Roy Cullen

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I find the wording of the motion about offsetting trade injury measures a bit confusing. This normally comes up with a WTO challenge. If a country is seen to be offside then the country that puts forward the challenge can launch various offsetting measures.

What the hon. member is probably after or what the motion addresses is support for the forest products industry and the farmers in Canada. The member opposite conveniently ignores the fact that the government has announced $75 million to help the forest products industry with market access, to help with research and development with value added products, and a $20 million launch not too long ago to deal with sales promotion. The $20 million advertising and promotion campaign is an important initiative. Americans need to understand that with the tariff in place the cost of their housing is up by about $1,500 per year. We need to tell Americans that this is hurting them as well as us.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Vancouver Island North has raised this point again. He raised it previously in the House and I guess he was not listening. In 1996 and before I was elected I was working in the forest products industry. The then trade minister was Roy MacLaren. I was elected after Mr. MacLaren in Etobicoke North. Mr. MacLaren is a good personal friend of mine.

I was working with the forest sector advisory council on competitiveness issues. Mr. MacLaren came to my home one night and we were having some Christmas cheer, and he said that the forest industry in Canada was begging him, not the provinces and not the bureaucrats, the forest industry was begging him for five years of trade peace with a system of managed trade, which is the system of quotas. The forest industry was begging him and it was totally anathema to his view on free trade. He asked me what he should do?

I find it so repulsive that the parties opposite keep trying to tell Canadians that the five year softwood lumber quota agreement was an invention of the bureaucracy in Ottawa or the government at the time, or the trade minister. The industry begged for it. I know that for a fact. The member for Vancouver Island North should check his own history.

If he were to focus on finding better solutions to this countervailing duty process that is what we should be fighting for. We should be convincing the Americans that we should be implementing systems such as net subsidies, serious prejudice and looking at these issues through a competition policy instead of laying problems with the government.

The government has been fighting hard on behalf of all Canadians. We should identify the real enemy and go down to Washington and convince the Americans of their folly.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I found the points expressed by the parliamentary secretary to be persuasive and very much on topic.

The motion before us today is quite scandalous. It would take away from the consensus we have in Canada and the great job our trade minister has been doing to build a consensus in the forest products sector on the softwood lumber dispute. It is not a simple task because we have very disparate groups such as the coastal industry in B.C., the interior industry, the pulp and paper industry, the softwood lumber industry, and east versus west. However the trade minister has been able to achieve consensus and unanimity. That is not always an easy task.

We should be focusing on the real problem which lies south of the border in Washington, D.C. We know for sure that the U.S. government has embarked on a huge period of inward looking protectionism. It is almost like the period of the Munroe doctrine many years ago when the U.S. government of the day and the American people said they would focus inward, forget about the world and look after themselves.

We have worked co-operatively with the United States on many fronts. The Americans are great friends of ours. However if the U.S. administration had really wanted to deal with softwood lumber it could have dealt with it. The president could have asserted pressure on the various stakeholder groups, lobby groups, and powerful U.S. senators and congressmen and women.

We often underestimate the power of the White House. When the president invites the players in to have a discussion and make a point of view, they listen. What has the U.S. president done in this case? He has done nothing. Has he brought in the players explain to them that Canada is an ally with which the U.S. has an important relationship? Has he put pressure on them? He has not because the U.S. is going through an inward looking period of self interest.

What about Kyoto? We can all debate whether Kyoto is a good or bad deal but President Bush unilaterally said the U.S. was scrapping it. Did he have an alternative plan? No, he did not. Greenhouse gases are a problem. This has put Canada and the world in a difficult position because the United States is one of the biggest generators of greenhouse gases.

This is all is part of a process of drawing inward during a period when the United States is going into congressional and senatorial elections. Does the U.S. administration have the guts to call in the players and tell them Canada is an important ally and friend? Has he told U.S. lumber producers that Canada has won every time? Has he told them they should look more clearly at whether their actions are appropriate and that they had better go back to the drawing board? I very much doubt it. If he had done so it would have had an effect.

