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.

[Mike Beck, Operations Manager, Capacity Forest Management]

Thank you.

I'm Mike Beck with Capacity Forest Management. I'm their operational planner. We have managed over 20 first nation clients in B.C. We help gather tenure through government to government as well as licencee negotiations. We've also been instrumental in two foundation agreements that have taken place in B.C. with the shíshálh Indian band as well as Lake Babine Nation.

I've been invited to discuss the impacts of the softwood lumber dispute and how it is creating issues with first nations businesses and collaborations with forestry licensees, businesses and lumber mills in B.C.

As you know, a few people have already noted that the softwood lumber agreement has basically been a long outstanding issue between Canada and the United States. Basically, this agreement that we've been sitting on has been expired since 2015. The current government hasn't seemed to place the softwood lumber agreement as a top priority to settle during the negotiation processes and ratification of NAFTA between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. The softwood lumber issues around the competition between Canada and the United States lumber companies are a major problem resulting from differences in their respective forest management principles.

The dispute is based on the U.S. lumber industry opposing the low Canadian stumpage rates and transportation costs, perceived by the U.S. as an unfair advantage that subsidizes our lumber industry. The U.S. has been imposing duties and tariffs on Canada since the early 1900s, and the softwood lumber dispute is not going away any time soon.

Canadian forest management principles are vastly different, and to compare one against the other is very onerous and well documented. A healthy Canadian log and lumber business requires certainty and fair market pricing. In order to achieve this, the Canadian government needs to bring the softwood lumber agreement to the forefront and finalize a long-term deal that avoids protectionist measures on both sides of the border.

Canadian logs and lumber require unencumbered access to world markets in order to return the highest possible pricing. Protectionist measures in this case create an unnecessary cost to Canadian sawmillers, and these costs are passed on to the log sellers, which pushes log prices down domestically. Recent court decisions and reconciliation agreements for first nations are providing control of their timber resources within their unceded territory. The federal government needs to create forestry policies that will ensure success, sustainability and create long-term, meaningful jobs in the industry as well as first nations businesses and ventures.

Imposed U.S. countervailing duties and tariffs have denied the maximum price on logs, which has impacted profit margins for first nations businesses that sell to Canadian mills. There's a requirement for major reforms and policy to remove restrictions on log exports in order to eliminate uncertainty in the Canadian forest industry and allow the highest return and highest prices for our renewable resource.

Duties and tariffs need to be eliminated and a long-term softwood lumber agreement needs to be ratified to ensure a healthy, sustainable and stable forest industry in Canada. The impacts for first nations forestry businesses are, again, another vital component. It's impacting negatively with our first nations businesses, agreements and collaborations with Canadian forest industry partners.

Canada is required to challenge and amend the Export and Import Permits Act that would ratify the softwood lumber agreement, as there are significant impacts. The current U.S. countervailing duties and tariffs are affecting the economic success of the Canadian forest industry, including first nations businesses that are selling their logs to local Canadian lumber mills.

Some Canadian first nations bands, as part of the ongoing reconciliation process such as foundation agreements, are receiving timber rights to harvest Crown timber within their unceded territories. These first nations forestry opportunities, timber tenures and licences provide economic benefit and stability, long-term employment and training opportunities for first nations communities and future first nations business investment opportunities. The impacts of the current softwood duties and tariffs on the Canadian first nations forestry business is that Canadian local sawmills are basing their log purchase pricing on current log markets but factor in the percentage of the tariffs and duties so that the mills pay to reduce the log prices, which impacts first nations businesses and projects negatively.

As well, the U.S. countervailing duties and tariffs impact the bottom line for first nations businesses and ventures. They're looking for the highest economic benefit for their timber resources within their unceded territory.

Currently, with the economies of scale of first nation forestry businesses being upstream log sellers, they are additionally impacted financially as their businesses will not see any reimbursement of duty deposits from the United States once a dispute is settled, as these costs are typically factored into the local mill log purchase pricing agreements at the beginning of the projects.

