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

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously I do not have a clue as to where the member is coming from with some of his ridiculous allegations and some of the rhetoric that he is coming up with.

Let us talk a little about the termination clause. He likes to act as though the agreement is only 18 months. Nothing could be further from the truth. The deal is seven to nine years very clearly.

Let us point out that he does not like this agreement. We know that because he is always telling us this, but he was always asking for a longer termination clause to get out of something that he did not even like, so none of that conversation ever made sense.

I also find it a little rich for him to always be saying that we should be supporting chapter 19, when he clearly heard that chapter 19 was never to apply to softwood lumber. Standing up and defending chapter 19 of NAFTA was a bit rich to hear coming from the NDP. Am I to assume that if any other free trade agreements come forward, we have his unconditional support on free trade now? I would like to have an answer to that question.

For many years this dispute has been going on, 24 years in total. The last lawsuit was five years ago. The hon. member is trying to mislead industry into thinking that if we just win this one last lawsuit, it will be all over, that we are going to have a great working relationship with the United States all of a sudden. That is not going to happen because the U.S. lumber coalition has told us no way, that if we do not have this deal, they will continue litigation for year after year. This is it. This is the last kick at the can. Because of our Prime Minister and our Minister of International Trade, we were able to secure a deal. Like the Prime Minister has always said, we can disagree with the Americans, but we do not always have to be disagreeable with them.

We have reached a deal that is in the best interests of Canadian industry. Over 90% of the industry is supporting this deal. All industry across the country will get 81% of the duties returned. All industry, 100% of the industry, will benefit from this agreement. Even the small percentage that did not sign on will reap the rewards of this agreement.

I ask the member to apply this to the union analogy. When 80% or 90% of union members vote in favour of what is in front of them, that other 10% is still going to get the benefits of that agreement. Maybe the hon. member needs to take a look at it from his own approach.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed softwood lumber deal will affect my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River and the entire region of northwestern Ontario in many adverse ways. The constant shifting position of the Prime Minister has caused much confusion about just what it is we are voting for or against.

When the minority government announced an agreement in late April, the severe flaws were to have been addressed. When the minority government re-announced the deal in July, it claimed the deficiencies had been addressed. When the Prime Minister announced in late August that the agreement was concluded and all deficiencies corrected, many of us in northwestern Ontario felt then that we could possibly support the deal. When the largest forest products company in northwestern Ontario, Buchanan, announced that it would reluctantly sign on, many of us questioned that reluctance, but we were prepared to do what we had to do for our region. Then at the international trade hearing, it became painfully apparent that few of the very major concerns for Thunder Bay—Rainy River would ever be satisfied.

Softwood companies all across the country are on their knees financially and need the cash flow. They could have been supported by the previous government, with a $1.4 billion forestry package, which many of us in northwestern Ontario as MPs worked so hard to achieve. That would have given our companies the loan guarantees to keep them going as we won each of the key dispute panels. However, no, the NDP joined with the Conservatives to destroy the forestry package. Northwestern Ontario rightfully blames the NDP and knows that it is largely its fault that it does not exist now. Then after the election the minority government would not give that $1.4 billion to help the forest industry carry through this fight to a clear victory. The money was there to help. We should remember that those $5 billion in tariffs were illegal. Yet only 80% of that may be returned. It is not what people in Canada think is a fair deal.

Point after point has been made outlining the many flaws and deficiencies. Somehow they combine to be an outright sellout. Still, I have been prepared to hold my nose and support the deal for our workers, for their families, for our communities, for the industrial suppliers and for the companies large and small.

As my constituents are frustrated, so am I at the government's changing of these rules and negotiating positions. Now that the actual motion has been presented and we see what it actually says, on principle, I must now vote against the deal. The motion spends more words punishing Canadian companies than it does trying to achieve a positive agreement.

The Bloc's votes will ensure that the government deal will pass. After it does, I will not do anything to hold up the flow of funds to those companies that need them to stay solvent, even if the deal passes without our positive amendment. However, it is clear that the unprecedented and atrocious bullying of Canadian companies by a 19% surcharge, one that would force many into bankruptcy, is just a shameful move by the Prime Minister in collaboration with President Bush.

Why would a minority government try to bankrupt Canadian forest companies? It is unbelievable in a democratic nation. Enough is enough, and I know many share that this is not what they thought they could support.

