Lloyd St. Amand

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to various components of the Liberal Party supplementary aid package for the industry, and I listed three of those components.

Fourth, we propose the provision of $200 million over two years to fight the spread of the pine needle in forests in British Columbia.

Fifth, we propose the provision of an additional $30 million, again over two years, to develop new markets for our wood products.

Last, we propose the provision of $30 million over two years to improve the competitiveness of the workforce, to promote the upgrading of workplace skills and to provide assistance to older workers who have been impacted by forestry industry layoffs.

With respect, the Prime Minister is incorrect when he asserts that we will get full and free access to the U.S. lumber market. In reality, under the terms of this negotiated deal, our market share is capped at 34%. Other countries, to which we have already lost market share since the imposition of duties and tariffs in May 2002, can export lumber to the United States completely duty free.

As have others, I wonder about the haste with which this deal was negotiated. Obviously one hopes that our so-called new government is not playing politics with the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians who expect to have positions in the industry here in Canada for many years to come, not just two years to come.

The deal has been trumpeted by the Prime Minister and members opposite as an achievement which eluded the previous government. Some achievement, a capitulation to the bullying tactics of the U.S. industry and the U.S. government.

The large question remains. Over $5.2 billion was taken illegally from our producers by the U.S. government and the deal which our government wishes to accept would put $4 billion back into the pockets of our producers, $5 billion taken over the last few years and that amount with interest remains owing. How is it at all logical that we would accept $4 billion only?

The government wants us to believe that the only logical, rational outcome is to give away $1.2 billion of Canadians' hard earned money. Members opposite are sniping at the Senate for not passing, quickly enough in their view, the much vaunted accountability act. I am suggesting that the government should focus on its accountability, the accountability to the taxpayer to ensure that $1.2 billion does not go missing from the pockets of our Canadian producers.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-24, a bill that has been described in various ways and in particular has been described as essentially the best deal under the circumstances.

This was definitely not the best deal under the circumstances for both parties, though it could forcefully and persuasively be suggested that it is truly the best deal in any and all circumstances for the United States. It is not the best deal for our Canadian industry and justifiably and not unfairly can be described as a capitulation on the part of our government to forces within the U.S. industry and within the U.S. government.

What is abundantly clear and beyond dispute is that the United States improperly imposed duties in excess of $5 billion, and the negotiated settlement will return to Canadian producers, whose hands are entirely clean, only 80¢ on every dollar or some $4 billion.

If we were negotiating with an impecunious party, receiving only 80¢ back when fully one dollar is owed may be considered a good deal, arguably the best deal under the circumstances. However, in spite of the fact that President Bush, due to providing tax cuts for the wealthiest and due further to his ill-advised war on Iraq, is running annual deficits of some $500 billion, with the result that the U.S. debt is in the trillions of dollars, to the best of my knowledge the fact remains that the United States is not an impoverished or impecunious party. Simply put, it has the means to pay back every dollar which is owed by it and this deal allows it to wiggle out of its obligations and, again, to repay only $4 billion of the more than $5.2 billion owed.

How that partial repayment to Canadians can be described as “the best deal in the circumstances” makes no logical sense. Of the $1.2 billion that will be kept--kept in my view improperly--by the Americans, fully $500 million will remain in the hands of the U.S. lumber industry and a further $500 million will remain in the hands of the U.S. government.

Our government, unhappily, has seen fit to abandon or to ignore all of the legal victories we have achieved under the rules of international trade. We have essentially given up $1.2 billion to the United States in exchange for, at best, 18 months of relative peace or relative harmony within the industry.

We should certainly be concerned about other industries, manufacturing or otherwise, which will then seek recourse under NAFTA. It is quite likely that other U.S. sectors will seek political alternatives in order to get around the clear rules of free trade. We have been bullied into this settlement by the Americans, and at some point the bully needs to be confronted, to be challenged, or we will be bullied again.

Canada's legal position was very strong. It was supported or confirmed by numerous decisions of international trade law tribunals and domestic courts, both here in Canada and also in the United States. It is most regrettable that the government has bullied Canadian industry with an ultimatum, saying that it must accept this deal, flawed as it is, or the government will abandon it. I am referring, of course, to the fact that loan guarantees, which were put in place before the last election, were taken off the table and the government threatened to abandon the industry if it chose to pursue its legal rights instead of accepting the deal.

