Bill C-24 (Historical)

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence

The purpose of this enactment is to implement some of Canada’s obligations under the Softwood Lumber Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States, by imposing a charge on exports of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States and by amending certain Acts, including the Export and Import Permits Act. The charge on exports will take effect on October 12, 2006 and will be payable by exporters of softwood lumber products. The enactment also authorizes certain payments to be made.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and draw to the attention of the Chair that earlier this day the government used Standing Order 56.1 to basically cut off the debate on amendments and subamendments on Bill C-24 which we are currently debating.

I believe that the use of this Standing Order by the government was actually incorrect. I would draw to your attention debate that took place and a ruling from the Speaker in September 2001. In fact, the member for Winnipeg--Transcona was a part of that debate concerning the inappropriate use of Standing Order 56.1.

In the comments made by the Speaker at the time in 2001, he advised hon. members to be very cautious in their reading of earlier rulings and drew a parallel between Standing Order 56.1, which requires a prior attempt to gain unanimous consent which we know did happen, and Standing Order 78, the time allocation rule which requires notice of prior consultation. The Speaker said:

It seems doubtful to me, having read the ruling in its entirety, that Speaker Fraser really meant to suggest that Standing Order 56.1 was to be understood as another procedurally acceptable mechanism for limiting debate.

He went on to say:

The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate. Standing Order 56.1 should be used for motions of a routine nature, such as arranging the business of the House. It was not intended to be used for the disposition of a bill at various stages, certainly not for bills that fall outside the range of those already contemplated in the Standing Order when “urgent or extraordinary occasions” arise.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider this and to make a ruling that it was inappropriate for the government to use Standing Order 56.1. It is normally used for routine business in terms of whether the House will sit longer in the summer or whether it will adjourn earlier. The Conservatives have used it incorrectly to cut off debate on this bill when they had other opportunities using other Standing Orders that do require consultation with other parties to do that if they want to.

Again, Conservatives are trying to use the back door to accomplish their own agenda. I believe it is incorrect and I would ask the Chair to consider this and to make a ruling.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak, as one of the NDP members, in opposition to Bill C-24.

NDP members have been very active in this debate. A little earlier the government brought forward a motion to cut off debate on an amendment and the main bill. This is a further indication that it has complete contempt for this place. It is a important bill and an important agreement, which will affect every region of our country. It will affect individual workers, business interests and the economy of local communities. One would think that a bill of this magnitude would have a full and democratic debate in the House, yet the government House leader pulled a tactic today to basically censored and cut off further debate on the bill.

I will about public hearings a bit later, but I feel ashamed that the government pulled this tactic today to prevent members of the House from speaking their minds, from communicating the real concerns of their constituents about this bill. As long as the debate on Bill C-24 lasts, we will use every minute to continue debate. We feel deeply and strongly that the bill, which embodies the softwood lumber agreement, is a bad deal for Canadians and the industry.

I want to thank the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who is our trade critic and who has lead our debate on this, for his incredibly tireless work in committee, in the House and out in the community over the summer. Our trade critic was successful in getting the committee to meet over the summer to take up this important matter when the House was recessed. We want to thank him for his attention to the details in this massive agreement. He has brought forward to the public what this deal is all about, what is wrong with it and why it should be voted down. I will briefly go through some of those reasons.

First is the falsehood that the softwood lumber agreement is based on the idea that Canadian softwood lumber industries are subsidized. The Americans have peddled this idea far and wide through every legal case they could and through every political means they had. It is even at the point where Canadians are beginning to believe that the Americans have a legitimate point.

The falsehood of Canadian softwood lumber industries being subsidized has been exposed and rejected in every NAFTA and U.S. commercial court ruling. The courts have clearly sided with the Canadian industry. The myth about the subsidy has been used by the U.S. as a political weapon against Canada and to whip up its own industrialists south of the border. This myth is based on a completely false premise. Despite the unequivocal dispute settlement decisions and trade court rulings, the U.S. clearly does not want to play by the rules. What is really dismaying to us is that the Conservative government is allowing the U.S. to abandon the rules at the end of the game.

Canada won those major legal battles under the North American Free Trade Agreement in U.S. commercial courts. In fact, by using the legitimate mechanisms available, Canada was just a few months away from winning the two final legal cases, which would have voided the dispute and refunded every cent of the $5.3 billion that had been collected in illegal levies. What did our government do? It wanted to make a deal, apparently at any cost. Now we are rushing the bill through the House.

Second, the deal gives away $500 million in funds owned by the Canadian softwood industry to subsidize the U.S. Coalition for Fair Trade Lumber Imports. It is unbelievable that, as part of the agreement, we would give money, which legitimately belongs to Canadian companies, back to a U.S. coalition, a coalition that will continue in developing its arguments, its campaign and its interest against the Canadian industry.

Third, it will also provide $450 million in funds to the Bush administration, which it will use at its discretion, apparently without Congress approval or any accountability.

Fourth, what is of concern to us is that we are being told this is a great deal, it is the best that can be done and it will provide peace in the woods, et cetera. The fact is this deal can be cancelled unilaterally at any time. It does not provide the stability and the predictability for which I think the Canadian softwood industry was looking. Those are obviously very key elements. We have had this ongoing dispute. It is important to have stability and predictability. While we are being told that it is contained in the agreement, when we read the fine print and the details, we can see that it is not the case.