The same could be said about the U.S. farm aid bill. The same could be said about steel or pasta. I recently became aware of a company in Toronto with 300 employees that is fighting subsidies paid by the U.S. administration to U.S. pasta producers. It is creating an uneven playing field for pasta producers in Canada.

This is one of a litany of U.S. inward focused protectionist actions driven by self interest and partisan politics. The U.S. president wants a majority in the senate but at what cost? He has said to cut Canada and other allies adrift because it is so important to him. It is nice that he has the self indulgence to forget about the rest of the world.

It is ironic that we had the Prime Minister stand in the House during question period to welcome the new leader of the official opposition. He said we had a lot of information on positions that had been expressed by the leader of the official opposition, one of them apparently being support for Mulroney style trade tactics and policies. That is interesting.

In 1986 when Brian Mulroney was looking for fast track support in the U.S. and he and Ronald Reagan were singing blarney and When Irish Eyes are Smiling and were the greatest of buddies, did he have the guts to tell the U.S. administration and the president they were hurting our softwood lumber industry? No, he did not.

Everyone in the House should read a book called Who's In Charge Here, Anyway? written by Adam Zimmerman of Noranda Forest Inc. Zimmerman was very much involved in the softwood lumber disputes and was a mentor of mine. The book talks about Brian Mulroney and Pat Carney, the trade minister at the time who sold Canada's lumber industry down the river. Did Brian Mulroney raise the issue with U.S. president Reagan? Of course he did not. He wanted to fast track to get the NAFTA. What did he do? He cut loose thousands of Canadians who sacrificed their jobs so he could get his 15% lumber export tax. Is that not nice? Those are the kinds of policies the opposition party wants. It wants Mulroney style trade policies. Is that not grand?

There are alternatives to the current process of countervailing duties. I had a discussion one day with Gordon Ritchie, one of the lead negotiators in NAFTA and the FTA. I asked him about concepts like net subsidies, serious prejudice, and fighting trade disputes through the prism of competition policy. Among trade gurus, and I am not one of them, there are alternatives to the countervailing duty process.

The countervailing duty process is skewed in favour of the Americans. All we can do as Canadians is defend our system. We cannot attack their system. If we had a system of net subsidies the Americans could only launch countervailing challenges if they could show that on balance net subsidies were greater in Canada than in the United States. Then we would not have this problem.

When I was in the forest products industry I went to the United States to meet with the governors of several states. If one wanted to put up an OSB mill, a saw mill, a pulp mill or a paper mill they would roll out goodies like sales tax abatements, property tax abatements, tax holidays of all descriptions, cheap industrial land, and cogeneration agreements that would knock one's socks off. However can we attack U.S. subsidies? No, we cannot. Because they are narrowly defined through U.S. trade law all we can do is respond with ours.

We can argue about trying to change trade remedies under NAFTA. However while the U.S. congress and senate guardedly protect, and from their perspective rightly so, the domain of the U.S. congress and senate over trade law we can talk until the cows come home about trying to get better trade remedies. We can talk until the cows home about getting a better definition of subsidy or dumping because the Americans will not agree to it. They will not agree because they look at their own narrow self interest instead of trying to be a world player. If the U.S. was a world player it would only look at whether action in Canada was non-competitive in nature. In other words, it would ask whether it constituted predatory pricing or price fixing.

The Americans could look at these disputes through the prism of competition policy. It is the biggest competitive nation in the world. Does it do that? No, it focuses on subsidies and dumping through the narrow confines of its own trade law because that is what suits its self interest.

It is terrible to have this motion before the House. The Prime Minister has had the guts to raise softwood lumber and U.S. farm aid with the president on many occasions while Tory prime minister Brian Mulroney rolled it under the carpet. Brian Mulroney did not have the guts to take it up with the U.S. president but our Prime Minister has. Our trade minister has been able to forge a great consensus in the country on softwood lumber and a whole range of other issues.

