Debates of May 7th, 2002

Supply

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from what the opposition is saying, everybody should resign and we should call an election tomorrow. I do not think that the suggestions made by the opposition will help us solve all the problems. It is a very special situation, and I agree that we need to have the discussion that we are having today on the softwood lumber issue.

The riding of Portneuf will surely be severely affected by these duties. We are being told to act quickly. Emergency measures are being taken, and we also have the employment insurance plan. But what we need to do, and fast, is to sit down and find a long term solution. That does not happen overnight.

The consultations that have taken place so far dealt with the situation before the decision regarding the imposition of countervailing duties was announced. Now the situation has changed somewhat, and we must work together to find a better solution, and that is exactly what the government and the minister are doing right now, very calmly and very sensibly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very surprised by the speech made by the member for Portneuf, who went over all the previous negotiations.

I am not sure if he has read the Bloc motion which says:

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

I would like to know what immediate action has been taken, besides the changes the government members told us they made to employment insurance.

Everyone in the lumber industry, the provincial governments and the business community is asking the government to take immediate action to ensure that businesses do not close down. Therefore, I would like the member for Portneuf to answer the question.

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the difference between the government and the opposition is that there is a problem, and members on the other side are demanding immediate action.

I would like to ask the member what she did during her lunch break. I had lunch with people from the lumber industry and, today, I made phone calls to six sawmills in order to talk directly to these people and to find that how their sawmills were doing and how many jobs they had lost.

I would like the member to tell us how many sawmills she called today. I know I made some phone calls and I know a lot of members did the same today. Day after day, the minister works hard to find solutions, and these are some of the things we are doing right now to try to co-operate with everyone and find solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond today to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Joliette that the Government of Canada should set up an assistance program to support our Canadian softwood lumber industry and its workers until our trade dispute with the United States is resolved.

We all know that resolving the softwood lumber dispute is and has been a top priority for the Minister for International Trade and for the Government of Canada. The livelihoods of many Canadians and their communities depend on this very important industry. In my own riding of Halifax West there are two sawmills, so I have great concerns about this matter and great concerns about the impact of this dispute and the impact of these tariffs and countervail duties imposed by the Americans.

In this dispute, the fourth in the past 20 years, the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber trade relationship regrettably has been one of conflict and litigation. It has become evident that there are some hardline interests in the U.S. that want to continue dealing with this issue as they have in the past and do not want to make any real progress or have free trade in softwood lumber.

Before going on, I want to mention that the Government of Canada's appreciation for the support and co-operation shown by the provincial governments and by their ministers responsible for trade in forestry matters is real. We also want to give our thanks to industry for its support in this very difficult time. The united front shown by our team Canada approach in defence of recent unfounded U.S. softwood lumber decisions is the only way we can proceed in challenging the U.S. trade action.

Today I want to focus my comments on six key things: Canada's response to U.S. decisions affecting our industry; the status of negotiations with the United States; our challenges at the World Trade Organization and under the North American Free Trade Agreement; the need to assist our workers and communities; Canada's advocacy efforts with the United States; and our next steps.

Before I go on I want to read, if I may, a section of this morning's editorial page of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald . It states:

As America's largest trading partner, Canada has an obvious interest in having a free trader in the White House. True, no president has ever halted U.S. protectionism in its tracks.

True enough, Mr. Speaker. The statement continued:

But the presidency, for all its political trimming, is still the best counterweight available against a U.S. Congress that is always ready to rewrite trade rules to protect local interests and against an International Trade Commission (ITC) that is a reliable poodle of U.S. business in applying those frequently rewritten rules.

I think that members here will firmly agree with the sentiments expressed today in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and I think the evidence agrees with those sentiments as well.

Last Thursday, the United States International Trade Commission found that Canadian softwood lumber exports posed a threat of injury to U.S. lumber producers. This decision applies to both the countervailing and anti-dumping investigations. With the determination that our industry is merely posing a threat to U.S. producers and not materially injuring them, all bonds that have been posted by our industry should be cancelled and cash deposits made prior to May 16 should be returned by the U.S. customs service. We can look forward to that. It is obviously going to be of some help to the industry to have those cash deposits back.

Effectively, the U.S. ITC decision eliminates over $760 million Canadian in duty liabilities being carried by Canadian lumber producers. Regrettably, as a result of this decision, cash deposits representing the 27% U.S. duties will have to be posted on or about May 23, 2002, after the department of commerce publishes its final order. This ITC decision was not unexpected given the protectionist nature of other recent U.S. softwood lumber decisions, but that does not make it any less damaging. I speak about the fact that we have had this ongoing problem, these ongoing concerns, this ongoing litigation and these ongoing challenges with this process, with our lumber industry, with Canada-U.S. trade.

