House of Commons Hansard #84 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was communities.

Topics

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I was trying to give him some hint that his time was running out, but he never looks at the Chair. The member's time has expired and we will go to questions and comments. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member has provided clarity. The Liberal Party supports the softwood sellout. That is important for Canadians to know.

The idea that the Liberals are saying they do not support it, that somehow they would do it differently is wrong. The Liberals support the softwood sellout. That is good, because it gives Canadians a very clear choice between the Conservatives, Liberals and the Bloc and their proposal which has led to 4,000 lost jobs, and the NDP.

The member asked had we stopped this softwood sellout, what would have happened. We already know that we won in the Court of International Trade on October 13. Customs and border protection is already sending out 100% cheques to the companies. What the former Liberal government should have done and what the Conservative government we have been saying since January should do is provide funding to the companies. That is what has happened as well.

Through Export Development Corporation, taxpayers' money has gone to help support those companies.This deal with all of the sellouts involved, all the capitulations of the American government, the Bush administration, do not need to happen. The Export Development Corporation has already started using taxpayers' money to support the softwood industry as we said it should, and U.S. customs and border protection, as a result of the Court of International Trade decision, is already paying that money out. Had we stopped this; do we stop this now? What happens is we take off the export tax, we take off the punitive tax that companies are experiencing and we start to get back some of the 4,000 jobs we lost.

I have two questions for the member. The first is that for some time there has been an invitation for him to attend a public meeting on softwood lumber. I went to Thunder Bay with my colleague from Timmins—James Bay to debate the issue of softwood lumber. Why will the member not agree to a public meeting that the Steelworkers have asked him to have on softwood? Second, I have been tracking, certainly the NDP has been tracking, the number of lost jobs in northern Ontario. I would like the member to tell us how many hundreds of jobs have been lost since this deal was provisionally put into effect on October 11.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, just so it is known, over the entire course of my 30 year political career, I have never shied away from debating anybody, any time.

Sometimes in life there is a courtesy extended where if one is going to debate someone, one actually lets the other person know when the debate is going to be as opposed to holding it and then asking why the person did not show up. Just in terms of normal human relations, I was not extended that courtesy, but certainly we are making plans to enjoy a frank and open debate with the hon. member. We are working on a time for that.

Those who have read Winston Churchill's biography The Will of the People know there comes a time in one's political career, and certainly it should happen more often in this House, when one must look beyond partisanship and do what is best for one's community, one's riding and also for one's country. I know the member opposite is locked in some kind of dogmatic mind space that does not allow him to understand that when companies are on their knees and the workers are unemployed that if one has a chance to help them, then one sets aside one's dogma and partisan rituals and does what is best for the people.

Unfortunately I know that most of the rest of the Liberal caucus will oppose this legislation, but for my riding, my people and our companies to sustain themselves and continue to be a vibrant business for northwestern Ontario, I am compelled to ensure that there is no obstruction to the flow of money. Had it not been for the NDP, we would have $1.4 billion to support the industry and we would have lost hardly any of those jobs.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I think we have an open invitation to have a debate. The member's office was notified about a potential debate. Since he has now said he is open and amenable to it, will he commit right now in the House of Commons to engage in that debate in his own community prior to the House rising for the Christmas break?

It would be very good for him to suggest a couple of dates, but at the very least to commit that he will appear in public to debate the merits of this bill. Certainly the New Democrats would welcome the opportunity. He could immediately remove the delusion that the $1.4 billion left on the table by the Conservative government has anything to do with our opposition to this bad deal.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am certainly never afraid to debate you guys. That is not really fair, but I do not mind any time, actually.

We are working on the dates, as I said. Perhaps you do not have the schedule. Maybe you are not as committed to your own constituents as I am. Nonetheless, if you dare--

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

Order. Unfortunately we are getting into a negotiation here in which the second person is being used constantly, so perhaps the members could negotiate the time of the potential debate in the lobbies. The time has expired in any event.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-24 for the third time, this time in relation to consideration of the second group of amendments that were proposed after the clause-by-clause examination.

The clause-by-clause examination of the bill by the committee involved some 132 proposed amendments. Some of them may have been proposed for the purpose of dragging out the debate. In any event, there were some amendments that did make sense, and it would have been in our interest to accept them too.

We are debating a bill in which there is still room for improvement. That much is obvious. The situation is complex. What Parliament is having to do is to legislate, to pronounce on a bill that has to be consistent with an agreement that has been signed, an agreement that, I am persuaded, any normal person would have simply rejected.

We must consider the context, however. The NDP is fond of telling us that the fact that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of and even supports Bill C-24 makes no sense. In his argument, my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster said that he was defending his constituents’ interests passionately, forcefully, and that he has consulted them and consulted them again. We have done the same thing. The same consultations were done in Quebec, with the unions, the owners, the forestry companies and employees, with everyone who has been strangled, who has been suffocated by the situation. In one sense, this situation has virtually been created and encouraged by both governments: the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government.

From the beginning of the softwood lumber dispute with the United States, the Bloc Québécois had proposed that very specific things be done to assist this industry.

Our first suggestion was obviously that loan guarantees be instituted. If that had been done, we would not be where we are now. We would not be here talking about things that have happened and that may happen again. This agreement does not settle everything and it leaves the United States government ample latitude for getting out of it in a mere 18 months and for starting to impose duties all over again. Bizarre as it is, this bill operates to impose duties. Canada is imposing duties on its forestry industry.