Instead of focusing on this side of the border we should be focusing on the White House, the U.S. congress and U.S. senators. We should be trying to build awareness in the United States about what the issue is doing to Canadians and to house prices in the United States. I am glad our government has responded with a promotional campaign which will attempt to do that.

[Softwood Lumber, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

The Canadian softwood lumber industry will be brutally hurt by the new U.S. duties that have been effect since midnight. What will the minister do while we fight this and eventually win at NAFTA and the WTO to ensure that our industry is able to survive and prosper? Will the minister introduce measures that will minimize the impact on our sawmill industry and the sawmill workers in Canada?

[Tax Credit, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the motion proposes that the government introduce a tax credit for Canada student loan principal repayments made by graduates who remain in Canada. The credit amount would be limited to 10% of the principal per year for the first 10 years after graduation.

I believe we can all relate to the challenges that students face today with higher tuition fees and student debt burdens. Is it different today from what it was in the past? I for one and probably all of us in the House worked our way through university to pay for our fees and our debts. Many university students today do the same. Some of them have jobs while they study.

The difference today is the steep increases in tuition fees. The member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough threw out a litany of numbers. I read something recently which said that for universities like Carleton and Ottawa University, the per student grant from the province has shrunk by about $1,500 a year, and at the University of Toronto by some $2,000 per student per year. The member opposite talked about a bigger number, $2,700. He talked about fees going up 125% and provincial grants going down 50%. I am not sure where the difference is made up. Obviously there are some cost pressures at the university level.

However, notwithstanding all the statistics, we do know that students are facing higher tuition fees and a greater debt burden.

While I can appreciate the intent of the motion from the member for Fundy--Royal, I believe the motion is wrong-footed for the following reasons. First, I cannot agree with an initiative that rewards individuals for discharging their responsibilities. It tells the students that if they pay their debts the government will reward them. In my view that is not what the tax system should be used for. I do not believe Canadian taxpayers would support this approach. Surely students must accept the responsibility to repay their student loans. Did they not have a choice when they took out the loan? Did they not commit to repay the loans?

However, rather than ignore the problem, we should be coming at the problem in two different directions.

First, the provinces and territories must discharge their responsibilities and adequately fund post-secondary education. That is their job. As I indicated earlier, provincial government grants, especially in provinces like Ontario where I live, have been significantly eroded over the years.

The Canada health and social transfer is the main program through which the federal government supports post-secondary education. In 2001-02 CHST cash will increase by some $2.8 billion. In 2002-03 it will grow to $19.1 billion, a $3.6 billion increase. By 2005-06, CHST cash will reach $21 billion, a $5.5 billion dollar or a 35% increase over 2000-01 levels.

At the same time, the tax transfer component of the CHST, which grows in line with the growth in the economy, provides increasing support to the provinces and territories, growing from $16.5 billion in 2000-01 to $18.8 billion in 2005-06. Anyone who says that the tax points do not count should ask why it is that the Quebec government wants more tax points. Clearly there is great value to them.

Together with the increases in CHST cash, total CHST will reach close to $40 billion in 2005-06 compared to approximately $32 billion last year.

Some individuals blame reductions in federal transfers as the reason for the declining investment in post-secondary education by the provinces. Allow me to debunk that theory yet again.

While federal transfers were reduced as we grappled with a $42 billion deficit left to us by the Tories, when we took office in 1993 federal transfer were cut much less than federal government departments, agencies and direct delivery programs.

Some provinces, like Ontario, have chosen tax cuts as a priority over investments in post-secondary education. I have a good example of this. If the Mike Harris Tories had reduced taxes by 25% instead of 30% in the first tax cut go around in the province of Ontario, they could have completely topped up the cuts in the transfers to the province. Is that such a difficult thing to ask?

It is time for the provinces and territories to take their responsibilities more seriously and increase funding to colleges and universities. This is the first and most important line of attack in keeping tuition fees in line with student economics.