Further, the agreement constrains trade unreasonably by applying punitive tariffs and quotas that hinder the flexibility of a Canadian softwood agreement. This makes it difficult for the industry to plan its business and predict cash flow, for example.

Many of the industry leaders across Canada expressed, at the trade committee hearings this summer, their concern that the softwood lumber agreement would destroy their industry and communities. This is coming from the industry itself. We should be very concerned about that.

As we heard from the member for Windsor West, the agreement sets a very bad precedent, not only for softwood lumber, but for other industrial sectors in Canada. It opens the door for the U.S. to attack other Canadian interests and industries that it wants to target with illegal tariffs. Why? Because the U.S. knows it can get away with it. It knows it will not only get away with it, but it will be rewarded for it.

The NDP sees this as the slippery slope, as a very bad precedent. So much has been vested politically in this agreement that it will now be harder and harder to fight against other campaigns that develop politically and are targeted at Canadian interests.

We have heard quite a lot in the House about how it can trigger significant job losses. I have been asking questions of other members about this. One of the concerns I have is that the agreement is not based on any kind of industrial strategy, a strategy that we can look at and say, yes, that we understand it is about building productivity and the Canadian economy, that it is about creating good jobs, decent labour standards and sustainability. However, it is not based on any of those things. In fact, we seem to be wiggling away our strategy sector by sector.

I remember the member for Western Arctic stood up last week and spoke about this. He used the example of the oil and gas sector, where again we have no industrial strategy. Nor do we have an industrial strategy in the manufacturing sector.

The member for Windsor West talked a bit earlier about the auto industry. He said that there was no pan-Canadian auto industrial strategy.

When all of that is put together and we add on this agreement, it leaves a really bad taste. It leaves a sense that the government is not interested in developing in producing that kind of comprehensive look. For that matter nor was the previous government because there is no industrial strategy.

It is appalling that in the summer the trade committee, by a majority, agreed to hearings on this agreement in three communities, in Thunder Bay, Vancouver and the Saguenay.

Recently the committee completely flip-flopped on that. Unfortunately the Liberal members allowed the review of a motion to hold those hearings and then voted against having them. We were set to have hearings in those very seriously affected communities and all of a sudden, the hearings have been undone. I really wonder where the Liberal members are on this, because it seems to me that having hearings outside of Ottawa in communities that are affected is a very important aspect of this debate.

I am in opposition to this agreement, as are other members of our caucus. We will debate it as long as we can to try to prevent it from going through.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-24, the softwood lumber sellout deal, as it is known across the country. We have heard a lot of discussion in this chamber about the bill. I would like to first thank my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who has done an incredible job and put a lot of hard work into this file as well as other trade files that are important for Canadian jobs, which is what this is about.

This is Canadian jobs, cultures and communities that will be grievously affected by unfair trading practices. This is a trade crime that is being perpetrated on this country and facilitated by the current government.

I will begin by reading a quote from the House of Commons Debates that we had about this issue over a number of years in this chamber:

Most recently, the NAFTA extraordinary challenges panel ruled that there was no basis for these duties, but the United States has so far refused to accept the outcome and has asked Canada to negotiate a further settlement. Let me repeat what I have said before, and let me be as clear as I can. This is not a time for negotiation. It is a time for compliance.

The right hon. Prime Minister made those comments and then he flip-flopped on his position. It is an unconscionable dodging of accountability. We have a Prime Minister who gave his word to Canadians that he would live up to ensuring that Canada and its trade agreements would be effectively moved forward through the negotiation settlement that we had under NAFTA and free trade and he has abandoned that.

It is also important to note, not only for members in the chamber but for experts and panel members abroad, that those who have been affected by this issue have come in and made comments. I would like to read a comment made by Frank Dottori, co-chair of the Canadian Free Trade Lumber Council, an advocacy group representing Canadian lumber companies. He says:

We expect our government to help us fight U.S. protectionist forces, and get our industry a long-term solution.

I have another comment by BMO Nesbitt Burns analyst, Stephen Atkinson:

Why would you give 22 per cent to your competition? This money belongs to the companies and their shareholders, and the Canadian government is giving it away.

It is a broad range of people in Canadian society, whether it be the workers who are affected, whether it be industry analysts or whether it be advocacy groups that are rejecting this deal.

It is important in the context of our greater trade relations with the United States.

When I first came to this chamber in 2002, I remember participating in a softwood lumber lobby. We went to Washington to talk with a number of different analysts, advocacy groups and organizations, as well as different members of Congress and of the Senate about the harmful practice this was having on the Canadian industry and how unfair it was.

People need to understand, going back to that time then and to this date now, that many groups and organizations support the Canadian position. The Canadian position that should be from the House of Commons is that of a fair trading relationship with the United States and we have an injurious affection. However, it has been the high-powered ranking lobbyists, a select few from Congress and the Senate, who have driven the White House in this direction. We have many American friends who understand this is hurting both of our nations.

I do not care if the current Minister of International Trade is a Liberal or a Conservative and whether his position flip-flops just like he does on parties. What we need is a cessation of this legislation, the introduction of supports and the continuation of a fair settlement. This is not just about what we gave up in the past, which I will discuss later, but also where we go in the future with our trading relations and how it affects Canadian jobs.