It seems to me that part of this has to do with the fact that every two years there are U.S. congressional elections for the house of representatives. It seems that whenever we get close to election time the house of representatives anxiously looks for ways to promote narrow short term interests rather than taking the long term view of having good relations and good free trade on a broad range of issues between our countries, including softwood lumber. Canada will conduct an immediate review regarding possible challenges of the May 2 U.S. ITC decision as soon as the commission provides its written report, which is expected on May 16, not far away.

U.S. protectionism has again unfortunately taken control of U.S. decision making bodies. How, I ask, can Canadian industry “threaten U.S. industry” given the stable Canadian share of the U.S. market, the strong U.S. lumber market and U.S. industry profitability? How can that be?

The final decision on the U.S. ITC does not change our course of action, a course of action developed over a long period of time. While I will speak about this in greater detail, we will continue to challenge U.S. actions at the WTO and under NAFTA. Our case is solid. We are confident that we will prevail, and I will speak more about this.

A little over one month ago in Washington, the Minister for International Trade, his provincial ministerial colleagues from B.C. and Quebec, officials from all provinces, representatives from 11 industry associations, and over 60 company representatives worked to secure an agreement that would serve Canadian industry. Canada's negotiations with the U.S. followed eight months of discussions to try to secure a durable softwood lumber agreement. It is not as if, as we hear from the opposition, the government just started working on this yesterday. It has been a long period of time. There has been a lot of preparation. There has been a lot of concern about this for a long period of time.

It seems clear to me that in spite of all the negotiations and all the efforts there did not seem to be a willingness on the U.S. side to hear what we had to say, to hear our arguments and to recognize that in fact these are unfair actions and unfounded allegations. There seemed to be a determination to impose these duties and to try to benefit domestic producers in the U.S. despite the fact that these were unfounded allegations. That is a real concern.

The Government of Canada, the provinces, the territories and the industry spared no effort. Canada's negotiating team worked tirelessly to get an agreement that worked for us and, yes, even worked for the United States and addressed its concerns. We put forward a serious, solid proposal, but the U.S. rejected it. I do not believe it was interested in a proposal, as I said a moment ago. The provinces, with the support of industry, tabled substantial proposals that addressed U.S. concerns about market distorting policies and pricing systems. The proposals put forward went to the heart of the accusations that the U.S. industry has brought forward over the past 15 years.

While we were disappointed that our fair and reasonable offer did not form the basis of a solution to this longstanding trade dispute, it became clear that U.S. industry was not interested in true policy changes but only in making sure that lumber prices went higher and that Canadian producers would be restricted from the marketplace. Regrettably, the U.S. government did not push back on its industry in spite of the damage this does to U.S. consumers and to the U.S. economy.

While the Government of Canada remains open to pursuing good faith negotiations leading to a long term solution, I believe the United States government must demonstrate a willingness to re-engage on a basis that is mutually acceptable to both parties. The U.S. position regarding resuming negotiations does not appear to have changed.

We are continuing to challenge the U.S. trade actions in all legal venues open to us. Canada is vigorously defending the interests of our softwood lumber industry. Last Friday, as part of our defence, Canada launched another WTO challenge concerning the flawed U.S. final subsidy determination and its imposition of countervailing duties on Canadian producers. This complements our other challenges of U.S. softwood lumber decisions. Let us look at those challenges and the actions that the government has taken on this issue.

Our actions include: a NAFTA challenge of the U.S. final subsidy determination; a NAFTA challenge of the U.S. final dumping determination by Canadian industry; a WTO challenge of U.S. duty deposits policy; a WTO challenge of the U.S. preliminary subsidy determination; and a WTO challenge of the Byrd amendment, the amendment in regard to U.S. customs authorities distributing duties to U.S. producers. Canada will also conduct a review regarding a possible challenge of the ITC's final injury determination under chapter 19 of NAFTA as soon as we see the reasons for the ITC decision, which, as I have said, we expect to see on May 16. Last, federal, provincial and ministry counsel are at work drafting our NAFTA complaints, in both the subsidy and the dumping final determinations.

The Canadian government is taking every action possible in every legal venue available to defend the interests of Canada's softwood lumber industry. We are defending Canadian industry and defending it with every tool that we have available. We will continue this effort as long as needed.

