Pat O'Brien

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear on this issue. We are involved in an ongoing series of discussions with Canadian and American officials, involving all our provincial representatives and in wide consultation with those provinces.

These discussions have one goal: to find a durable solution to this. Of course, the best would be free trade in softwood lumber. We need a durable solution that will stand up and that does not put us in this strait jacket every few years.

Surely the opposition is not advocating that.

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of irresponsible suggestion we heard a couple of weeks ago in a question for the Minister for International Trade, that somehow we should bargain our support for the alliance effort against terrorism and link that into the question of softwood lumber. That is irresponsible and we will not do that.

We won this case a number of times before on its merits. We will do so again. We are proceeding at the WTO. We are proceeding with a series of negotiations with American officials. The Prime Minister is directly engaged in this along with the minister. Maybe the member ought to do some homework for a change.

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is an incredible stretch. I in no way said anything like that. I do not know how the member could possibly have come up with that interpretation.

What I said, and one would have to be incredibly naive not to understand it, is that the United States president has his own congressional pressures that he is dealing with. There are people up for re-election in the United States. That is the reality. The United States is determined to protect its lumber industry even if it hurts its consumers and hurts our industry and workers. We will fight for fair trade in softwood lumber.

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolute nonsense to say that the government has been inactive about this very serious situation.

There was a conscious decision by all involved to let the softwood lumber agreement expire in order to pursue a durable solution. There was a conscious decision to proceed on a two track policy of legal options at the WTO and engage the American officials to find the root causes of this, to find a long term, durable solution and not another band-aid solution that will put us back in this straitjacket five years from now.

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know from where the hon. member is getting his facts, but there are very few people in the industry calling for anything more than what is taking place right now: daily consultation and a very aggressive two track approach.

Next week the Minister for International Trade will meet with the new representative Racicot and again press this issue very aggressively. The Prime Minister of Canada has repeatedly raised this issue with President Bush as recently as one week ago at APEC. That is strong, aggressive intervention by this government.

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me say for the third time that I regret the use of the descriptive phrase by the hon. member, but that does not change the reality that the government is highly engaged on this file.

We filed at the WTO on October 25 to pursue our legal option. We are in a series of negotiations or discussions between Canadian officials and American officials involving the provinces and stakeholders from all parts of the country. We are in daily contact with the provinces and industry officials. There could not be a wider consultation taking place.

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member was a member of the official opposition we frankly never knew where she and that party stood. I am no clearer right now. Earlier they wanted to tie energy to softwood lumber. Then they wanted to negotiate our support with the United States against terrorism and tie in softwood lumber.

Now they seek to divide the country. The Leader of the Opposition said it himself in a special debate. They are playing the old west versus east divide game that is counterproductive to what we want: free trade in softwood lumber.

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that. I regret the use of that particular descriptive phrase. The message I was trying to give yesterday was that it was very important that we maintain a united front in this country, coast to coast to coast.

What have we done? The Prime Minister has raised this issue repeatedly with President Bush, as recently as at APEC. One member says that is nothing. I think that is a lot. There are daily contacts with provincial officials, federal officials and the minister. The minister has raised this issue repeatedly.

We need a united front on this, and that is the message I was trying to give yesterday.

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed refreshing to see the Leader of the Opposition engaged with this very serious situation, when in the spring he went weeks without even appointing a trade critic. It is nice to finally see his interest now.

The reality is the government has a two track policy on this important issue. We filed our legal avenue at the WTO on October 25. The minister and the Prime Minister are engaged in this issue very seriously. The Prime Minister raised it personally with President Bush as recently as the APEC meeting last week.

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely regret that that one phrase I used yesterday has led inadvertently to the interpretation that I am somehow insensitive to the serious situation faced by our lumber industry, by lumber workers and by their communities. In no way did I intend to make light of this very serious situation.

That is why I call on all those involved to maintain a united front, so that we can fight for free trade and fair trade in softwood lumber. I regret any remarks that may have caused others serious consideration.