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

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a constructive way, the parliamentary secretary does not have a clue what she is talking about. If there had been a deal for $3 billion, we did not want it because we knew it was a bad deal. If we thought it was a good deal, we would have accepted it.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

You did nothing. You should apologize.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Apologize for what? We have nothing for which we should apologize. It was a bad deal then and we did not accept it, and it is a bad deal today.

The parliamentary secretary should read the report. I am sure she has not read it because her question tells me that she has total ignorance of what happened in committee. It was confirmed by the member for Burnaby—Douglas when he said, “We were on the verge”. Industry testimony is on the record. All the people that the parliamentary secretary referred to are on the record.

The Liberal government chose in its wisdom to do two things. First, it decided to support the industry with financial support, but unfortunately the government fell. Second, it chose to walk away from that proposal of $3 billion because it was a really bad deal as is the Conservative deal.

We did not muzzle the industry. We did not tell the industry that if it did not accept the $3 billion deal, we would penalize it. We made the decision, unilaterally, because it was a bad deal for Canada, a bad deal for the industry and we said we would not take it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite a sight for Canadians who are watching to see the Liberals and Conservatives fighting out who has the worst deal. It was the Minister of International Trade, the soon to be ex-member for Vancouver Kingsway, who had the deal with the Liberals, took it across the floor to the Conservatives and received about 3¢ on the dollar better. All the other components were there. Both deals are sellouts and both deals will be rejected by Canadians. When Canadians in softwood communities across the country get the chance, they will vote against Liberal and Conservative candidates who sold out our country this fall by trying to push through this deal.

I always appreciate hearing the member for Scarborough Centre speak, but today he used a very interesting term. He talked about the election of January 23 as being an overthrow of the government. That is a very curious term. This is a sense of entitlement that goes quite beyond belief, that a democratic election is an overthrow of the government. It was not that. It was a chance for Canadians to judge the government of the day. We will see the same judgment on the Conservatives in the next election as we saw on the Liberals on January 23.

We were on the verge of winning on October 13. In fact, we did win. Why did the Liberals cancel the hearings in regions across the country? Why did the Liberals cancel hearings in Ottawa? Why did the Liberals force this bad bill through committee?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Scarborough Centre has 25 seconds to reply to those three questions.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in those 25 seconds I want to talk about the deal. I have great respect for the member, but I believe he is being intellectually dishonest with the wording he is using. He said “a deal”. There was a proposal under the Liberal government. We in our wisdom saw that it was wrong and did not even propose it. We did not have a deal. The Conservative Party had a bad deal and it accepted it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for that warm welcome and for this opportunity to convey some of the concerns the good people of Winnipeg Centre have about this bill.

Let me start by taking a moment to recognize and pay tribute to the valiant work done by my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who perhaps above all others, who dealt with this long, complicated piece of legislation, actually stood up for Canadians. He has tried every possible angle he could think of to negotiate a better deal for Canadians and to sound the alarm that what we are doing today is fundamentally wrong on so many levels that it constitutes a betrayal of the best interests of Canadians.

I have learned a great deal from my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster about this softwood lumber deal, or sellout as he is fond of calling it, throughout the process. He has been a tireless champion not only in the House of Commons, not only at the standing committee, in spite of a conspiracy to silence him at the committee, but around our caucus table and throughout meetings across Canada, in which he spoke to concerned citizens. They are mystified. Their minds are boggled by why on earth we would do this deal at this time at this fragile point in the history of the softwood lumber industry in our country. It is beyond reason.

Reason and logic do not seem to enter into it, as I understand it. Listening to speakers from the other two opposition parties, I am no further ahead. I still do not understand their motivation in helping the Conservatives to complete this deal and to sell it out.

On this conspiracy to silence the truth about this deal, I do not know if they met in backrooms or if they woke up with some Jungian collective unconscious or something, but they conspired to undermine the best interests of Canadians. At the very least, they owe us an apology. In fact, they owe us about $1 billion because that is what it costs in real material terms.

In actual fact, more harm was done than just the damages that we have suffered in a monetary way. The real damage, perhaps the less measurable and less tangible damage, was the way they bastardized democracy and undermined the rights of my colleague, his privileges as a member of Parliament, and denied him the opportunity to do his job at the standing committee.

My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas outlined the atrocious conspiracy. Members on that international trade committee should hang their heads in shame for the way that they treated my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. I witnessed some of it and I was ashamed. As a long-standing veteran member of Parliament in this chamber, I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a chair abuse his privileges as a chair. I have never seen such a bunch of cowards on the other side, the members of Parliaments who fell in line and took part in this conspiracy to silence my colleague.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Lemmings.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

What a bunch of lemmings, as my colleague from Ottawa Centre says.

I know, Mr. Speaker, you follow Parliament carefully. You are a scholar of parliamentary procedure and history. Have you ever, in all your life, heard of moving closure at committee to the point where speeches are only limited to three minutes? That was a first. I have never heard of such a thing. I myself suffered closure at committee one time to 10 minutes per speech, and the hue and cry across the land among scholars and academics was horrific, that people were being silenced to only 10 minute speeches per amendment. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster was silenced to three minutes per amendment.

He introduced 98 amendments in a diligent and valiant attempt to do due diligence on this bill. He introduced those amendments to try to salvage this train wreck of a bill, but that was not good enough. When he started to exercise his rights, his democratic parliamentary privilege to speak to these amendments, to convince his fellow colleagues, they said that it was not good enough and they silenced him to one minute speeches per motion.

That set a record in draconian, bad behaviour at committees. Nobody has ever heard of that. That was history making. That will go down in the books as the most draconian, Fascist move in parliament history in committees.