Ultimately, I'm drawn back to the current government mandate, in which one of their top priorities is reconciliation with Canadian indigenous people, as well as wanting to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to allow government to bring federal laws and policies for Canadian first nations to pursue economic, social and cultural development needs. Based on the government non-action to settle the long-standing softwood lumber agreement, it is not placed in value for Canadian first nation forestry businesses and the Canadian forest industry. Again, there is a requirement to ratify in NAFTA, Bill C-4, regarding the long-standing softwood lumber agreement, to remove the tariffs and duties. If that is not in place and there's no agreement, this will create considerable adverse effects and restrictions for the first nation forestry businesses.

As for some of the impacts that we're currently seeing with the softwood lumber agreement, some first nations forestry businesses are having a hard time being successful and sustainable. As well, first nation business-to-business agreements and collaborations with other Canadian forest industry partners, ultimately impacting forest economic earnings to the nations and bands, are also creating some issues. Lower lumber market pricing and duties and tariffs, creating mill closures or curtailments, are creating some issues as well around the nations and territories. We're also seeing major licensees establish more mills in the United States than Canada due to the additional duties and taxes, to ensure market competitiveness and balance their dependence on local Canadian log supply. These moves create fewer good-paying jobs for Canadians, as well as first nation band members, and limit log-pricing competition to sell logs at lower market pricing, or better, with these mill closures.

In closing, I want to ensure that the softwood lumber agreement stays at the Canadian government's top priority for settlement and is ratified in some way that will make first nation businesses stay competitive and not be penalized any longer by the unfair and unjust United States' lumber tariffs and duties.

We need our Canadian government to defend our forest management systems and challenge the subsidy, to remove the tariffs and countervailing duties, since wood is used in a wide range of industries and doesn't qualify as a subsidy under U.S. law. As well, the actions of the U.S. are driven by protectionism rather than unfair management practices and stumpage rate determination.

Again, it will be vital to have collaborative discussions and engagement between government, first nation forestry businesses, and the Canadian forest industry to ensure a fair ratification of the softwood lumber agreement to make certain first nation businesses and ventures, and the Canadian forestry industry, economically successful and sustainable in Canada.

That is all I have to say. If you have any questions, I'll look forward to responding.

Opposition Motion—Softwood Lumber Agreement

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the friends and family of Jim Prentice. He was a respected parliamentarian, and my heart goes out to all of my colleagues who are mourning his tragic passing today.

Today's motion is timely, and I am glad my Conservative colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster has brought it forward for debate. The motion urges the government to take all necessary steps to prevent a trade war with the United States over softwood lumber exports.

I absolutely support the motion. For the many thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on this important industry, it is imperative that Canada secures a fair deal with the United States.

Softwood lumber is a vital part of Canada's forestry sector. For many rural communities, it is the backbone of their economy. According to Canada's labour force survey, in 2015, the forest industry accounted for 260,000 direct and indirect jobs, compared to just over 400,000 jobs in 2003. Hundreds of sawmills across Canada have been shuttered, taking with them high quality, well-paid jobs, the kind of jobs on which families and communities depend.

Today, the softwood lumber industry is on the verge of more job losses. With the expiry of the 2006 SLA, producers are bracing for more U.S. tariffs, which will further devastate an industry has has already been hard hit by the long-standing dispute with the U.S., as well as factors like the recent recession, the crash of the U.S. housing market, and domestic issues like the spread of the pine beetle across British Columbian forests.

Canadians producers and workers are hoping that a new SLA will bring fairness and predictability.

The Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute first began in 1982. For nearly 35 years, the American industry has argued that Canadian producers benefit from subsidization, a claim that has been defeated time and time again.

Over the years, there have been several managed trade agreements and upon their expiration, more duties slapped on Canadian exports to the U.S. and more costly litigation. Canada has spent in the ballpark of $100 million in legal fees to defend our position.

After the previous agreement expired in 2001, the U.S. levied $5.4 billion in duties on Canadian imports, money that should have stayed in the pockets of Canadians. It was the beginning of a decade of massive job loss in the Canadian industry.

