Pierre Paquette

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind members of the House that the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour of Bill C-35 at second reading because we support the principle of modernizing the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

Since the last review of this act, which was in 1991, the world has changed a great deal. There is now a whole series of international organizations that have been created, but not through treaties, which are therefore not covered by the old act. Given that diplomatic relations have changed, with summits as an example, whether it be the one in Quebec City or the APEC summit in Vancouver, it is important to broaden the definition of international organization and to ensure diplomats and foreign representatives who come here for this type of event are covered.

Nor did the old law cover missions here with international organizations. The International Civil Aviation Organization for example, with its head office in Montreal, has 40 different missions that are accredited with the organization, but that have not benefited from any status under the old law.

All of these provisions therefore, are extremely positive. We were quite surprised, at first, not to find any provisions to correct certain irregular situations, such as the incident in which a Russian diplomat used his diplomatic immunity to avoid answering for a crime related to an offence in which he hit a woman while driving his car in a state of intoxication. We were stunned that Bill C-35 contained nothing to correct this situation.

The explanation that was given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others during the committee hearings convinced us that introducing this type of provision in Bill C-35 would contravene the Vienna Convention. The directive issued by the minister to ensure that people who are considered persona non grata be removed, satisfies us.

From this perspective, Bill C-35 was a positive contribution to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and modernized it so that it would take into consideration new diplomatic relations and the new reality of these relations.

But the bill also includes clause 5. Since we supported the principle of modernizing the legislation, the hon. member for Mercier and I moved an amendment to remove this clause because, as I said, it is unclear, incomplete, dangerous and does not belong in this bill, since it is more a matter for the justice department than a foreign affairs issue.

Let me remind the House that clause 5 sets up a number of responsibilities for the RCMP. It purports to amend the foreign missions act so that the RCMP is the organization in charge of security of events, whereas it was traditionally responsible for the protection of individuals, foreign dignitaries in our land.

This is a very significant change. The RCMP could interfere with the work of other police forces, and it is not given any criteria. One witness who appeared before the committee stated that, if we want the RCMP to be the lead agency for security during international events, we should help it by establishing a series of criteria. Those in charge sometimes have to make snap decisions, and, if they to not have any criteria to go by, they might disregard fundamental rights.

This is all the more likely because this same clause 5 says:

—the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

This institutionalizes the creation of security perimeters, such as the one in Quebec City, which were the exception. Why institutionalize a practice which is the exception in legislation on foreign missions? This is a very serious question. Particularly as the RCMP would make its own decisions about the measures that were appropriate in the circumstances.

The RCMP is not limited in any way in establishing these security perimeters. As I have already mentioned, a Montreal lawyer challenged the existence of the security perimeter in Quebec City, saying that it violated his freedom of expression and his freedom of movement. The judge ruled that, while it violated his rights, this was compensated for by the fact that the perimeter was necessary to ensure the safety of the dignitaries visiting Quebec City.

So the RCMP already has the authority to establish these security perimeters under existing legislation. Obviously, court challenges are always possible. It is up to the RCMP to demonstrate the need for and appropriateness of these security perimeters. Now, with clause 5, it will be able to establish them whenever it wishes, without being accountable to anyone.

Subsection (3) says:

The powers referred to in subsection (2)...shall not be read as affecting the powers that peace officers possess at common law or by virtue of any other federal or provincial Act or regulation.

On the one hand, we are told that the status quo will not do, because clause 5 must be included and, on the other, we are told that this will not in any way change the existing legislation. This is hard to believe. I think that this parliament would have done better to pass the amendment put forward by the member for Mercier and myself.

Besides I was happy to note that all opposition parties supported the amendment aimed at deleting clause 5. On the other hand government members, somewhat by principle, insisted on keeping clause 5. But, as we know, certain Liberal members are not comfortable with this clause because it could lead to infringement of rights. They are ill at ease because the provision is not where it should be. These changes should have been put in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, not in legislation dealing with foreign missions.

These Liberal members even tried to submit a recommendation in the committee report pointing out to the government the dangers presented by clause 5. But in the end, everything was watered down. We would have wished that these members, when the moment came to vote on our amendment, had voiced their concern by voting in favour of the amendment.

For those reasons, since clause 5 remains in Bill C-35, we will have to vote against the bill, all the more so since it comes with another legislation that will be discussed in the days ahead, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act.