I come from an area of the country that has flourished in many respects but which has struggled in relation to the auto industry. In 1965, Canada negotiated an auto pact with the United States that was based upon fair trade between our countries. It was one that benefited both countries and one that had a lot of strengths that developed, not only the automotive industry in Canada, across Ontario and other parts of our country, but even in American counterpart jurisdictions like Michigan and a whole series of other states. It also led to other industries, for example, the tool and die industry, the mould making industry, all of those technical innovation industries that are responsible for Canadian economic development. It was a fair trade deal that was set up with rules and those rules were respected.

What ends up happening? We enter into NAFTA, and the free trade agreement later on, and we lose a ruling that kills our auto pact. Since that time we have struggled. We have diminished market share. We have had a whole bunch of obstructions put in place that are difficult to compete against. We have lost a very good trade agreement that was a great success for Canada. It paid millions into our coffers on an annual basis through taxation, it provided good jobs for families and it provided innovation in our schools and universities. We gave that up because we played by the rules.

What do we have now? We have an agreement where the Americans have decided unilaterally that they will not accept panel after panel rulings in favour of Canada. We have continued to have success through this difficult process, a process that has required Canadian politicians and governing bodies to support the industry during these harmful times, but one with the goal at the end of the day of having a fair trade agreement and a settlement that makes sense of the trade agreement we have signed.

What the government is saying right now is that the Americans do not have to play by the rules because if they are tough enough and their lobbyists are powerful enough, Canada will capitulate, not just in terms of a settlement that has a series of clauses that are harmful for communities and industries across this country, but also in cold, hard cash. Canada is giving away over a billion dollars.

Some of that money will be given directly to American lumber associations so they can compete against Canadian companies. Other money will go into a discretionary fund at the White House that does not even have to go back to Congress for it to decide how it will be spent. It is unconscionable. The money should go back to the people who paid it out, and those are our companies in the industry that have been harmfully hurt during this practice.

The government's response to those who have been critical of this has been unacceptable. Basically, it has used strong arm tactics and it has made sure that those who are speaking out will be injuriously affected. It will not provide loan guarantees and it will not assist companies to move their rights through the court process, which they are entitled to do under this agreement. It is unacceptable.

I am greatly concerned as to where the minister is going in terms of other international agreements and trade policies.

I know the trade committee met this summer because we were concerned about what the minister was doing on the fair trade with Korea file. There is nothing fair about that file. We have been objecting to it since day one. We are hoping other members join us in that fight.

However, back in June, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster tabled a report in committee showing that if we were to go ahead with this particular agreement we would lose more auto jobs. It is not just the fact that the minister has a bad deal set up for Bill C-24, it is also his competency and his motivation in where he is moving. It gets to a broader picture of this.

Why are we actually doing these things? The study, which the committee was asked to table, did not come out until three months later. It was not until the CAW published its own studies on Korea free trade and how it would affect the industry that the government finally released the report that shows there will be major injurious effects from both files. This file right here shows it is not healthy and that it is not a good trade agreement for the Canadian government.

What is the motivation? I think the motivation is simply politics. It is politics to appease the American side so that the government can claim that it is close to the United States and actually get results, despite what it sells off to them, but also on the Korea trade file, it is politics when it is showing that the government will get a trade agreement with Korea at the expense of Canadians.

I know I am out of time but I do want to impress upon Canadians that this is a precedent setting thing. It is not just about softwood. Even if some communities do not have a softwood industry, they will be affected in the future because this gives a green light for the minister to sell out other industries. Whether it is auto, steel or farming communities, it allows the rules to be taken out of the equation, not just by those who are perpetrating against us but by our government that is supposed to be protecting us.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having had the opportunity to listen to the debate over the last number of days on Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement. A number of members have spoken about the impact on their own communities of job losses and the impact on their local economies. This is something that needs to be brought to the forefront.

One of the concerns we have about the bill is that it is not based on any kind of coherent industrial strategy. We have an agreement that basically violates all the procedures and processes that we have in place under our trade agreements and it puts people's backs to the wall in terms of signing it, but it is not part of any coherent strategy that is based on sustainability, on value added jobs and on ensuring the strength of local economies.

I would like the hon. member to comment on that in terms of how this is an isolated agreement that is not connected to a broader industrial strategy that is needed in this country.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to ask my colleague a question in starting the debate this morning.

One of the things that is important to remember about Bill C-24 and the subamendment from our colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, is that this affects a whole series of trade agreements with ourselves and the United States.

Does the hon. member believe that this sets a precedent? What we have here is basically the hijacking of a trade agreement that we have with the United States where a set of rules have been put in place and those rules are now being altered unilaterally by one side and now, with complicity, the government.

Does the hon. member feel that it will affect future trading relations under this current agreement?

The House resumed from September 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Government Operations and Estimates

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House that, in relation to the second reading stage of Bill C-24, and notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-24 shall not be subject to any further amendments or subamendments; and on any day Bill C-24 is under consideration at second reading, the House shall sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and shall not be adjourned before such proceedings have been completed except pursuant to a motion to adjourn proposed by a minister of the Crown.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Like Mr. Eyking, I was under the impression that today we could also ask you questions about Bill C-24, and believe me, we have a lot of them. My understanding is that your preparation has been limited to the issue of the binational panel, so if it's not appropriate on Bill C-24, we'll keep our powder dry today and use those questions at another time.

