Debates of Oct. 25th, 2005

Softwood Lumber

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade (Emerging Markets)]

Mr. Chair, I would first like to respond to the member's comments about the Prime Minister's involvement on this file. At every high level meeting, he is right there for us. Whenever he gets a chance to talk to the President of the United States or with the President of Mexico he brings this issue up. We are getting support not only from Mexico but also from previous presidents of the United States.

The NAFTA has given us great prosperity in the last 10 years. The NDP seems to look at it as though it is a bad agreement. I would like to know the NDP's stand on the NAFTA. Would those members be willing to tear it up?

The NDP has mentioned putting duties and tariffs on our energy exports. Not only is our lumber industry being hurt by tariffs, are those members willing to go the extra mile and hurt some of our other industries?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is great that we have the support of the President of Mexico in this dispute, but it is not his fight. It is not his problem that this agreement is not working for Canada. It is not his problem that our softwood lumber industry is taking this terrible hit from the Americans.

It is great that former President Clinton says great things to support us as well, but it is not his fight either. This is our dispute with the United States and our government needs to show leadership on it.

This dispute is not going to be resolved by President Fox or ex-president Clinton. It has to be resolved by the government and Canadians. If we do not stick up for ourselves and do more than just talk, do more than just make phone calls, or do more than plan trips to shopping malls to convince Americans that somehow we have been hard done by, then we will get nowhere. The negotiations will continue with the Americans and they will continue not to abide by the existing agreements let alone anything we come to down the road.

We keep hearing that the NDP would tear up the NAFTA. That is not our position. We said that we needed to ensure that it worked for Canadians. If it needs to be changed because it is not working, then it needs to be fixed.

The NAFTA is not working for Canadians. The binding dispute settlement mechanism is not working for Canadians because we won the decision. The Liberals keep saying that we won and that is great. However, what do we have to show for it? Absolutely nothing. This agreement clearly is not working for Canadians. It needs to be renegotiated and reworked so it will work for us.

We are not in this to improve the United States position. Earlier a Liberal member said that we were out to create a wonderful continent. Canadians want us to stick up for Canadian interests before we worry about American interests. That is my stand.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Chair, I want to comment on a question that was posed earlier by the member for Vancouver Island North with respect to the $5 billion and the differentiation between the $3.5 billion and the $1.5 billion. I have had an opportunity to get some clarification on that and essentially it is not that different from what I indicated.

The government is very adamant that $5 billion is the amount that needs to be rolled back. The $3.5 billion goes up to the point when the extraordinary challenge was launched in November 2004. This amount is not really being disputed. The United States has taken a different position with respect to the $1.5 billion and it has some legal options with respect to it.

We have won all the arguments up until this point, so the Canadian government will be taking the position with the International Court that the $1.5 billion is in the same category as the $3.5 billion.

Ultimately, the differentiation is more of process and timing. The government is resolute in our position that $5 billion is the amount in question. That $5 billion is not legally supportable to be retained by the U.S.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am worried about the answers that I just heard from the parliamentary secretary. It now looks like the $5 billion is negotiable.

The Liberal member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing said as much in his speech earlier this evening. He said that he thought there was some wriggle room around the $5 billion owed to Canada because of the dispute with the United States. He used the words “wriggle room” when he talked about the $5 billion, and we should negotiate away some of the money we won in the dispute settlement mechanism.

We now have the government backing away. We heard this today in question period. I understand why the member for Vancouver Island North was all of a suddened concerned about the $3.5 billion figure. Where did that come from? Clearly, the government is backing away again from its commitment to stand by this negotiation and to stand by what is owed Canadians in this industry, and industry that has been so hard hit by the illegal action of the United States.

I find it unbelievable that we are going down that road. Now we are willing to negotiate away the money that is owed to Canada.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Chair, this is a continuation on the same theme in my question for the member for Burnaby—Douglas. The concern I think all of us share is the whole question of mixed messaging from the government. That can create a real problem in delivering the message we want to deliver.

I heard the trade minister during question period talk about the return of $5.1 billion. I heard the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister in the very same question period talk about the return of $3.5 billion. It is as if they are on two separate sets of talking points.

Did that strike the member for Burnaby—Douglas the same way it struck our caucus?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chair, it certainly gives a mixed message. It is not exactly establishing a very strong bargaining position when we cannot even agree on the amount of the money that is owed in reparations for the decision.