I fully agree with the previous speaker. We are now witnessing in Canada a dangerous shift with regard to civil liberties and a strengthening of tools of repression that can lead to major drifts with which we do not want to be associated in any way.

[Amnesty International, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the annual youth convention of Amnesty International was held in the riding of Joliette.

More than 600 young Quebecers came together for the occasion in the municipality of Assomption. In a great gesture of solidarity, they took a magnificent step in support of the hundreds of thousands of Afghani refugees affected by the war that is raging in their country. They signed a petition in a tent that was symbolic of the only shelter available to refugees fleeing violence and persecution.

In this petition, which I shall be handing over to the Prime Minister, the 600 youth members of Amnesty International call for the countries bordering on Afghanistan to open up their borders to those who are fleeing the bombing in that country and for a program to be put in place to support these countries, along with a refugee resettlement program. As well, they wish to see Canada maintain its laws and policies guaranteeing that all refugee claims will undergo a fair and proper examination, regardless of country of origin.

Well done, you young people!

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Mercier for her amendment. This provides us with the opportunity not only for an important debate on Bill C-35, but also for one on the situation in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11.

It is my impression that Bill C-35, and Bill C-36 likely as well, are part of the tendency of a number of governments, including those of Canada and the U.S., to make use of the legitimate fears triggered by the events of September 11 among the population of many western countries, Canada and the U.S. among them, to concentrate more power on the executive, in order to ensure that they will have a whole series of means at their disposal to maintain what they consider to be the established order of things.

This bill, its clause 5 in particular, is imprecise, incomplete, dangerous and inappropriate. I must therefore thank the hon. member for Mercier for giving us the opportunity, those of us in the Bloc Quebecois, and members of all parties, the government in particular, to reflect a little on its scope before reaching a decision. Given the concerns voiced by certain Liberal MPs during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, there is some hope that the government will backtrack on its desire to get this bill, with clause 5, passed, and will remedy the situation.

I will quote clause 5 if I may, which amends a section of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act as follows:

The first paragraph stipulates that:

10.1 (1) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under this Act and to which an order made or continued under this Act applies.

This first clause goes way beyond current practice, as the RCMP has the responsibility to protect individuals and not events. This initial slip is of some concern, especially since a number of duties are shared among various police forces—the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec in Quebec and municipal police forces.

In the case of court action, and I use the example of the Quebec City summit—and this is public knowledge—the RCMP shot a lot more rubber bullets than all the other police forces. Had the Sûreté expressed its concerns over the excessive use of rubber bullets to the RCMP, could it have continued shooting rubber bullets at peaceful demonstrators citing this clause, which sets out its primary responsibility?

It seems to me this clause represents an exceedingly dangerous shift compared to practices set out in current legislation.

Subclause 10.1(2) provides that:

(2) For the purpose of carrying out its responsibility under subsection (1), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

The government is now institutionalizing a practice that was to be exceptional, that is, the setting up of security perimeters, not to protect individuals or dignitaries anymore, but to ensure the proper functioning of events. This is obviously something that represents a very significant threat to individual rights, especially in connection with sections 2 and 3 of the charter of rights and freedoms.

Is this in fact nothing more than the codification of existing practice as members of the government including the minister have said on a number of occasions? Is this the status quo or does this clause not in fact increase the powers of the RCMP? We think it increases them. It increases powers that are not limited and this is lamentable. What the government calls reasonable measures and terms in such circumstances can be interpreted in any number of ways.

During the summit in Quebec City, a Montreal lawyer, Mr. Tremblay, contested the security perimeter in Quebec City set up around the congress centre on the grounds that it infringed his rights.

The judge ruled that his fundamental rights had indeed been violated, but that the installation of this perimeter had been necessary to protect the dignitaries taking part in the event, the summit of the Americas in Quebec City. So, existing legislation permitted the installation of perimeters when justified.

Now, this bill is institutionalizing the RCMP's right to install perimeters not to ensure the safety of dignitaries and visitors to these important events, but to ensure that the events themselves can be held. This is a violation of individual freedom of expression because—and the RCMP commissioner pointed this out—these perimeters must allow demonstrators and protestors to be heard by dignitaries and those holding these intergovernmental meetings.

Given the current tendency for these perimeters to grow ever wider, this fundamental right to be heard would be violated by this second paragraph. Paragraph 3 of clause 10 says:

10.1 (3) The powers referred to in subsection (2) are set out for greater certainty and shall not be read as affecting the powers that peace officers possess at common law or by virtue of any other federal or provincial Act or regulation.

