Debates of Oct. 17th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Softwood Lumber Agreement

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

BFF.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

BFFs I think was the term that was used, Mr. Speaker. We have heard that over and over again. It was already delivering concrete results. They had a big meeting. They invited everyone to Washington, which included a glamorous state dinner. We have heard lots about that: red carpets, lots of selfies, a glamourous state dinner. Now what we know to be true is that the only table they had the Americans at was the dinner table. That was it.

When I was in aviation and was tasked with a new project, I always started with an outline of what I wanted to achieve, what our goal was. It started with a broad proposal, and as I gained insight and feedback from those around me, which included naysayers and sometimes competition, my proposal became more targeted. I knew specifically what my negotiating position was, and I brought that to the bargaining table.

We can only successfully argue for an outcome when we know what the goal is we are trying to achieve. We cannot negotiate for a new car or home unless we know what we want: the colour or type of car, two doors or four, a hatchback or sedan. Is it going to be a two-storey or do we want a bungalow?

The Liberals had no idea what they wanted this new deal to look like. They did not consult broadly, as much as they are trying to say that they had 50 meetings coast to coast and all of these consultations. The truth of the matter is that they arrogantly figured that they knew best and that nobody was going to tell them what this next new softwood lumber agreement would look like.

In reality, we now have an industry and provinces that are in flux, without consensus, which is why in August, we called for an emergency meeting of the international trade committee. I tabled a motion calling on the government to immediately convene a meeting with all provinces and industry representatives.

Members will remember, because the Liberals keep using the same line, that I commended the great work they were doing. However, the next line, which they are not using, was that I said that this is so important that we need to get the provinces and industry around a table to try to build consensus to try to save the negotiations. However, this was shot down by the member from Quebec, who said that it was a complete waste of time and money. Doing everything we can to protect Canadian jobs is not a waste of time or money.

Leading means making difficult decisions. The previous Conservative government knew this. In 2006, Stephen Harper made the softwood lumber agreement negotiations his number one priority, because jobs were on the line, and within three months, a deal was done. The livelihoods of our rural communities were saved.

If the Liberal government was serious about trade, it would have worked more expeditiously to solve this issue. It would have taken up our offers of assistance and our suggestions. It would have ensured that the Canadian lumber industry was able to continue to support the hundreds of thousands of middle-class families who depend on this vital sector for their livelihoods by securing an agreement.

A failure to renegotiate one of the most important trade agreements between Canada and the United States is simply inexcusable. Unfortunately, but not so surprising after what we have witnessed over the last year, the Liberal government has once again failed to stand up for the hard-working Canadians employed in the natural resource sector.

We know that the softwood lumber agreement expired in its entirety last week. The grace period expired last Wednesday. However, the Liberals have been resigned to litigation rather than negotiation for some time. They told us so in August.

The B.C. Minister of Forests, Steve Thomson, said that any fight would be “very expensive” and complex. He went on to say:

We know it’s challenging...a managed trade agreement is preferable to litigation.... It’s costly for producers, costly for government and also harms U.S. consumers.

Everyone seems to understand that jobs are on the line, except the Minister of International Trade. All she has had to offer is that it is a tough deal to negotiate and is “fiendishly complex”.

What is tough is finding ways to put food on the table when the towns are literately built on the backs of forestry jobs. Without a new softwood lumber agreement in place, Canadian forestry operations are faced with the prospect of costly U.S. duties on lumber that will force producers to shut down. Almost 400,00 well-paying, high-quality jobs are now at risk. Small mom and pop operations, which cannot afford to wait out the litigation, will be facing much uncertainty in the coming days.

I have said before that in one of my communities, 400 jobs are at stake, which is a quarter of the tax base. That may seem like a small number when we compare it to places like Vancouver, where the economy is propped up by other avenues, such as tourism, film, and TV. Rural communities do not have that same luxury. We are dependent on our natural resource industry to fuel our secondary industries, such as real estate, retail, food services, and even tourism. I am not sure that the minister, from Toronto, or the parliamentary secretary, from Montreal, would fully understand this.