We are getting mixed messages. On the one hand the government says to the United States that it has to abide by the agreement it signed with us and it tries to be very serious about that. At the same time, the Liberals are negotiating new agreements with the United States for further integration around air safety, food safety and security. It does not make sense to be in the middle of this kind of dispute with the United States and to continue on those and further negotiations and to develop new plans for further treaties with people who do not respect the ones that are on the plate now.

I am very concerned about the Arctic wildlife refuge and the porcupine caribou herd. Another agreement is on the table which is crucial to that caribou herd and to that important part of our heritage in our country. The Americans are not even living up to that agreement at this crucial time. That is appalling.

We should show the Americans that we are serious. We need to take actions, actions that I and the NDP have outlined before, to show the Americans that we want to hold them accountable for the agreements that they signed with us in good faith after good negotiations.

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to join the debate late this evening on this important topic and discuss Canada's work to resolve the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.

I would like to highlight a few of the actions our government has taken, our short term goals and hopes with the softwood lumber dispute. I would like to touch on the relationship between Canada and the United States and also the unique nature of the maritime lumber industry where I come from.

Canada and the United States have the most successful example of trading cooperation in the world. It is true there are issues on which we occasionally disagree and we often hear more about those exceptions than we do about the vast number of issues on which we agree.

Softwood lumber is one example. Canadians are rightly concerned. It is a large sector of our economy, 350 communities in Canada, 250,000 people. We are concerned about the U.S. decision not to abide by the NAFTA rulings in our favour. Free and fair trade has after all been enormously important in developing the North American prosperity and competitiveness that we enjoy in the continent today.

While the softwood lumber dispute, the largest trade irritant in our relationship, is a significant issue, we should remember that most of our trade is problem free and our bilateral trading relationship is in fact envied around the world. However, the strength of our relationship is on occasion tested. We do on occasion follow a different path. I do not think that that is a sign of weakness. I think that is a sign of strength.

For example, Canadians and Americans had a different perspective on the war in Iraq. Our government, taking into account Canadian values, decided not to enter that war. I felt then, as do most Canadians, that the just causes for resorting to conflict had not been adequately established.

However, we do share the American belief in democracy and the commitment of the U.S. to bring stability in that region. We have been strong partners in the reconstruction of Iraq, training police forces to help restore order there and donating hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild infrastructure and foster the growth of a revitalized society.

With respect to softwood lumber, we have another example where our countries disagree. Let me once again confirm the government's commitment to finding a long term policy based resolution of this ongoing trade dispute which began following the expiry of the softwood lumber agreement in March 2001.

The Government of Canada is confident in the approach taken thus far in defending the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry. Our goal in this dispute, which we have vigorously pursued, is to improve access to the United States market for Canadian softwood lumber producers. The government has pursued this goal in close consultation with provincial governments, Canadian industry and its associations through several rounds of negotiations, through the NAFTA, the WTO and now the U.S. Court of International Trade challenges for those U.S. trade actions.

We also have provided support and assistance for the lumber sector while it copes with the burden of this dispute. In addition to the goal of resolving the dispute, the government has made it a priority to invest in this industry on a long term basis by working to increase market opportunities around the world for Canadian softwood lumber.

As hon. members are aware, despite numerous WTO and NAFTA panel rulings against U.S. duties on softwood lumber, the U.S. continues to impose countervailing and anti-dumping duties on softwood lumber and has collected over $5 billion in duties to date.

The U.S. has dismissed a key unanimous NAFTA extraordinary challenge committee ruling which obliges the U.S. to revoke the duty orders and return those cash deposits. Canada considers the U.S. failure to implement the NAFTA decision to be contrary to U.S. law and U.S. trade obligations.

This flouting of NAFTA obligations is unacceptable. The government will explore every reasonable option with a view to resolving this dispute, including litigation, high level political intervention and advocacy.

While the U.S. continues to dodge its obligations, the Government of Canada will continue to defend Canadian interests and will insist that the U.S. fulfill those obligations. Unfortunately, until they resolve this dispute, Canadian industry continues to pay unfair duties and to suffer.

The Government of Canada is very sensitive to the tremendous burden that this dispute places on the softwood lumber industry and has been behind the industry, as well as its communities and its workers, every step of the way.

I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members the steps the government has already taken in order to assist this sector while the dispute rages on.

