Michael Savage

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for his indication that we might have some meeting of the minds on parts of this. It leads me to believe I might have made a mistake, but that is not the case.

In terms of the health committee report, we all endorsed that. We all believe that this is an important thing. I believe it was June 6 that our health committee endorsed the resolution. There had been a previous one on February 3 by hon. colleague who asked me the question, indicating that the committee refrain from any action pertaining to the Internet pharmacy industry until the committee had fully studied the issue and submitted its recommendations to the House.

However, on June 6 we asked for action and on June 29 the minister moved. He is consulting in a way that is prudent and reasonable. He is ensuring that stakeholders are considered and he is balancing that with the need for action.

Therefore, I commend the minister and I think we can look forward to a common consensus when the bill comes before us.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak tonight on this issue. It is an issue that is important to me. When I came to this place last year, I sought out the health committee. It was the committee I really wanted to be on. I am proud that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health is a Nova Scotian. It did not necessarily help me get on the health committee, but I fought to do so and am pleased to be on it for specific issues.

The official opposition critic on health will know my passion for the issue of a national wellness program, for example, and there are other issues that are important to me as well, such as caregiving and seniors. The issue we are discussing tonight is an issue that has a big impact on seniors, among other Canadians. It is a pleasure to have a chance to speak late this evening on this important piece of pending legislation.

On June 29 my colleague, the Minister of Health, on behalf of the government, announced the three prong strategy on cross-border drug sales that included proposed legislative and regulatory changes to safeguard the safety and the supply of Canadian drugs. I would like to speak briefly about those proposed changes to emphasize how they respond to concerns about this industry. They respond to the concerns of ordinary Canadians, Canadians from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and across this country.

The security of our drug supply must be maintained. I think that when Canadians give it thought, they are concerned about the availability of drugs, particularly at times like this when there are concerns raised in the media and other places about specific health concerns like pandemics.

The measures that we are talking about are simply: a drug supply network, legislation under the Food and Drugs Act to restrict the bulk export of prescription drugs, and strengthening the food and drugs regulations to require that drugs be sold based on a prescription issued within an established patient-practitioner relationship.

The first measure to establish a drug supply network to be housed in Health Canada is essential for the federal government in order to have more comprehensive data to identify when or if a prescription drug supply shortage actually exists in this country. Such a shortage could be caused by exports to the United States or many other causes, such as manufacturing problems.

The growing importance of drugs in modern health care and the threat to Canada's drug supply through the potential legalization in the United States of bulk imports makes it necessary for the Government of Canada to have the capacity to introduce appropriate controls. It is essential that we know when shortages of essential health products such as drugs occur, so we can respond in an appropriate manner. Indeed, the health of our economy could be at risk at a time when the world is bracing for an overdue influenza pandemic. We must have all the necessary tools at our disposal in order to respond.

The second measure is export controls. They would only be implemented in response to a shortage or the risk of a shortage of a drug or a class of drugs essential to the health of Canadians that would only be maintained for a specified period or as the risk persists. We will respect our international trade obligations and investors can be assured that any actions under these measures will be reasonable.

The third initiative to strengthen the existing provisions under the food and drugs regulations is required, so that prescription drugs are sold pursuant to a prescription that has been issued within an established patient-practitioner relationship. The necessity for this measure has become clear as technological innovations such as the Internet, electronic prescribing, and telemedicine create new ways of linking patients with health care practitioners. These are important innovations for the health care system, but they also provide certain challenges and this is one of those.

Authorities responsible for regulating the practice of medicine will work to ensure ethical practices that are based on that established patient-practitioner relationship. I think most Canadians believe that this type of practical procedure makes sense. The patient-practitioner relationship is, after all, paramount to most Canadians in their experience.

I would like to take a closer look at the economics of the cross-border drug business with regard to the rise of Internet pharmacies. I acknowledge the inventiveness and the entrepreneurial spirit of our Internet pharmacies. However, we cannot forget that their business is based on an ancient and fundamental business practice known as arbitrage, which, in essence, is the old adage of buy low and sell high.