Then there is a bizarre double whammy that will occur if there is a downturn in the American housing economy. We will lose market share and then be further penalized by additional tariffs. This current deal is not even half as good as the deal the previous government was close to concluding.

As members can see, I have been doing my best to support what is best for the people of my riding. In the hearings at international trade committee, I watched the partisan giddiness of the government members, who blindly assumed that this was some kind of fantastic win for Canadians. We all know now that it is far from that delusion. It is especially flawed by the two year window that leaves northwestern Ontario very vulnerable to American lumber lobbyists. I am fearful that the damage will get even worse in the next two years. What then of those workers, their families, industrial suppliers, the communities in which they live? I will continue to work to ensure those companies will still be around.

If there are so many doubts, and there always have been in these long years of negotiations, then even those who want me to support the government will realize that we are only hurting ourselves. There is still, believe it or not, no package to help companies. Take it or leave it, the Prime Minister says. I could have supported a deal if there were at least some commitment by the government to help. Instead the coercion is beyond measure and will not help obviously.

The people of Thunder Bay—Rainy River certainly support their industries. When the industry says that they will take 80%, but will not delay further any payouts even though there is no dispute mechanism if a Canadian company does not get all it feels it should. They have no recourse. Canadian forest companies can get further illegally hit by millions of dollars without recourse. There are no appeals for those disputes.

As people understand these things, they still want federal support for forestry, not a misguided submission to President Bush. The previous $1.4 billion would have saved hundreds of jobs in Thunder Bay—Rainy River. It will forever be the marked shame of the NDP for abandoning Canadian forest companies as will the current minority government for not utilizing that $1.4 billion available to help our softwood and forest industries.

I stand firm in my commitment to standing with our workers, our families and our communities. Indeed, there is a way we could all support the bill should the amendment pass. Then the House could make it unanimous. It is similar to when people want to buy a car and fully intend to buy it, but when they get to the car lot to buy the car, the tires are flat. Because they said they would buy a car, would they buy it because they said they would, even though the conditions have changed?

I asked government members if now that they know the tires are flat on this deal, would they sign it? There are so many flaws, not only with the car, but with everything about it, that there is ample room for them to consider. The amendment would at least help the government get out of this.

Regarding the second part on punitive measures, of which there are far too many for a democratic nation, we always have to ask ourselves, why would we do this and hurt Canadian companies so badly?

In my region and riding, as we go from company to company, we realize that it is not only the softwood companies that are affected. The pulp companies, the paper companies, those companies that deal in forest products are interdependent and they need each other. They are affected as well. That is why the forest package of November was meant to be across forest products assistance. The amendment would ensure that we would not condone further illegal conduct, that we would get the remaining billion dollars back and have open access for Canadian producers.

The government should be supporting and showing concern for our Canadian forest products. By eliminating the punishment and the big stick, it would show that it wants to help Canadian forest products and the softwood lumber industry. With the amendment, we can get all that done and achieve what we intend to do, and that is to support free trade and a lumber agreement that will work in the best interests of Canadians, sustain jobs, remove barriers and ensure fair access to the American market.

It does not take much education for people to understand that there are many factors involved simply besides this deal such as the value of our dollar and the cost of energy. When we in northwestern Ontario talk about the cost of energy, we have worked with the province of Ontario for a fair energy policy, or regional pricing some may call it. With the anti-circumvention clause in the agreement, support for our industry in northwestern Ontario would be lost or could be essentially appealed and overruled by the American interests.

I use that illustration for the members of Parliament here to understand how badly flawed this agreement is and some of those things that will affect us directly still have not been addressed.

It is not the best deal possible. It is far less than what we had before. We know now that if we go forward without these amendments, within the next two-year period we will be back in the same place and we will have financed with a half a billion dollars. That will pay lot of lawyers firms for a lot of years to work against Canadian interests.

I am appealing to the government to stop and slow down, take this amendment under consideration and realize that we can have a positive bill, that we can do this well and that we can come away with an agreement that allows Canadians to hold their heads up high.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member can let us know why former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. Frank McKenna refused to come before the trade committee to talk about the Liberal non-deal. If the Liberal non-deal was so much better than what we have achieved now, why did he refuse to come forward and discuss this proposed agreement, which never came to fruition?

My understanding is that the previous Liberal government was ready to agree to something with substantially less than what we have achieved right now. I suggest that perhaps we are just better. Our Minister of International Trade used to be the Liberals, but now he is ours. He had the leadership of our Prime Minister to be able to secure this deal and to build upon what they had started. This deal is exceptional.