In 2002 the government announced a variety of assistance programs for the industry, communities and workers totalling $356 million to mitigate the damage that this dispute has imposed on one of Canada's key industries. The programs were announced by Natural Resources Canada, Industry Canada, Human Resources Development Canada and the then Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. They were made up of $71 million for measures to assist displaced workers; $110 million for a national softwood industry and community adjustment fund; $95 million in funding for softwood lumber research and development, market expansion initiatives and advocacy efforts; $20 million in advocacy efforts to inform the U.S. public of the impact of the U.S. duties on U.S. lumber consumers; and nearly $15 million in assistance for Canadian lumber industry associations. The funding assisted those associations to operate effectively under the burden imposed by the softwood lumber dispute.

Canadian lumber industry associations are very important and have played a key role in acting as liaisons between the Government of Canada and the softwood lumber industry throughout the course of this dispute. Industry associations also provide detailed legal and policy advice in the development of the Government of Canada's WTO, NAFTA and U.S. CIT challenges and during negotiations with the U.S. administration.

In recognition of this important role, on April 15 this year the Minister of International Trade announced that the Government of Canada would provide up to $20 million to associations directly to help offset legal expenses incurred in defending Canadian interests. Furthermore, Canadian lumber producers and their workers deserve great credit for the tremendous strides that they have made in increasing the productivity and the competitiveness of their products and their operations. If anything, the edge in productivity which the Canadian industry has enjoyed over its U.S. competitors has increased over the course of the latest round of this dispute.

I want to talk about the maritime provinces. We have a unique position in that our lumber is largely found on private land, over 75%, often on woodlots owned for generations by families. Our unique situation has been recognized by governments of all stripes here and also in the United States. It is our duty as MPs to ensure that this tradition continues to be honoured and it will. The maritime lumber industry has worked hard for this exemption and it has earned it. I disagree with my hon. colleague on this side and my good friend the very hard-working and effective member for Etobicoke North on his comments about the Atlantic Canada lumber industry.

We continue across Canada to monitor the state of the industry and the need for further government assistance. Looking forward the government is also actively developing other foreign markets through increased trade opportunities for Canadian lumber producers. This market diversification is a long term investment in the future of Canada's lumber economy and in the Canadian economy in general. There are clearly many opportunities to diversify our markets as the world economic order continues to evolve.

The government is taking a number of actions to ensure that the lumber sector benefits from those opportunities. These actions include trade missions to high growth markets China and India; working with organizations such as CMHC on influencing building codes in foreign countries to accept Canadian lumber; and using Canada's network of trade commissioners around the world to identify foreign market opportunities for Canadian lumber producers to develop.

As hon. members are no doubt aware, the government has made capitalizing on these opportunities presented by the ever-expanding market in China a priority. The very same can be said of the opportunities in China for our lumber producing sector. China is now in fact Canada's fourth largest destination for wood products. In 2000 it was our seventeenth. It is anticipated that China will overtake the United Kingdom as third on that list in the near future. The government is working hard to develop these markets. Over $7 million a year is spent to promote Canadian wood in this and other markets.

Recently the Minister of Natural Resources visited China to promote Canadian energy and softwood lumber. On October 14 the minister announced from Beijing $2.5 million from the Canada wood program to be targeted at the Chinese market in this fiscal year.

Finding these new markets does not diminish the importance of solving our softwood lumber dispute with the United States. Our American partners must comply with NAFTA. This is the single goal and the consistent goal of the Government of Canada and we can accept nothing less.

I know all members of the House have the same vision which is full and fair trade for Canadian softwood lumber and the return of the $5 billion in deposits. We need it now and we need it for years to come. I think speaking with one voice will achieve that.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Chair, we have heard a lot of commentary from the other side of the House in this debate and indeed in the last few question periods about how hard they are working to find a solution and how serious the issue is.

I have a copy of a news release from the Minister of Finance who has chosen a patronage appointment for the associate assistant deputy minister of trade, policy and negotiations with the federal Department of International Trade. The reason I raise this is that this individual has been responsible for the management of the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.

If the government decided to give that person a patronage appointment, how much credibility, how much importance does the government place on softwood lumber?

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Chair, I think it is very clear that the question is how much emphasis the government places on the softwood lumber dispute. It dominates every discussion that we have with the United States. Since August 10 we have a list of discussions between the Prime Minister and President Bush; discussions between the Prime Minister and Secretary Rice; the Minister of International Trade has made calls and met with his U.S. counterparts; pursuing the litigation in U.S. courts as well as in NAFTA; pursuing this file in every legal forum; the hon. Minister of International Trade leading trade missions to find alternate markets; taking this message to the American people; and the Prime Minister's speech in New York.

