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

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade for all the hard work they have done this year to bring about this deal on softwood lumber with our neighbour to the south.

I take great pleasure in speaking in the House to Bill C-24, a bill to implement Canada's obligations under the softwood lumber agreement. I ask all members of the House to support the bill.

Clearly, the softwood lumber agreement is good for industry, good for lumber communities and good for Canada.

I come from a rural riding myself and I know the hard times that rural residents have been facing. Our lumber communities during this long period of dispute have faced mill closures because of the tariffs and a long, drawn out and never-ending litigation.

The bill would bring prosperity back to the industry and back to our rural communities where the lumber industry is the mainstay. The bill would eliminate the punitive U.S. duties and would end the costly litigation that has gone on for far too long. Under this agreement, the U.S. will immediately dismiss all trade actions against our companies. It takes our lumber producers out of the courts and puts them back where they belong: in communities across this country, expanding their businesses and contributing to Canada's economy. It will provide stability for an industry hit hard by years of trade action.

For the next seven to nine years no border measures will be imposed when lumber prices are above $355 per thousand board feet. When prices drop below this threshold, the agreement gives provinces flexibility to choose the border measures most beneficial to their economic situation.

I should add that all export charged revenues collected by the Government of Canada through these border measures will stay in Canada. The softwood lumber agreement returns nearly $5 billion, a significant infusion of capital for the lumber industry, and will bring stability to the workers and communities that rely on it.

We have even developed a creative deposit mechanism to ensure that lumber companies receive their money as quickly as possible. Upon filling out and returning the necessary legal and administrative documents, companies will receive their funding within four to eight weeks.

This is an agreement to be proud of. It is a practical and flexible agreement that ends this long-standing dispute on terms that are highly favourable to Canada's lumber industry and forestry workers.

The House resumed from October 16 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.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Before the debate was interrupted for question period, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake had the floor.

There are six minutes left in the time allotted for the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake to make his submissions to the House and I now call on the hon. member to resume his speech.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before we broke for question period I was talking about the softwood lumber agreement and how proud I am of it.

I said that it was practical and flexible, and that it was ending this long standing dispute. Moreover, it directly responds to the civic issues and concerns raised by industry and provinces. For instance, it recognizes provincial market based reforms and preserves provincial authorities to manage their forest resources as they see fit. It also excludes from border measures the Atlantic provinces and the territories and 32 companies, including Quebec border mills that were found by the U.S. department of commerce not to be subsidized.

It ensures that independent lumber remanufacturers do not have to pay an extra charge on the value added component of their products. It establishes a process for Canada and the U.S., in consultation with the provinces, to determine the steps regions can take to qualify for exemption from the border measures.

The agreement has the support of two national governments and all of the key lumber producing provinces, as well as an overwhelming majority of industry players. All it needs now is the support of parliamentarians.

Bill C-24 will implement Canada's commitments under this agreement. It gives the provinces the flexibility they need to choose the right border option for their economic situations. The bill also seeks to amend parts of the Export and Import Permits Act to bring into operation the mechanisms we need to meet our commitments under the agreement.

I am happy to be part of a government that has done, in very short order, in less than six months, what no other government could. It has put an end to this dispute and has started to direct our full attention to building a stronger, more competitive Canadian lumber industry.

It is absolutely essential that we bring our lumber towns and this industry back to life by putting this unproductive dispute behind us and getting on with this new deal that will bring prosperity and stability to the softwood lumber industry.

I would ask all members of the House to join me in supporting the bill and putting this dispute behind us once and for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will salute the courage of only the second Conservative member to step forward and actually speak on this issue because we know that this sellout has been badly botched and that the Conservative sheep are basically refusing to speak in the House.

We also know that the Conservatives are invoking closure, shutting down debate in the House because they are ashamed themselves of what has been such a poorly botched negotiation and such an appallingly bad agreement.

As the member knows, since the agreement was forced into place after the companies were bullied last week, we have seen almost 3,000 Canadians lose their jobs in softwood communities in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. It has been a mess and a catastrophe, as we know.

We also know from the decision that was made last Friday in the Court of International Trade, the final decision, that Canadians are entitled to every single cent back. We have a badly botched agreement, one that is not commercially viable and we have double taxation of companies taking place right now. There is chaos at the border because of the poor implementation of the deal that should never should have been brought in, in the first place, when we have won at the Court of International Trade.

Very simply I would ask, why are the Conservatives so intent on bullying through this bad deal when the Court of International Trade has said that we are entitled to every single cent back? Why did they not take the care to at least be responsible in implementing this, so we would not see the chaos that we have seen at the border over the last few days, and the loss of thousands of jobs in the softwood sector in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec? It is a catastrophe and the Conservatives are responsible for it.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we do have to ask the question, how serious is that member? Last night he even forgot to vote for the bill when it was in the House. We really have to wonder where he is at on this issue. It just shows that the NDP is becoming very irrelevant.

If we look at what the Quebec Federation of Labour is doing, it is supporting this agreement. The NDP is out of lockstep on this issue with its labour buddies in Quebec. Quebec labour sees this as a good deal. It knows it means the future of its industry and of its jobs. The NDP does not get it.