I invite the minister and the parliamentary secretary to come to my riding, because they would hear loud and clear from my constituents who are facing uncertain times.

All we heard today were simple, regurgitated platitudes and a minister who is content to have left one of the most important trade files between Canada and the United States on the back burner and who, through her mismanagement, has plunged Canada into softwood lumber trade war number five.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is easier to get a trade deal done when there are WTO and NAFTA rulings, which were undertaken by the previous Liberal government over a period of years, that set the stage for it before one gets into office,

Which statements are true? At one point, the member was accusing us, in question period, of flying the white flag. We clearly did not do that. At another point, he congratulated the minister for her hard work this summer, and rightfully so because of all her hard work.

I am curious to know what the hon. member would have done differently under the circumstances.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like to use quotes and misrepresent quotes from various places, but the reality is that right after the quote they are referring to, I immediately said that there was not one mention in the mandate letter, not one mention in the Speech from the Throne. That is why we are calling on the committee to immediately convene an emergency round table of industry and the provinces.

What would we have done differently? In three months we managed to get a softwood lumber agreement on the table. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

It is very clear to us that the government of the day, the Conservative government, was asleep at the switch. Right now, we are in a buffer zone, and we are still grappling with the problem.

We are happy with today's motion. It is clear that the government must be told to step up and protect workers.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about setting up a loan program, a program to support businesses. I do not imagine he would be in favour of that. What forestry industry workers fear most is an American surtax. Can my colleague comment on that?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my hon. colleague, the reality is that jobs are on the line. Our government not only negotiated a softwood lumber agreement in 2006, but in 2012, with the very same BFF of the new Prime Minister, we negotiated a two-year grace period, an extension. Our discussions and negotiations brought us to the point where the next government, whatever that was, would be in a great position to finalize that softwood lumber agreement.

I apologize if I missed part two of the member's question, but I do not think adding incentives or grants for the forest industry are going to help, because then the U.S. will use that against us as subsidizing the industry. We need to get the best deal forward and negotiate rather than litigate.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George for making such a compelling, powerful argument in favour of getting a deal with the United States on softwood lumber. The last time we had this kind of chaos within the forestry industry in Canada was under the former Liberal government of Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien. It was chaotic. It was a war in the woods, as it was called. It took a Conservative government to resolve it.

More recently, we have a Liberal government that claims that it had a framework agreement with the United States outlined, but nothing was delivered.

Would my colleague spell out what he has seen from the Liberal government to respond to the promise it made that there would be a clear framework to get this resolved within 90 days of the meeting between President Obama and prime minister Harper last March?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister stood in the House and said that they had a real breakthrough. She trumpeted the fact that because of this new relationship, they were going to get a deal done. As a matter of fact, I believe they said that in 100 days, because they gave themselves a 10-day cushion, they would have a framework in place, yet we did not see anything.

The President said it was a no-brainer that they were going to get the deal done. Liberals have also used language such as “irritant” when talking about this industry that so many of our friends and families depend on to put food on the table. All we have seen is fluff from the government and no action. Not at all.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to give this another try.

There have been discussions among the parties, and if you were to seek it I think you would find that there is consent to adopt the following motion.

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 18, 2016, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the opposition whip have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yellowhead.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and share this time with the hon. member for Prince George.

There are thousands of Canadian forestry jobs that depend on a strong agreement that protects Canadian access to the U.S. market for our softwood lumber. The $65-billion-a-year forest products industry represents about 2% of Canada's gross domestic product and is one of the country's largest employers. The forest sector provides good-paying jobs in over 230 cities and towns across Canada. The industry directly employs 230,000 Canadians, mostly in communities that need them the most, in northern and rural Canada.

Now that the one-year standstill period has expired, hefty U.S. duties could be slapped on Canadian timber exports to the United States by early 2017. This failure to agree probably means a costly and frustrating new season ahead for Canadian timber companies, which can expect to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the U.S. government in order to keep shipping their product south of the Canadian-U.S. border.