The hon. member does not have to take my word for it. I noticed that in today's National Post , not normally a great source of inspiration for Liberals, there is a column by John Ivison, also somebody who generally does not speak well of us. The column is entitled, “A leader speaks with conviction”. In it he said that the Prime Minister spoke with conviction mainly on the trade dispute over softwood with the United States.

I do not think one has to look very far to see the commitment and the decisiveness of the Prime Minister, the Minister of International Trade and other ministers on this challenge. We in this nation need to speak with one voice. I think we are trying to do that as well as we possibly can. This is very serious. We are talking about a lot of Canadian workers. We are talking about a lot of money, $5 billion in wrongly taken duties that we need to have returned. There are very few things more important, if anything, than this for the Government of Canada at this point in time.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Chair, in the response that the member just provided, he said that the columnist for the National Post talked about the Prime Minister speaking with conviction. I would like to know which conviction because yesterday there were four different Canadian Press Wire stories in the national general news: The Prime Minister suggests he is open to negotiations on some elements of the softwood dispute. The Prime Minister has indicated he is open to negotiations over the softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. The Prime Minister says he will not negotiate the dispute resolution panel decisions under the NAFTA. The Prime Minister told an Ottawa news conference that he might negotiate other aspects of the softwood dispute.

There are four different statements saying four different things. Talk about mixed messages. If this is speaking with one voice, I do not know how many tongues it is in. How is this conducive to resolving the softwood dispute when on October 24 we heard “open to negotiations”, “will not negotiate”, “might negotiate” and then today in question period he went from there to “will not negotiate”? This is all most puzzling to people who watch this closely. The only people who are showing any degree of being impressed with the performance are those who are only paying attention a quarter of the time so they only hear one story.

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Chair, it is very important for Canadians to get a single message on this dispute. I think Canadians from coast to coast to coast understand that we are following the rules in this trade dispute and the Americans are not.

I refer to the speech that the Prime Minister made, on the record, to the world, at the Economic Club of New York. It was highly publicized and well taken. He said in speaking specifically about softwood lumber, “Countries must live up to their agreements. The duties must be refunded. Free trade must be fair trade”.

The Prime Minister is actively pursuing this file with the U.S. ministers. The Minister of International Trade is doing so as well. The Government of Canada speaks with one voice on this issue, and that voice says that we respect NAFTA, we believe in free and fair trade, and the moneys that have been taken from our companies need to be returned. That is a simple message and a clear one.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade (Emerging Markets)]

Mr. Chair, I commend my hon. colleague from Dartmouth on his speech and also on his understanding of this file. The hon. member is from an urban riding. I know Dartmouth quite well. Sometimes we think that this issue is mostly a rural issue, which it is not. The softwood lumber issue affects people in the urban centres just as much as the people in rural areas.

He spoke very well of our multifaceted approach on this file, whether it is litigation or how we are helping the communities. He also spoke of the different levels of communication with the U.S., whether it is the Prime Minister, the minister and even MPs speaking with their counterparts in the United States, the senators and congressmen. I also have to commend members of the official opposition and the other parties for working together. That is so important.

The member from Dartmouth stated that we have to have a cooperative and unified approach with no light between us. When we are approaching the U.S. or any country in trade matters, we have to be united. That shows that we are strong and together.

My question is on the whole idea of how the urban community is affected. How does the whole softwood lumber issue affect his riding and the city of Dartmouth?

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Chair, my hon. colleague from Sydney--Victoria has family in the great riding of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour and I have a reasonable assurance that they vote Liberal, so I appreciate his understanding of my riding.

This is not a rural Canada or urban Canada issue, an eastern Canada or western Canada issue. This is an issue of fairness and it is an issue that matters to all Canadians. Canadians understand that. On a personal note, I think Atlantic Canadians in particular understand this. The Atlantic Liberal caucus, and I am sure it is the same with the Atlantic Conservative caucus, which is reasonably small, and the Atlantic New Democratic caucus in that they speak on issues. When I speak of employment insurance for seasonal workers, it does not affect people in my riding very much, but it affects Atlantic Canada. What is good for the economy of Atlantic Canada is good for me, not to mention the fact that people in urban settings build houses and use lumber. This goes beyond being an urban or rural issue.

In the United States we are now beginning to get a lot of support from consumer associations and lumber associations because of the need for lumber.

