaging in trade terrorism. As we know, Bill Clinton make speeches in Quebec, where he attracts many people, and he will also travel to Toronto and elsewhere in Canada. We know that the former U.S. president is opposed to Canadian softwood lumber. It is the same with his wife, Hillary Clinton, and with Edward Kennedy. They are all opposed to Canadian softwood lumber.

On April 10, I tabled a motion similar to that of the Bloc Quebecois, which read: “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should establish a new housing construction program in Canada for aboriginal and Inuit communities, with a view to keeping Canadian softwood lumber in the country”.

As we know, members of this House, both from the opposition and the government, have been making representations for a number of months now. The minister responsible for this issue has defended the government's position very well so far, but today is today. Cabinet has done a good job for Canada, but today we are faced with a decision, and in two weeks it will be too late. What are we doing to prepare for this?

Today's debate comes at a most appropriate time. Some may claim that our plants were not affected by the situation last year, but it is not true. We know that they were seriously affected, even though there were quotas. We also know that the hon. Jean Charest, the Liberal leader at the Quebec National Assembly, is also asking for help for softwood lumber workers. Recently, the Quebec government, through its premier, asked the same thing from the federal government.

Today, we are in this dilemma. We will be speaking on behalf of forest workers. We have forest workers in the Abitibi area, and throughout Quebec and Canada. I am speaking now for the benefit of those who live in major urban centres. People in the cities, on Wellington Street in Ottawa, St. Catherine Street in Montreal, or Yonge Street in Toronto do not have the same viewpoint as the members of parliament representing resource regions. Forest workers work seven days a week, while their wives look after the accounting at home. The logging equipment very often runs 24 hours a day.

Why do we not take the Bloc Quebecois advice and set up a program to build social housing, housing for the homeless and the aboriginals? We know that we need 20,000 units a year ten years in a row for aboriginal Canadians. The FTQ recently held a meeting in Val-d'Or, and I was a participant, along with the hon. member for Témiscamingue, the unions and the regional council of the FTQ. The provincial members should have been there, but were not, unfortunately. We are now debating this motion, and we are working for forest workers.

It will be too late in two weeks from now and during the summer. Our government should find a way to help the industry while avoiding penalties under the WTO and NAFTA. Maybe we should provide loans, or set up some kind of social program to keep our lumber in Canada. This resource is ours. We do not keep forest companies from selling lumber in the United States. Frank Dottori, of Tembec, is taking the administration of George W. Bush, this trade terrorist, to court for $200 million.

It is quite something that the president of a company with an excellent credibility should resort to that. A story by André Pratte in La Presse this morning tells it all. He talks about a lumber hangover of sorts and comments that the Government of Canada has no choice but to help the lumber industry, which could be hit by a serious downturn as soon as this spring.

We cannot wait. We know that the Prime Minister and the ministers responsible in cabinet are looking for a solution. We know that. Let us not lie about that. They are doing their job.

In the present case, we are facing an emergency. In two weeks from now, the sanctions will be imposed on a firm basis. At this moment, Domtar and other forest products companies are exporting wood at full capacity to the United States, because there are no taxes.

I read a comment dated May 3, 2002 from the former Liberal minister, Sergio Marchi. We know where he is now. He has been appointed for one year as chairman of the General Council of the WTO, responsible for monitoring negotiations on the liberalization of global trade. He declared, “The solution is a political one”.

As a matter of fact, the solution is political. If they can decide in one day to spend $100 million to buy Challengers, they should be able to find in one day a solution for forest workers. That is the truth of the matter. Let us not hide behind our benches, even if we are backbenchers. I am no longer a backbencher, I am a frontbencher. I am going to have to turn around so that the people across the way can call me a backbencher.

What matters is that we find solutions together. I understand that the Prime Minister and the ministers responsible will find solutions with other cabinet ministers. Whatever people may say, this is what matters at this time.

If members read the newspapers of the last year for statistical purposes, this is what they will find, “Taxes on lumber cause more victims”, “Domtar closes three plants until January 7”. This is what is going on. Some people are doing what is necessary.

This is what the Quebec Lumber Manufacturers' Association had to say:

The lumber industry in Quebec represents about 40,000 direct jobs in forests and in plants. The development of more than 250 municipalities in Quebec is based on the wood processing sector. That industry represents 100% of manufacturing jobs in 135 towns and villages.

In the case of Abitibi--Témiscamingue, 68% of our forestry resources are processed in the greater Montreal area. We should not forget that.

We have to look today at the effects, even if the tax is not imposed. The May 4 issue of the Journal des affaires contained the heading “Difficult Quarter for Forestry Industry”. It is not only the tax and sales quotas. The drop in the price of softwood lumber has eaten into profits. Even Tembec has had to make provisions for countervail duties and anti-dumping charges. They have to prepare even now.

What really counts today is that the unions and forestry workers, men and women, and the forestry companies are holding a big meeting here in Ottawa on the sixth floor, not only for lobbying purposes. They want to discuss matters with all the political parties and all the MPs from resource regions.

I call on members from the major urban centres to lend a hand. I want to send a message to the ministers who come from these centres. They must come to the aid of the resource regions. It is not on St. Catherine Street that we are going to cut down three or four trees, but in the resource regions. Forestry workers are worried, really worried. They have been worried for the past two years.

We meet these workers on site. The Bloc, Alliance, NDP, PC and Liberal members meet people in the resource regions. Families talk to us. Women ask us questions. Today, even, children are asking us questions, because they will be taking over.

We need to know exactly what the situation is. The Government of Canada has to find a solution within the next two weeks. I trust the Prime Minister will tell George W. Bush: “Move over. It is our lumber and we will keep it in Canada”.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the main goals of foreign policy is to aggressively defend vital national interests. When it comes to the aerospace sector of the economy, the government has been very aggressive and diligent in advancing and protecting the interests of the aerospace industry. It literally goes over Niagara Falls to protect that industry.

However, when it comes to agricultural trade and international trade issues pertaining to agriculture and softwood lumber, to use one of Harold Ballard's phrases, I think the government has been rather wimpish. I think Harold used the analogy that a certain player could go into the corner with eggs in his pocket and come out of the corner and the eggs would not be broken. I would say that in these two areas the government has totally failed those sectors. It has not been aggressive. It has been a wimp. It is clear to everyone who stands back and objectively looks at this. The government consistently gets top marks for hot air and zero marks for action.

I have a question for the member. Why is the government so weak and ineffective in negotiating and protecting the agriculture and softwood lumber sectors when it seems to be so effective in protecting and advancing the interests of the aerospace sector?