The Forest Products Association of Canada members include the largest manufacturers of forest products in Canada, in communities across the country, such as Millar Western forest products, West Fraser, Weyerhaeuser, which are all located in my riding of Yellowhead. This forest industry provides local jobs for thousands within my riding. In fact, local mayors have been clear: failure to reach a fair and balanced softwood agreement will have huge negative impacts on the Yellowhead region.

In Alberta, the forest industry employs over 19,000 people, the majority of whom are in my riding. My constituents and the forest industry deserve to know what their future will be.

Mayor Glenn McLean of Drayton Valley stated that:

In order for Drayton Valley's forest products industry to remain strong, we require a fair and balanced agreement on softwood lumber. Hundreds of local jobs depend on a sound trading relationship with the U.S.

Mayor Rob Mackin of Hinton stated:

Forestry is vital to our region, providing jobs for hundreds in Hinton alone. Because this is a priority issue, finding a successful resolution on the softwood lumber agreement is crucial to the sustainability of the industry and our communities.

Mayor Greg Pasychny of Edson where I live stated:

Forestry has been and remains a vital part of our regional economy. It has kept a significant portion of our community employed with high quality jobs. Failure to reach an appropriate softwood lumber agreement would have a huge negative impact on our community.

In 2014, 66% of Canadian softwood exports were shipped to the U.S. Today, 96% of all softwood lumber imports into the United States are from Canada. Today, Canada holds about 20% of the U.S. market. The 2006 softwood lumber agreement capped the Canadian share at 34%. However, we have never reached that number.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade promised 400,000 Canadian forestry workers a framework agreement on softwood lumber exports with the Obama administration by mid-June 2016. It has not happened. With the government's failure to meet the June deadline and the October 12 deadline for the last trade agreement, it is imperative that the current Liberal government take all necessary steps to prevent a trade war that will threaten the livelihood of Canadian workers and communities. This would be war number five.

This year, the Liberal members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade voted against our Conservative motion to have the Minister of International Trade convene a round table to determine a national agenda for the softwood lumber negotiations.

Negotiating a new softwood lumber agreement has never been a priority for the government. It was not included in the minister's mandate letter or in the Speech from the Throne, and now, after a year in office, the Liberals have failed to get it done. The government has now missed the deadline for a new softwood lumber agreement.

Whether it is failing to find a solution to the softwood lumber dispute or creating more uncertainty for pipeline development, Liberal policies are stifling private sector investment that creates jobs for hard-working Canadian families.

The softwood lumber agreement expired on October 12. The Liberal government has failed to create jobs and grow the economy, and has now failed forestry workers and their families. As recently as June, U.S. timber interests were demanding that Canada agree to limit softwood lumber shipments, such that the Canadian share of the U.S. lumber consumption is capped at 25%. That is down almost 10% from where it was. This is lower than Canada's 2015 market share of 30%, and well below the 34% that we reached before the two countries signed the last agreement in 2006.

Richard Garneau, the U.S. trade representative, said in a recent interview that Canada has traditionally accounted for about one-third of the U.S. lumber market. However, we are hearing rumours through sources that the U.S. wants to gradually reduce this to 22%. The temporary accord negotiated by former prime minister Stephen Harper bridged this disagreement by agreeing that duties would be imposed on U.S.-bound softwood lumber when prices fell below a certain level, and set a mechanism for managing disputes. The industry no longer has this predictability and stability. The previous Conservative government provided an extension with the 2006 softwood lumber agreement. We are now open for another war.

The U.S. Lumber Coalition has indicated that it is exploring options to launch trade action against Canadian lumber, which cost the Canadian industry over $5 billion during the last dispute, and 15,000 jobs in British Columbia alone. That is why the Conservative opposition has created a softwood lumber task force to hold the Liberal government accountable for solving the softwood lumber trade dispute with the United States.