Second, the federal government is able to make additional contributions to post-secondary education through directly delivered programs and through tax policy. The government has been doing exactly that and I will give some examples.

The Canada education savings grant is a grant of 20% on the first $2,000 of contributions made each year to registered education savings plans. This encourages and assists families in saving for their children's higher education.

The Canada millennium scholarships provide more than 90,000 students each year with scholarships averaging $3,000 a year to reduce the debt that they would otherwise have to incur.

Canada study grants of up to $3,000 provide assistance each year to approximately 25,000 students, including students with disabilities, high need part time students and students with dependants.

Tax measures that support post-secondary education have been enhanced, including the education tax credit, the tuition credit and the scholarship exemption. These measures make education more affordable.

The Canada student loans program has been enhanced to help graduates manage their student debt by increasing the number of people eligible for interest relief and providing debt reduction for those in extended financial difficulty. As well, students can now claim a tax credit for interest paid on federal and provincial student loans.

Finally, tax free registered retirement savings plan withdrawals and an extension of the education tax credit and child care expense deduction to part time students help Canadians upgrade their skills through their working life.

Another important area that enhances the quality of a student's experience at post-secondary educational institutions is in research and investments in research.

Key investments have been made by our government in every budget since fiscal balance was restored to increase Canada's research performance. These investments have greatly improved Canada's research climate. Moreover, they have built in financial momentum that will see greater support for research over the next several years.

To add further momentum, the last budget provided close to $1 billion of targeted investments over three years to promote leading edge research and to sustain Canada's leadership in innovative uses of the Internet.

In recent years the government has made significant investments in research conducted in universities and research hospitals. The benefits of such research include new products, services, therapies and industry practices that contribute to economic growth, a higher quality of life for Canadians and a better educational experience for students.

Universities and research hospitals have been highly supportive of these investments. However they have expressed concerns about their rising indirect costs; that is expenses associated with administration, maintenance and commercialization activities that are not covered by direct federal funding for research.

In budget 2000 and in the most recent budget the federal government has again stepped up to the plate to provide support for indirect administration costs, support which the provinces and territories should be providing. We are providing the research dollars and research chairs. In budget 2000 the government provided a one time $200 million grant to help with those costs. We increased the budgets for the National Research Council, the granting councils, the NSERC and the SSHRC. These are all things which enhance a student's life on campus.

Let us get on with the job of investing in post-secondary education to achieve tuition fees that are affordable and to enhance the educational experience for students in colleges and universities.

While the motion is well intended, it does not really do that job. It is for that reason that I will not be supporting it.

[Species at Risk Act, May 8th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, everyone who has participated in the debate on Bill C-5, the species at risk act, agrees on the value of wildlife, the need to prevent species from becoming endangered and the need to protect those already at risk. That is the point of the bill.

Bill C-5 is one of the most complex pieces of legislation. The dynamics between the standing committee, the minister and the department have been quite confusing to say the least. There have been many amendments back and forth. I congratulate the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, my colleague from Davenport who is the chair, and all his colleagues on the committee for the hard work they have put into the bill.

However I think we can agree on a basic point. The government has been confounded for many years by the question of how to satisfy the many people who have a stake in the lands and waters where these species are found. These people have dedicated their lives to conservation issues and want to see something done in law. They come from different points of view and have different interests. The government has tried to ensure their voices are heard. It has tried to ensure the bill would work in Canada's constitutional context. Above all, it has tried to ensure it is fair and workable.

Some 125 amendments or motions were put forward by the standing committee. The government has accepted 75, which not a bad batting average depending on which amendments they are. I will be looking at the standing committee's amendments as they come forward. I will be supporting some of them. I still have concerns about the compensation issue and the listing process. I hope the government listens again to the amendments and acts on them, but at the end of the day I will be supporting Bill C-5.