Soon after the Conservatives were elected in early 2006, they quickly negotiated a new agreement with little to no consultation with Canadian stakeholders. The result was a very controversial agreement that many argued represented a sellout of Canadian interests. For starters, it was based on the falsehood that Canada's industry was subsidized, which tribunal after tribunal has said is not the case. This set a terrible precedent that the rules of trade did not apply.

The agreement provided an option for Canadian regions of an export tax or a quota with an export tax at a lower rate. It took $50 million from Canadian industry to create a binding dispute settlement system where the U.S. was able to bring more actions against Canada. Perhaps most egregiously, the agreement allowed the U.S. to keep $1 billion of the duties it illegally levied on Canadian producers.

At the time, BMO Nesbitt Burns analyst, Stephen Atkinson, said, “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.”

Canadians were furious with the 2006 SLA. When the Conservatives brought it to Parliament in the form of Bill C-24, the NDP argued vehemently against the agreement. When we look back at this agreement, it is fair to say that the Conservatives caved to American interests. Today, it is imperative that the Liberals do not do the same.

As we know, the 2006 agreement was renewed in 2012 and expired last October. The Liberals love to blame the Conservatives for failing to initiate negotiations on a new agreement. It would seem the Conservatives made zero effort to work on the issue before the election. However, the current government must shoulder the responsibility for its role in failing to get a new deal done in time. For months, the government has hinted at breakthroughs that have never materialized.

In March, the Prime Minister boasted, “I'm confident that we are on a track towards resolving this irritant in the coming weeks and months.” That is from the CBC. The fact is that the Liberals broke their own commitment and failed to get a deal done before time ran out.

Beyond softwood specifically, the government does not seem to have a plan for the forestry sector. The federal budget contained no vision for supporting this important industry, which provides jobs right across Canada. It also failed to renew funding for the forest innovation program, which expired earlier this year.

The international trade committee undertook a brief study of softwood lumber earlier this spring, given that the expiry of the standstill clause was fast approaching. Over the course of two meetings, we heard from witnesses from British Columbia, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. We heard a lot of frustrations about how Canada had gotten to the place it was at now. The 2006 SLA was a bad deal and the Conservatives did a poor job of negotiating it.

While many concede that another managed trade deal is better than more costly litigation, there is something inherently unfair about the fact that despite continued findings that Canada is not in the wrong, we continue to negotiate agreements that are clearly in the interests of U.S. industry. Many witnesses expressed a desire to see Canada and the U.S. reach a negotiated settlement, one that would work for all our regions. However, I also heard very clearly that people did not want another bad deal. Quebec, for example, has made a lot of changes in its forestry practices and any new agreement must recognize these and other regional differences. A one-size-fits-all solution simply will not do.

One important voice we did not get to hear from at committee was labour. The United Steelworkers, which represents some 40,000 forestry workers, has laid out several requirements for what it would like to see happen now that the 2006 SLA has expired.

It wants the creation of provincial forest community restoration fund. These funds would be invested in workers, forest-dependent communities, and forest health. It wants fair access to the U.S. lumber market and discourages a new quota system. It also wants a guarantee that Canadian producers will have the same access to the U.S. market that other countries will enjoy.

I appreciate the perspective of the United Steelworkers because it represents the workers' point of view. For workers, these three things would help give them greater job security and strengthen, instead of weaken, the industry.

The committee's final report made five recommendations to the government, including that it get a deal done that would serve Canadian interests, that it consult with big and small producers, and that any new deal respect regional differences. The committee submitted its report to the House last spring, but as the summer went on, we continued hearing worry and concern over the lack of progress on the government's part. In August, opposition committee members, including myself, pushed for a summer meeting to get an update from the department.

We also called on the government to broaden its consultations and convene a round table of stakeholders that had been excluded in the past. The Liberals rejected this proposal and, quite shockingly, called the whole meeting a waste of time.

In just a few short months, Canadian producers expect to be hit with U.S. tariffs of around 25%. Mills will be shut down right across Canada. Thousands of jobs will be lost. It is extremely important that the government gets this deal done right and gets it done fast. I hope the government understands the gravity of what these job losses will mean in our communities: thousands of people with no jobs to go to, no more paycheques to bring home, and families worried about how to pay the rent or make the next mortgage payment.