The Government of Canada is extremely sensitive to the effects of the American duties on the Canadian industry. I am aware of the burden weighing on communities and workers involved with softwood lumber and their families. I am aware of the job losses and plant closures.

I would like to mention that the Government of Canada is looking at all the options available to it to help those in need. We will work closely with the provinces to assess the effects of these unfair duties on Canadian workers and the community in Canada. A number of programs exist to help workers and communities get through difficult periods.

The Minister for International Trade has also said, however, that we cannot rush in this regard, because sometimes there are needs that go beyond the scope of existing programs. We are looking at the situation with an open mind.

We are looking to see whether existing social protection will provide enough help to displaced workers and to communities, or whether other possible options will have to be considered. Some wonder why the Government of Canada does not wait until it has won its case before the WTO and in the context of the NAFTA before paying the 29% duties. Together with industry, we will take the necessary steps, but this option carries with it the risk that the U.S. will double the duty immediately. The States can always impose trade measures. We are taking this eventuality into account in our examination. That matter aside, I can guarantee that we are looking at all the possibilities.

Canada has put a lot of effort into defending its interests. Our Prime Minister raised the matter with President Bush, and the Minister for International Trade did the same thing with his American counterparts.

Our ambassador actively took further steps with the U.S. congress. The consuls general did likewise with representatives and local media. Canadian parliamentary all-party delegations travelled to Washington on many occasions.

We have recently started seeing editorials in the American media critical of U.S. trade measures and American protectionism. Our American allies, connected with housing construction and softwood lumber consumption, also fought for free trade. Although it will certainly not be easy to change American political opinion, we will continue to make ourselves heard.

We will continue to take the Team Canada approach. We, the Government of Canada and the provinces, must remain firmly committed throughout this process to finding a solution that is beneficial to all.

We have gone far. We face a grave problem for our country, not just one province but all provinces coast to coast. This is having a real impact and we still have a long way to go.

We have followed the team Canada approach. We have had the support of all provinces and the industry for our two-track strategy over the past number of years of negotiating and litigating. That has been the policy and the strategy of which all the provinces and the industry have been supportive and to which they have agreed.

We are exploring all options for workers and lumber dependent communities. That is important to all of us. I do not think there is anyone in the Chamber who does not take seriously the impact on people and families of having mills close down, and the impact that joblessness has in so many ways on families and our communities.

We are all cognizant of those factors and impacts. We are all concerned and it is important that we remain concerned, that we remain seized with and focused on this issue. The government is focused on this issue and will remain so. We are challenging U.S. decisions at the WTO and under the NAFTA and will continue to defend the interests of Canadian industry.

We have gone through a great deal of effort which continues. We have taken many steps. This is not a johnny-come-lately approach to this matter. The government has been seized with it for a long time, but it is clear that despite the best efforts of members on all sides of the House, officials of the department of international trade, ministers, and the Prime Minister himself in speaking to President Bush, there has not been a willingness on the U.S. side to hear what we have to say.

Therefore once actions are taken by the U.S. and we have a basis for it, we must begin our litigation at the WTO and under the NAFTA, where I believe we will be successful. Those are important approaches.

At the same time we must look at what is happening in the communities that are affected. The government is looking at that. We are aware that the EI system will be helpful but it is important to look at other approaches and look at what the impact will be in reality on individuals and their families. The government is going to do that.

I mentioned earlier that I have two lumber mills in my riding of Halifax West: Barrett Lumber Co. Ltd. and Hefler Forest Products Ltd. They are both longstanding employers in our community doing important, valuable work in employing people for many years. I have had occasion to talk to people in the industry in my area on a regular basis over the past number of months, particularly Mr. Keith Barrett, who is representing the industry for Nova Scotia. We have had many conversations about this issue, about the importance of following it, and of maintaining a unified national approach to the issue. We have had an excellent, co-operative dialogue and I hope that will continue.

This is a concern that does not just touch British Columbia or Quebec. It is one that touches my province of Nova Scotia too. I am pleased to see that the government is taking it seriously. I urge the ministers to keep doing that. I know they will. I trust that members opposite will recognize how complex and difficult this issue is, take responsible positions and recognize the realities we face. Let us find ways to work together, to co-operate, and to have supportive, unified efforts to fight this battle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have some news for my friend on the Liberal side. He said this was a complex issue and indeed it is. That is why there was a five year period from the time the agreement was signed in 1996 until it expired fourteen months ago in 2001. I mentioned earlier in the House today that the government could have come up with some kind of interim measures during this time period.