It is a fundamental tenet of our health policies that drug prices in Canada be affordable. This is increasingly important as pharmaceuticals replace many older forms of medical treatment.

Not so long ago, for example, ulcers were routinely treated with special diets, antacids and in the end, surgery. Then some scientists in Australia made the remarkable and unexpected discovery that ulceration of the stomach or duodenum was the result of an infection of the stomach caused by the bacterium H. pylori. The importance of this discovery is reflected by the receipt of this year's Nobel Laureates in physiology and medicine. Now we routinely treat such infections with antibiotics and avoid significant costs and intervention with patients and doctors and hospitals.

Many within the industry have attributed Canada's low drug prices to the Patented Medicine Price Review Board, the PMPRB, that regulates patented pharmaceutical prices. Most other developed countries in the world also regulate prices with a similar mechanism with the notable exception of the United States.

The PMPRB establishes the maximum price that can be charged by manufacturers for patented medicines sold in Canada to ensure that they are not excessive.Annually, it ensures that prices do not rise faster than the rate of inflation. Now on occasion manufacturers tend to set their prices internationally at a level that reflects the ability of the marketplace to pay. That is the relative purchasing power in different countries. In Canada's case these prices are often below the PMPRB maximum for marketing purposes.

Despite the sudden growth of cross-border drug sales since December of 2003, sales stabilized at about $1 billion Canadian retail per year, and Internet drug sales have declined from $617 million to $506 million over the past year. Currently, cross-border drug sales represent more than 8% of prescription drug sales in Canada, but less than 0.5% of the $300 billion U.S. market. Average savings to American consumers have fallen from 44% in December 2003 to less than 30% nationally. This is due in part to a strong Canadian dollar and to pharmaceutical manufacturers' restrictions on the supply of drugs to Internet pharmacies.

The recent decline also is due to the fact that Canadian Internet pharmacies are increasingly meeting U.S. demand indirectly through non-North American suppliers in places such as the U.K., India, and China where drug prices are often even lower than they are here. The top three Canadian Internet pharmacies source 50% of their product from Europe. These products do not flow through Canada and do not require approval by Health Canada. We should remember that these Canadian Internet pharmacies are businesses, not philanthropies, that are responding to market demand in the United States. If they do not, other foreign Internet pharmacies will fill that demand.

Another major constraint on the growth of these exports to the U.S. has been the refusal of pharmaceutical manufacturers in Canada to sell to those pharmacies which they have reasonable grounds to believe are exporting to the United States. A March 2003 ruling by the Competition Bureau in Canada determined that since cross-border sales violated U.S. laws against importing prescription pharmaceuticals, manufacturers had a reasonable business justification from restricting the export of Canadian products to sales contracts with pharmacies and wholesalers, so long as they continued to supply our market.

Ten manufacturers have limited the supply of their products to Canadian Internet pharmacies. While these manufacturers supply controls have caused concern for some that Canadians in general might face potential drug shortages, there is no evidence for this concern. Manufacturers have clearly indicated their intention to stop supplying export pharmacies but continue to ensure adequate supply for Canadians.

As well, pharmaceutical manufacturers' inventory levels in Canada continue to be at an all time high, double the level of three years ago, providing further comfort that the drug supply is okay. However, we do not want to rely solely on the current provisions to protect our access to affordable drugs.

In the U.S. 27 states and 19 municipalities are considering drug importation at various levels. Currently, there are bills before the U.S. Congress to legalize the importation of drugs for both personal and bulk rate. Given the relative size of our two markets, I think the health minister has noted that Canada cannot be a drugstore for the Americans. This has resonated strongly in Washington and in the U.S. media.