I am from southwestern Ontario and people in Essex know what it is like to lose a lot of jobs in one sector. It is tough and people are resilient, but it is very difficult for families and communities to work through these types of events. I urge the government to act in the interests of those whose jobs are on the line. That means getting the deal right and working collaboratively with the communities that will be impacted by another round of duties.

If the Liberal government is serious about holding out for a good deal, instead of signing a bad one tomorrow, then it owes Canadians more transparency and openness about how it will help Canada's industry weather this impending trade storm. Some in the industry want the government to provide loan guarantees to help them deal with a new round of U.S. duties. If this prevents sawmills from closing and jobs from being lost, then it is imperative that the government provide this support. Canadians deserve answers from the government, not more empty promises and hollow words about meetings and consultations.

The New Democratic Party supports this motion and urges the government to make a new agreement that is in the best interests of Canadians a top priority.

[Richard Garneau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Resolute Forest Products]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this opportunity to talk with you today about the future of softwood lumber production in Canada.

My company, Resolute Forest Products, is the largest producer of softwood lumber east of the Rockies. We are also one of the world's leading producers of newsprint and specialty papers, as well as wood pulp, with some 40 plants in Canada, the United States and South Korea. Our main office is in Montreal, and we have more than 7,700 employees.

I am aware of widespread comments to the effect that the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement has benefited Canada. Ms. Hillman, from Global Affairs Canada, testified before this committee in February that the agreement was “a success”. The mantra has been that the agreement produced predictability and stability. Unfortunately, the reality is it absolutely did not. Managed trade is almost always more volatile when embedded in market forces.

As you know, there was no management of the housing market, the primary source of demand for softwood lumber, and there was no management of financial markets. I am sharing with you a graph that shows how unpredictable and unstable trade in softwood lumber was between Canada and the United States during the 2006 agreement. During this time, western Canadian softwood lumber producers benefited from China's extraordinary economic development. In central Canada, however, the Chinese market is logistically out of reach.

Western producers also bought some 40 sawmills in the U.S., with a productive capacity of about five billion board feet, affording them an important measure of insulation from future restrictive measures. To put this capacity into context, it is over 150% of the total existing capacity of Ontario's sawmills and about the same production capacity of Quebec.

Canadian demand is simply not enough to absorb all the production of central Canadian sawmills. We need to be able to sell freely to the United States. Indeed, that was the whole point of NAFTA, and just about every industry enjoys free trade in North America, except for softwood lumber.

Mr. Dhaliwal asked federal officials in February before this committee whether, when they are negotiating an agreement, the implications might be harder on one province or another. Ms. Hillman answered that the recently expired agreement had been the very best deal for the whole country. Regrettably, that conclusion is not supported by the facts. The deal was dramatically harder on some parts of the country than others.

Answering another question from Mr. Dhaliwal, Ms. Hillman repeated that an alternative to litigation would be a deal, and a deal would necessarily be better than litigation. An alternative to litigation does not constitute a trade policy. The Liberal Party knew that and wisely voted against Bill C-24 in 2006. I urge the government to remember that the deal was not good for the whole country. It was in fact incredibly destructive for central Canada.

The purpose of a deal is to ensure fair and equitable trade. The willingness to give up free trade to escape litigation is like offering your lunch to the schoolyard bully before he takes it by force. If you give him your lunch today, he may not be content with only your lunch in the days that follow. Our negotiators, our gladiators, must be concerned not just with getting a deal, but rather with the deal that they get.

From experience, we know that the United States does not always play by the rules, and makes up new rules as it goes to protect its industries. This pattern of behaviour that we have experienced for more than three decades has discouraged our industry. The Americans always find a way to win, even when they lose, undermining our rights under international trade laws and agreements. The U.S. does believe in free trade, fair trade. Their view is that, if they get it for free, then it is fair.