This is an issue for Canada. It is not an issue just for urban Canada or rural Canada. It is an issue for all of Canada. It is an issue on which Canada has a unified position. We believe in free and fair trade. We believe NAFTA must be respected. We believe the $5 billion should be returned. We need a long-standing and durable solution to the softwood lumber dispute.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to stand and contribute to the debate tonight. I have listened intently to my colleagues on this. I have had some interesting thoughts go through my mind as I heard the debate and the rationale for how they are trying to explain to Canadians their position on the softwood lumber agreement.

This is an issue that is very near to my heart and to the hearts of my constituents. I do not believe there is a community in my riding that is not impacted by the softwood lumber industry.

Actually, it is even closer to home than that. I have a son who is a professional forester who works in the industry in my riding. I believe I have a fairly good understanding of how this industry impacts the communities, particularly in rural Alberta and in rural communities right across the country.

When we think of the 360,000 jobs across the country, those are primary jobs. We are talking significant numbers, especially when we understand that the spin-off effects in the rural communities for these primary jobs are one in four or one in five, depending on where they are.

To say that it is a big issue in my riding is an understatement. I think I have to explain that before I get into the debate on the softwood lumber agreement and what is actually before Parliament and before the country at this time to work this out because it has major repercussions.

We also have to see it in the light of the other two major industries in my riding, which is the beef industry and BSE, the agriculture industry and it has some effect with regard to the relationship between the United States and ourselves.

As well, I would like to talk about the oil and gas industry which is the third primary industry in my riding. It would be hard to say which one of the three is the biggest in my riding . I would it would be a draw because they impact in such a significant way. They all have repercussions in what we are talking about because we are actually talking about the NAFTA agreement. It is not so much about the softwood lumber agreement. We would like to think it is about the softwood lumber agreement but it has escalated beyond that.

If the United States of America does not respect the ruling of the NAFTA panel in the dispute settlement for softwood, it does not respect it as a dispute settlement mechanism for any of the industries in which we trade with the United States, our largest trading partner.

We have to understand just how important this is to the relationship between the United States and the 95% or 97% of the industry that is going without a dispute at the present time. We hear that on both sides of the border.

However there is a message for the Prime Minister and for the American President that they have to understand. When we look at who has been hurt and who has not been hurt with the way this disagreement has unfolded, we have to understand that it is the politicians on both sides of the border who have not necessarily been impacted. It is the people on the United States side of the border who have been impacted. It has raised the price of their homes by $1,000 on average because of the duties, the countervails and the increased costs of lumber to those American citizens, but it has not necessarily impacted the politicians in the same way. They are trying to play the political game, trying to win seats in their ridings and they are trying to protect forest industry jobs and so those senators and congressmen are really talking about politics at the local level.

Here in Canada we see the same sort of nonsense going on. It is not that it impacts the politics in the House so much. It has impacted the industry and it trickles down to the communities across the country and impacts those individuals. It is the communities and the industry that have lost. I know there is a mill in my riding that has had to shut down and I know mills across the country that have had to close over the last number of years as we played politics with a lack of leadership on this issue.

Who has won? It certainly has not been the people of the United States and it certainly has not been the people of Canada. Who has lost? Obviously the politicians on both sides of the border have not lost enough.

We have to understand that when we have a dispute settlement NAFTA panel, negotiations for the dispute settlement have to be recognized. If they are not recognized, then we have a situation where we will not be able to move forward on any kind of trade security for any industry. It does not matter if it is BSE, softwood lumber, oil and gas, the auto sector or any other industry in which we might be trading with the United States.

Where are we at right now? We are in a situation where it is not just about the softwood lumber industry. In fact, it probably has less to do with that and more to do with the other industries. The reason this is so frustrating for us when we ask the Liberal government to at least ante up the money to look after the court settlement for our softwood lumber industry is that it is not just about softwood. It is also about the respect of a trade relationship.

There is an old adage that if a handshake in a relationship with a business partner or a deal is not adequate, all the paper in the world likely will not save the deal. That is what we are seeing right now with the United States, that laws and treaties are not enough, that a mature, secure relationship is based on a commitment of trust and clear communications and that treaties and laws are no substitute to a good relationship.

We have ruined a relationship with a trading partner, the United States, over the last number of years and it has been challenged and compromised. In this House, we have had inflammatory words toward our American trading partner, our largest trading partner, for a significant number of years and because of that ,we have seen disputes.

