David Emerson

[Softwood Lumber, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's comments are actually quite disgusting. They are quite disgusting, and in fact, if the hon. member were an honest man, he would admit that carrying on with litigation is going to mean more duties, more fights and more problems, and the forest industry in this country is going to be in very serious trouble.

[Softwood Lumber, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is getting his facts. We did not leave $1.5 billion down there. The deal will ensure stability, certainty, more investment, and more jobs. It will ensure a healthier and more competitive forest products industry and softwood lumber industry in Canada going forward.

Every small community in this country, and there are thousands of them that depend on softwood lumber, will benefit from this agreement.

[Softwood Lumber, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the hon. member would know an anti-circumvention clause if it fell on his head, but nevertheless, the reality is that those hon. members should go out to the mills. They should look at the families who have been disrupted, who have lost their jobs and who have been under terrific pressure for eight years under the softwood lumber agreement.

Those hon. members should explain their economics, which would be saying to those workers, “Let us have another eight years of instability and uncertainty”.

[Softwood Lumber, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I guess that is NDP economics. The NDP prefers a prolonged period of litigation, of uncertainty, of leaving $4 billion U.S. down in the United States where it is not being put into new technology and it is not creating jobs here in Canada.

This lumber deal is a deal for the Canadian lumber industry across this country and it is going to give us a period of seven to nine years of growth and stability. That is good economics. That is not NDP economics.

[Softwood Lumber, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the very best question of this question period. I want to thank him for a couple of years of good hard work, in fact a number of years of hard work on this very file. Yes, I can confirm that exemption has been fully preserved on paper and confirmed.

[Softwood Lumber, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know they would like to give me credit for what happened over there eight years ago, but it is not going to wash.

The reality is that under current market conditions, there are no quotas and the remanners, along with other members of the industry in different provinces, will be able to choose in weak markets whether they want to opt for a quota-type arrangement or an export tax arrangement.

[Softwood Lumber, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to have to say this, but the concerns of the remanners were cut loose eight years ago by those members in that party.

[Softwood Lumber, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to say that the softwood lumber framework agreement is going to be good for Canada. It is going to be good for the softwood lumber industry. It is going to be good for Atlantic Canada. It is going to be good for the sawmills in Quebec, in northern Quebec, in Ontario, on the Prairies and in British Columbia.

[Softwood Lumber, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that everybody in the industry wants this dispute resolved. They want the dispute resolved more than they want loan guarantees. If the dispute is not resolved, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry have indicated that a loan guarantee program will be given consideration. At this time, the priority is on a resolution of the dispute, if that is possible.

[Softwood Lumber, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a tremendous amount of discussion and consultation with provincial governments, industries and companies. All kinds of issues are in play as the hon. member knows. It is a highly complex issue. The discussions are more broad-ranging than they have ever been in the past. No agreement has been reached at this time.