We appreciate the fact the government is taking a tough stance. We too want to see free trade enacted. In the meantime however there are lots of independent operators who are suffering. I have many of them in my own riding. There are remanufacturers in my riding who will likely not survive this interim period of 18 months to three years that it will take to get the litigation through at the WTO. In the meantime, these people will likely loose their jobs.

Individuals at CW Technologies in my riding were not amused with the minister's comments indicating that there had been no loss of jobs. Some 50 to 60 jobs from 115 jobs were lost with the expiration of the softwood lumber agreement. This was not due to inadequacies at the mill or the remanufacturing plant, but a direct result of not getting the product into the U.S.

Does my colleague on the government side agree that the government could lay out some specific measures for this interim period for those being hurt the most, whether it be in my riding of Dewdney--Alouette in British Columbia or any other riding in any other province across the country? Does my colleague agree that the measures suggested by the government simply do not go far enough?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been following this issue over the past five years. It has been a preoccupation and a concern of the government throughout that period.

We have an employment insurance system available to people who are out of work. I am anxious to see that it works quickly and effectively. At the same time the government is looking at the situation and looking at what other alternatives or other programs are needed in this case.

The government has followed the agreement with the support of the provinces and industry. Our strategy has been one of a unified approach across the country on two fronts: negotiating with the Americans and trying to find a solution.

On one front there was some hope a solution would be found, but it appears now that the Americans were not interested in negotiating and were not interested in hearing our discussions. On the other front was litigation. The government is defending the interest of Canadians and Canadian industry in many ways.

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to my colleague from Halifax West in his chronology of events leading up to the situation we are in today and the efforts to resolve if that the government is trying.

Today is an opposition day and the Bloc has chosen to talk about softwood lumber. This is not about softwood lumber in the same way as the issue was not Prince Edward Island potatoes a year ago or hot house tomatoes from British Columbia ten months ago or the steel issue that happened three months ago and was basically resolved. The issue of agricultural products will make the softwood lumber dispute pale in comparison if we allow the Americans to subsidize their agricultural products as they anticipate doing in the coming months. Those are the issues.

What all parties in the House of Commons should be talking about today is a new dispute resolution mechanism to resolve disputes that come from the United States. During an election process in the United States the dispute resolution system fails to work. What does the member suggest we do to find a new dispute resolution mechanism that is not politicized by the system in the United States? How do we find a system that will be ongoing, fair and equitable to all parties in the House and to all citizens, both in Canada and the United States? I submit that is what we should be doing.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for making a constructive suggestion. We have had some of those today but not as many as we would have liked. All of us in the House recognize that we need to bring a responsible approach to this issue. We need to talk about it seriously to find constructive ways, not irresponsible ways, to overcome these problems.

The suggestion of a new dispute resolution mechanism is a good one. The existing mechanism does not work as it should in this case. It requires a will on both sides to have a mechanism that works. The one already existing in NAFTA is not satisfactory. I hope we and the American government can find the will to work out a new mechanism, one that works for both sides and one that carries into practice what the American administration and congress tend to advocate, which is free trade. Let us have free trade. If we are for free trade, we cannot be for it in some things and not in others. Let us have it in lumber and agricultural products. The member has a very good suggestion and I look forward to others.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the member talk about mechanisms for medium and long term measures. What we need today is very short term measures. Businesses are in jeopardy right now, and it will be worse after May 23.

We hear the Prime Minister and government members say that what is needed to deal with the situation is already there in existing programs. If the government has what it needs, if everything is planned, what is it waiting for to announce what it can do and what it intends to do?

Apparently, it is not really the case. That is why the Bloc Quebecois has proposed specific measures. I am speaking on behalf of small businesses that cannot turn to Canada Economic Development. They need a short term guaranteed loan program. Does such a program exist for small businesses? Yes or no? If there is no such program, what is the government waiting for to set one up?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggested this is a short term problem but if we in fact reflect we have had this dispute going on for the past 20 years. It is not really a short term problem in that sense. It is an ongoing problem. We are hopeful that the current dispute and tariffs will be a short term or at least medium term problem; the shorter the better obviously.

The member talks about the impact on lumber producers and on mills in his riding and elsewhere. I remind him that we can expect that those mills and producers will be receiving the return of their cash deposits, and that should provide some assistance, at least in the immediate term. Meanwhile the government is looking at other measures and I am sure it will be taking those concerns seriously. However, the primary effort is to negotiate with the Americans and take those strong efforts I mentioned in litigating at the WTO and under NAFTA.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a short question for the member. I want to tell him that exceptional situations call for exceptional measures.