I also said that BSE had something to do with this because BSE was not about health and safety. It was not health and safety risks that caused that. What it had a lot to do with was bad politics. We saw the worst of politics happen and that is why the border was closed to beef and why it was also opened to beef.

What should we do in this situation with the lumber industry? First, we should respect the NAFTA and return the $5 billion. If we do not do that, then what we are really saying is that NAFTA does not matter and that the courts really do not make any difference.

The second thing we absolutely cannot do is negotiate away the strong position we have here. I sat and listened to my colleagues from the Liberal side, particularly, talk about a unified voice, a unified voice by the industry and by the parties. My colleague from Vancouver North just talked about the mixed messages by the Prime Minister where he might negotiate, will not negotiate, will negotiate. All that has happened in the last 24 hours. However, the day after the NAFTA ruling, we have the trade minister suggesting, in a quote from the Montreal Gazette , “I think this is very significant for Canada because it will help us in the negotiations”.

What negotiations? They are saying, “Let's not negotiate”.

On the very same day, in the Globe and Mail he is saying, “I think the NAFTA ruling enhances Ottawa's negotiating position”. If that is not a mixed message compared to what we are hearing today from this Liberal Party, I do not know what is.

What are the Americans to think when they hear that kind of rhetoric coming from the party in power of our Canadian government on an issue that has gone on this long and that should have been well thought out and well planned out long before this time?

Are we negotiating away our position or have we negotiated away our position just in the last 24 hours because of what our Prime Minister is saying? We certainly give a compromised position. We have compromised our position because of this kind of nonsense and this kind of rhetoric.

The United States also needs to understand that if we are going to move forward in a reasonable way with a relationship on other trading issues, we have to respect the agreement that was signed, which is a free trade agreement, and its dispute settlement. If that is not the case, then we have some serious problems that are a lot deeper than just softwood.

The fourth thing is how we get around that. We have laid an option on the table, which is to negotiate with an envoy to the United States.

I had an opportunity to attend a Canadian-U.S. conference about three weekends ago. It was an opportunity to talk with a lot of the congressmen and the senators at that time and we laid out a position. We have been victimized in softwood. We have been victimized in beef. We will not and cannot be victimized in oil and gas.

We invited them to come up to visit the tar sands of Alberta so they would understand what 1.4 trillion barrels of oil look like. We wanted them to know what they might be compromising in souring a relationship in trade and that it would leave us no choice but to secure other options than just the United States with regard to the oil and gas industry. That is not putting any threats out there. That is a just security as a sovereign nation.

Don Manzullo, one of the congressman I met at the meeting, agreed with opening up the border. He said that the tariffs, countervails and the nonsense of the money should stop and the money should be given back to Canada. He said, “Seven times Canada has won, not in Canadian courts but in the United States courts, so they need to respect that”. Those are the kinds of messages we need.

We are getting some of that support and here is what happened in Washington today. House majority whip, Roy Blunt, said that we need to open up the border. The softwood lumber trade alone adds $1,000 or more per home and we need to have the border opened up, especially in the wake of the disaster of the hurricane where they are going to have a tremendous need for our softwood lumber industry.

Americans are understanding more now than ever more that they should drop the tariffs and countervails and start talking sense. It is not because of how it impacts our ridings. It is how it is impacting their ridings and we need to understand that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the member for his views on the three point plan that the NDP put forward tonight to deal with this problem.

The first point was that it wanted to call Parliament back early. Of course, we have been here a month now and it has not achieved anything. Obviously the first part of its plan did not work.

The second part was to stop other international agreements, such as the agreement with the United States on air security. It does not seem to me to make sense to stop ensuring the safety of Canadians as a punishment for another dispute.

The last one point was to impose an oil export tax. In a sense, we could make our oil industry non-competitive, lose thousands of union and other jobs and since oil is a commodity it could just be replaced. During hurricane Katrina the equivalent amount almost to the refining capacity in all of Canada was virtually lost to the United States but it does not mean that it cannot be replaced. It is a commodity that could be obtained from various parts of the world.

I am curious about the member's thoughts on the NDP plan to deal with this problem.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Chair, that is a interesting question, especially when it is coming from the bed partner of the NDP, the party that is propping up the illegitimate government that has no business actually being in power at the present time. The only reason the government still exists is because it is propped up by the NDP.