The hon. member needs to accept the fact that Mr. McKenna would not come before committee because, I believe, he just could not fess up to the fact that the Liberals had something less on the table. Perhaps he would like to comment on that.

I would also want him to take a look at this from a personal perspective. People have a lawsuit, or a disagreement, with their business partners, which has gone on for 24 years. A lot of their money has been sent over there. They are about to get a ruling on their lawsuit, but all of a sudden, they sit down and reach an agreement where they will get 81% of their money back and there will be an end to litigation. Millions of dollars has been spent on the litigation, in total, in the past 24 years because over and over again there have been new lawsuits. Now there is a chance to get that money back and a commitment to work together to build a committee where people from one side and the other side, Canada, U.S., come to sit together at a binational council, to work beyond the seven to nine years, which the agreement gives, and to build a stronger North American market together. Are they going to give them the thumb and say, “No, we don't want 81% of our money back” and then take their chances in the lawsuit where they may or may not get their money? One this is definite. They will not have a working relationship to build their industry because they have been told that if they cannot work these thing out now, more lawsuits will be filed against them and their industry will continue to falter.

Would the hon. member comment on that?

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members of Parliament well know that when we are engaged in negotiations we cannot simply throw in the towel just to end them and say that we have a deal and it is over. When we know we are entitled to 100% of the duties and they are collected illegally, then we should get them all back. That is the direction in which we are heading. We should certainly get interest and a fair exchange on the dollar. We know those have fluctuated over the past five years.

Rather than simply surrendering and saying that we have a deal, people know that the big loss is 20% of operating costs over the past five years. If they are entitled to receive it back, why should they not get it back? Why should they have to live in fear that they are now financing all the litigants, all the people who represented the American lumber lobbyists, such as the lawyers? We have established a fund for them of half a billion dollars for the next number of years so whenever they choose to dishonour this agreement or cause some kind of disruption they can do it and be so well financed that Canadian companies would never be able to compete again. We have given them half a billion dollars to hit us whenever they want to.

When we talk about logic in terms of the deal, those of us not only in northwestern Ontario but all over the country now understand that the flaws are so magnified that they are of concern. The double whammy, the anti-circumvention and the problems that will happen with regional energy pricing, all of those still have not been addressed satisfactorily. With all of those things adding up they will cause unbelievable problems, not only for the industry but the downturn in the American housing market and the penalties assigned by ourselves will be beyond comprehension. That is the fear that I am representing for the companies, the workers and the communities in northwestern Ontario that want to keep going.

We still have had no satisfactory answer with respect to what happened to the $1.4 billion that would have essentially, through loan guarantees, modernization and environmental assistance, kept those companies going. Several of them would still be operating had that fund been utilized by the current government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River say very clearly that he was opposing this sellout. That was not clear from his comments earlier when he said that he might support it and then abstained from the vote on the ways and means motion. I am glad he is becoming clear.

There is no doubt that this sellout will have a horrible impact on northern Ontario particularly. As testimony this summer revealed, we are looking at job losses and mill closures of about 20% in northern Ontario. This is just one example of how deplorable this sellout is. It is a sellout of the interests of softwood communities across the country, not just in northern Ontario but in British Columbia, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba and in Alberta. The Alberta industry was not even consulted as this sellout was being put together.

I am glad the member will now be voting against it. I certainly hope he will convince his other colleagues from the Liberal caucus who abstained on the ways and means motion to vote against it. There is no doubt that this is a very poor alternative to what should be happening, which is finalizing the litigation, those two final hurdles. As Ambassador Wilson said, there are no appeals on those two final pieces of litigation, which is that the illegal tariffs are taken off and the money is returned. Very clearly, we should go through those last hurdles.

What took the member so long to understand how negative this will be on his region as it will be on regions across the country? From the testimony we heard this summer, there is no doubt that this will have an exceedingly negative impact on the Canadian softwood lumber industry which means that other industrial sectors could be targeted. We know the government's strategy has been to bludgeon and bully the industry into submission but it still does not have the required 95% to make this agreement legally valid. Despite all the bullying, the government manifestly failed.

What took my colleague all this time to make the right decision, which is to vote against this softwood sellout?

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer that directly because I really tried to believe that the government would be honest and forthright in addressing the flaws and deficiencies. I could never have expected it to be so punitive to Canadian companies that it would actually put in a 19% surcharge that would put many of them into bankruptcy.

