David Emerson

[Softwood Lumber, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have had extensive consultations with provinces and industry players from across this country, including the province of Quebec.

I believe that this framework agreement has an excellent basis for the Quebec industry to grow and prosper going forward. It is certainly going to be much better than the alternative of more years of litigation, which other members of this House seem to be preferring, more years of litigation, new lawsuits, more interim duties, higher tariffs, money going into the U.S. treasury and death of jobs here in Canada.

[Softwood Lumber, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when the legal fine tuning is completed on this agreement, there will be options for different provinces to pursue different adjustments in weak markets. If the province of Quebec were to select what is referred to as option A, there would be no hard cap or no hard restriction on the exports from that province.

[Softwood Lumber, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to believe, like the rest of her party, that the way to help the softwood lumber industry is to continue litigation, to have more court cases brought by American protectionists to attack Canadian producers.

What the agreement does is constrain the U.S. protectionists' ability to attack our industry. We will get the deal brought before the House when we get the right deal.

[Softwood Lumber, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that we are having discussions, finalizing the legal text of this framework agreement, which was made possible because of the hard work and the goodwill earned by the Prime Minister with the President of the United States.

She also knows well that we are working to ensure we get this deal right and that we are looking at how to help producers in her riding.

[Softwood Lumber, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if that hon. member knows what lumber prices are going to be doing in the next 6 to 12 months, he ought to be out in the futures market making $1 million.

In the meantime, the alternative to this very positive, constructive deal will be continued litigation. It will be duties payable to the U.S. treasury. It will be money flowing out of Canada. It will be more harm, more bleeding, more jobs lost and the softwood lumber industry and all the affiliated industries will be hurt beyond repair.

[Softwood Lumber, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by the short memory of the some of the members opposite. I recall only too well when a decidedly inferior deal was sitting on the table and we could have heard the panting around the block of the people who wanted to buy a deal at any expense.

This softwood lumber agreement provides predictability, it provides security and it provides for a rebirth and a growth of the Canadian softwood lumber industry.

[Softwood Lumber, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the major producing provinces are supportive of this agreement. The vast majority of the lumber producers in our country are supportive, albeit there are some lawyers who have made a darned good living off this trade dispute who do not support it. There are a few association heads who are in the same boat.

However, the people who have to meet a payroll in the softwood lumber business want the stability. They want the predictability. They want the recovery, the transformation and the strength of the softwood lumber industry.

[Softwood Lumber, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the hon. member. He comes from northern Ontario and he knows that the softwood lumber industry and the forest industry generally in his part of the world have shed thousands of jobs in the last few years, much of it because of the very softwood lumber dispute to which this government has a solution. He ought to get behind it, support it, support the workers in the softwood lumber industry, support the rejuvenation of the forest industry and get back to work instead of playing political games.

[Softwood Lumber, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member will be prepared to stand and shoot off his mouth when this industry falls back into turmoil, which is what will happen if we are unable to finalize this agreement, The softwood lumber industry would be back in the tank, lumber markets would decline and we would have more duties and more tariffs. He does not know enough about the business to realize what he would be doing to British Columbia.

[Softwood Lumber, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might just want to sit around his cappuccino bars in West Vancouver and not go out to the communities where people are trying to make a living in the softwood lumber business. Those people are being hurt by continued litigation and continued trade wars.

This government and this Prime Minister have brought certainty, stability and some sense of a future for the softwood lumber industry.