These are whacky ideas coming from the NDP. Calling back Parliament on a negotiated settlement that has gone on this long is ridiculous. Air security is just as ridiculous. Why would we want to use the threat of an export tax on the oil and gas industry? What we want to do has nothing to do with threats. What we really need to do is explore all options for a trade relationship that actually looks like it is being compromised, not because of softwood but because of NAFTA not being respected in the courts under this dispute settlement mechanism.

I would ask the same question of my Liberal colleague. What does he think of his bed partner's ideas on this and does he think they are as loony as I do?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chair, does the member think Canadians think it is a whacky idea to show the Americans that we are ready to do more than just talk endlessly about this problem. A majority of people in his own constituency would probably support doing some tangible action rather than just more talk. They would support doing something tangible as opposed to just appointing another envoy to go on another gabfest in the United States knowing that George Bush, whether people like him or not, is somebody who understands taking action and who knows that when faced with somebody who is only going to talk, he does not have to worry about them.

Is it a whacky idea to say that we need to do something tangible and that Canadians believe we need to do something tangible? I do not think so. I think it reflects badly on his understanding of what people in his own constituency think needs to be done around this important issue.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would love to comment on that. My riding understands full well the relationship with the United States in regard to oil and gas and that industry. My constituents also understand that we do not threaten by way of countervails on something that would not be legitimate and legal with regard to NAFTA. We cannot say the United States need to respect it if we are not going to.

What we really need to do is something more tangible that will catch the attention of the Americans. That is the message given to them when we talked to them here at the interparliamentary meeting a couple of or three weeks ago.

That message was that they are in jeopardy of losing 25% of a 1.4 trillion barrel reserve of oil, the second largest in the world. The Chinese government is looking at securing 25% of that. That is right now. Who knows what will happen two or three years from now? This catches the Americans' attention more than anything else.

Not only do I think it catches their attention, I know it has. Since that meeting, one of the congressmen sent me a speech that he delivered in Congress of the United States, in their House, on this exact same thing with the tar sands. He was trying to educate people into understanding exactly what is there. Not only that, also after that conference, I had notification from one of the senators who was asking how they could get up to the tar sands to visit because they needed to do that with as large a delegation as they possibly could.

We initiated that and now that will be an invitation coming through the parliamentary association. We will have them up to the tar sands. That is how to do it. We educate them and have them understand the importance of what they are losing. We also have them understand that to have the mentality of closing the border around them and to shrink and become protectionist is not in their long term future best interests, because they are competing not only with the Asian market but also with the European market.

What the Americans need to do is make sure that they have good relationships with all of North America. That means Mexico and Canada. That is really what NAFTA is all about. To compromise NAFTA is not in their best interests. That is what they understand. That is what will catch their attention.

I do not believe that my hon. colleague understands exactly what he is asking for when he says that we do it by threatening the Americans on oil and gas. What really catches their attention is having them understand that we are serious about trade with partners other than the United States on something as important as fossil fuels into the future. That has caught their attention in a very significant way. I believe that is a much more professional, aggressive and productive approach than what the NDP has put out. I still say their idea is a wacky idea and I think Canadians would agree.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a very brief question. I too was on that interparliamentary trip. We met with our U.S. equivalents in New Brunswick. I thought that we had made great progress. I thought a lot of that progress was dissipated by government actions in the ensuing time since we have been back here. Would the hon. member concur with that assessment?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Yes, Mr. Chair, it was very productive. The unfortunate part coming out of that was the mixed messages coming from the government within just a few short days. Any of the United States congressmen or senators who were watching exactly what was happening must be just as confused as they would have been if they had watched the Prime Minister with his mixed messages, not just a couple of days after that but in the last 24 hours.

That has to stop if we are ever going to give a clear message to our trading partners on what actually needs to happen. Let us stop the rhetoric. Let the Liberal Party get its act together. The Liberals have been charged by the electorate to do a job. I challenge them to do it.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak briefly tonight on a matter of the greatest importance, to this government of course, but also to all Canadians: the softwood lumber dispute.

It is all the more important for my region of Madawaska—Restigouche, in northern New Brunswick, where the economy is very much linked to the forest industry.

Members of Parliament are never off duty, when it comes down to it. Representing one's fellow citizens has no time limits. I note that it is 1 in the morning in my riding in New Brunswick.

It is very important to ensure that our fellow citizens' interests are defended. That is why I decided to speak to the House tonight about softwood lumber. This is, of course, a very important issue in my riding, where there are paper mills and hardwood sawmills, as well as many, many softwood lumber mills. Softwood lumber is, therefore, a very important element in our area.