We are facing an exceptional situation. I want to know what exceptional measures his government intends to take immediately to deal with this situation.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would say that I hear the question but I do not hear any answer. It is important that the member put forward some proposals in that regard. We have heard a suggestion today, for example, from my colleague from Thunder Bay, but I do not hear any from this member. I hope we will hear some.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak to this debate brought forward today by the Bloc Quebecois. I would like to reread the motion. It states:

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.

I would like to say to the Liberal member who spoke before me that we moved this motion because the Bloc Quebecois made a proposal to the government a few weeks ago already to establish programs to assist businesses, loan guarantee programs, ways to ensure that our businesses in the softwood lumber sector would be well prepared to weather this period that lays ahead, which could last several years and which will be very hard on these businesses.

We made real proposals. It would have been nice for the member to be aware of this situation. This recommendation for workers was made public. We referred to using the government's reserves for training programs, among other ideas. The member is aware that through the employment insurance fund, the government transfers money to the provinces for workforce training. However, it has set aside $700 million in reserves that have not been used and that could be used properly.

This morning there was a press conference with workers and their representatives. They told us “This money needs to be invested in the industry right away in order to develop secondary and tertiary processing. From the plant workers, we can select those who have the ability to develop their skills in these areas of activity, and give them a chance to launch businesses immediately to diversify the product”. Once softwood lumber has been processed, it can no longer be hit by the tariffs. In that sense, it is an interesting option.

There is also the question of dealing with the crisis triggered by the imposition of the tariff after the end of May. This fall, a number of people in my riding and in several municipalities will be dealing with the softwood lumber situation. Whether at Dégelis, Squatteck, Saint-Eusèbe, Packington, the entire Témiscouata region, as well as Kamouraska, there is considerable dependency on the forests. Today, all these people are very worried about their future.

The statement made Friday by the Minister for International Trade had considerable impact on the people in our region. Although not necessarily sovereignists or anti-Liberal, they were very surprised to hear the Minister for International Trade state that, so far, there have not really been any consequences and that the government will wait until there are some.

In our region, people know that they were laid off last fall a month earlier than expected. They know that next fall it is very likely that they will be laid off a whole lot earlier. This being the case, it was not only the workers who reacted to the statement by the Minister for International Trade. So did the business people, Guildo Deschênes of Groupe GDS among them. He is a big man in Quebec industry, with mills in the Témiscouata area and in the Gaspé as well, lumber mills. According to him, the minister's statement was irresponsible.

I think the Minister for International Trade needs to be more in touch with what is really going on. He is perhaps great as an international trade consultant, but he needs to fulfill his real role as a minister. It is as a minister that he acts as our spokesperson with the Americans.

When he said to the Americans, “You know, your duties have not caused that many problems”, the message he was sending them was, “Go ahead, hit us some more. Bring it on. We can take it. We can survive it. We will get by thanks to our existing programs”. This is not the message the industry was expecting. This is not the message workers were expecting. This is not the message the regions were expecting. What they were expecting was the message contained in our proposal, a proposal with real solutions. It would give us the solidarity we need to get through the next two years.

Let us not forget that it is not the members of this House, it is not the government, not even the business leaders who will bera the brunt of this. Those who will are the workers who will wind up having their jobs cut. Next spring, they will end up facing a greater gap than the one that currently exists.

Next year, with the end of the moratorium that was proposed as an election promise, workers will need around three more weeks of work to qualify for EI in my region, and in the end, there will be about eight fewer weeks of benefits.

These two factors, combined with the softwood lumber crisis, will mean that in many regions, such as the one I represent, consumer spending will cease; people will not have enough money to survive on, for their family to survive on, to pay their rent, and to make their car payments. All of these factors have a very significant impact on the economy.

When you take money out of the economy, unfortunately it has as exponential an effect as when you put money into the economy. This causes our communities to suffer.

We must not wait until people start lining up in front of unemployment offices, 150 at a time, to pick up their cheques, and be told, “Conditions have changed; you would have needed to work 75 extra hours to qualify, or else, instead of receiving unemployment benefits for 28 weeks, you will only get 21 weeks of benefits”.

We must not wait for that to happen. We must act now. We must implement a policy. The Minister for International Trade, in co-operation with the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Industry, must say “We are faced with an urgent situation; we must stand up to the Americans. We must stand together. This solidarity implies that we will adequately support our workers and businesses”.