The question still remains: if existing legislation allows the RCMP to exercise its responsibilities, why include a clause such as clause 5 in Bill C-35? If it maintains the status quo, it is not necessary. If it does not, it must be clarified and further codified, which is what governments in other countries which have used similar legislation have done.

During the debate on this bill in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Australia and New Zealand were often held up as examples. A closer examination reveals that the legislation adopted by the province of Queensland in Australia was of temporary application and provided for the creation of a security perimeter for a specific event only, the APEC summit in 1999. This is a far cry from clause 5 of Bill C-35, which institutionalizes for all time the creation of such perimeters for whatever reason.

In the case of the New Zealand legislation, limits are set on the duration and size of the perimeter. There is also a requirement to show need.

Clause 5 of Bill C-35 contains no such provisions. The RCMP would be able to decide on the extent and duration of such perimeters with no legal obligation to show need of any sort.

As the member for Mercier said, this bill is being considered at the same time as debate on Bill C-36, in which the definitions of terrorist act and terrorism are extremely broad. The Bloc Quebecois will also be proposing a number of amendments to that bill. We would hope that the governing party will open its eyes and see fit to restrict the scope of the legislation.

However, as I mentioned at the outset, what we are dealing with here is an offensive by the Canadian executive, the cabinet, in an attempt to arm themselves with tools that have the potential to be extremely repressive and that could very well violate fundamental rights. This situation—which, as I mentioned, has also caused concern among some of the Liberal members—must be reversed. Some statements were made outside the House, but also among committee members. A certain number of members spoke of their concern about the scope of clause 5.

Incidentally, until quite recently, there had been a resolution, submitted by the parliamentary secretary. This resolution warned the government against using clause 5, and asked that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for further study. If this recommendation had been adopted by the committee as proposed, we might have believed that the government was shifting its position. However, this morning, something quite different was proposed.

So what we are witnessing, is a form of sectarianism, that is the word for it, of dogmatism, practiced by the Liberal government. Many of them know it, clause 5 is extremely dangerous. It is a very dangerous shift in the balance between fundamental rights and security.

I hope that there will be enough members of the House, as a group, who are reasonable enough to vote for the amendment moved by the member for Mercier, an amendment that will ensure that Canada remains a land of rights and freedoms. If not, all I can say is that we are shifting towards an unexplainable form of totalitarianism.

[Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, November 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the minister and the official opposition's critic for having demonstrated such eloquence in describing a bill that is, all in all, relatively modest.

In examining Bill C-41, an act to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, I found that there are basically three amendments. I admit these changes seem quite in order, however, what is more disquieting is what the bill does not contain.

The first of the three amendments contained in the bill separates the functions of chairperson of the board and chief executive officer. The bill describes the new functions of the two officials in charge of this new Canadian Commercial Corporation.

The second amendment authorizes additional borrowing to allow the corporation to pay its bills to small and medium size businesses diligently, because, as we know, these businesses are often in need of liquidity.

The third amendment would permit the corporation to charge an amount that it considers appropriate for providing services.

After looking at these three amendments, one cannot help but agree with the minister when he says that the purpose of the bill is to ensure that the Canadian Commercial Corporation be more focused on trade, and be better able to respond to the needs of exporters and evolving competition on international markets. He referred to the Doha Conference, which may indeed lead to increased access to a certain number of markets that currently allow either limited, or no access, to international competition.

I must add that the Canadian commercial corporation's contribution is not negligible. I noticed that of the 264 Canadian suppliers that signed contracts abroad through the corporation, 69 were located in Quebec, which represents approximately one quarter of the contracts that were signed. Most of these contracts were in fairly strategic sectors of economic activity and of greater Montreal's economy in particular.

For example, the most sold products are rail equipment and vehicles, at close to 44,3%. As for aerospace as has been mentioned on several occasions during the debate on Air Canada and the current problems with civil aviation, this sector accounts for 18.4% of equipment sales under CCC contracts. Finally, there are armaments at 7.7%.

It is, moreover, important to keep in mind that the Canadian Commercial Corporation plays a key role in respecting the defence protection sharing agreement signed in 1956. As we speak, 60% of the CCC's activities are still governed by or relate to the DPSA.

Obviously, as the minister has said, for some years now the corporation has sought to redirect part of its operations to help Quebec and Canadian exporters to do business with governmental agencies in numerous countries. In this connection, it needs to be acknowledged that it could be playing a far greater role than it is at present.