I really wanted to believe, in supporting our companies and trying to keep the jobs going in northwestern Ontario, that if our companies were on their knees and just had to accept this because they had no other choice, that somehow those flaws, deficiencies and shortcomings would truly be addressed.

As I studied the agreement, after it finally came to us a week ago in terms of the ways and means motion, as to what it actually said, I was still trying to help the companies, the people who work for them and those communities. I could not believe that the government would deceive us so blatantly. I really wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt that it would be doing something good for northwestern Ontario.

Point after point has been made, not only in today's debate but over the past few days, and I know that for the future, should we accept his very substandard agreement, it will end up hurting northwestern Ontario more than the previous deal that would have been negotiated.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today as the member of Parliament representing the largest softwood producing riding in all of Canada, the great riding of Cariboo—Prince George which includes Vanderhoof, Prince George, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Likely and Horsefly.

The area is good, strong, traditional softwood lumber country that quite possibly could supply, if permitted, the majority of the softwood lumber sales to the United States, our biggest customer, and it has a huge interest in the outcome of this legislation. I am pleased to say that a vast majority of the lumber producers in British Columbia, including virtually all of them in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, the communities in my riding, the province and all those others who have a vested interest in a good, secure future with certainty and predictability in the softwood lumber industry support this deal.

I am pleased to stand in support of my riding and the producers. I should mention that I will be sharing my time with the great member of Parliament for Mégantic—L'Érable who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources. He will be able to share some reasons from the other part of the country, namely Quebec, eastern Ontario, the Maritimes and Atlantic Canada, as to why this deal should be supported by Liberal members from that area and also NDP members. In defiance of the spin doctors, they should support it because it is a good deal.

I am pleased to support Bill C-24 because this softwood lumber agreement is good for Canada. It is good for my riding and for ridings in northern Ontario, as evidenced by the member of Parliament for Thunder Bay—Superior North who had the courage to stand up and represent the mills and forest workers in his riding while his counterpart up there fromThunder Bay—Rainy River apparently does not have the courage to represent the mills and forest workers and does not have the courage to support certainty in the softwood lumber industry.

As the Minister of International Trade indicated, the softwood lumber deal is good for industry, good for lumber communities and good for Canada. I am proud and pleased to be able to concur with that. It does eliminate U.S. duties. It ends costly litigation and it takes our lumber producers out of the courts, out of the large legal fees and provides stability and certainty for the industry. It returns more than $5 billion to our producers.

It is a practical and flexible agreement that ends the dispute on terms that are highly favourable to Canada and will put Canada and the U.S. back on track for making North America more competitive for the future. I am pleased to note that the agreement has won a wide base of support from both the industry and the provinces.

There are a number of good reasons for the support. Perhaps one of the most significant reasons is that the agreement respects the diversity of Canada's softwood lumber industry. The lumber industry across Canada is varied and different regions have unique challenges and opportunities.

Today I would like to highlight some of regional benefits of the agreement and explain how the agreement responds to a wide variety of needs across the country. Let us talk first about the provincial flexibility and benefits.

First of all, this agreement gives provinces flexibility in choosing the border measure that best suits their particular economic needs.

Exporters will pay an import charge when lumber prices are at or below $355 U.S. per thousand board feet. When prices reach this threshold, Canadian regions, as defined in the agreement--the B.C. coast, the B.C. interior, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec--can select one of the following two export charge regimes.

Option A, as was spoken about previously by my colleagues, is an export charge with the charge varying with price. Option B is an export charge plus volume restraint where both the rate and volume restraint vary with the price. This is an innovative mechanism that allows provinces to choose the export charge that is right for their individual economic and commercial situation. It provides flexibility to the provinces.

I should point out that the funds collected under either option will stay right here in Canada. As was pointed out, although the NDP and Liberals failed to grasp it, if we carry on with this uncertainty of litigation, those fees are going south of the border and we will have more and more difficulty trying to repatriate those moneys back into our industry.

Provinces and industry also asked for flexibility in export quota rules to be able to meet their U.S. customers' requirements. In response, our government negotiated provisions allowing companies to carry forward or carry back up to 12% of their monthly quota export volume from the previous or next month. This is a significant improvement over the current environment.