Why will I be doing that? After nearly nine years of listening and adjusting it is time to get the legislation in place. While this has been going on species have become more threatened. Some have perhaps disappeared. In my office in Etobicoke North I have a photograph of a majestic grizzly bear in the Khutzeymateen valley in British Columbia. Mercifully, it is not an endangered species but it is time for us to act.

Even if the bill is not perfect and does not satisfy everyone we need to get the legislation in place. We have the co-operative relationships we need to deliver protection on a national basis across the country. Let us get going and provide Canadians with the legislative tools needed to get the job done.

Part of the job involves the people in the Chamber. I will talk about the role Canadians expect their members of parliament to fulfill. When a woodlot owner decides to harvest a section of his property the individual has a number of decisions to make. He must decide how many trees to harvest, the timing of the harvesting based on market prices, et cetera. When a farmer makes a decision about planting or harvesting many factors are taken into account as well. When a rancher closes off a pasture for a year or two it is because it is in the best interests of the land and the herd.

These people elect us as representatives. They expect us to understand the decisions they must make and the lives they live. However they are not the only people who elect us. Others with many different interests are at the ballot box.

Why do I mention who sent us here? It is because we must think of them all. That is our job. They hold us accountable for the decisions that affect their lives so we must design laws that allow us to do our job. We must be accountable.

We are not asking that politicians decide if the right whale is endangered or the piping plover's numbers are decreasing. Scientists alone would make the assessments and decide where species should be placed on the list of those at risk. It would be done through the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

For the first time in federal legislation this organization will be legally recognized as part of the assessment and listing process. The bill before us would include assessments of the status of species that would be scientific, expert and independent. They would be done at arm's length from government and away from any social and economic pressures.

Anyone can see the scientific decisions at any time. Decisions and findings by the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada would be published in a public registry. The government and elected members of parliament must decide on whether to add a species to the legal list.

The moment it goes on that list a number of processes kick in under the act. For example, there are automatic prohibitions against the killing or harming of listed species and their habitats; there are mandatory plans that are required to be put together within specific timeframes for recovery of the species from dangerously low numbers; and finally, and just as important, the process under the law allows for the authority to take emergency action to protect habitat.

The decisions made under these processes could involve serious economic or social implications, particularly in rural areas that depend on fishing, farming and ranching. As I emphasized earlier, this would be the government's job. We are the ones to make these decisions because we are here to decide on such matters. We cannot ask this of scientists. It is just not fair.

We are the ones who must be accountable to those who put us here. We agree that the decisions must be timely. The bill would place a 90 day timeline for the development of the ministerial response to a committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada assessment. The minister must report annually to parliament on each of the committee's assessments and the minister's response to them. None of this would be done in secrecy. In fact, anyone at any time would be able to see the process in action through the public registry. It is a demonstration of the government's commitment to transparency.

With all these facts in hand concerned groups and the general public could hold the decision makers accountable for action that would be taken as well as action that would not be taken. As further evidence of the seriousness with which the government sees the need for timely action on species assessments from the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada the government has already added 233 species to the initial legal list. The committee has assessed every single species with its updated criteria in the past few years.

It is time to look beyond the rhetoric. It is time to recognize that in the true spirit of the Canadian constitution we have formed legislation based on partnerships. The assessment and listing is just one such partnership. We rely on the expertise of scientists to determine the threats and status, and the expertise of elected members of parliament to move forward on actions that address those threats and status. Now we must get on with it.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the risk, because I think we have to determine how the government can help the industry and its workers.

For example, the government could provide loan guarantees. My unsolicited advice would be to ensure that the chances of winning at the WTO and NAFTA are solid, which I think they are. It is a question of risk management. If we were to provide some facility through the Canadian Commercial Corporation, it would have to take on a certain element of risk. Personally, I believe the element of risk is slight. Taxpayers want to know that if this agency was providing this kind of support that at the end of the day we would be successful or there would be a high probability of being successful at the WTO and NAFTA.