Thank you for coming and thank you for your presentation.

I wanted to review some of the specific issues you raised around the meritorious initiatives. You did state, Mr. Robertson, that we get two observers. They have no vote, so actually they have no real ability to influence things, but they are observers, nonetheless, around the decisions that are made by the Bush administration on the meritorious initiatives. We know that those decisions are being made now. Have those two observers been appointed, and who do they report to?

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-24, otherwise known as the softwood lumber products export charge act.

The dispute has been of particular interest to me, as the lumber industry is an important contributor to the economy of my riding of Churchill. It is certainly a critical issue and is of critical concern to the men and women who work in this industry in my riding.

Not only has the softwood lumber sellout been an issue of considerable local concern, but it is of course of concern throughout the country given the immense trade that takes place between Canada and the United States. This trade has a long history. It has developed over time and represents a history that is fundamental to the trade between our countries.

Today, over 37,000 trucks cross over the Canadian-American border daily. In 2003, two way trade in goods and services exceeds $441.5 billion, which firmly establishes Canada and the U.S. as the world's largest trade relationship. The economies of our two countries are intertwined. Cooperation and respect are therefore essential components in order for this relationship to flourish.

No one in the House can deny the importance of trade with our closest friend and nearest neighbour. Trade is a two way street and it must be mutually respected in order to maximize efficiency. To this end, various trade courts and tribunals have been established to assist if and when trade disputes emerge. In fact, while exhausting such avenues in respect to the longstanding softwood lumber dispute, it was ruled in a variety of courts that Canada's practices in the softwood industry complied with international law.

Whether we took our case to the North American Free Trade Agreement tribunals, the World Trade Organization or U.S. courts, Canada always seemed to come out successfully. As recently as July 14, 2006, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in favour of Canada, concluding that the American tariffs and duties were in fact illegal. As well, NAFTA and WTO judgments were clear that our industry was not subsidized.

If this was indeed the conclusion, why did Canada settle for anything less? Canadians deserve better. We had won all the challenges and it is believed that the U.S. would have exhausted appeals within a short period.

The Conservatives did not fully appreciate, it seems, all that was at stake. There was much more at stake than simply the capital that was owed. First, Canadian sovereignty was at stake. Canada must have the courage to stand up to even the strongest of powers. Second, ensuring that the United States respected our trade agreement was also at stake. This settlement sets the stage and ensures that Americans do not take our agreement seriously.

This in effect highlights another point: the credibility of our dispute mechanism. By compromising the rulings found by the dispute resolution provisions of NAFTA, we are destroying the credibility of the dispute mechanism as a whole. Moreover, and most important, I have spoken with the industry in my riding and I would like to take this time to talk about its position and its displeasure.

The United Steelworkers in my riding have expressed great concern and frustration with this agreement. The union represents forestry workers in many communities throughout my riding and across Manitoba. Those communities include Thompson, Wabowden, Cranberry, Moose Lake, The Pas, Birch River, Swan River, Roblin, Neepawa, and even Winnipeg, which is not in my riding.

The president of the local has denounced the agreement, and on August 24 he stated, “This is a devastating deal with possibilities of having even higher penalties imposed on our lumber exports when prices fall, and a quota system legislated by the U.S. that will downsize operations”. He went on to say, “[The Prime Minister] has done nothing in this effort to meet with Canadian workers and hear us...This isn't a respectful agreement. This is a sellout”.

This represents the concerns and the position of the forestry workers in my riding. They believe this deal is a sellout. The minority government has simply abandoned them.

While the softwood lumber dispute was certainly on the forefront, its existence was by no means unique. In fact, a number of other trade disputes have emerged between Canada and the United States in the past. There have been disagreements with Canada Post and the Canadian Wheat Board among other things.

When the minority government finalized its agreement with the U.S., it in effect sent a strong message to both Canadians and Americans.

Canadians, particularly those in trade disputes, despite how many international court challenges they win, now understand that, under Conservative leadership, there is a possibility, and a very good possibility, that they will be compromised. Simultaneously, Americans, particularly those in trade disputes, despite how many international court challenges they lose, now understand that, under Canadian Conservative leadership, anything is possible.

Are Canadian industries wrong to believe that if they find themselves in a trade dispute, the government may settle for much less than they deserve?

The agreement has left $500 million for the American lumber industry. This $500 million should have been returned to Canadians. This so-called deal created an export tax, which at current price levels, is higher than current U.S. duties.

Canadians deserve better. The men and women working in the forest sector in my riding have worked too hard to have the government simply sign their industry over to the Americans.

In addition to this disconcerting precedent, the agreement has already begun to have consequences on production. For example, as a direct result, one of the operations in my riding in northern Manitoba had to eliminate the night shift, immediately. It has also stated that further employment opportunities will be reduced as a result of the agreement.

This is an outrage. How could the industry in my riding possibly approve an agreement that would have such negative implications? How could I, as their respected member of Parliament, support an agreement that would cut jobs and lower wages?

The Prime Minister and his government bullied the Canadian industry with an ultimatum. The Conservatives have illustrated that they are willing to punish sectors of the industry and companies that refuse to support them by leaving them behind, and this is exactly what has happened.

Canada is a strong country. There is no good reason why a Canadian government must compromise and sacrifice our industry. We owe it to our lumber industry to support them with a solid deal.