A survey commissioned by the Canadian Commercial Corporation of 506 exporters in the year 2000 indicated that 82% of them did no business with a foreign government. Worse yet, 86% had never tried to do so. Yet in 1999 government contracts throughout the world totalled $5.3 trillion U.S. in business. We are talking here of 18% of total world trade.

As we know, the coming round of WTO negotiations—and much vigilance is required in this connection—is likely to open up new market opportunities with public administrations. This represents a potential that is, obviously, not being exploited.

It is to be hoped that with the particular amendments the bill would introduce, the corporation could play this role of helping our exporters do business with foreign public administrations.

From this point of view, the Bloc Quebecois supports the bill. It adds the necessary tools for access to these important contracts, as I mentioned earlier, although it could go further.

Where we have a problem is that as the corporation diversifies its activities while maintaining its original functions, and here we are referring to products, such as in connection with national defence, there should be an extremely rigid legislative framework to prevent the Canadian Commercial Corporation from helping a company to export weapons or strategic products to countries which are violating human rights, waging unjustified wars, or encouraging the presence of terrorist groups within their borders.

There is an inconsistency here in connection with weapons and strategic products in that there is no very specific legislative framework guiding the CCC's operations in this or any other bill.

There are a few lines in the Canadian Commercial Corporation's report about the environment and the CCC's social responsibilities, but this seems completely inadequate to us. It puts me in mind of the debate we had a few days or weeks ago in the House and in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade with respect to the Export Development Corporation.

We read in the Canadian Commercial Corporation's 2000-01 annual report:

CCC voluntarily applies its environmental review framework (ERF) on all capital projects.

This bothers me. How can a crown corporation, as in the case, unfortunately, of the Export Development Corporation, adopt an environmental framework outside the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act? It seems to me that this should have been tightened up. We know that it is very important, particularly in light of the awakening global concern with environmental impacts, including from projects related to foreign investments, often by large international companies.

We find what we read here completely inadequate. We would have liked to see the bill include provisions requiring the environmental framework the corporation uses to assess the impacts of the projects it supports to be better defined and applied much more rigorously.

In the section on the corporation's social responsibilities, it states:

Beyond traditional concern for economic well-being, there is growing interest amongst consumers, shareholders and governments with respect to the effect that business activity can have on genuine social prosperity, good governance and human rights.

Therefore, it is mentioned. What follows is a sentence that I could not manage to understand. I do not know if it is a bad translation or simply that they do not want it to be understood, but it says, and I quote:

Corporate social responsibility speaks to the degree to which corporate business practices reflect ethical principles protecting the community, human rights and the environment.

It is incomprehensible. This corporation will, in the end, take an interest in these concerns that it considers particularly sensitive in terms of public opinion, if it affects its corporate business practices, which should reflect ethical principles that are unknown to us. The only law that this document refers to is the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

I hope that concerns regarding human rights, the environment and democratic rights as a whole are considered more important than issues of corruption, which must be adequately suppressed.

This document announces that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is currently undertaking a pilot project with Canadian businesses and representatives of the corporation to determine what the CCC's corporate social responsibilities are in the context of international trade transactions.

In this regard, I found the following statement absolutely shocking from the point of view of the interests of the minister himself:

The CCC continues to keep track of DFAIT's work in this area and will respond accordingly to relevant recommendations resulting from the process.

Again, I wonder if it is the French translation that is bad or if the wording is deficient. When the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will have completed its process, will the corporation engage in cherry picking to determine what it deems relevant in the reports that the ministers will have before them?

In that respect too we expected something a lot more substantial concerning the review of the impacts of projects supported by the Canadian Commercial Corporation in terms of social, human and democratic rights.

In this context, it is clear that we agree with the proposed changes. However, this is not nearly enough. I hope that we will have the opportunity, either following a government initiative or our own initiative, to have a debate on these substantive issues.

These issues are all the more important because the corporation will assume its responsibilities with Quebec and Canadian businesses in a context where—and I think that last weekend's protests should, at last, serve as a lesson to this government and to other governments involved in negotiations to liberalize trade—we must be aware that the public is now getting involved.

It is not just those who protest in the streets and who did so in Ottawa this weekend—and I should mention that my daughter was there to show her solidarity with the others, something which reflects the involvement of our young people—and when they do get involved, it is not necessarily against the opening up of markets. The public wants to make sure that this opening up of markets, this globalization will serve people and communities, and not just economic interests, particularly those of large businesses.