The NDP members want ongoing litigation. They want to see this kept in the courts into perpetuity. They want to see lawyers getting rich and people losing their jobs, companies shutting down and lumber communities becoming ghost towns.

We do not want that to happen. We are being extremely responsible. We are going ahead to ensure that this deal is put into play and we want to ensure that those communities are protected.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, for his knowledge and support for all the lumber producers and logging companies in his riding.

I heard earlier today my colleague from the Renfrew-Pembroke area who made comments in the House on the bill. It really showed the kind of support that some of the members of the House have for the lumber producers and the people who are on the ground who rely on the forestry industry to make a living.

The hon. member mentioned the relevance of the NDP. I do not want to comment on that, but if its members do not vote on anything that could be.

I would like to ask the member a question. Just exactly what makes members like the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River really not care about the lumber producers in their area? Is it partisan politics? What is it? What is the member's opinion on that?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what makes those members tick. They are definitely are not compassionate about the workers in the lumber industry. They do not care whether or not those lumber companies are successful. The only thing they care about is ensuring that money flows into the hands of lawyers so they can carry on ongoing litigation. We want to put this dispute behind us. We want to ensure that our industry is prosperous well into the future.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Before we resume debate, the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed 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.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how a change in seating arrangements can change one's mind. The government cannot be the same party that just one short year ago sat on this side of the House decrying the notion of settling for anything less than a complete and outright vindication for Canada.

I wish to quote for members from page 19 of the Conservative platform:

A Conservative government will:

--Demand that the U.S. government play by the rules on softwood lumber. The U.S. must abide by the NAFTA ruling on softwood lumber, repeal the Byrd Amendment, and return the more than $5 billion in illegal softwood lumber tariffs to Canadian producers.

That is some pretty tough talk, which I think most in the House and most Canadians across this country could get behind. As a matter of fact, my party and I campaigned on roughly the same position, stating that:

The recent string of NAFTA decisions in Canada's favour continue[s] to be valid and must be respected--the United States remains legally obligated to revoke the tariffs and refund, with interest, all duties collected, totalling more than $5 billion. A Liberal government will continue to wage a vigorous legal and political fight with the United States government and industry and will continue to consult with the provinces and Canadian industry on the best way to achieve a final and lasting solution.

So here we are in the House to debate legislation which breaks the government's election promise, legislation which settles for a loss instead of a win, and legislation which brings in a politically expedient quick fix at the cost of the future of an industry and a way of life in Canada.

Need I remind the government that Canada's legal position prior to the introduction of the Conservative government was supported by numerous decisions by international trade tribunals and by the courts in both Canada and the United States, and yet the government has settled for less, and a great deal less.

Further, I think this complete surrender to the United States government on this file only sets up this government--and more importantly, future governments--for hardship and failure on any number of issues in the future. I guess Washington knows that in future disputes with Canada the new government may not have the will or the stomach to stand up for Canada and fight when it is right to fight.

This outright abandonment of Canada's position that our softwood industry is not subsidized shreds any notion that the dispute resolution provisions of NAFTA can work. It will only reinforce the will of certain U.S. legislators and bureaucrats that they can flaunt international rules any time they want and anywhere they want on any trade agreement.

This deal is a bad deal for Canada. The criticisms have been articulated here in the House and across this country. It leaves $1 billion belonging to Canadian companies in the hands of Americans, $500 million of which is at the disposal of the U.S. lumber industry to use to fund legal attacks against us, against Canadians. They will use money from the Canadian softwood industry to attack that very industry.

This deal creates an export tax that at current price levels is actually higher than current duties and will create an unfair and unprecedented tax regime which will impose crippling export duties on softwood. It limits the government's ability to help the softwood industry, and it undercuts our rules-based trading relationship with the United States. Let me say again that this is a bad deal. If the members opposite say this is the best deal they could get, then I say they were not trying hard enough.

My mother always said that we can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but I want to give credit to the Standing Committee on International Trade. Committee members took a bad agreement and tried very hard to make it better. Some of the committee's recommendations included: advocating more time to conclude a final agreement that would meet the softwood industry's expectations; making sure to obtain an effective mechanism to resolve any disputes that may arise over the interpretation of that agreement; and upholding Canada's legal victories. I will say that again: upholding Canada's legal victories.

We have won a number of legal cases on this issue. It seems to me that when we have won such a number of cases, legally and morally, it is up to both of us to collect upon and enforce this decision. When we do not, we weaken the very reason we would go into arbitration.

When awards are won and parties do not have to live up to the terms, future decisions are threatened and undermined. In this case, this could have far-reaching effects on various other aspects, not only in this industry but also in many other areas of government.

With this agreement, we are letting down our workers in the softwood lumber industry. Further, many other industries face similar trade problems. Therefore, through admitting defeat on this issue, we would be letting down many Canadians from coast to coast. Is this truly what the new government intended to do?

From having served for over 13 years in this House, I know my colleagues from every party are trying, to the very best of their abilities, to do the best jobs they can for Canadians. I truly I believe that. However, to not acknowledge the weakness of not enforcing awards is doing very serious damage. That is why it is so very important that we push the new government to try to get international trade rules upheld, acknowledged, accepted and enforced.