Despite what they argue, there were alternatives. The Liberal Party proposed a supplementary aid package that included: $200 million over two years to enhance the forest industry's competitive position, improve its environmental performance and take advantage of the growing bio-economy; $40 million over two years to improve the overall performance of the national forest innovation system; $30 million over two years to improve the competitiveness of the workforce, promote upgrading of workplace skills and provide assistance to older workers impacted by forestry industry layoffs; $100 million over two years to support economic diversification and capacity building in communities affected by job losses in the forest industry; $30 million over two years to develop new markets for Canadian wood products; and $200 million over two years to fight the spread of the pine beetle in B.C. forests.

In addition, the previous Liberal government offered the industry to either accept a negotiated settlement or continue the justified legal actions, which we would have supported by providing loan guarantees, reinvestment support, community and worker adjustment and assistance with legal costs. The Liberal Party also offered solutions and alternatives to the forest industry.

I have risen today to speak on behalf of the forestry workers in my Churchill riding and, indeed, all workers across the country that have been left with the consequences of this careless agreement. I have joined them in their fight to ensure they have a future and proud livelihood.

Canadians deserve better. With this in mind I can never support such an agreement.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on Bill C-24, the bill put forward by the Minister of International Trade, the softwood lumber products export charge act, 2006

As I was considering the fact that I would be speaking today, a thought crossed my mind that this softwood sellout kind of matches a definition I have used for years relative to some folks who have passed through the House, ministers, members, even governments, that we ordinary folk call rogues and scoundrels.

Mostly, the common people on the street will say it is their view that far too many people who have sat in the House or held official positions in the House have been quick to bow to an American policy on one file or another. One of the first that comes to mind, maybe even the most notorious up until this point in time especially in the minds of working Canadians, was the act of former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker when he caved into Dwight D. Eisenhower in the late 1950s. It was that prime minister, a Conservative prime minister by the way, who bowed to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and cancelled the Avro Arrow project.

In fact, we were reminded just this week that there is a prototype of the Avro Arrow that has been restored and taken to one of our national museums to be put on display I guess to say what might have been. At the time of the cancellation of that project there were five leading prototypes of an aircraft that was 20 years ahead of its time.

What happened on Black Friday? Prime Minister Diefenbaker cancelled this project and cancelled the futures of over 15,000 workers when he did that. One has to sit back and wonder why. Why would a government turn on its own people in that fashion?

Then again in the 1980s many of us, including myself in the Hamilton labour movement, saw then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney sign the free trade agreement which basically sacrificed over 500,000 manufacturing jobs in Ontario, not to mention across this country. My riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek was affected in major ways.

I can recall when the draft text of the free trade agreement was signed. That very day Firestone Tire announced the closure of the plant in Hamilton because it no longer needed a plant. It could simply bring goods across the border. Thus, 1,500 people lost their jobs.

Not to pick on just the Conservatives, but maybe to throw a little fire across the way to the former Liberals, it was in the 1990s, as we will recall, that the Liberal Party ran on a platform in the 1993 election saying that it would not support the GST and would cancel it. It would not sign NAFTA. I recall a full page newspaper ad that had five priorities of things it would and would not do and those were the top two on that list. Lo and behold, what did it do? It kept the GST and signed the free trade agreement and again workers in my city were sold down the river.

We will recall not too long after that event the member from Hamilton at the time resigned on the basis that she had given her word that if the GST was kept, she would resign. A byelection took place. In fact, I was the candidate for my party in that byelection. We went from fifth place to second place just simply on the anger that the people had at the time for what was going on.

Steelworkers and manufacturers in my area wonder what is next. They see this softwood sellout. It is little wonder they do not trust the government after the previous Liberal and Conservative governments have sold them down the river. Now there is a spectacle by the present government. In the campaign it ran on being a fresh face, accountability and all of those grand words. What happened? Lo and behold, just before the House convened it had an unelected person appointed as a senator.

Then, further embarrassing to the House I would suggest, we had the minister who had the file on softwood lumber cross the floor two short weeks after the election. People in that member's riding, who worked hard to elect a Liberal, suddenly found themselves waking up one morning with a Conservative member.

Maybe I should have said switching allegiances because he did not physically get up and cross the floor. I think that would have taken a bit of courage and I do not see too much of that.

The government expects steelworkers, autoworkers and other workers in manufacturing in my riding to have faith in the Minister of International Trade. I can say there is not a chance of that. They are cringing. They are wondering what industry is next, that perhaps it will be one of theirs.

Our critic on this file from Burnaby—New Westminster has been warning the people of the country and the members in the House of what is happening. The critic has been in the House day in and day out drawing the attention of Canadians to this file. He has exposed the hidden costs of the softwood agreement to Canadians. He has also exposed the bullying tactics of the Prime Minister as the government goes after the industry to force it to support the agreement.

I have a quote from our critic. He said:

The [Conservative] government, who used bullying tactics to force support from the industry, is now using the tax system to punish his opponents.

The word is today, at least in some of the circles I was travelling in this morning, this deal may well be in trouble. If that is the case, it is certainly good news to this member's ears.

He also said:

Under the softwood lumber agreement, [the Prime Minister] and the [Minister of International Trade] are coercing Canadian softwood companies to hand over to the United States $1 billion of the $5.3 billion in duty deposits illegally collected by the Unites States Customs as a result of the softwood lumber dispute.