We still have not had this substantive debate. The Liberal government has not yet given us the opportunity to do so, but I can assure it that in the future, especially following the WTO negotiations and the negotiations on a free trade area of the Americas, we will be present to ensure that human, environmental, social and labour rights are respected.

[Dairy Industry, November 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, next month the World Trade Organization will be bringing down its final decision on the dispute concerning Canada's dairy product export systems. Between 1999 and 2000, the value of Canadian dairy exports dropped close to 22%. An unfavourable WTO decision could mean an annual loss of $300 million for Quebec.

What concrete action does the Minister for International Trade plan to take to defend our system of supply management in the dairy industry?

[Petitions, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition signed by constituents from my riding who feel that Motion M-241 should be adopted by the House. The petition reads as follows:

Whereas Motion M-241, which reads as follows:

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British Crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763.

is currently before the House of Commons;

Whereas the advisory committee set up by the Société nationale des Acadiens, in its report presented on October 1, recommended, among other things, that the Société nationale des Acadiens continue its representations, so that the historical wrongs done during the deportation be officially recognized by the British Crown; that the motion be sponsored by all Acadian members in the House of Commons, regardless of their political affiliations;

Whereas Motion M-241 enjoys a great deal of support within the Acadian community;

We, the undersigned, are asking the House of Commons to take all necessary measures to ensure that Motion M-241 is finally adopted.

[Softwood Lumber, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's response notwithstanding, it is my impression that we are in the process of sliding back to the 1996 strategy of negotiating tariffs, lowered ones it is true, but still tariffs and quotas for softwood lumber, and these have penalized Quebec in particular.

Is the response the minister let slip yesterday concerning the long term not an indication that we are heading toward a 1996-style strategy?

[Softwood Lumber, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister for International Trade told Le Devoir that his long term objective for softwood lumber was a return to free trade.

In this context, what is the minister's short term objective?

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you that members of the Bloc Quebecois taking part in this emergency debate will be splitting their time in 10 minute segments.

First, I want to thank the member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques for requesting an emergency debate on the softwood lumber issue. I think everybody will agree that this emergency debate has become necessary after last week's announcements.

We requested an emergency debate on this issue because we are both concerned and appalled. Obviously, we are appalled by the decisions made by the Americans, which we find outrageous. With countervailing duties of 19.3% to which anti-dumping duties averaging 12.58% were just added, we are talking about duties totalling about 32%. This will be extremely detrimental to our industries, our businesses, our jobs and our regions in Quebec.

It is outrageous because in this process that the Americans just put in place, they are both judge and judged. That enables overly protectionist lobbies to constantly harass the Canadian and Quebec industry, as we have seen not only over the last 15 years, but also over the last century.

What is somewhat sad is that this surtax, this practice used by the American industry of calling upon trade tribunals to impose this type of surtax, is detrimental to the American economy and goes against the interest of American consumers, an interest that would be well understood.

As I was saying, these duties exceeding 32% that will apply for the next six weeks represent a surtax currently estimated at $637 million for Quebec alone. This means that on $2 billion worth of shipments to the United States, the Quebec industry could pay $637 million a year in duties, should these decisions, which are just preliminary, be maintained as final decisions.

We are appalled by these decisions that are totally unjustified. In this regard, I think everyone in the House will agree that our industries are not subsidized, as recent investigations have shown. What we must face is deeply rooted prejudice on the part of American officials, American elected representatives and the industry to the effect that, because our forests are publicly owned and managed, they are automatically sold at low price to the industry, which would be a form of subsidy.

So, as I have already said, we are concerned because, until December 17, there will be this 32% surtax, which is a threat to our exports, to our jobs and to our industries, not to mention our businesses.

I would remind hon. members that Quebec is the second largest producer of softwood lumber in Canada, after B.C., with 25.5% of total production. We produce approximately seven billion board feet annually. This provides 40,000 jobs directly related to the industry, whether in sawmills or in the bush.

In Canada, there is talk of 130,000 jobs related to this industry. They are threatened at the very moment that we are undergoing an economic downturn, perhaps—although we would not wish for it, but it is a strong possibility--the beginning of a recession. In Quebec, this is an industry which generates $4 billion in revenues annually. There are more than 250 Quebec municipalities which have developed around it. There are 135 towns and villages 100% dependent on the softwood lumber industry for their jobs in manufacturing. As hon. members can see, this is an extremely important industry not only for Quebec as a whole, but also for its regions and the municipalities in those regions.