The government strategy to address the issue of cross-border drug sales has those three clear initiatives: first, a drug supply network; second, legislation to restrict bulk export of prescriptions; and finally, strengthening Canada's food and drug regulations to ensure that drugs are sold based on a prescription within that established patient-practitioner relationship. All of these are undertakings to safeguard the safety and supply of Canadian drugs.

We must continue to be sensitive to the economic dimension as we go forward, but we will move as a government to protect the drug supply of Canadians and we will ensure that our citizens have no reason for concern.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague from Sackville--Eastern Shore raise this issue this morning. I would expect that the opposition across from us would suggest that we should take the HST off energy. They have before. There are some people on our own side who might even suggest that too, but I cannot believe that the New Democratic Party thinks the savings on this should go disproportionately to the rich. That makes no sense. Why should we take HST off all energy costs if what we are trying to do is help those most in need? Why should the member and I get a bigger cut, because we use more energy, than the poorest among us?

This is a specifically targeted measure for low income Canadians, not for members of Parliament, not for CEOs, not for those who have a lot of money. It is for low income Canadians to assist them immediately with $250 for a family or $125 for singles, and down the road it will be there for those who need help. A lot of people cannot afford to upgrade their homes. This will allow them to do it.

It is simple to suggest that we could take the HST off all energy. Any one of us would love it, but it does not help those who need it most and this bill does.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my hon. friend was not here for the beginning of my speech when I spoke about my own background in the oil industry. I do not think that departmental officials knew about that. I am discouraged to hear that facts should not be brought into the House of Commons and should not be allowed in debate, because frankly I think they should be.

The history of what we have done with some of these programs is very important. It is important for public institutions. It is important for them to save their money. It is also important as we move toward a greener economy that public institutions are given assistance so they can make the improvements they need to better serve their clients, whether they are students, patients or anybody else.

As I indicated, 3.1 million Canadians will get assistance under this program. That is a very broad number. They are the most needy of all Canadians. As I indicated, certainly from the Liberal caucus point of view we said we wanted assistance to go to those who most need it. The most vulnerable in our society are children, low income families and seniors. This program specifically addresses those people in a way that will give them help today and in years to come.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-66 today. The bill represents a commitment to assist the most vulnerable of Canadians with a major challenge, which, in some ways, is almost uniquely Canadian, and that is the Canadian winter.

The challenge to keep themselves and their families warm is a big one for many Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable among us. At the same time we are contributing to a greener environment and better housing, particularly for those who are most in need.

Canada is a great country and there are many benefits to living here. However there are a few challenges that go with that privilege and one of those challenges can be our weather. I do not think anybody would deny that.

I think Canadians appreciate better than most the change of seasons. The transition from autumn to winter can be particularly striking to the senses as the distinctive colours of autumn give way to the stark beauty of a Canadian winter. In addition to its unmistakable splendour, the Canadian winter brings an obvious challenge and that is staying warm.

For many Canadian households, businesses and communities, winter means increased energy consumption to heat homes, offices and public buildings. With the sharp rise in fuel costs, Canadians are bracing for a particularly costly winter.

The Government of Canada is clearly attuned to this pressing challenge and is helping Canadians to overcome it. Bill C-66, the energy cost assistance measures act, reflects this government's commitment to helping Canadians reduce energy consumption. I hope all members of the House will support it.

We intend to help individuals, families, communities, school boards and entrepreneurs across Canada to reduce energy consumption immediately and well into the future. Although all Canadians stand to benefit, those earning low to modest incomes will be eligible for additional assistance with energy costs.

In Atlantic Canada most houses are heated with oil. I used to run an oil company for the Irving family and I am particularly attuned to the rising cost of fuel. When I started in 1986 as the general manager of a very distinguished and historic oil company, the price of fuel was in the range of 27¢ to 28¢ a litre. We have seen the cost of fuel go up a number of times in that period.

The bill is designed to help those who most need help. It is also expected to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases resulting from energy consumption in Canada.