Canadian forestry workers deserve stability and predictability from their government. After promising a deal within 100 days after the Prime Minister's trip to Washington in February, the Liberals were unwilling to put in the hard work to actually deliver on their promise. Saying that it was a tough deal to negotiate is a poor excuse to offer to the families who will lose their livelihoods. Instead of bringing Canadian industry together to develop a common position in these negotiations, the Liberals have pitted one region against another.

I am proud to be a member of the Conservative softwood lumber task force. I will continue to reach out to forestry companies, workers, and municipal leaders in areas where forestry is the primary economic driver, and will reach out to other stakeholders from coast to coast to coast to solicit their recommendations for a solution. An agreement should stabilize the forestry sector in every region of Canada, and that is why the task force was launched: to petition those affected for their recommendations.

The forestry sector generates approximately 370,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada. I usually round it off to 400,000, which is probably closer. It was the Conservative government that negotiated an extension of the deal in 2012 to ensure market stability through to October 2016.

Alberta is hurting. It now has some of the highest jobless rates in the country. The downturn in Alberta's energy sector has spilled into other parts of the economy, and the unemployment rate is above 8% for the first time since the early 1990s. Canadian softwood lumber executives met recently with the American trade ambassador as they braced for the prospect of U.S. tariffs that they say could result in mill closures and layoffs.

It is imperative that all stakeholders come together for the good of the industry, the economy, and all hard-working Canadians affected by the forestry industry. Speaking on a personal note, in my riding alone, eight communities will be directly affected by this trade deal if it is not signed, and signed as soon as possible.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for his whole speech.

However, I am surprised at all his criticism of our government, of my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, and of the minister.

Over the past few weeks and months our colleagues have been committed to working non-stop on negotiating with the U.S. negotiating team and with the industry. They have worked tirelessly with the goal of reaching an agreement.

The question I have for my colleague is the following: if this was so important to the Conservatives, then why did they allow the softwood lumber agreement to expire without entering into formal negotiations with the Americans?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across well knows that the agreement expired during the past election. We had started in talks with the U.S. government, and it was left to the current government, which has had over a year, to solve the softwood lumber agreement.

Unfortunately, any talks taking place during the election would have resulted in complaints from both sides, the Liberals and the NDP. It was impossible to hold the talks then.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although I find today's opposition motion to be very important, we must remember that the agreements negotiated by the Conservatives in 2006 and 2012 left the forestry industries paying a heavy price. The Canadian sector had to create a $50-million system that still did not prevent the United States from taking legal action against Canada. This resulted in losses worth $1 billion in 2012.

Clearly, we need to have a plan B, because another softwood lumber dispute is taking shape, and it is going to cost our businesses even more jobs and probably more money, too. In Montérégie, over 4,000 jobs are in the forestry sector.

Do the Conservatives agree that we need a plan B to be able to support our entrepreneurs and jobs here at home?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative caucus believes that we must get the best deal, it must be a good deal, and it must be a fair deal for the Canadian forestry industry and forestry workers. There may be sub-parts to that, but those are up to the group that is negotiating with the U.S. government.

Again, I repeat: it must be the best deal we can get, it must be a good deal, and it must be fair for all regions of Canada.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the colleague mentioned a bit about communities, but he talked in broader terms.

Could he possibly give us some details of what this would mean in the communities in his riding?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, eight communities will be directly affected if this agreement is not signed as quickly as possible and, again, done in the best way we can, making sure it is a good deal, and making sure it is fair.

The eight communities range from small hamlets to larger communities, such as Hinton, Edson, and Drayton Valley, and also many small independent contractors located across the Yellowhead, across British Columbia, Quebec, and all parts of Canada. It is the small family-run operations that are also going to be directly affected. We must make sure that we get this agreement signed, and signed in the best way we can.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, Democratic Reform; the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Veterans Affairs; the hon. member Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, Disaster Assistance.

I see the hon. member for Yukon rising on a point of order.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives would like to change some of their members on committees. If the House gives its consent, I move that the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier today be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Softwood Lumber Agreement

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to set the record straight on the softwood lumber file. As the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster rightly notes, softwood lumber is the main source of the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Canadians in communities across the country. That is why concluding a new softwood lumber agreement is so critical to the continued prosperity of Canada's softwood lumber industry. However, the Government of Canada is looking for a good deal, not an agreement at any cost.