The committee's recommendations did not stop there. The fact is that the committee's report also advocated a flexible ceiling under option B. It also advocated flexibility for those under option A. The aim was to ensure that the industry was not excessively penalized for sudden and temporary increases in exports to the United States. The Standing Committee on International Trade also recommended that every measure be taken to ensure that Canadian companies, with interest, would have their due share of countervailing and anti-dumping duties within 90 days of the conclusion of this agreement. These are only a few of the strong recommendations that the Standing Committee on International Trade made.

In the past election, the Conservative Party talked a lot about how important committees were. Conservatives talked about the fact that if they were elected, they would listen to the committees because they believed that the committees represented all parties, many points of view, and most of all, balance.

It is hard for me to understand, when the committee has come out with such very strong recommendations from an extremely rigorous examination of this issue, that the government essentially chooses to completely ignore that report. I am sorry for that. I, too, believe that balance is important in our decision making. We must be willing to weigh the pros and cons of every situation and we know, as parliamentarians, that our final solutions will not please everyone. They rarely, if ever, do, but we as parliamentarians must strive for that balance. We must hear all points of view and we must not tune them out, as the Conservatives are doing at this point.

I would ask the government to revisit that committee report and re-look at some of the committee's recommendations, which were put forth in good faith. I believe Canadians are looking for a government, no matter which party forms it, to give balance, to listen and, at the end of that process, to make the best possible decision for Canada and all Canadians. People want no less of the government. People are tired of the bickering, and I cannot say that enough. Every time I go into the riding, I hear how people are tired of parliamentarians bickering. They want us to work together for the best solution.

This is an important file. We have worked on it for a long time together, perhaps some would say too long, undoubtedly. However, to sell out is not the proper way to go about this. When there are areas that have been hard fought and have been legally won, we should not abandon those victories.

It is, indeed, a great challenge to try to not only protect this industry but to help ensure it flourishes. The softwood industry is an important part of Canada's economy, particularly in many rural parts of the country. We need to keep this industry strong to help both our national economy and the local economies of the communities where this industry is based.

The industry offers Canadians good jobs, jobs that we need. We must do everything that we can to support it and the Canadians making their living from it. Please, do not sell us out.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I doubt the member's mother was the one who coined the phrase “You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear” as she will also doubt that it was my mother who said, “You'll know which hill you should die on, but, remember, you're still dead”.

I would suggest that the sow's ear would have been a continuation of what we have undergone for the last several years with respect to no resolution of any kind. We may have won decisions at NAFTA, but we were also losing decisions at the WTO on the same issue.

As much as we all would like the perfect solution, does it not make sense that we should listen to every province and the vast majority of the industry, which has said this as a good a solution as we can possibly get and that we should simply get on with business and allow the forestry industry to start prospering again?

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, my mother, and I loved her very dearly, had a lot of sayings. However, I did not say she coined that phrase. I did say she said it and she said a lot more. She often repeated these sayings to me when I was very little. People say to me that I repeat these a lot. That is because I loved my mother a great deal. Therefore, I ask the hon. member's forgiveness.

The issue is this it is not a good deal. We are forgoing legal positions that we have won legal restitution, and that is serious for us.

I am sure members have seen the Globe and Mail today. I do not like what it says. It says “The softwood sellout agreement”. It goes on to say that the new government has said it would forgo $1 billion of the total duties owed and agreed to a new border charge as high as 22.5%. The Conservatives are not speaking about this, and that is quite serious. The Canadian people need to know that this is the kind of a deal to which the Conservatives are agreeing.

The hon. member has said that provinces are wanting this or are saying that they may want it. At the moment, there is some truth that. Some of the industry is saying that, but some are quietly saying they are very nervous about these new charges and the fact that the legal situation appears still to be very murky.

To have quiet agreement that industries will choke down it for short term gain for long term pain is very serious.

I know the new Conservative government wants to try to do a good job. I know this file was important for the Conservatives to hold up as kind of mantra and say, “Look it, we did this. We solved this”. To solve it incorrectly, to solve it on the backs of an industry, which in a short time will go down because of this deal, is not the right thing. This is why it is so important that we try to get this deal better.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one concern is this. If the Conservative government goes through with its promise of the so-called softwood agreement, in my view, what will be the next thing it will capitulate to the United States after winning legal battles. It is softwood one time. What will it be the next time?

The member is absolutely correct in saying that the U.S. Court of International Trade has stated that Canada is entitled to every penny of that money. Why does she think the Conservative government would allow American companies to keep $1 billion of its own money? What does she think is next in the trade battles when American companies do not like to go to courts? Will they use heavy-handed tactics and convince the government that this is the way it will go, and to take it or leave it?

Would she comment on that?

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is also one of my main concerns, so I share the hon. member's concern on this. If this, what next? Where next do we go on our knees? Where is the protection?

The Globe and Mail today also spoke on the issue and said that we finally had the U.S. in one of its very own courts, it was losing and we quit. We have to ask why do we abandon when we are winning in legal courts?