Bill C-66 would increase the government's investment in one of our country's most popular programs, the EnerGuide for houses program. This program provides financial support directly to Canadians who renovate for increased energy efficiency. What colleagues may not know, however, is that the legislation would significantly increase the amount of money available to economically disadvantaged Canadians. Bill C-66 commits up to $500 million over five years to EnerGuide for low income households.

From my experience in the energy business, I know of EnerGuide for houses as well. I know that Terry Watters, from sustainable housing in Wolfville, is one of the people who actually carries out this program and provides good advice to Canadians, like my colleague from Mississauga South who took part in this program.

Through this component of our bill, over 130,000 low income Canadians would be able to afford energy efficiency renovations and reduce their household energy costs for years to come. It also includes help for apartment owners with low income tenants.

Although Bill C-66 would provide immediate relief to many Canadians, I think it is particularly important to recognize that the bill and the broader energy relief package announced on October 6 are not one time only, stop gap measures designed to counteract a temporary crisis. On the contrary, they build on a range of existing programs of the Government of Canada to help families and property owners, as well as community groups, businesses and school boards, to improve energy efficiency.

Let me just take one of those initiatives as an example and that is the EnerGuide for existing buildings launched in 1998. This initiative helps improve energy efficiency and reduce energy use in commercial and institutional buildings. Canadians rely on many of these buildings every day, schools, hospitals, universities. The government's funding contributes to the comfort experienced in these buildings and helps to reduce operating costs. To ensure that public money is invested wisely, the initiative requires applicants to verify energy savings realized once the renovations are complete.

In the past seven years, the initiative has invested approximately $50 million in renovation projects in 4,800 buildings. Among other changes, the renovations have included the replacement of lighting systems, improvement to heating systems and the installation of new boilers. The total value of these projects exceeds $865 million. In other words, every dollar worth of federal incentive was matched 17 times over.

The savings generated by the program have also been striking. Annual energy costs have been cut by $125 million. For building owners, these savings make the decision to invest in building retrofits tremendously more attractive.

In addition, projects of this kind decrease maintenance costs, increase worker productivity and enhance health and safety, leading to further savings. Money once spent on energy can now be redirected toward the purchase of books for school libraries or the provision of better services in our hospitals.

Let me give members a greater appreciation of the success of this. Allow me to present the experiences of three institutions that have put the program into action: la Commission scolaire des Hautes-Rivières, the Regina—Qu'Appelle Health Region and the University of British Columbia.

Created in 1998 as a result of the amalgamation of three Quebec school boards, la Commission scolaire des Hautes-Rivières operates 51 facilities, including 39 primary schools, 8 secondary schools and 4 adult centres. In September 2001, the school board initiated a retrofit on 25 of its facilities. A wide range of changes were made to boost energy efficiency: new water heaters, lights, windows and doors were installed; energy management controls, along with a new heating, ventilation and air conditioning system were introduced. In total, the renovations reduced the school board's energy costs by almost $300,000 a year.

Similar results were achieved in Saskatchewan with renovations to two hospitals: Regina General and Pasqua. The installation of several energy efficient technologies led to reductions in energy consumption of 11% at the hospitals.

The Government of Canada's support has also enabled the University of British Columbia to decrease its energy consumption, to reduce its operating costs and to cultivate an environment of energy awareness and responsibility.

The retrofit projects recently completed and others under way now at UBC are too numerous to describe. I had the opportunity to visit UBC this summer and I met with the faculty and students at the University of British Columbia. I can tell members that the people at UBC who work in facilities spoke in glowing terms about the improvements. Several areas on the UBC campus have undergone lighting retrofits. In some classrooms, outdated lighting tubes have been replaced with more energy efficient lamps and fluorescents. This change alone has produced savings of 30% in energy consumption. The university has also replaced incandescent light fixtures with fluorescent lamps. These new lamps provide the same amount of light but consume 80% less energy and last up to 10 times longer.