The deal is flawed in various respects, including the fact that it directly abandons our long-held position that our softwood industry is not subsidized. The deal further creates an export tax, which is actually higher than U.S. duties. That is, the government intends to impose substantial crippling export duties on softwood, which will add billions to the government's general revenue stream within the next few years but will be punitive indeed for our producers.

The Liberal Party is committed to helping the softwood lumber industry. Our priority is to truly assist the industry on both a long and a short term basis, and not to be bullied by or capitulate to the American government or to the American industry.

We are proposing a supplementary aid package that would result in, first, the provision of $200 million over two years to enhance the forest industries' competitive position, to improve its environmental performance and to take advantage of the growing bioeconomy; second, the provision of $40 million over two years to improve the overall performance of the national forest innovative system; and third, the provision of $100 million over two years to support economic diversification and capacity building in those communities affected by job losses in the forest industry.

[Heart and Stroke Foundation, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate all who were involved with the very successful Heart and Stroke Walk for Heart on September 24 in Brantford.

The event was terrifically coordinated by Jen Mitchell. In attendance was the fundraising king of Brantford and citizen of the year, Mr. C.J. Dick. The ceremony was opened by our well regarded town crier, Dave McKee.

A courageous stroke survivor, Rosemary Galloway, gave a very touching speech on her recovery from a stroke suffered three years ago.

Rosemary is a living example of the tremendous strides that have been made in heart and stroke research, research that is possible because of the generosity of those thousands of Canadians who participate in the walk on an annual basis. In my community alone, 237 people raised $45,100.

The walk is a sterling example of humanity at its finest, people helping people.

[Petitions, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by various constituents in my riding who urge Parliament to re-open the issue of marriage and to defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Petitions, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by various constituents in my riding who urge Parliament to take all measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 years of age to 16 years of age.

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 18th, 2006]

With respect to the $11.9 million allocated by the government to the Integrated Grain Processor's Co-operative (IGPC) under the Ethanol Expansion Program, which has been frozen while the climate change envelope is under review: (a) when will the review on the climate change envelope be completed; (b) when the review is completed, will the $11.9 million previously allocated to the IGPC be released and, if so, when; and (c) how much money has already been released to the IGPC?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 18th, 2006]

With regard to the wind power production incentive program and its allocation in the 2005 Budget of $920 million over 15 years, which has been frozen: (a) when will these funds be released; and (b) what additional plans does the government have to support the development of the wind energy industry in Canada?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 18th, 2006]

With respect to the money required to clean the Greenwich-Mohawk brownfield site located in the riding of Brant (Ontario): (a) has the government approved the allocation of any government funds for the clean-up of the site; (b) has the government taken any steps to stop or reduce the previous allocation of any government funds for the clean-up of the site; (c) what steps have been taken by the government to determine whether to fund the clean-up of the site; (d) are there any funds available in either the estimates tabled by the government in April 2006, or the budget tabled by the government in May 2006 to fund the clean-up of the site; (e) has the government received any advice from the public service on whether it would be appropriate to provide funding to clean up the site; and (f) are there any proposals to fund the clean-up of the site currently being studied by cabinet, a cabinet committee, or any department and, if so, at what stage are each of the proposals, and what steps need to be taken before a final decision is made?

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure what the member opposite is asking. Perhaps it was my interpretation of her question, but it is general to the point of being vague. Frankly, without seeing more specifics, it would be irresponsible for me to comment yea or nay on such a proposal.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, whether it comes to one's personal development, one's performance in work or, frankly, a community or country at large, as others have said, “If you're not moving forward, you're standing still”. We need to move forward as a country. The Kelowna accord would have moved us forward.

If my hon. colleague opposite is suggesting that we should do nothing until there is unanimity with respect to what we should do, we will be waiting until the proverbial cows come home. Quite apart from what Mr. Sinclair has said, and I have no doubt that what the member opposite has said is true vis-à-vis Mr. Sinclair's comments, I know of Phil Fontaine and so many others in the aboriginal community. I know that tens and hundreds of individuals in my riding were effusive in their praise of Kelowna. Of course the then prime minister and the 10 provincial premiers signed on after two days of negotiating.

It was not unanimous perhaps, but it was still acclaimed loud and long by so many people.