Clause 15.
Evidence of meeting #36 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #36 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We can't have a point of order during a recorded division, just like we can't have the discussion here.
What has happened with the vote so far here?
Mr. Cannan.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We're voting on clause 15 without amendment. I may have confused you with that. I never said “clause 15 amended”; I said “clause 15 unamended”.
So it's just clause 15 we're voting on here.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Thank you for the clarification.
(Clause 15 negatived: nays 9; yeas 1) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(On clause 17--Exempt exports)
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We're now to clause 17, and there is an amendment, NDP-10, on page 27 of the amendment package.
Mr. Julian would like to move that, and debate. The clock is starting.
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As we move very rapidly through very important legislation, I think Canadians expect better of us.
We're on clause 17.1, Mr. Chair. This addresses the issue of consultation. We know that the softwood sellout that was imposed was not reached with any consultation with either industry or the provinces.
The provinces have been bought off, as it were, by the fact that the tariffs we're imposing on our own lumber companies go back to the provinces, so some provinces have decided that they will support the agreement on that basis. They get money out of it, so that's perhaps understandable.
The industry was very clear from the very beginning that what needed to happen was that there needed to be ongoing consultation with the industry. The industry voted right across the country in opposition to this.
In Quebec, for example, the outcome of the only vote that was held was 35 to 12 against the Agreement. The Quebec industry said that it was against the Agreement. Following that, in July, the government said that we had no choice: the only option was to accept the Agreement, however imperfect or flawed it may be. And here we have a Bill that is giving carte blanche, a blank cheque to the Minister of International Trade. He can do whatever he likes. There are no checks and balances that would force the Minister to consult with people. If we rely on the Agreement and the legislation, as currently drafted, we can assume that the Minister will be making all the decisions on his own. But there should be an obligation to consult the Government of Quebec, and those of the other provinces, like Ontario and British Columbia, to avoid a recurrence of what happened with the remanufacturers. The fact is that people in British Columbia have now been pushed out, as a result of the decisions made by this Committee. That could have been avoided, had there been consultations with the Government of British Columbia, for example, and the governments of the territories. My amendment to subclause 17(1) would provide for consultations with the provinces and the territories.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
Is there any other debate on Mr. Julian's motion?
Yes, Ms. Guergis.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Is this a subamendment or anything like that?
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
I just wanted to be clear that the government does not support this amendment. It is government policy to do this type of regulation by Governor in Council and not by a single minister because of the importance of regulations authorized by this clause.
While the government is consulting with the provinces and territories on criteria for eventual regional exemptions, no legislation is required to provide this authority. Exemptions from the export charge are subject to conditions set out in the softwood lumber agreement and would have to be negotiated between the parties of the agreement. I would remind the honourable member that the parties of the agreement are Canada and the United States.
And I also want to point out, very clearly, that no province has requested this. They have no fears. They do not want this.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Ms. Guergis.
Is there any other debate?
We will go, then, to the recorded division on NDP-10, which is on page 27 of the amendment booklet.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 1) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We go now to NDP-11, which is on page 28 of the amendment booklet.
Mr. Julian, the clock has started for your moving the motion and debate.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Cardin; you have just given me an idea. You said that we might have three minutes to vote. So, I will take that time the next time we vote, although I'm sure he was joking.
Mr. Chairman, this is a question of principle. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that people are not concerned about the fact that there have been no consultations. Only someone who is completely and totally unaware of what has gone on in the softwood lumber industry since the end of April could make such a statement. Nothing but concern has been expressed. Throughout the summer, the Quebec industry said quite clearly, through a vote of 35 to 12, that the Agreement signed in early summer was in the interests of neither the Quebec industry nor the industries in provinces like Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
There was no consultation either with the provinces or the industry, but there was some bargaining. A small amount of money has been promised for another project in certain provinces in exchange for their support, because the situation is disastrous from a political standpoint. The vast majority of Canadians reject this Agreement. The vast majority of Quebeckers understand that we should not end up in a situation where we are losing jobs. That has been the case in recent weeks: we have lost 1,700 jobs in the Abitibi, in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, and on the North Shore. Yet the provincial government is completely powerless. It cannot come to the assistance of the forest industry because of anti-circumvention provisions contained in both the Agreement and this legislation.
As a result, the Charest government has been forced to limit itself to providing assistance for roads, and possibly for older workers. That's all it can do. It said so quite clearly when it brought forward its last-ditch plan, given what the softwood industry is currently experiencing. He said he is concerned that the Americans will use the anti-circumvention provisions. That is quite clear, Mr. Chairman. The Government of Quebec can do nothing because of what was negotiated by the federal government. So, the Government of Quebec and the governments of the other provinces must be consulted, rather than having things imposed upon them. This Bill has not been drafted in the interests of the provinces, except as regards the money coming back to them.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Julian. Your time is up.
Is there any other debate on NDP-11?
Mr. Cannan.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to confirm, like my colleague regarding the previous amendment proposed by Mr. Julian, that no province has requested this; nobody has any fears. It's basically a fact that it's government policy to do this type of regulation by Governor in Council, not by a single minister, because of the importance of regulations authorized by the clause. The government is consulting with the provinces and territories on criteria for eventual regional exemptions. No legislation is required to provide this authority. We continue to be in consultation with the provinces and territories, and we have their support and continue to work with them to get this bill through.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Cannan.
We now go to the recorded vote on NDP-11.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are giving a blank cheque to the Minister of International Trade, as we just said. As well, there will be no discussion or negotiation with the Government of Quebec. Nor will there be any discussion with other governments, including the Ontario government.
We also know that provincial governments, such as the Government of Quebec and the government of other provinces, have no right to be consulted. The mistakes that we saw this morning and early this afternoon will perpetuate themselves. We are giving a blank cheque to the Minister of International Trade, who is currently Mr. Emerson, and he will be able to do what he likes, without any checks and balances in place whatsoever. That is quite important, Mr. Chairman.
It is very clear that this Agreement is detrimental to Quebec. The Quebec industry clearly stated that. Taxpayers' money has already been returned. The U.S. money will go directly to companies, which will receive 100 per cent of their money following the decision by the U.S. International Trade Tribunal in New York on October 13.
We do not have the right to interfere in an area of provincial jurisdiction. As well, not only have we restricted the Government of Quebec's ability to assist the forest industry, even though this is the responsibility of Quebec alone, but there will be no consultations with the Government of Quebec or with any other government. In addition, we're giving the Minister of International Trade a blank cheque. I don't understand how we have ended up in this situation. Quebec is disadvantaged and, in addition to that, there is no obligation to hold talks with the Government of Quebec. As well, only one minister has the authority to grant exemptions. I find that absolutely disgusting and unacceptable.
That is why we have to vote against clause 17. Otherwise, what will we actually be doing? We will be giving the Minister of International Trade a blank cheque to do what he likes, without consultation.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, thank you. Your time is up.
Monsieur Crête, you would like to speak to the clause?
1:25 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to set the record straight in a number of areas. Mr. Julian referred to a vote by the Board of Directors of the Quebec Forest Industry Council. That vote of 35 to 12 was not to reject the Agreement; rather, it mandated the Executive to seek amendments. Even without amendments, the majority of members of the Quebec Forest Industry Council adopted the Agreement in late August.
It has been stated repeatedly that the Quebec forest industry is against the Agreement, but that is completely untrue. Both the Quebec forest industry and unions have asked that we support this Agreement. This is a rather elastic and completely inappropriate interpretation of Quebec's position.
We fully agree that this is not the best of agreements, but at the same time, it is not correct to say that the industry and the unions have not given their support. That is a distortion of reality.