These remarkable success stories represent just the beginning. The government proposes a straightforward yet effective way to build on the significant accomplishments of initiatives and programs such as the one I just described. These programs vividly express the government's commitment to help Canadians save energy and to promote an energy efficient future.

This past summer, when our Liberal caucus met in Regina, we discussed a number of issues that we would like to see action on this fall. Our Atlantic caucus, in particular, felt very strongly that we had to find a way to help our constituents with the rising cost of energy. We felt, further to that, that if we could be of assistance, those who most needed it are those with the lowest incomes and quite often people living in the region that I came from, in oil heated homes, simply cannot afford to retrofit their houses.

We would like to do something for everyone. This is not an utopian world. In spite of the fact that we have improved this economy so much since 1993, there are limits to what we can do.

This is a bold initiative. I commend the Minister of Finance and his officials who understood the need and who took direction from the caucus saying that we have people in our constituencies who really need assistance, who really need help and who really need long term sustainable solutions. They listened to us and they produced a plan that I think does what we should be doing: helping those who need help the most.

I support this initiative and I encourage all members to do likewise.

[Health, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is growing concern about privatization within our health care system. Canadians are worried about having to pay out of pocket to see their family doctor for their next appointment and about how long they will have to wait to receive the treatments they need.

We need to assure Canadians that this public system of health care will stand the test of time and will continue to provide timely health care delivery to all Canadians. Could the Minister of Health please explain what steps are being taken to strengthen our public health care system?

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, my hon. colleague from Sydney--Victoria has family in the great riding of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour and I have a reasonable assurance that they vote Liberal, so I appreciate his understanding of my riding.

This is not a rural Canada or urban Canada issue, an eastern Canada or western Canada issue. This is an issue of fairness and it is an issue that matters to all Canadians. Canadians understand that. On a personal note, I think Atlantic Canadians in particular understand this. The Atlantic Liberal caucus, and I am sure it is the same with the Atlantic Conservative caucus, which is reasonably small, and the Atlantic New Democratic caucus in that they speak on issues. When I speak of employment insurance for seasonal workers, it does not affect people in my riding very much, but it affects Atlantic Canada. What is good for the economy of Atlantic Canada is good for me, not to mention the fact that people in urban settings build houses and use lumber. This goes beyond being an urban or rural issue.

In the United States we are now beginning to get a lot of support from consumer associations and lumber associations because of the need for lumber.

This is an issue for Canada. It is not an issue just for urban Canada or rural Canada. It is an issue for all of Canada. It is an issue on which Canada has a unified position. We believe in free and fair trade. We believe NAFTA must be respected. We believe the $5 billion should be returned. We need a long-standing and durable solution to the softwood lumber dispute.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, it is very important for Canadians to get a single message on this dispute. I think Canadians from coast to coast to coast understand that we are following the rules in this trade dispute and the Americans are not.

I refer to the speech that the Prime Minister made, on the record, to the world, at the Economic Club of New York. It was highly publicized and well taken. He said in speaking specifically about softwood lumber, “Countries must live up to their agreements. The duties must be refunded. Free trade must be fair trade”.

The Prime Minister is actively pursuing this file with the U.S. ministers. The Minister of International Trade is doing so as well. The Government of Canada speaks with one voice on this issue, and that voice says that we respect NAFTA, we believe in free and fair trade, and the moneys that have been taken from our companies need to be returned. That is a simple message and a clear one.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I think it is very clear that the question is how much emphasis the government places on the softwood lumber dispute. It dominates every discussion that we have with the United States. Since August 10 we have a list of discussions between the Prime Minister and President Bush; discussions between the Prime Minister and Secretary Rice; the Minister of International Trade has made calls and met with his U.S. counterparts; pursuing the litigation in U.S. courts as well as in NAFTA; pursuing this file in every legal forum; the hon. Minister of International Trade leading trade missions to find alternate markets; taking this message to the American people; and the Prime Minister's speech in New York.