I agree with the hon. member. We need to look beyond the large integrated companies. I too am worried about the independent sawmill operators. The big guys might be able to look after themselves, but we need to ensure the independent sawmill operators are covered as well.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I lived in British Columbia for 12 years and spent 15 years of my life working directly in the forest products industry so I know a little bit about it.

While there may be some mills affected in the hon. member's riding I am sure that is unfortunate and I empathize with him. However we just had a decision that the bonds will be coming back so they will be getting some money back soon. To say that those mills are shut down and taking down time strictly because of the 27.2% duty is an exaggeration.

I spoke this morning with the president of the Canadian Commercial Corporation who agreed with me that it is feasible. Yes, it is a logistical nightmare, but bigger projects have been bitten off. We must start thinking outside the box. If we do not we will be stuck in the same mud we have been stuck in for the last 15 years.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate again on softwood lumber, a problem that does not seem to want to go away. Today's debate is more in the context of how we might support the industry and the workers who may be affected.

We hear a lot of numbers being thrown out: 30,000 jobs or 40,000 jobs. My guess right now is that those numbers are somewhat exaggerated. Some of the numbers do reflect some restructuring of the industry. Some of the numbers reflect some companies that may be in difficulty. One of the other problems is measuring whether a mill has gone from three shifts to two shifts or has taken some extra down time as opposed to straight out mill closures.

The reality is, whether it is today or in the fall, if no deal is reached with the Americans, and frankly I do not see how can be done, and if the tariff remains, some very serious challenges will be presented to a number of forest products companies in Canada.

I want to come back to the main theme of the motion. The U.S. administration should be absolutely castigated for its lack of involvement in this file. We all know that the U.S. producers have a very strong lobby but if the U.S. administration put its mind to it, it could actually exert more influence on this lobby group. It could better balance the interests of U.S. consumers and homebuilders in the construction industry.

What do the Americans do? They sit back and let the U.S. producers define the terms of the engagement. I think that shows a lack of responsibility on the part of the White House, the president and all his staff.

What we have are basically bullying tactics. When we go to the WTO and to NAFTA, as we have done in the past, it will be proven that we do not subsidize our industry. However, the Americans do not seem to care about that. They just launch another countervailing duty action. In the meantime, from one to the other, they change the rules so they are able to re-launch another countervailing duty process.

Later on in my discussion I will address what we can do to move forward, because having the softwood lumber debate come back again and again is really not in anyone's interest.

We must support the government's position of a two track process, and that is, we take it to the WTO and to NAFTA and, in the meantime, we try to seek out a solution if one is possible.

My own view is that there is no viable solution. The Americans come at it from a totally different perspective. Most of their forests are private lands and they think that auctions are the panacea for everything. We have a system of public forest lands. Even if the Canadian provinces, and it is a matter within provincial jurisdiction, were able to crank it up to 50% or 60% of timber that would be sold by auction, the pricing of timber might even go down.

Right now there are various programs in various provinces where small business operators can bid on timber. A sawmill or pulp mill is able to buy that timber at a certain price because it is at the margin, but if they had to buy all their raw material from auction prices, there are only so many sawmills or pulp mills that are going to be built in Canada. In fact we have probably reached a reasonable limit now in terms of sustainable operations. There is a certain economic price that the mills can sustain. In terms of Canada's traditions and public policy framework I do not think we can move to an auction of 50% to 60%. I am quite sure that is the kind of parameter the Americans are thinking about but I am not sure it is possible in Canada.

I think it is reasonable to seek out a negotiated solution but I do not think one is possible. I do not think a negotiated solution that makes sense for Canada is in the cards because the Americans are coming at this from a totally different perspective.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us to pursue our challenges at the NAFTA panel and the WTO. How long does that take? It may take a year, a year and a half or longer. What will happen to these companies in the fall, especially when they will need to come up with a 27% duty? Some of the large integrated companies, meaning they have sawmills, pulp mills, newsprint operations and panel board mills, will be able to absorb the blow.