The unavoidable truth is that Canadians have won every legal fight with the United States over softwood lumber. We have played by the rules, but our last government decided not to support its industry and capitulated. The government of Mr. Harper expropriated $1 billion U.S. from the Canadian industry and gave it as ransom to our competitors, even though Canada has proven, according to the law, that its industry was not subsidized and did not cause injury.

Softwood lumber producers in Ontario and Quebec need free trade. Western Canadian producers may be satisfied with another managed trade agreement, what with the benefits of easy access to the Asian market, and their U.S. sawmills. We are not.

The federal government is the government for all of Canada, and it is bound to defend our interests every bit as much as British Columbia's and those of the Maritime provinces.

The government of Quebec instituted in 2013 an auction-based stumpage system producing market prices, a system patterned on that used by the U.S. Forest Service and the states with forest lands.

Quebec industry must have access to free trade because its timber prices are market prices. Quebec has a forestry regime that conforms to all American demands.

Ontario's residual value system was validated by a NAFTA special panel in 2005, a full year before the capitulation and the ransom payment. The special panel determined that softwood lumber producers in Ontario were not subsidized and should, therefore, be excluded from countervailing duties and benefit from free trade. A strong argument for that position remains in place today.

If there is to be a deal, it must recall a principled purpose: that the Canadian softwood lumber industry does compete fairly in North America and pays a fair market price for timber, and that our forestry regimes are market-based. The Government of Canada must not negotiate a deal that does not fully recognize central Canada's right to free trade. The last government did not take central Canada's interests into account. The government today can, and should, recognize market-based changes. It must not negotiate an agreement that fails to recognize that NAFTA also must apply to softwood lumber.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members. I am available to answer any questions.

Report Stage Amendments—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before addressing the selection and grouping of report stage motions for Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts, I would like to address the point of order raised on May 6, 2014, by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising this matter as well as the Government Leader in the House, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and the members for Toronto—Danforth, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, and Winnipeg North for their comments.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands raised concerns that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs adopted a motion requiring all remaining questions necessary to dispose of its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill to be put by a specified time, effectively creating a deadline for the debate to end. She argued that this motion contradicts an earlier committee order adopted on October 29, 2013, which gives members from non-recognized parties the ability to speak to their suggested amendments to bills before they are voted on by the committee. Because of the imposed deadline, the member's opportunity to speak to her amendments was interfered with, pursuant to the committee order of October 29, 2013. As such, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands suggested that substantive amendments, even if already voted on by the committee, should be selected for consideration at report stage. Several members rose in support of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' point of order.

The government House leader made two central points in response. First, he reminded the House that at report stage the Speaker's authority to select report stage amendments is limited to determining whether they were presented, or could have been presented at committee. Second, he pointed out that the deadline adopted by the committee affected all members the same way, so it is inaccurate to claim that members from unrecognized parties and independents were particularly penalized in this regard.

In examining the matter, it is useful to remind the House of the power of the Speaker to select amendments at report stage. To place the matter in its proper context, it is helpful to refer to the March 21, 2001, statement by Speaker Milliken, found at page 1991 of the Debates, which establishes the guidelines upon which I rely to discharge my responsibility to select amendments at report stage. Speaker Milliken was clear in his intent when he urged:

…all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work the committee has done…

These principles are also reflected in the interpretive notes attached to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5). House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, further expands on these principles, explaining at pages 783 and 784 that:

…the Speaker will normally only select motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee.

I would remind all members that the guidelines for selection specify whether amendments could have been presented in committee and whether they were defeated in committee. In the case of the committee's consideration of Bill C-23, all members of the committee, as well as any interested independent member, were given the opportunity to present their amendments at committee, and a certain number of these amendments were defeated. The hon. member is now asking the Chair, in exercising its powers of selection, to evaluate whether the consideration afforded such amendments in committee was sufficient.

It is evident that the committee chose to handle its consideration of Bill C-23 in a particular way. A motion setting out the process to be followed was proposed, debated, and ultimately agreed to. Just as the opportunity to present and speak to amendments was decided by way of a committee motion, the deadline by which debate would end likewise was decided by a committee motion. Such decisions are the exclusive responsibility of the committee. I do not believe that it is for the Chair to second-guess how committees choose to manage their business.