The hon. member does not have to take my word for it. I noticed that in today's National Post , not normally a great source of inspiration for Liberals, there is a column by John Ivison, also somebody who generally does not speak well of us. The column is entitled, “A leader speaks with conviction”. In it he said that the Prime Minister spoke with conviction mainly on the trade dispute over softwood with the United States.

I do not think one has to look very far to see the commitment and the decisiveness of the Prime Minister, the Minister of International Trade and other ministers on this challenge. We in this nation need to speak with one voice. I think we are trying to do that as well as we possibly can. This is very serious. We are talking about a lot of Canadian workers. We are talking about a lot of money, $5 billion in wrongly taken duties that we need to have returned. There are very few things more important, if anything, than this for the Government of Canada at this point in time.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to join the debate late this evening on this important topic and discuss Canada's work to resolve the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.

I would like to highlight a few of the actions our government has taken, our short term goals and hopes with the softwood lumber dispute. I would like to touch on the relationship between Canada and the United States and also the unique nature of the maritime lumber industry where I come from.

Canada and the United States have the most successful example of trading cooperation in the world. It is true there are issues on which we occasionally disagree and we often hear more about those exceptions than we do about the vast number of issues on which we agree.

Softwood lumber is one example. Canadians are rightly concerned. It is a large sector of our economy, 350 communities in Canada, 250,000 people. We are concerned about the U.S. decision not to abide by the NAFTA rulings in our favour. Free and fair trade has after all been enormously important in developing the North American prosperity and competitiveness that we enjoy in the continent today.

While the softwood lumber dispute, the largest trade irritant in our relationship, is a significant issue, we should remember that most of our trade is problem free and our bilateral trading relationship is in fact envied around the world. However, the strength of our relationship is on occasion tested. We do on occasion follow a different path. I do not think that that is a sign of weakness. I think that is a sign of strength.

For example, Canadians and Americans had a different perspective on the war in Iraq. Our government, taking into account Canadian values, decided not to enter that war. I felt then, as do most Canadians, that the just causes for resorting to conflict had not been adequately established.

However, we do share the American belief in democracy and the commitment of the U.S. to bring stability in that region. We have been strong partners in the reconstruction of Iraq, training police forces to help restore order there and donating hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild infrastructure and foster the growth of a revitalized society.

With respect to softwood lumber, we have another example where our countries disagree. Let me once again confirm the government's commitment to finding a long term policy based resolution of this ongoing trade dispute which began following the expiry of the softwood lumber agreement in March 2001.

The Government of Canada is confident in the approach taken thus far in defending the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry. Our goal in this dispute, which we have vigorously pursued, is to improve access to the United States market for Canadian softwood lumber producers. The government has pursued this goal in close consultation with provincial governments, Canadian industry and its associations through several rounds of negotiations, through the NAFTA, the WTO and now the U.S. Court of International Trade challenges for those U.S. trade actions.

We also have provided support and assistance for the lumber sector while it copes with the burden of this dispute. In addition to the goal of resolving the dispute, the government has made it a priority to invest in this industry on a long term basis by working to increase market opportunities around the world for Canadian softwood lumber.

As hon. members are aware, despite numerous WTO and NAFTA panel rulings against U.S. duties on softwood lumber, the U.S. continues to impose countervailing and anti-dumping duties on softwood lumber and has collected over $5 billion in duties to date.

The U.S. has dismissed a key unanimous NAFTA extraordinary challenge committee ruling which obliges the U.S. to revoke the duty orders and return those cash deposits. Canada considers the U.S. failure to implement the NAFTA decision to be contrary to U.S. law and U.S. trade obligations.

This flouting of NAFTA obligations is unacceptable. The government will explore every reasonable option with a view to resolving this dispute, including litigation, high level political intervention and advocacy.

While the U.S. continues to dodge its obligations, the Government of Canada will continue to defend Canadian interests and will insist that the U.S. fulfill those obligations. Unfortunately, until they resolve this dispute, Canadian industry continues to pay unfair duties and to suffer.