That was not good enough. When they were too annoyed and did not want to hear a one minute speech to introduce complex amendments to an enormously complex bill that was costing us $1 billion, they decided to silence him even further and say that there were no comments allowed.

Have we ever heard of muzzling someone to that degree? We might as well tie people up. We might as well handcuff them too. We might as well put duct tape on their mouths and hold them in the basement until the Conservatives can ram this piece of legislation through, because that is how draconian this is.

No one has ever heard of this, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has the floor. He is at the other end of the room and the Chair occupant needs to hear what he is saying, which means that the people between the two of us should also pay attention. Thank you very much.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that ruling, because it was very difficult for me to keep my thoughts together with all that brouhaha. I am glad you can hear me now, because I was asking you if you have ever heard of such a thing.

To muzzle a democratically elected member of Parliament at a House of Commons standing committee and not allow him to speak to the very motions that he was putting forward to amend a bill: is there a precedent anywhere in the free world for that? I do not think so.

We may hear of such a thing in some third world banana republic, but we have not heard of that in this country before. We made history with this bill and it is nothing to be proud of. It is to the great shame of this House and the new Conservative government. And it is to the great shame of those spineless opposition MPs who would not support a colleague on the opposition benches and who complied and cooperated with this draconian measure.

I cannot overstate how disappointed I am with the way that my colleague was treated at that committee for trying to stand up in the best interests of Canadians and trying to save us $1 billion. He was doing the Canadian public a service. So much for standing up for the little guy and standing up for Canadians. We had someone who had the courage to put his career on the line and stand up on his hind legs and fight at a standing committee for the best interests of Canadians and he was silenced.

I cannot understand why the Bloc Québécois supported the Conservative government in this sellout. I have asked my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster to explain to me why he thinks the Bloc would tolerate a piece of legislation that is clearly a deal managed of, by and for the American lumber lobby. I cannot understand why the Bloc would tolerate this bill, in which a supposedly sovereign nation has signed on to an unprecedented clause which requires that the provinces first vet any changes to forest industry policy through Washington.

As for my colleagues from the Bloc, if nothing else, they understand the notion of sovereignty. This is their raison d'être. They understand the concept of sovereignty. Why, then, would they sign on to a bill that compromises the sovereignty of this great nation and the provinces? The provinces will not be able to make changes to their own softwood lumber policy without first vetting them through Washington, D.C. Why would my colleagues from the Bloc agree to that intrusion into their jurisdiction? They are always talking about the federal government trying to intrude in their jurisdiction. Why would they tolerate this?

I hope they traded that support for a big, big wheelbarrow full of money. I hope they got barrels of money. I hope the fiscal imbalance will be solved and all of their dreams will come true, because it cost us a great deal of money. It cost us dearly.

The most outrageous thing is the $1 billion that we have left on the table, of which the Americans will get to keep $450 million of these illegal duties and which will grease the wheels of the protectionist Republicans, essentially so they can challenge us. We will be subsidizing the ongoing illicit attack on our own softwood lumber industry.

Canadian money will be used to grease the wheels of the American machine that is in full flight and attacking us on this and other trade fronts. That is appalling. The other $500 million will go to the American softwood lumber industry, and again, it will carry on its unfair practices against us.

Time does not permit me to express fully how disappointed I am with this House of Commons and its treatment of Bill C-24. Canadians--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Speaking of time, it is time for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

As always, Mr. Speaker, the speech of the member for Winnipeg Centre on the softwood sellout makes a great deal of sense. When he intervenes in this House, what he says makes a great deal of sense and I think resonates with the public at large.

Before I ask the member a question, I want to read into the record a letter sent to the Conservative member for Cariboo—Prince George. This is a letter written on behalf of approximately 10,000 workers in the softwood industry in the central and northern interior of British Columbia, most of them in the forest industry. It states: “These members and their families do not support the proposed softwood lumber agreement and on their behalf we are writing to urge you to oppose the proposed legislation that would enact this agreement between Canada and the U.S.”

So here we have a Conservative member who has been written to by 10,000 softwood workers and the member has stood up in the House and has said quite frankly that he will still support the softwood sellout, as all Conservatives have. Not one Conservative has stood up to say that this is an egregious betrayal of softwood communities across the country.

The member for Winnipeg Centre has had a long experience in this House and has been very dedicated. My question for him is a simple one. Why would a member betray the interests of his own community? Why would 125 Conservatives, whether they are in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia, betray the interests of softwood workers from across western Canada? I am asking him as a fellow representative from western Canada.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster will allow me, I will paraphrase his question somewhat. What I understand him to mean by that question, if I can summarize it in brief, is that it is really the question of which side we are on.

The Conservative members of Parliament are ignoring the will of the grassroots people that they are sworn and duty bound to represent, ignoring it for the interests of the American softwood lumber industry and George Bush and his gang. They are selling out Canadians. The damage done is greater than simply the monetary impact of losing the $1 billion. The betrayal is ignoring the best interests of the people they represent by abandoning them.

I will point out an item in a very helpful document that my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster put together, which I think all members should read. Of the 25 good reasons to oppose the softwood lumber agreement, item 16 points out that the softwood lumber agreement actually discourages the value adding of manufacturing in the softwood lumber deal. It actually goes in the opposite direction of where we should be going.

My father, who was a wise man, used to say that shipping a raw log out of this country is tantamount to economic treason, because we all know that is where the jobs are and that is where the real value is. It is in value adding, not in us being hewers of wood and drawers of water. It is in us being manufacturers, high tech preferably, and even just down to lumber.