The United States did that, and our industry in fact won every case it brought. We were just about to get a judgment, the final judgment, which would have required that the United States reimburse the Canadian industry, one way or another. If that had happened, they would have made the repayment without keeping a billion dollars for their own benefit.

In addition, the Liberal Party, which formed the government initially, did not want to take practical measures to help the forest industry. Hon. members will also recall that during the election campaign, the leader of the Conservative Party promised to help the industry by providing loan guarantees, a promise he quickly broke after the election. Then he reached an agreement with the United States, at the expense of the people who paid duties, which were collected illegally, it must be said.

As well, $1 billion is staying in the United States and helping the United States far more than Canada and its forest industry. Obviously, we would have preferred that the government support its industry and help it through a rough time, that the forest industry be able to grow and become competitive, and that the United States not make new accusations that, of course, were unfounded.

The government backed away from its responsibilities, and as a result, we will have to live with an agreement that no one would have been willing to accept. Yet the government forced people to accept it. The Liberal Party and the NDP will probably come out against this agreement because they probably know that, in the end, the bill will be passed anyway in order to help the forest industry as soon as possible.

We are currently studying the two groups of amendments. We have finished studying the first group and are now analyzing the second group. Roughly 95 amendments have been proposed and only 19 have been kept. The Speaker will decide which amendments we will debate, and the list has been pared down quite a bit. In fact, some amendments that are no longer on the list were very interesting and could have made the bill better.

Obviously, we cannot improve the agreement, but we can improve the bill by ensuring that it contains more specific provisions and that Canada will not be taken advantage of in specific situations.

There are many different ways to help the forest industry, different measures the government could have implemented to protect the forest industry. Who will really benefit from this agreement? Yes, the industry will recover $4.4 billion, but what about that $1 billion that will stay in the United States?

What should we make of a government that lets people steal enormous sums of money?

What was the government thinking when it decided to give the United States a billion dollars? That money could really have helped the forest industry.

The Minister of Industry says that recovering these duties will give the softwood lumber industry the cash it really needs. He says it is a cash infusion, but it was the forest industry's own money in the first place. This is basically a refund.

In conclusion, I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill reluctantly. The Conservative minority government's concessions will put the forest industry in a dangerous position, especially in Quebec. Contrary to what the minister seems to think when he says this is a cash infusion, the return of illegally collected money is neither a gift nor a miracle; it is simply giving back what belongs to the forest industry.

We hope that in the future, the forest industry will never again have to put up with its own government pulling a fast one on it.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech of the member for Sherbrooke and I also appreciate the work he does in the Standing Committee on International Trade, as well as the work of his colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. I very much appreciate their work.

I have to say, this House is in a critical situation. The money for the loan guarantees that the Bloc and the NDP have been demanding for such a long time and that the government refused to give has already been given. The Corporation de développement des exportations has sent the money to the Quebec companies.

We also know that in the United States, Customs and Border Protection is in the process of sending cheques to the companies as a result of the October 13 ruling. The money is already in the hands of the Quebec companies or on the way. It is not thanks to the government, nor to the agreement, but because the government finally took action.

Now that the money has been handed over, the anticipated penalties and massive job losses are on the horizon. We saw this happen in Abitibi, in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and on the North Shore.

The threat of the Conservatives triggering an election on this issue is nothing more than a threat. They know full well that if they try to campaign in British Columbia or in other regions of the country on this ill-conceived agreement that is full of concessions, they will not be re-elected.

I want to know whether the hon. member for Sherbrooke would be prepared to convince his colleagues from the Bloc Québécois to vote against this agreement. This could cancel all the additional penalties of 15% imposed on the companies. The money is already going out because the government finally did what we have been asking it to do for so long. Would the Bloc be prepared to say no to this agreement and say yes to the sovereignty of the Government of Quebec in forestry policy, a sovereignty it lost because of this agreement? There are also all the other costs and all the other taxes that the companies—

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with one of my NDP colleague's views, namely that the Conservative Party will no longer be there after the next election and that it will no longer form the government. We are in complete agreement on that point. We even agreed on certain amendments.

It is true that there were job losses in the forestry sector. There was talk of tens of thousands of jobs lost. No matter the number, it is always too high. The countervailing duties to be paid by the industry and the U.S. competition were also against us. And there was also the significant downturn in the market.

We cannot say no to the agreement at this point. If I have understood my colleague's remarks, now that everyone has their money we could vote against this agreement and we will have recovered our money at any rate. That is an unacceptable way of doing things.

The agreement was signed. The bill only allows the government to implement it. We must live with this agreement. I hope it will be for the shortest possible time. What we believe to be important for the forestry industry is to return to free trade. We hope that the forestry and softwood lumber industry will be part of the free trade agreement with the United States in order for both parties to have real access to the market. Our industry could modernize, become more competitive and the money recovered could be used for that purpose.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

I am at the mercy of the House on this but given that there is only one minute left before the House is required to proceed to the taking of a deferred recorded division, I wonder if we might agree to see the clock at 5:55 and proceed. Is there unanimous consent?

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 9, consideration of the motion that Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

DNA Identification ActPrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

It being 5:55 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-279 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #68

DNA Identification ActPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from November 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Northern Ontario), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-290 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #69

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-284, An Act to amend the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act (Canada access grants), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Student Financial Assistance ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-284 under private members' business.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

Canada Student Financial Assistance ActPrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Order, please. The Chair would like some clarification from the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster to find out if he voted in favour or against the motion.

Canada Student Financial Assistance ActPrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

I voted no, Mr. Speaker.