Half of our production for export goes to the U.S., and the other half to Canada. As I have pointed out already, we are talking about annual exports of CAN $2 billion. For all of Canada, we are talking some $10 or $11 billion. This is, therefore, an industry of great importance for Canada and for Quebec.

We are concerned because the Americans' protectionist actions will impact, and have already impacted, employment in many regions of Quebec and Canada. They have also had an impact on a number of businesses, particularly smaller businesses, which are more financially vulnerable. However, we are also concerned, more than when parliament reopened, about the current government's real will to bring us to free trade.

I will not hide the fact that I am concerned that the situation in which we currently find ourselves closely resembles the situation that led to the 1996 agreement, which, I will remind hon. members, penalized the industry in Quebec considerably. Even though we had managed to prove that we were not subsidized, we were subjected to a 6.5% export tax, which was the average that was negotiated with the Americans. For us, this was additional proof of the federal government's inability to defend Quebec's interests. Our exports were unfairly subjected to a quota, and we do not want to go through that experience again.

I am concerned because there are currently discussions under way between the provinces and American officials. We are in favour of such discussions. The Americans were quite clear about their demands. They want to discuss stumpage fees and long-term contracts, also known as the tenure system. They want to discuss mandatory requirements, in other words everything having to do with the requirement to harvest the volumes allocated by governments, particularly in Quebec and British Columbia. They want to discuss transition measures to ensure that during the time it takes for the provinces to modify their forest management systems, there are certain measures and bridging mechanisms to lead to free trade. They are also asking that both parties respect the agreements, which is completely understandable. They especially want Canada to abandon its procedures before the WTO, and eventually, before the NAFTA panels.

But what did we ask for from the Americans in return? Nothing. This is what I do not understand about the discussions. Clearly, for now, these are not what you would call negotiations.

We know for a fact that there are adverse effects from American practices, which create distortions in the United States, but which also create distortions in how we manage the softwood lumber industry. Because of these chronic softwood shortages in the U.S., we are forced to periodically increase our production capacities, not to meet demand from Canada or Quebec, but to meet demand from the United States.

They are the ones then calling for help. When their forests resume production, then we are in the way. Periodically, we have gone through these protectionist crises to restore portions of the market. Especially since Canada and Quebec in particular have invested in technology and reorganized the work. I know whereof I speak, because I used to be the secretary general of the CSN, and we were well represented in the lumber industry. I was a party to the discussions which arose in these companies, especially in the early and late 1980s, about how to reorganize the work, and move on from an approach which was perhaps a bit easygoing to one which was performance-oriented.

Now, because we in Quebec and in Canada have done our homework, we should pay the price, while the Americans did not invest enough in their industry. It is the federal government's responsibility to ask these questions to the personal envoy of the U.S. president. The provinces should not have to do it. They are currently working very hard in their discussions on forest management systems. I know that, particularly in Quebec, a number of proposals were put on the table. In any case, these proposals were necessary, and the government had intended to put them on the table. They will satisfy, partly for sure, U.S. officials.

However, this will not be enough if the federal government does not take its responsibilities. This is why it is important to maintain, both in the rhetoric and in the practice, a will to return to total free trade with the United States. I am concerned when I hear the parliamentary secretary refer to negotiations and discussions at the same time. I am also concerned when I hear the Prime Minister of Canada tell us, as he did yesterday, that we had an agreement that worked for five years. It did not work for five years. It penalized us for five years.

A summit meeting with all the players is necessary to ensure that the consensus achieved in May still exists in November. The next six weeks will be extremely difficult, and understandably so. Some manufacturing associations, such as the Canadian Lumber Remanufacturers Association and FTLC, the Free Trade Lumber Council, asked for such a meeting. We are also asking for a meeting at the earliest opportunity.

Some measures are in order, I am convinced that the hon. member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques will elaborate on this, and more specifically on employment insurance, to help workers make it through this difficult period.

I will conclude by saying that the Prime Minister must absolutely get the U.S. president to order the withdrawal of these countervailing and anti-dumping duties, until the WTO panels have validated our position.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, so far, the talks, which will continue in Washington on November 12, have all been one way. The provinces have made proposals concerning their forestry management system. But the periodic shortages of softwood lumber in the United States are the crux of the problem.

Will the minister ensure that future discussions will also address U.S. practices?