This is currently not the case. Throughout the negotiations, the Minister for International Trade said “We are well equipped. We will deal with the situation”. It would appear that he grossly underestimated the Americans' reaction. We now have it before us. There is no longer any reason to underestimate it. The minister is well aware of the reality. We must know if he is prepared for a protracted war, one that will last two years, until the WTO rules in favour of Canada in the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.

In the meantime, if we do not make the necessary efforts, who knows what will happen? Small sawmills will not make it. Some people, who could very well be the owners of large sawmills or U.S. competitors, will buy back these companies. In the end, our communities will become increasingly dependent on world trade, on owners who will not have any ties with the regions in which we live, in which we support our communities every year.

This is what must be avoided. This is why the Bloc Quebecois has tabled today this motion, this proposal, and the related action plan it had developed.

In order to help the industry, whose main problem is one of credit, we included help for companies, because this is essential. The loan guarantee is a tool that could be used for this purpose.

A special fund for SMBs could also be used.

Obviously, there is secondary and tertiary processing.

For the second group, there are industries that we could help in this manner.

As for workers, improving support measures would be a way of providing better training, using the $700 million the federal government has tucked away.

There is the creation of a special status for seasonal workers. We could add five weeks of benefits in order to eliminate the spring gap for workers and help older workers unable to re-enter the job market.

In answer to the Liberal member who spoke earlier and said that he would like to see more specific suggestions, I would say that these suggestions are on the table. They have been there for several weeks. And we are waiting for the federal government to decide to put forward an action plan.

For several weeks, the Minister for International Trade has been saying, “We must wait for the May 2 ruling”. May 2 has come and gone. The tariffs will take effect on May 23 and still there is no news. It is as though they had a boat without a captain, and are not sure where they are heading right now. That is why we have proposed this debate in the House of Commons, so that the government will finally make a decision.

I will conclude by informing you, Madam Speaker, that I am sharing my time with the member for Témiscamingue and that I will be pleased to answer questions from members of the House.

However, as the representative of a region hard hit by the softwood lumber dispute, I saw last summer that workers stood behind the government's position during a visit with my leader. They said, “We have to settle the score with the Americans”.

But now the government has to return the favour. Now that it knows that the battle will be long and difficult, it must not let people down. I think that the public would be incensed if it realized that it had been hung out to dry by the federal government.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for his excellent speech and for all the work he is doing in his community on the softwood lumber issue.

There are things that I do not quite understand. All day long, we have debated the softwood lumber issue and we have said that the Bloc has made very practical suggestions to help the industry and the workers.

Earlier, a government member told me, “I would like the member to offer some solutions”. That is exactly what we did weeks ago. We did it during question period, and we have done it all day long.

I would like my colleague to explain once again to the member, who really seems to be totally deaf, the solutions we have proposed to help the workers, so that these workers realize that we respect them and that we have tried to come up with a solution.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I have a solution to the political deafness of a Liberal member, but I can always try.

A month ago, the Bloc Quebecois made a specific proposal to help both the industry and the workers. I talked about it in my speech. I repeat, for the industry, we want loan guarantees; we also want a fund that could help small businesses without violating international agreements. Even though what will be decided after today will have no impact on the WTO decision because that decision must be based on the situation that existed when the complaint was made, the measures that we have proposed are politically responsible. They will be in keeping with international agreements.

For the workers, we want active measures to improve secondary and tertiary processing and to help people switch to other industries. There are also what we would call passive measures, but they will enable our workers to have an adequate income during the additional periods of unemployment that may result from the current situation.

If members want more information on this issue, I invite them to come to the employment insurance horror show that will take place tomorrow in room 200 of the West Block. We will see a film on the great EI robbery, starring the Minister of Finance. He has the leading role in this film. We will also have explanations on the negative aspects resulting from the fact that no changes were made to the employment insurance plan.

On the softwood lumber issue, I will be pleased to explain to the members, with the help of those who worked on this issue, particularly the member for Joliette, that we have all the necessary proposals on the table. All that is lacking is the political will to implement them. The Minister for International Trade must stop acting as a consultant and really take charge of the situation.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques.

I come from the small municipality of Sainte-Rita located in his riding. Therefore, I know that a hundred jobs does not mean as much for an area like mine, Lévis, with a population of 125,000.

That is just one example. The member may have other municipalities in mind. When a hundred jobs are at stake, whether they are direct jobs in a sawmill or indirect jobs for other forest workers, what does it mean for a small municipality?

That could be one of the highlights of the horror show we are holding tomorrow: the horrible impact on the forest industry of what is going on right now.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, the question is a very relevant one. Indeed, Sainte-Rita is a lovely little municipality in my riding.