On top of that, we have had case after case where we have won rulings on this dispute. It is beyond me why our government would cave in and position us in front of the Americans as people who are on our knees when we do not have to be. We can win the next round of legal battles, the future litigation that is going to carry on, but more importantly, we have to prepare the way for the next sector that comes under attack from the Americans.

The Conservative government is again slapping on the Canadian softwood companies that refuse to join in this fiasco, for the lack of a better word, a 19% charge applied as a percentage of the refunded deposits. The charge would not be collected from companies who abide by the agreement. This is an abuse of power, especially when we have won, as I have said before, in the court of law. Canadian companies owe nothing to the United States. It baffles me why we are giving a billion dollars to the Americans.

Steelworkers and members from Hamilton are very concerned. American litigation will likely resume on future files. The Bush government recently moved to overturn the U.S. court decisions of April 7 and July 14 on the NAFTA and the Byrd amendment. This is clearly a very plain and simple, even simple enough for the government to get it, indication of what is coming.

We have a dispute settlement mechanism within NAFTA that we are flouting with this agreement. It is beyond belief that our government would do this to the workers in the softwood industry.

Our leader was in Thunder Bay recently. He was there to show the workers that at least some members in this House were standing with them on this. It was very clear that the members of the government were not.

In the words of our leader, “The Prime Minister has sold out northern Ontario”. That is a fact. “This is a total failure,” he said. “One billion dollars left on the table in Washington”, he said, but worse, “the Bush administration now has a direct say in how we manage our forestry industry”.

Clearly, the actions of the Minister of International Trade fly in the face of democracy. I say the minister has sold out our country. He deserves to be ranked among the rogues and scoundrels that I spoke of in my opening remarks. I think the government will go down in history for this, maybe not ahead of the Diefenbaker government for cancelling the Avro, but it will be very close on the sellout of softwood lumber.

The House resumed from September 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the hon. gentleman would like us to table everything we are going to do for the whole fall, right up to Christmas. Usually, the Thursday question is just for the week ahead, but it seems to have expanded.

Today, for sure, we will continue with the debate on the opposition motion of his party.

Tomorrow, we hope to complete Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement, which will followed by Bill S-2, hazardous materials, and Bill C-6, the Aeronautics Act.

Tomorrow, I intend to ask the House to approve the appointment of Graham Fraser as Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada for a term of seven years.

Depending on progress on the softwood lumber bill, it is my intention to call three justice bills next week as follows: Bill C-19, street racing; Bill C-18, DNA; and Bill C-23, Criminal Code efficiency and effectiveness.

Next Thursday will be an allotted day.

The answers to the hon. member's other questions he will know in good time.

Finally, there have been consultations and there is an agreement to have a take note debate on the situation in Sudan. Therefore, I think you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That a take note debate on the subject of the Situation in Sudan take place, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Tuesday, October 3.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member may recall that when the softwood deal came up it was a rush. Again, it was one of these issues where the government had to have an answer quickly. The Prime Minister was not even here for question period. The Conservatives were just doing it and then they tabled it, gave it to the other leaders and said that we were in the House and we had to make a decision.

That deal which was presented to and addressed by the House at that time is not the deal that is represented in Bill C-24. In fact, some of the provisions are there, but the deal has changed substantively. It seems to me that this is not a long term solution to this problem.

In fact, the bill itself only provides a horizon of less than 24 months, and we are going to be right back at it because we have abandoned the dispute resolution mechanism. The government has put the onus on those who want to pursue their legal rights. It has put them under pressure, saying that the government has abandoned them. The Minister of International Trade has said that the industry is going it alone if it does not accept this deal.

Perhaps the member would care to at least comment. I understand that he wants to protect the industry in Quebec, but we really need a long term solution. This bill represents only a short term solution. Is the member going to continue to fight for the rights of the softwood industry after this deal--maybe--goes through?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot muster any enthusiasm to talk about Bill C-24.

We have heard all sorts of amazing things from hon. members of all stripes in this House. The member for Outremont gave a fine performance. This is probably the first time he has risen with such outrage to defend workers in this House. This is the first time. He used to be a minister and did not rise to defend workers. No, that was not what the member for Outremont did. He was a minister, he made decisions.

That is the reality. The softwood lumber crisis has existed since May 22, 2002, when the Liberals were in power. The member for Outremont was elected in June 2004. What did the minister do? What did the member for Outremont do when he was minister? Absolutely nothing. He said earlier that they were in court and were winning battles. All the while, plants were closing.

Let us not ask ourselves questions.The Conservative Party did not close all the plants; the Liberal Party's decisions closed them. That is what happened. That is the reality.

Clearly, all that time, the Bloc Québécois defended the interests of workers in Quebec in this House. We suggested good ideas and solutions. We were the ones who proposed providing loan guarantees in this House. The Liberal government did not listen to us, and the Conservative government is not listening to us either.

We did not get guarantees. No, there is the program. The member for Outremont refers to the program. All that time, the Liberals were in power and did not implement their program. Did they think that people thought the Liberals were going to implement it to get elected? People did not trust the Liberals. That is the reality. And they were right.

Today, in this House, we are here to defend the interests of workers, who have asked the Bloc Québécois to vote for the agreement because the court case was dragging on too long. The reality is that the companies need money.