There can be no denying that softwood lumber has been the subject of longstanding disputes between Canada and the United States, disputes that have been grounded in differences in forest management practices. Over the past 35 years, Canadian producers have faced four rounds of U.S. Department of Commerce investigations and related trade remedy action. These have been followed on three occasions by the conclusion of managed trade agreements. In other words, since the early 1980s, Canada has experienced very few months when either litigation or managed trade have not been applied to its softwood lumber exports to the United States. With this in mind, we are working intensively to avoid a fifth dispute cycle, and have been doing so since our election.

The long history of trade in softwood lumber products between Canada and the United States reveals just how highly integrated and intertwined our industries truly are. It also highlights the enormous costs to economies and communities on both sides of the border if we do not get a deal right.

The forestry sector is an important driver of economic growth in Canada. It contributed over $20 billion to Canada's GDP in 2015, the majority from softwood lumber production. However, despite considerable success in developing new markets for Canadian softwood lumber, the reality is that our industry remains highly dependent on trade with the United States. Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United States totalled $6 billion in 2015, representing 69% of total softwood exports. Securing stable access to this market is therefore essential for the more than 200,000 Canadians in some 171, mostly rural, municipalities that depend on this industry for their well-being.

As I just noted, successive governments have sought to ensure access to the United States markets for our softwood lumber products through managed trade agreements.

Such agreements enable us to go beyond simple disputes over forest management practices, softwood lumber pricing systems, and the forestry programs currently in dispute. The repercussions of forest development without a trade agreement in place became perfectly clear during the last round of disputes between 2001 and 2006, when the American industry took trade remedy action to stop Canadian softwood lumber imports. At that time, that is, between 2001 and 2006, it was the largest trade dispute in the world.

My hon. colleague certainly knows that when that conflict was over, the Canadian industry had to pay over $5.5 billion in duties. The average tariff rates on softwood lumber exports to the United States in 2006 reached over 25%. This situation had an obvious, immediate, and devastating impact on the industry. Fifty-six Canadian sawmills shut down during that time, which cost us over 7,000 jobs.

Some say that it would be better for Canada to resolve this dispute through litigation. We understand those who believe that Canada is not at fault in this matter and that it should stand up and fight. Canada has certainly won some legal battles in international courts. However, we should be clear that a lawsuit costs money. It is a lengthy and arduous undertaking. In fact, the legal costs of the last dispute imposed yet another financial burden on Canadian businesses, which had already been hit hard by punitive countervailing duties.

We have to admit that the 2006 softwood lumber agreement was far from ideal.

However, that agreement did manage to reasonably balance the interests of producers on both sides of the border. The agreement allowed Canadian softwood lumber exporters to have access to U.S. markets that was predictable and stable for many years.

While Canada has been saying for a long time that it is prepared to extend the 2006 softwood lumber agreement, the U.S. has clearly indicated that it wants to negotiate a new agreement. It believes that the market has changed significantly since 2006, and that this must be reflected in any future deal.

It is true that the market has changed in the past decade. The mountain pine beetle infestation has ravaged western Canada's forests. The 2008 global economic crisis devastated the U.S. housing market and upset the balance between global supply and demand. Canadian producers have opened new markets in Asia, while cross-border investment in the forestry sector is at a record high. The new softwood lumber agreement must reflect these new realities.

The things I have been saying since the beginning of my speech may give the impression that the softwood lumber issue is doomed to failure. However, I assure my colleagues that I do not believe that that is the case. When she took office, our minister inherited a softwood lumber agreement that was already expired. Nevertheless, I would like to assure the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster that the government has been working on resolving this problem since it took office.

The softwood lumber issue has attracted the attention of the highest offices of both countries. The Prime Minister and the President of the United States have been personally involved in dealing with this issue on several occasions. They met twice to discuss softwood lumber and they both reaffirmed the willingness of their respective governments to come to an agreement that offers “the stability, consistency and flexibility necessary to achieve the confidence of both industries”.