Under the current system, the duties imposed by the U.S. are reassessed annually. The industry never knows from year to year what duty rate will apply, but under this agreement it will know. This is certainty. Companies can plan and prepare for it and take full advantage of a stable, predictable business environment. This is what the industry needs. This is what the investors want.

The agreement also contains a provision allowing provinces to seek an exit from the border measures based on a process to be developed by Canada and the U.S., in full consultation with the provinces, within 18 months of this agreement coming into force.

It provides for reduced export charges when other lumber producing countries significantly increase their exports to the U.S. at our expense.

It protects provincial jurisdiction in undertaking forest management reforms, including updates and modifications to their systems, actions or programs for environmental protection, and providing compensation to first nations to address claims.

It includes an innovative mechanism to ensure that the $4.4 billion U.S. in returned duties will be back in the hands of our exporters within weeks of the agreement's entry into force.

I know my time is running out. I could spend all afternoon talking about the great benefits of this softwood lumber deal and the courage that our government has had to stand up and put this forward to bring some stability and certainty back to our industry, to provide some job security for our forest workers and their families, to provide some economic comfort to the investors in the forest industry, and to provide the ability for our lumber producers to make long term business plans in order to plan the journey of their economic investments.

These elements of this agreement respond directly to the concerns raised by the industry, the provinces and the workers. This is a good deal for the industry, it is a good deal for the provinces, and it is a great deal for Canada. I think it is time to put aside the rhetoric from the NDP down at that end of the chamber. It is time for the Liberals to be honest with themselves about the merits of this deal, to support it and to quit playing politics.

The province of Quebec and the industry in Quebec do support this, and we want to encourage the Bloc to continue to support their industries with the province's acceptance of the bill and of course support the bill when it comes up for a vote.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find the comments made by the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George amusing. He called this a good agreement, and said that only the Liberals and NDP do not understand it. However, the Bloc Québécois does not understand it, either. The Bloc does not feel this is a good agreement. Although voting in favour, the Bloc Québécois is maintaining its position that this is a very bad agreement.

At one time, the Conservative Party asked for help from the Liberal minister who was negotiating this agreement and who could do nothing. After having crossed the floor of this House, he was unable to do any better.

This may be a good agreement for forestry in British Columbia, because it allows them to sell off their bad lumber. This is fortunate for them, but I would remind the House that, if not for British Columbia, this tax would not have been imposed.

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey rose earlier to say that this is a good agreement. She may be pretty when she blushes, but she was blushing from shame.

Are the hon. members who just spoke not in a more favourable position, thanks to west coast ports that allow them to sell off their softwood lumber to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries, unlike the eastern provinces that have only one customer, the Americans?

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand where the member is coming from and where some of the Bloc members are coming from with their comments. The fact is that in the province of Quebec, the industry, the workers and the province all support the deal.

I would assume that the Bloc Québécois members of Parliament want to represent the feelings of the industry, the province and the forest workers in their ridings. I assume they are going to be supporting the bill. That is what we are all sent here to do: to represent our ridings. The economy of the forest industry in the province of Quebec is going to be stable and have certainty for the next nine years, notwithstanding the rhetoric that comes from the NDP.

I am sure the Bloc members can see through that rhetoric and understand that the reason the province, the industry and the workers in Quebec are supporting this deal is that it is a good deal. It guarantees job security. It guarantees that there is a future in the softwood industry in the province of Quebec as well as the rest of Canada.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member says he has a problem with rhetoric, but what about the facts? He said during a speech that the bill will eliminate the duties. That is not the case. He says it is highly favourable terms for Canada. That is not the case. That is what I call empty rhetoric.

In fact, when the Minister of International Trade got to this place, the first thing he said is that the industry has to accept the deal. If those companies do not accept it, they are on their own; we abandon them, we are just going to leave them and they will be stuck. That is the reality. At the time, the industry was opposed to the deal. Now it is not.

As for my question for the member, if the industry was opposed to the deal and now is somehow supportive of the deal, does the member think that has anything to do with the fact that those companies would now be faced with threats against loan guarantees, with immeasurable court challenges, and with the fact that we have abandoned the dispute resolution mechanism for all time, and now, without accepting the deal, they will not have a chance to defend themselves?

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing for sure that the industry would be facing if we did not sign this deal is challenges in courts the likes of which we have never seen, particularly in a down market like we have. The Americans would have an easier time trying to prove harm is caused to their industry when there is a down market. That would spell disaster for our softwood producers. In this country, there would be millions of dollars in litigation and uncertainty. That is not a good way to go--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the member for Cariboo—Prince George, I am pleased that we can share our time.