At the moment, this is happening in a number of communities. Last fall, people were laid off in mid November, about a month before the usual layoff date. The effect of this was to cut significantly into the number of presents for children at Christmas.

Back home, two of the four RCMs in the region are among the poorest in Quebec. One of the effects is to push people at that point to not have any more income and to seek social assistance, in the end. In the meantime, when a person ends up in the gap any money set aside has to be spent first. They can own a house worth only a certain amount to be entitled to social assistance. This state of affairs reduces the overall economy of the region.

In closing, I believe that in this small municipality the loss of three, four, five or fifty jobs is pretty significant. It calls the vitality of the municipality into question. I think specific solutions are called for. It is time to move out of macroeconomics and look at the significant human impact. At the moment, the federal government is not meeting this challenge satisfactorily.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in today's debate. The region I represent, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, is home to many people who earn their living in the forest industry. There are numerous companies, including a couple of the major players like Tembec, which is one of the companies that has decided to sue the U.S. government.

There are a lot of small businesses, small sawmills, so there are a lot of people involved. Because we are so close to the resource, and for a number of other reasons, lumbering has developed into a major industry.

Today—and not for the first time, because the softwood lumber dispute with the Americans has gone on for some time—here we are again, only days away from a very serious threat that is hanging over our heads, which is that the Americans are going to crack down on us with a tax on our softwood lumber exports to the U.S. market.

A lot of jobs in our region depend on this, and today we find ourselves faced with a situation where a lot of people are worried. We have a situation that is going to happen within weeks, and no response from the government is forthcoming, no message of, “Come on now, we will be there to support you and this is exactly how”. All they were told is, “There is a whole series of government programs and you can just sort through them and maybe come up with something that will help you get through this”.

But this is a very unique crisis. The federal government is responsible for negotiating international agreements. Canada has entered into an era of free trade with the U.S., except that now we are faced with a situation where, when our industry is performing, doing really well, the Americans have decided this does not suit them and so they are going to impose a tax on us that will slow down our exports, whereas whenever we got into a legal wrangle in the past over softwood lumber, we were the ones who won out.

The problem is that the government negotiated agreements with the Americans, agreements that have always benefited the U.S. government and American businesses.

This is an agreement that has expired, and we have voluntarily limited our exports to the United States. We had a system of quotas whereby the provinces were subjected to a limit in terms of what they could export on the U.S. market. This system was based on choices that were often made randomly, in terms of who would get the quotas and who would not. It was not fair.

Only four provinces, namely Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, were affected by the export limit and the quotas. The other provinces could sell their products to the United States as they wished. So, a series of terrible inequities led to the situation in which we now find ourselves.

What I deeply resent in all this is to see how the Canadian government is down on its knees when dealing with the U.S. government. It did not raise its voice to say, “Listen, this does not make any sense”. The minister did it once, outside the House of Commons. He tried to act tough by telling the Americans “Wait a minute, this is not the way it is going to be”.

This means taking real action, such as saying “Yes, we will stand behind our industry”. There is an idea going around that I find interesting: it is to give loans to companies, so that they can continue to sell their products on the market. These loans would allow them to pay the duties.

Sure, some will say, “Is this truly in compliance with international agreements and so on and so forth?” The Americans did not ask themselves whether their action was in compliance with these agreements or not. They told themselves, “We will take measures so that companies in Quebec and in Canada will be destabilized for two or three years, and we will see the outcome of the legal battle. We will try to intimidate them, so that they will accept an agreement that will benefit us”.

We, being nice people, are saying, “Yes, we will challenge this all the way”. We must do so indeed, but we must also strengthen our position.

We will support our industry and we will not let things happen as we are doing right now. In other words, we will support workers if jobs are lost, not with the regular programs, but in a special and specific way. We must show that we mean business.

When the government commits money to the fight, then we will know that it really does have the will to go all the way and reach a settlement.

When it decides to lend large sums of money to support the industry, it will be because it is confident that it will win in the end. It will not lose much, just what it cost in interest payments. Even there, the Americans will compensate us if we win this conflict.

Everyone here seems to agree that we will win the legal battle. This is a case of minimal financial risk. The idea is an interesting one. The government is saying, “We are going to wait until there are job losses, a few more job losses. We are not really sure what the impact is yet, if it is the market slowing, or normal restructuring”. The minister seems satisfied to say, “We will wait and see”.

There are people who are wondering if, in a few weeks, they will be working of if they will have lost their job. We are going to see lumber pile up in the yards, and people will say, “What is happening? Are we selling our products”.