We have voted, we are voting and we will vote to defend the agreement, for the simple reason that the forest industry is in crisis and it needs the money, because the Liberal Party did not come to its assistance when it was time to do so. It did not create loan guarantees. The Conservative Party is repeating the same mistake of not helping the companies. It decided to sign a cut-rate agreement. Everyone says so, including the industry. This is not really the ideal agreement. The problem is that the companies have had it and, before they all close down, obviously we are going to keep the existing plants alive and we will hope to work together to try and reopen the ones that have closed.

That is the reality. This is why Quebeckers can rely on the Bloc Québécois to defend their interests. They cannot rely on the Liberals, who spend their time in court trying to defend and win and do what they have always done, that is, not give anything to the industry, telling it to keep on hoping it will win the final battle, the last case.

Cases have been won every year. We win one but it does not put anything more in the workers’ pockets. That is the harsh reality for the workers.

The 147 companies out of 151 who called the Bloc Québécois to ask it to vote in favour of this agreement, which is not a good one, did not do so lightheartedly. We say so quite openly. We have offered some solutions to improve it. The only problem is that the words “The End” are written on the wall and the Conservative Party has decided not to help the industry. So everyone says that the best thing that can happen is for the money paid by the companies to be refunded, even partially. This is the industry’s request, once again.

The only party in Quebec that listens to the workers, to Quebeckers, is the Bloc Québécois. We and the people are in symbiosis. The same cannot be said of the Liberal Party. Thus, we decided to support this agreement, for the sake of the people.

This is why we are here. We will go on battling in the interest of the people. Why? Because we will never be in power.

The hon. member for Outremont’s problem might be that he covets power at all cost. That is his problem and the problem of his friend, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard. Power at all cost, and look what happened: in coveting power at all cost, they lost it, because power is loaned to us, it is not ours to keep. We will always be here, of course to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

We would like to say to the Conservative government that if it has any heart at all—which is a good question with the Conservatives—some excellent topics could be added at the industry’s request. We absolutely must resolve the issue of the older worker adjustment program. People between 50 and 55 years of age or more are losing their jobs in the forest industry and deserve our help until they can retire. That is what the Bloc Québécois wants. It is true that there was a tiny opening in the last budget, but we are obviously still waiting. Older workers are still waiting, especially in the forest and textile industries.

This week, the $2 billion cuts to all the programs—programs for women, aboriginals and the most disadvantaged in our society—showed once again that the Conservative members have no heart.

We want them to listen to what the industry is asking. We want an assistance program for older workers so that people who worked in the forest industry can live decently till they retire. That is what we want. We have already costed this program, and it would not be phenomenal amounts that would shatter the government’s expenditures. This has already been raised by the Bloc Québécois. This request is justified for the simple reason that the industry has officially requested it. The Bloc Québécois has always been a strong advocate of this request in the House.

We also want an economic diversification program for communities that are dependent on the forest. We are still waiting for the famous Marshall plan promised by the minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma, if my memory serves. He promised a genuine Marshall plan that would help launch resource-based regions, but all he produced this week was a mouse.

The Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec made a disappointing announcement of $85 million in recycled money. They took some money from certain programs and they recycled it to try to help the most economically disadvantaged communities. They gave $85 million while the industry leaves more than a billion dollars in countervailing duties in the United States. The Conservative government offers an $85 million program spread over four years. We hope it won’t be too little, too late. My colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine is quite right to mention this fact. Some $85 million over four years. That is sad. It is really sad that our communities are not better supported by a Conservative government that is completely insensitive to the problems facing the most disadvantaged communities in our regions.

The problem of regional development is a problem that affects everybody. It is not true that the large urban centres could survive with only head offices, which are often the head offices of companies that are developing resources in our regions. That is the reality. Governments are often out of touch. They think that the population is in the cities and that it is not worth the trouble to invest in our regions. On the contrary, if a great many people live in our cities, it is because we have prosperous regions that support the development of our natural resources, agricultural development and development of our forests. What would we do if we did not have lumber to build our houses? We take pride in building homes, but the lumber comes for our regions. We are glad to eat well; to have good bread and other good things on our tables, but that all comes from our regions. The Conservative Party should not forget that.

We want a real economic diversification program for communities that are forestry dependent. We are still waiting for the great program that the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, the member for Jonquière—Alma, failed to deliver this week.

We also want a special status for the 128,000 owners of private woodlots in Quebec. To maintain the industry, we must have trees. We want a support program to revitalize the industry. If we support private woodlots, we will be supporting the resources that are the basis for the industry. This is an idea put forth by the Bloc Québécois. We expect the Conservative Party to take it seriously.

We want a special tax measure for the $4.3 billion in countervailing and anti-dumping duties. We must not forget that the companies will receive less money than they paid. They will receive $4 billion of the $5 billion; that is 81% of the total. Moreover, because of the increased value of the Canada dollar since 2002, they are incurring a loss. In fact, they will only receive 65% of the 81% that they paid. We are asking for a refundable tax credit so that they can recover those amounts. That is the way Canada can deal with this matter.

Once again, Quebeckers can be proud that the Bloc Québécois is defending their interests. It is only with reluctance that we support Bill C-24 and the softwood lumber agreement. We do so in the interest of our fellow citizens, of workers in the forest industry who have asked us to support the bill.