I am happy, here today, to be able to speak on behalf of my riding as the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, and as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Last Tuesday, September 12, the Minister of International Trade signed, along with his American counterpart, U.S. Trade Representative, Susan Schwab, the long-awaited softwood lumber agreement.

This signing represented a major turning point for both our countries. Settlement of this complex, longstanding dispute until now seemed like an unachievable objective. In spite of all the efforts, previous governments never managed to settle it. The Canadian softwood lumber industry was thus faced with an extremely unstable trade environment resulting in lengthy and costly legal proceedings against the United States.

Thanks to the new spirit of cooperation between our two countries, the Canadian government has been able to accomplish what no other government had managed to do, that is, conclude an agreement that ends this dispute, on conditions that are very favourable to Canada and that respond directly to the concerns raised by the industry and the provinces.

This concrete and flexible agreement ensures foreseeable access to the American market, provides for the refund of over $5 billion Canadian—or $4.4 billion U.S.—of duties held on deposit and ends years of costly litigation. Furthermore, it enables the softwood lumber producers to break the vicious circle of legal proceedings and provides them with the stable trading environment they need to make their companies grow and to invest in them.

This agreement is in the best interest of the Quebec forest industry, which employs 107,000 workers and accounts for 18% of Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United States. For example, the agreement exempts from the export measures sawmills located near the Quebec border—and I am proud to have many of them in my riding of Mégantic—L'Érable—a key position supported by the government and industry in this province. For companies that are not exempted, Quebec can choose the border option that best suits its economic and trading situation.

The province and the industry in Quebec were greatly concerned about their inability to respond to the needs of their American customers because of the rigidity of the regulations related to export quotas. As a result, the government negotiated provisions allowing companies to carry forward or carry back up to 12% of their quota export volume from the previous or next month.

The agreement has the strong support of the three main producer provinces, including Quebec, the Quebec Forest Industry Council, the president of the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec, Mr. Henri Massé, as well as the vast majority of Canadian softwood lumber producers.

The ball is now in the court of Canadian parliamentarians. It is our turn to review the bill and adopt it so that Canada can meet its commitments under the agreement.

In reaching a decision, honourable members should give special consideration to the situation that would prevail if the bill is not adopted, including the high costs that would result if the bill is not passed.

Indeed, one need not go far back in time to recognize what would happen in the absence of this agreement. Our softwood lumber producers have spent the better part of the past two decades in waging numerous unending legal battles against the United States. They have been able to see the great influence of American protectionists and they know too well the harmful consequences of this dispute, both on the human level and in financial terms.

I invite my fellow members to ask the people who live in the communities that depend on softwood lumber if they would prefer a continuation of the dispute, with all that implies in terms of effort and dollars, or the concrete and immediate settlement that this hard-won agreement provides.

After a careful examination of the facts, I am convinced that hon. members will come to the same conclusion as the provinces and the industry: that this agreement represents the best solution for the future of the Canadian softwood lumber industry, for the 300 communities and the 300,000 workers and their families who depend on softwood lumber.

This agreement is in the best interest of Quebec and of Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for West Nova, Canada Post; the hon. member for Mississauga South, Foreign Affairs.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the parliamentary secretary. He kept repeating that this was the best possible deal for Canada. There are two points that I want to raise with him.

How can this possibly be the best possible deal when it contains a provision that we have to fund the very coalition that has been wreaking havoc on our softwood lumber industry, that has put so many workers out of jobs in Canada, that has threatened so many communities, and that has hurt so many of our companies?

We are funding that coalition by $500 million to continue that kind of work and pursue new opportunities to ruin Canadian industry. How can that be the best possible deal for Canada which would fund the U.S. coalition for fair lumber imports to the tune of half a billion dollars?

Furthermore, how can it be the best possible deal for Canada when it does not close the loopholes that allow for the export of raw logs?

That is a huge outpouring of Canadian resources into other countries where they are going to be processed. They are going to be processed south of the border instead of here in Canada, putting Canadian workers out of work. That is a retreat to the old expression that Canadians were hewers of wood and drawers of water, the old expression that highlighted the exploitation of our natural resources in Canada and the exploitation of Canadian workers. Here again, this agreement, by not addressing the question of the loophole around raw log exports, is forcing us back into that position.

How does the parliamentary secretary respond to those two particular issues?