For us, the lumber market is something real. We see it is doing well when we look in the plant yards. When they are full, we know what to expect and what that means. We are experiencing this now.

Obviously, there are normal cycles over the course of the year. There are periods of layoffs and slowdowns. The layoffs that we are about to see will be because of a political crisis caused by American businesses that lobbied politicians hard, and they responded. Here, we are very shy to respond to the industry.

In our region for instance, Tembec is one of the major players in the coalition for free trade. This company has decided to take the U.S. government to court under the trade agreements, using the argument that there will be losses associated with a political decision in the United States. I think it would be nice if business people could stick to business and the government could do its job in the field of international relations and ensure that, when it negotiates free trade agreements, it can support our industries when there are problems and litigation. This is a major issue with a significant impact.

This holds true for many regions in Quebec, and in northern Ontario. Our neighbours will be in the same boat. There will be major economic repercussions. In recent years in my region, we have been through a major crisis in the mining industry, which cost us many jobs.

In my riding—multiply this by two to get a picture of the region, because there are two ridings there—, between the 1996 and 2001 censuses, 5,000 people left the region. This has a definite impact on our ability to maintain adequate effective public services, such as schools, hospitals and so forth. There has to be economic activity. Fortunately, the price of gold and metals—particularly gold—is coming back up, which is pumping new life into the region. At the same time, forestry is an extremely important industry in the area. It cannot be abandoned like this.

There are other parallel measures that should be taken. There must be more support for forestry research and development. I remember the technology partnership program. Back then, the government invested heavily in the new economy. It was impossible to apply for projects from the natural resources sector. There was no program providing adequate support for the activities of these industries.

The reaction from Ottawa was “no”, but fortunately the Government of Quebec had supported research activities, particularly in the case of Tembec in Témiscamingue, and in others as well. Here in Ottawa, the answer was, “No, no program”, but we invested and placed a great deal of store in new technology. This was justified, but at the same time traditional sectors of the economy are also extremely important. This could be seen in the drop in high tech in the past two years, the stock market share and bond losses in this area. It can be seen that the same is not true as far as our economy is concerned. There are sure values and these must not be forgotten.

Certain myths notwithstanding, the productivity of the natural resources sector is very good. It must continue that way; we must maintain our competitive edge.

During the two years the industry is likely to be destabilized, are businesses going to continue to invest as much in R and D? Are they going to plan investments for modernization? They will be under heavy financial pressure. This will have impact in a number of areas and cannot be allowed. A clear message needs to be sent to our industry, to our workers, to our people, the men and women who earn their livings in this industry, that we will be with them.

We must also send a signal to the U.S. government that we will not give up, that we will do whatever it takes. One way to show how serious we are would be to table immediately, without delay, an action plan that would make them realize that we are ready to go far, to fight to the end.

If it is possible to reach a settlement that would bring us back to free trade, only then would we consider signing an agreement with the Americans. Otherwise, let us fight to the end and let us support the industry and the workers in the meantime.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. He talked about the idea of loans. He said that if the U.S. can break the rules of international, trade then why can we not break them?

If we were talking about a situation where the balance of trade or the trade surplus was very much in the American's favour or if we were talking about American goods coming into Canada, then we might have some options. However we are talking about softwood lumber going into the U.S. Therefore what we have to be concerned about is what measures the U.S. will take in response to whatever we do.

If we provide a form of subsidy, as he is suggesting through loans to industries to pay for this, we may even see a doubling of the countervail duty. Is that what he wants? I do not think it is.

I like his suggestion of research and development work in the industry and it is important to pursue that kind of thing. However let us not have simplistic approaches and simplistic, irresponsible answers to this important problem.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I invite the member to repeat publicly, directly to those affected, what he just said about their idea of loans being irresponsible.

I do not think we can say that it is impossible to find a way of providing loans without violating the rules of international trade. We must show some imagination in our way of doing things.

However, we cannot say, “But what if we displease the Americans?” I do not like the idea that we will not do something just because we do not want to displease them. They will hurt us even more. We can be creative.

If there is anything we can do that is in keeping with international agreements, let us do it. However, let us act now. Let us not wait indefinitely. We want to see some action now, because people are really concerned, and rightly so, since we do not know exactly where the government is going.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 5.31 p.m. it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.

Committees of the House

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

Madam Speaker, following discussions among the parties, I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the Special Committee on non-medical use of drugs be authorized to travel to and hold hearings in Edmonton, Alberta and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan from Tuesday, May 21 to Friday, May 24 and, that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.