On June 29, in their joint statement, the Prime Minister and the President of the United States set out the nine key features of the new softwood lumber agreement. Most of them are things that Canadian stakeholders commonly identified as essential to the negotiation of future softwood lumber agreements. We listened to them.

Those key features include flexible structure, provisions for company exclusions, a meaningful, effective and timely regional exits process, effective enforcement tools, associated commitments regarding the use of trade remedies, and provisions to address other issues, such as making adequate arrangements available to remanufacturers and renewing the commitment to joint market development.

The Minister of International Trade also worked with her American counterpart, Michael Froman, the United States Trade Representative, to move this file forward as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

Over the past few months, the combined efforts of the minister, Ambassador MacNaughton, and federal officials have resulted in at least 65 in-person meetings and countless telephone calls with provincial and territorial representatives, industry stakeholders, union representatives, and indigenous group representatives.

In all, 16 rounds of talks took place between Canadian negotiators and their American counterparts at the Office of the United States Trade Representative. In addition, two round tables with major Canadian and U.S. industry representatives were held recently.

The government's work has clearly borne fruit.

During the April and June hearings of the Standing Committee on International Trade, industry representatives from the largest exporters of softwood lumber in the province congratulated the government on its determination. The minister and federal officials have made unparalleled efforts to create a dialogue, not only with Canada's primary exporters, but also with small producers such as lumber remanufacturers and manufacturers of specialized products made of softwood lumber.

In keeping with the efforts our government is making to establish nation-to-nation relationships with indigenous groups, steps have been taken to consult first nations representatives, especially from sawmills that belong to those nations.

Our consultations have taken place through various mechanisms including face-to-face consultations, regular updates through dedicated consultative forums for government and industry, formal and informal bilateral meetings, and exchanges of correspondence with premiers and ministers across the country.

What we have learned has informed and continues to inform our evolving strategy on softwood lumber, but our consultations have made abundantly clear just how diverse the softwood lumber industry is across Canada. As the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster undoubtedly knows, the Canadian softwood lumber industry is characterized by different interests and sensitivities between and within regions and industry segments. This does not make concluding a new softwood lumber agreement impossible, but it does mean that negotiating a fair agreement in the interests of Canadian producers, stakeholders, and interlocutors requires the balancing of priorities, conditions, and viewpoints that are often, frankly, at odds.

On that note, allow me to return to what I said at the beginning. Our government wants a new deal, and we have been working hard since the beginning to make it happen. However, we will not accept a deal at any cost, and a number of members opposite have indeed talked about a fair deal, an equitable deal. That is what we are going to get. I echo the Minister of International Trade's commitment that the government will vigorously and tenaciously defend Canadian softwood lumber producers and their interests should trade action be launched by the United States. It has not happened yet, but should it happen we will defend ourselves.

With the expiry last week of the one-year standstill period, the softwood lumber file has clearly entered a new phase. U.S. industry is now in a legal position to petition the U.S. Department of Commerce for trade action against Canadian softwood lumber imports. While we are actively preparing for litigation, the Minister of International Trade has made it abundantly clear that negotiations can and will continue, and will be our priority. Both the minister and Ambassador Froman communicated as much in their recent joint statement on softwood lumber, issued on October 12. In it, they committed their respective governments to continue “negotiations in an effort to achieve a durable and equitable solution for North American softwood lumber producers, downstream industries and consumers.”

The October 12 statement reflects the importance of the broader Canada-U.S. trading relationship to the prosperity of Canadians. For almost 20 years, there had been no state visit by a Canadian prime minister to Washington and no speech by a U.S. president in our Parliament. In just under a year, our government has changed this dynamic and given the Canada–U.S. relationship the attention that it demands and deserves. That is more than I can say about the previous government. I think that helps us in moving forward on the softwood lumber file.

I therefore urge all hon. members of the House to support the government in its continued efforts to secure a new, fair, and equitable softwood lumber agreement with the United States.