The Government of Canada is very sensitive to the tremendous burden that this dispute places on the softwood lumber industry and has been behind the industry, as well as its communities and its workers, every step of the way.

I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members the steps the government has already taken in order to assist this sector while the dispute rages on.

In 2002 the government announced a variety of assistance programs for the industry, communities and workers totalling $356 million to mitigate the damage that this dispute has imposed on one of Canada's key industries. The programs were announced by Natural Resources Canada, Industry Canada, Human Resources Development Canada and the then Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. They were made up of $71 million for measures to assist displaced workers; $110 million for a national softwood industry and community adjustment fund; $95 million in funding for softwood lumber research and development, market expansion initiatives and advocacy efforts; $20 million in advocacy efforts to inform the U.S. public of the impact of the U.S. duties on U.S. lumber consumers; and nearly $15 million in assistance for Canadian lumber industry associations. The funding assisted those associations to operate effectively under the burden imposed by the softwood lumber dispute.

Canadian lumber industry associations are very important and have played a key role in acting as liaisons between the Government of Canada and the softwood lumber industry throughout the course of this dispute. Industry associations also provide detailed legal and policy advice in the development of the Government of Canada's WTO, NAFTA and U.S. CIT challenges and during negotiations with the U.S. administration.

In recognition of this important role, on April 15 this year the Minister of International Trade announced that the Government of Canada would provide up to $20 million to associations directly to help offset legal expenses incurred in defending Canadian interests. Furthermore, Canadian lumber producers and their workers deserve great credit for the tremendous strides that they have made in increasing the productivity and the competitiveness of their products and their operations. If anything, the edge in productivity which the Canadian industry has enjoyed over its U.S. competitors has increased over the course of the latest round of this dispute.

I want to talk about the maritime provinces. We have a unique position in that our lumber is largely found on private land, over 75%, often on woodlots owned for generations by families. Our unique situation has been recognized by governments of all stripes here and also in the United States. It is our duty as MPs to ensure that this tradition continues to be honoured and it will. The maritime lumber industry has worked hard for this exemption and it has earned it. I disagree with my hon. colleague on this side and my good friend the very hard-working and effective member for Etobicoke North on his comments about the Atlantic Canada lumber industry.

We continue across Canada to monitor the state of the industry and the need for further government assistance. Looking forward the government is also actively developing other foreign markets through increased trade opportunities for Canadian lumber producers. This market diversification is a long term investment in the future of Canada's lumber economy and in the Canadian economy in general. There are clearly many opportunities to diversify our markets as the world economic order continues to evolve.

The government is taking a number of actions to ensure that the lumber sector benefits from those opportunities. These actions include trade missions to high growth markets China and India; working with organizations such as CMHC on influencing building codes in foreign countries to accept Canadian lumber; and using Canada's network of trade commissioners around the world to identify foreign market opportunities for Canadian lumber producers to develop.

As hon. members are no doubt aware, the government has made capitalizing on these opportunities presented by the ever-expanding market in China a priority. The very same can be said of the opportunities in China for our lumber producing sector. China is now in fact Canada's fourth largest destination for wood products. In 2000 it was our seventeenth. It is anticipated that China will overtake the United Kingdom as third on that list in the near future. The government is working hard to develop these markets. Over $7 million a year is spent to promote Canadian wood in this and other markets.

Recently the Minister of Natural Resources visited China to promote Canadian energy and softwood lumber. On October 14 the minister announced from Beijing $2.5 million from the Canada wood program to be targeted at the Chinese market in this fiscal year.

Finding these new markets does not diminish the importance of solving our softwood lumber dispute with the United States. Our American partners must comply with NAFTA. This is the single goal and the consistent goal of the Government of Canada and we can accept nothing less.

I know all members of the House have the same vision which is full and fair trade for Canadian softwood lumber and the return of the $5 billion in deposits. We need it now and we need it for years to come. I think speaking with one voice will achieve that.