Because, obviously, we are the only party that is really listening to them.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24, better known as the softwood lumber deal.

From day one, this deal did not feel right to me, from the day the Prime Minister walked into the House in a huff to announce the agreement and then soon after when we saw the incredibly negative industry reaction when all the details were finally exposed. It was, in my opinion, politically motivated. The new Prime Minister of Canada's new government was so anxious to reach a deal at any cost that he was prepared to sacrifice the industry in the process. In his obsession to appear decisive, the Prime Minister seemed prepared to sacrifice one of our most important industries, not to mention the long term viability of the free trade agreement.

NAFTA and WTO judgments had clearly indicated that our industry was not subsidized. Therefore, there was no reason to capitulate on this very important principle. In fact, most experts felt that the U.S. would have exhausted all appeals within a one year period.

What message does this give to other Canadian industries involved in disputes under the free trade agreement? Even worse, what message does it give to the U.S.? Although we were winning decision upon decision on this issue at all levels, the Prime Minister still caved in and essentially sold out the softwood industry.

As members can imagine, the softwood sector is a very competitive sector. The $1 billion that the new government has taken from it and surrendered to its U.S. competitors will create long term hardships beyond belief.

I listened to a Conservative colleague yesterday speak to the fact that once the U.S. returned the $4 billion illegally taken from the industry, many in the forestry industry would be able to reinvest these sums in their businesses. They would be able to buy new equipment and expand for the future. My understanding is that most of the smaller softwood producers are going through extremely difficult times, and expansion is the furthest thing from their minds.

What bothers me, given the reality of the situation, is the $1 billion that these companies will never see and the lost opportunities for these companies to use this money, their money, to reinvest and modernize their facilities and improve their competitiveness in the world market. One billion dollars has been left on the table, wasted, in this most competitive of markets. I am not even talking about the interest on these funds, and I have not heard any answers from our Conservative colleagues on what happened to that interest. From my experience here, it is still a mystery.

Second, and even sadder, is that $500 million of these funds will go to their direct competitors to continue the harassment of our Canadian softwood businesses. It is a terrible precedent to have set, and it opens up the door to other bad decisions in other sectors. The Americans, who have always tested our mettle on these issues to see what we are made of, now know that the government will abandon its industries when the going gets tough.

Members need not take my word for it. Members may know that northern Manitoba has a substantial softwood lumber industry. Chris Parlow, president of the United Steelworkers, Local 1-324, denounced the agreement with the U.S., stating:

[The Prime Minister] has done nothing in this effort to meet with Canadian workers and hear us. What do we have for all our wins at NAFTA, WTO, US Court of International Trade? We have won every stage of this dispute, only to have the US say they won’t recognize the rulings.

Speaking of not supporting our softwood industry, yesterday during debate I heard another Conservative member of Parliament say that we received the best deal possible. There is one element that he forgot to mention, and that is the new government did not offer a temporary aid package, as was provided by the past Liberal government. This aid package, which included $900 million in loan guarantees, was essential in allowing our local softwood businesses to survive in the interim.

We were also committed to $600 million of adjustment measures. I think it is important to explain what these funds were for, since it had been done in close collaboration with industry representatives and focused on their most basic needs. Frankly, we still feel these measures would be necessary under any circumstances even if this flawed deal is passed.

I know my colleague a few minutes ago enumerated these measures, but I they are important enough to repeat. It is an important part of what we had proposed, and it would have allowed the industry to survive on a temporary basis until we received the final decisions from the courts.

We had committed $200 million over two years to enhance the forest industry's competitive position, improve its environmental performance, and take advantage of the growing bio-economy.

We were proposing $40 million over two years to improve the overall performance of the national forest innovation system; $30 million over two years to improve competitiveness of the workforce, promote upgrading of workforce skills and provide assistance to older workers impacted by forestry industry lay-offs; $100 million over two years to support economic diversification and capacity building in communities affected by job losses in the forest industry; $30 million over two years to develop new markets for Canadian wood products; and $200 million over two years to fight the spread of the pine beetle in B.C. forests.

As we see, to add insult to injury, Canada's new government just cut funding to the pine beetle program. If one has been through this area of B.C. in the last little while, one cannot understand this type of logic.

This financial package was intended to carry the industry through while the appeals moved forward.

The previous government and industry stakeholders seemed very confident that the final decisions would favour the Canadian softwood industry. The fact that the Conservatives would not even provide the industry with the option of a temporary aid package is very sad indeed. Without this option, the industry was forced to capitulate and take the deal even if it considered it totally unacceptable.

If the Conservatives were so confident, as they seem to be today, that this is such a great deal, why did they not offer a similar package and allow the stakeholders to decide on whether they wished to take the financial package and wait for a final decision by the panels or take the deal that leaves over $1 billion on the American table? It seems to me this oxygen should have been provided to the industry by the new government, but no, it was take it or leave it. It is quite obvious that the bulk of Canadian businesses accepted the deal while holding their collective noses.

It is wrong. It is a bad deal. It sets a terrible precedent. It leaves over $1 billion in American hands to better compete with our softwood industry and, even worse, to provide the U.S. softwood lobby a huge amount of money to undermine one of the most vital sectors in our country.

For all those reasons, I cannot in good conscience support this deal.