A lot of it will depend on what happens to the pricing on softwood lumber. If the pricing stays reasonably high more companies will be able to absorb the duty, but 27% is a huge amount to cover.

I think we should be looking, and I know that our government is looking, at various alternatives. There are different approaches. We could say that we should look after the workers, we should look after the companies or we could do a combination of both. If we look after the companies, in other words, help those companies that will not be able to weather the storm, then by definition if we can keep the company afloat we will help the workers.

The other approach is to go through Human Resources Development Canada but I am not sure it has a lot of creative magic to come up with programs that will be much different or slightly different from those that are already in place. I think that is a reality. If we did that for forest products we would probably have to do it for the automotive sector, the mining sector, et cetera.

While I think we should push the envelope on seeking solutions through HRDC, ultimately the best solutions will be coming in terms of offering support to our forest products companies.

How do we do that? First, a lot of discussions have taken place about taking measures that are not countervailable, in other words, that the Americans could not re-launch another countervailing duty process because the government support constituted a subsidy.

I want to throw something into the hopper here today in this debate. If it were countervailable, and I agree that we should try to keep it as a non-countervailable type of support, but if it were, it would take about a year to a year and a half through the American system for them to attack it and for that to be resolved. By that time, we may have a favourable decision. We will have a favourable decision, if the timing is right, through the WTO and NAFTA. If we win the decision at the WTO and NAFTA, guess what? All those duties will be refunded with interest. I think the risk of that not happening is very slight.

I think our government, either through loan guarantees from EDC or through the Canadian Commercial Corporations being a buyer of softwood lumber in Canada, should manage the risk, charge the companies for that risk on a commercial basis and resell the lumber into the United States market. The Canadian Commercial Corporations already do this. There would be a cost to that but the companies could probably handle the cost of servicing that type of support. When we win at NAFTA and at the WTO, those duties will be refunded. Therefore I think the risk to the government is relatively minor.

We need to look at it on a commercial basis. I do not think the government should try to backstop those companies that are facing financial problems, whether it be because of mismanagement, some bad asset acquisitions or some internal cost problems of their own. It should be done based on a sound commercial footing through those companies that have a solid credit rating. I believe we could do it through the Canadian Commercial Corporations or the EDC.

The reality is that we will need to find some help for the companies and for those employees who have become dislocated. I think we will need to have a bit of both.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric that is floating around, some mills have shut down and some mills are taking additional downtime but the big hits are still to come. They will be big hits and as a federal government we need to be prepared to support those companies and those individuals.

How do we move forward? Can we possibly be back in a countervailing duty fight year after year? I would like to make some suggestions. First, as part of a negotiated solution, if we could get a cross-border commission to deal with these trade irritants more efficiently that would be a great step forward.

NAFTA has worked well for Canada. In fact it has worked so well that about 86% of our exports go to the United States. It is an easy market, a closed market and we need to diversify.

I was just in India with the trade minister on team Canada and the wood products industry has put up a wood showroom in Bombay that is working out very well.

I do not know how we can accept the fact that the Americans talk about an integrated energy market when it comes to a certain commodity, but when it comes to softwood lumber they are sorry, it is not an integrated market. Of course they are both integrated North American markets, wood products and energy. There is no difference.

The Americans want their cake and eat it too. We should play hardball on that issue. I know we cannot link things formally, but I believe that suddenly the energy debate should slow down to a snail's pace and I do not think we would have to draw a picture for the U.S. administration or the elected people.

[User Fees Act, May 1st, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-455, an act respecting user fees.

Mr. Speaker,I am very pleased to introduce my bill, an act respecting user fees. The bill would provide for parliamentary scrutiny and approval of user fees set by federal government departments and agencies. It also would provide for a greater transparency in the cost recovery and fee setting activities of those authorities by requiring them to engage in a participatory consultation with clients and other service users before introducing or amending those fees. The intent of the bill is to provide greater transparency and accountability in the user fees charged by federal government departments and agencies.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)