Madam Speaker, last Monday I was in Vancouver, British Columbia at the premiers' softwood lumber summit. There were 35 people there including mayors, company representatives, first nations representatives and representatives of the West Coast Environmental Law Association. Federal and provincial legislators from government and opposition were there. The senior federal minister for British Columbia, the Minister of Natural Resources, was also there along with the federal Minister for International Trade.
A major focus was the presentation of the B.C. Ministry of Management Services which is the equivalent of Statistics Canada for the province. It said 15,000 forestry workers in the province were out of work. It anticipated 50,000 would be out of work when the full impact of the tariff came into effect sometime after May 23. That is about a quarter of British Columbia's 200,000 forest industry workers. The official opposition recognizes that B.C. is not alone in facing these layoffs.
One can imagine the outrage in British Columbia when three days after hearing all the data, participating in the meeting and expressing not a shred of doubt we witnessed the Minister for International Trade say not one job had been lost due to the softwood lumber dispute. He said the losses were due to restructuring. The minister then went to Spain and the arrogant Liberal government has not explained itself or the minister's behaviour. The Minister of Natural Resources, the senior federal minister from British Columbia who was also at the meeting, has said nothing to explain his colleague's behaviour. Forest workers, families and communities have been insulted, brushed off and ignored by the government.
I was in Port Alberni on central Vancouver Island this weekend. It has four sawmills, three of which are closed. The mayor is rightly concerned. I was on a softwood lumber panel and chaired a coastal parliamentarians meeting. A member of the panel was Darrel Wong, president of I.W.A. Canada, Local 2171. Some 2,100 of his members have been laid off. Some 30 companies have been closed, 21 are inactive and 32 are at reduced capacity. One might ask what the minister has been smoking. Shutdowns have been happening since last August when the preliminary duty was announced. The Coast Forest and Lumber Association provided me with a list of 20 sawmills on the coast. The mills are either down, partially down or have been down four to five months.
The Minister for International Trade should apologize for his remarks. It has been five days. Perhaps the senior minister from British Columbia, the Minister of Natural Resources who was also at the premiers' summit, would like to distance himself from his cabinet colleague's statements with more than silence. We now have an insight into why the government has no sense of urgency to tackle the dispute head on. It is easier to deny the problem than to fix it. All the opposition parties are willing to recognize there is a problem. We are of one mind.
The trade minister likes to say he has the provinces, industry and labour onside. However at times they are afraid to say anything negative because they do not want to break with Canadian solidarity. Privately there are major concerns.
I had the opportunity last night to talk to a trade lawyer. The discussion we had went to the heart of what needs to be done. It is common knowledge in trade circles that the Canadian government is too soft and rolls over too easily, particularly in disputes with the U.S. This goes to the heart of the motion we are debating today.
To succeed in securing free trade in lumber, forest workers must be supported. Industry must not be forced to fold because of cash flow problems resulting from penalties for which we can and will obtain repayment in the future. There is no shortage of suggestions for achieving this except from the government which is once again playing for time and pretending no problem exists.
For example, HRDC has come up with $13 million in additional benefits for workers in British Columbia. This works out to $260 for each of the province's 50,000 unemployed forest workers. That is not what is required. An extended creative EI benefit is clearly needed. There are administrative problems as the Leader of the Opposition explained. However it does not happen to be true in some areas of the province including my area.
In terms of tariff management schemes we have suggested two possibilities which go to the heart of the question asked of the Leader of the Opposition. First, we should look at dealing with Export Development Canada. Currently qualified exporters of Canadian goods can insure up to 90% of their accounts receivable exposure with Export Development Canada. The definition of accounts receivable must be expanded to include deposits made on contested tariffs. The Government of Canada would have to assume much of the underwriting risk. The approach is simple. It has been out there quite a while. However as far as we can determine the minister has not asked Export Development Canada to look at the possibility of accomplishing it.
Second, we could go through Canadian Commercial Corporation. Currently Canadian Commercial Corporation acts as a middleman for many cross border contracts between Canadian and U.S. industries, especially in the defence sector. Certain members of the softwood lumber industry could sell their lumber to CCC. Canadian Commercial Corporation could then sell it to the U.S. and become liable for the duties.
Why can we not engage the government on these issues? I have been trying for months. It would rather pretend the problem did not exist. As I said previously, the government has done no apparent homework on tariff management plans. It can always find trade lawyers who agree or disagree with the suggested approaches.
The upside to urgent government action in supporting workers and tariff payment schemes is that Canadian solidarity could be maintained. The longer the government continues to let things drift the more likely there will once again be a rush to a deal that will have long term negative consequences for our competitiveness not only in the U.S. market but all other markets into which we ship forestry products.
The situation has reached a serious juncture. It is absolutely necessary that the federal government intervene immediately. It has a responsibility, an obligation and an opportunity to display leadership. It is critical that the government announce a comprehensive plan for workers on the tariff issue. Otherwise industry, the workforce, the municipalities and the provinces will divide. The solidarity necessary to win the battle will be lost due to the government's lack of leadership.
This crisis was avoidable. The Liberals knew it was coming but ignored it. They saw no political opportunity in it. The Canadian government has not acquitted itself well. Could members imagine it doing the same thing for turbot off the east coast?
Canadians deserve better leadership from the federal government. A plan containing worker relief and tariff payment measures is required now. The people on the Canadian side who are most keen on pursuing free and unfettered trade are the very people who are saying the Canadian government has to put a tariff scheme and worker support scheme in place.