The hon. member has asked that I select motions for consideration at report stage because she was not able to debate them in committee. In doing so, she referred to a ruling I gave on December 12, 2012, whereby I noted that I would continue to select motions from independent members at report stage until such time as a satisfactory method was found for them to participate in the clause-by-clause consideration at committee. I understand that the hon. member found unsatisfactory the opportunities afforded to her at the procedure and House affairs committee in relation to Bill C-23. Other members of the committee echoed they too were not satisfied that certain amendments were not debated once the committee's self-imposed deadline was reached. That said, it remains clear to me that the committee considered and voted on all amendments she is asking me to select.

In 2006, Speaker Milliken dealt with a somewhat analogous situation in relation to Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act.

On November 6, 2006, the hon. member for Burnaby-New Westminster raised a point of order regarding the decision of the Standing Committee on International Trade to limit debate and set a strict deadline by which point debate would end.

Though the situation was different insofar as he was a member of the committee concerned, I believe Speaker Milliken's response, found on page 4756 of Debates, was instructive:

I do think that committees are masters of their own procedure. They are entitled to make provisions in adopting orders in the committee that govern the way they are going to conduct their business...The committee is allowed to make amendments to the bill. The committee has imposed rules on how those amendments will be dealt with in the committee and how members will be able to address the issues raised by the amendments. It seems to me that [it] is entirely within the jurisdiction of the committee and indeed [it] is [a] quite normal exercise of its powers.

When the bill was taken up at report stage, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster submitted a large number of the amendments that had been defeated in committee, and asked the Chair to select them on the basis that they had not been debated in committee.

In a ruling I gave as Acting Speaker on November 21, 2006, found on page 5125 of Debates, I declined to do so, reminding the House that:

...the Chair selects motions which further amend an amendment adopted by a committee, motions which make consequential changes based on an amendment adopted by a committee and motions which delete a clause. Aside from this, the Chair is loath to select motions unless a member makes a compelling argument for selection based on the exceptional significance of the amendment.

As far as the Chair is concerned, in keeping with past precedents, I cannot see how the imposition of a deadline for the end of the debate could constitute a justifiable argument for the selection of amendments at report stage that were already presented and defeated in committee.

Notice of Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006. I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on October 9, 2009, by the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel regarding the use of Standing Order 56.1 to disallow further amendments and subamendments at the second reading stage of Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I want to thank the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, as well as the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. Minister of State and Chief Government Whip for their comments.

The member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel argued that the motion of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, having been moved pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, should be ruled out of order since it does not fall within the definition of a routine motion as prescribed in that Standing Order. Instead, he argued that the Standing Order was used to limit debate, in the same fashion as moving the previous question.

In addition to agreeing with the arguments raised by the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, the member for Vancouver East expressed concern about the expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 and the “creeping, sort of incremental change” accompanying this, which then led her to question the appropriateness of its use in this case. She added that there are other mechanisms available to the government to manage the amount of time allocated to debate on Bill C-23.

The chief government whip contended that the government was applying Standing Order 56.1 correctly and that there had been previous instances where the Standing Order was used in this fashion.

For the benefit of members, the motion adopted on October 9, 2009, reads as follows:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, the second reading stage of Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, shall not be subject to any further amendments or sub-amendments.

As mentioned by the member for Vancouver East, similar concerns over the expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 were raised in 2001 when it was used for the disposition of a bill at various stages. When I ruled on that point of order on September 18, 2001 in the Debates at pages 5256 to 5258, I expressed reservations about the trend toward using that Standing Order for purposes other than for motions of a routine nature. My predecessor had already urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the use of Standing Order 56.1, and I reiterated this need for the committee to do so at the earliest opportunity.

In the absence of such feedback, on May 13, 2005 in the Debates at pages 5973 to 5974, I allowed a motion that provided for the completion of the second reading stage of two bills to be moved pursuant to Standing Order 56.1. Again, I highlighted the fact that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs still had not undertaken a study of Standing Order 56.1, and as such, I was not in a position to rule definitively on the appropriateness of that Standing Order's use and I stated the following on that occasion.