The Americans are our neighbours geographically, and our friends. Where I was born, there is nothing but a bridge between my town and the State of Maine. Other parts of my riding are also separated from the U.S. by nothing more than a bridge. So the Americans are considered not just neighbours and friends, but also family. Even so, we have to ensure that the agreements signed in the past are respected now, and will be in the future. We have to get that important message across to the people in our ridings. It is important for Canadians to be heeded and respected. I feel it is essential to see that people understand that clearly.

Last month, I became a member of the Liberal forestry caucus. We Liberals can be proud of taking the initiative to strike such a committee.

We saw a need for it and we created it, because we knew how important forestry is to all Canadians. Certainly, I joined this committee to stand up for my constituents and all Atlantic Canadians.

Initially, I wondered how I could best serve my constituents and the people working in the forestry sector. Clearly, there are businesses involved, but it also consists of people, human resources, the individuals who help keep it going.

As the saying goes, a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country. Of course, the softwood lumber crisis facing the forestry industry was not something I was extremely familiar with. But I knew that it was important to go and meet the representatives of the forestry industry in each business, in order to understand the situation. Having done that and having talked with business people, entrepreneurs and factory managers, I had considerably improved my basic understanding of the importance of the forest industry, its situation and the various challenges involved, as they related to my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche.

I was asked to face various challenges in light of the current situation. People said to me, “Please, as our representative, pay careful attention to what your government is going to do. Do not put us at a more of a disadvantage than we are at already”. Obviously, this is related to the softwood lumber mills. People are asking us to be careful, because, clearly, we in the Atlantic provinces are in a unique position and we do not want to end up in a worse situation in the future.

I must mention one more thing. I belive that it is not talked about enough. I was extremely proud, over the past few weeks, to hear people in my riding say they really believed that the Prime Minister was truly defending their interests when he was in New York.

My constituents have commented that the Prime Minister stood up and said what needed to be said to defend the interests of the people of the riding.

When I heard about that, I thought it was fascinating. Often, as members of Parliament, the feedback we get tends to be more negative. It was therefore fascinating to see that people took the time to come and see me to say that our Prime Minister had done an outstanding job in defending the interests of both the industry and those who depend on it for their livelihood.

The people who work in the forestry industry have really felt included in the position taken by the Prime Minister. And this was not true only for the riding that I represent. I am convinced that, across the country, the reaction was the same: this was very good and the Prime Minister deserved to be praised for what he had done, for having so clearly and so directly defended the interests of our great country.

I touched on the subject earlier but signing agreements and resolving issues are not one-sided processes. We have to come to an agreement with another person or group of persons, or even several groups or persons. To make additions to an agreement, everyone has to agree and sign off on it. One cannot just come out and say, one year, two years or five years after the agreement came into force, that the agreement no longer suits them. Agreements are signed knowingly and willingly. It is also knowingly and willingly that the parties have to comply with the agreements they have signed.

The Liberal government is complying with agreements like NAFTA which it has signed in the past. Efforts also have to be made to ensure that our trade partners do the same. That is very important. This is one way of evolving in our society, by ensuring that each party complies with the terms of the agreement.

If we look at the export situation for a riding like mine, or for the entire country, we see that we may have made a mistake by putting all our eggs in one basket. Some 89% of our wood exports goes to our friends the Americans. Perhaps in the future we should do things differently. We may be too dependent. It would be good to do things differently and to seek out new markets.

North America is certainly quite vast and its population is large. We certainly have friends elsewhere and business opportunities available to us in other countries. One fine day, we should diversify our clients and the different companies we could do business with. That way, in the future, we will limit the impact of situations like the one we are in now.

The people in my riding have suffered. In other ridings, this may not be the case. Nonetheless, the entire softwood lumber situation should make us question the stability within the forestry industry. In the future, we must position ourselves differently and look at diversifying our markets. That way, we could certainly guarantee a better future for our constituents.

What is more important, we must respect our agreements.

In closing, I come back to the fact that the Prime Minister rose and clearly indicated the position of the government and the citizens of Canada. We should all be proud. We are showing our friends, our American neighbours, that our position and the agreement we have signed over the years must be respected

We are asking our neighbours to respect the agreements, just as we have.

[The Deputy Chair]

It being 12:10 a.m., pursuant to order made Monday, October 24, 2005, under the provisions of Standing Order 53(1), the committee will rise and I will leave the chair.

(Progress reported)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:10 a.m.)