I believe having had nothing back [from the committee] I can only allow this one to proceed at this time, particularly so when the time allocated here is much more generous than would be the case under closure or under time allocation…Accordingly the motion appears to be in order.

Similarly, on October 3, 2006, I allowed a motion moved pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 which in part disallowed further amendments or subamendments to the second reading stage of Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006. Another motion with such provisions was allowed to proceed on December 12, 2007, in reference to Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007.

As was the case in those two most recent examples, even though the current motion disallows further amendments and subamendments, it still allows members who have not yet done so to speak to the amendment and the main motion. Furthermore, as I then stated in my ruling in the Debates on October 3, 2006 at page 3571:

The motion does not set a deadline for completion of the proceedings, as would be the case under time allocation or closure...There is a significant difference.

This does not, however, negate the concerns expressed by members over time about the need for a clearer and agreed upon understanding of this Standing Order. The following quote from my 2006 ruling still applies in this case:

My predecessor and I have both encouraged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of the Standing Order. To date I am not aware of any report by that committee on this question.

Should the House feel the need to change the parameters pertaining to the use of Standing Order 56.1, I would suggest once more that members bring their concerns to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Since the committee has not yet offered clear direction on the definition of Standing Order 56.1, and since motions disallowing amendments and subamendments have been ruled admissible in the past, I rule that the motion moved by the Government House Leader on October 9, 2009 is in order.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all l would like to thank the hon. member for Halifax West for his insightful comments.

I thank my Bloc colleague for his motion and want him to know right off that I share his opinion on the need to establish a plan to help the forest industry. My party therefore supports the spirit of this motion. However, my colleague will not be surprised to hear me say that the plan should apply to the industry as a whole and not just to the portion of it in la belle province of Quebec.

The forest industry in Quebec, the Maritimes, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia is facing major challenges these days. If we think back, we will remember that the Liberal government itself put forward a forestry strategy in 2005.

On November 24, 2005, the Liberal government announced, in partnership with forest industry stakeholders, a true plan for the forestry sector, a forest industry competitiveness strategy committing $1.5 billion over five years. This strategy included: $215 million for the development of new technologies in areas such as the pulp and paper industry to enhance its competitiveness; $50 million to support the forest industry to develop bioenergy and cogeneration power technology; $90 million to support innovation in value-added wood products; $66 million in wood product market development; $10 million to enhance workplace skills in the forest sector; $150 million to help forest dependent communities diversify economically; $800 million in loan support to help Canada's forest companies invest to improve competitiveness; and $100 million in loan support for small forest sector businesses.

We can see that the Liberal government had anticipated quite a bit of what is happening today. Upon forming government in 2006, the Conservatives, however, cancelled the plan. Today Canadian forestry workers are paying the price for that action. Instead of investing then in improving technology, skills and competitiveness to strengthen the industry and to save jobs, Canada now faces tens of thousands of job losses. Since the Conservatives took over government, Canada has lost 18,000 forest sector jobs. Not only that, they negotiated a poor settlement on the softwood lumber dispute and we are paying the price today.

As regards the softwood lumber agreement with the United States, the Liberal Party of Canada has always supported a two-step approach to resolving the dispute over softwood lumber—arbitration by the courts and negotiation.

On September 19, 2006, the Liberal Party voted against the agreement on softwood lumber, and, on December 6, 2006, against Bill C-24 on the softwood lumber export fees. The Liberal Party wanted to be sure the Conservative government would respect the North American Free Trade Agreement and keep its election promise to recover all the customs duties collected illegally by the United States.

We believe the softwood lumber agreement is full of holes for the following reasons.

It is a reversal of the position adopted by successive federal governments and supported by NAFTA and World Trade Organization trade panels that our softwood lumber sector is not subsidized.

It compromises Canada's chances of helping a sector already in difficulty, by handing part of our sovereignty over our natural resources to our American competitors. The fallout of such capitulation will be felt in future disputes, which will no doubt arise not only in the softwood lumber industry, but also in other sectors facing the same accusations by our American competitors.

It creates an export tax, which, at the current rate, is in fact higher than the illegal American customs duties of the past.

It strips NAFTA of any credibility as arbitrator of trade disputes and voids the principles governing such discussions.

It drops $500 million into the hands of the American forestry sector, which uses it to fund legal and political attacks against the Canadian industry and another $500 million into the hands of the American government.

And, finally, it contains anti fluctuation provisions that will deny the Canadian industry the flexibility it needs to deal with the unexpected, such as the infestation of the pine beetle.

The Conservatives claim that their softwood lumber agreement put an end to the dispute, but the United States began consultations questioning the forestry policies of Ontario and Quebec within seven months of signing the agreement.

Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Alberta face the same attacks. It is the $500 million the Conservatives handed over to the Americans that is being used to finance these attacks. On April 4, 2007, the Liberal Party announced that a Liberal government would organize a national summit on the forestry sector bringing together the stakeholders—public officials, the localities involved and the forestry sector—to work out responsible measures for the environment and protect jobs in the Canadian localities.

Instead of being proactive in investing to strengthen the industry, the Conservatives are now being reactive, announcing band-aid programs. The Conservatives' lack of vision has led to this crisis in the forest sector and caused many Canadians their jobs.

For our softwood industry, the Conservatives' softwood lumber deal has also been a failure. The Conservatives rushed into a flawed agreement that left $1 billion in the pockets of the United States. The Conservative government said that the softwood lumber agreement would put an end to litigation, yet Canada is back in court.

Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal Party believes that there is a role for government to play in helping these sectors and the workers who depend on them.

My party has long recognized that action is essential. Accordingly, it is prepared to support a real plan to help the forest industry, a plan that would include a series of specific measures to ensure sustainable development.

[Jack Siegel]

Under Bill C-24, the banks, being somewhat conservative in their practices, pulled away somewhat, certainly in my experience, from their generosity in the political process. That was not only because their political giving was so limited but was because the status quo, as it stands today, and in the absence of this bill, is that a loan becomes a contribution if it defaults. They can't just be generous and write it off in accordance with their practices, which is one of the exceptions, in which case somebody is going to scream about who gave the politician a break when they do write it off.

There was a very real concern under Bill C-24 about not getting into the situation of becoming an illegal contributor or taking a guarantee that made somebody an illegal contributor because their guarantee did convert anyhow, if called upon, into a contribution.

So the problem already exists. This legislation.... And I did, when it was introduced, call a friend who works for one of the banks. His answer was that there's just no way he'd be recommending to his client that it engage in any loans here. And the point we discussed was just that of the guarantee, the logistical problem of 50 guarantees, and how much paperwork that is for a $50,000 loan over a short term. There's not much profit in those loans, yet you're going to put a lot of person power into it.

But over and above that problem is the illegal guarantee, because the guarantor also made a contribution to another candidate in another riding, unbeknownst.... You're all innocent in doing this. And the unsophisticated but generous person doesn't even realize that he or she has overstepped. Is that guarantee, being an illegal guarantee under this legislation, an enforceable guarantee? The bank has no way of knowing the answer to that question. They don't want to find out by litigation. We lawyers charge enough that it's going to cost them more than any margin or risk they had on the table to begin with.

It's only one conversation, but if you can ask the banks—and I can understand their lack of great desire to get up in public and talk about what they will or won't do in the political sphere—whether they are really anxious to do this business under these terms, I strongly suggest that the answer is going to be “not really”.

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development--Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Before going to orders of the day I would like to give the ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Wascana regarding the use of Standing Order 56.1 to timetable the proceedings on a bill in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

On May 31, 2007 during routine proceedings the government House leader sought, but did not obtain, unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, when the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development convenes a meeting, it shall not be adjourned or suspended until it completes the committee stage of Bill C-44 except pursuant to a motion by a parliamentary secretary and, provided the bill is adopted by the committee, agrees to report the bill to the House within two sitting days following the completion of the committee stage.

He then moved the motion again pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 and the motion was adopted when fewer than 25 members rose to object. A short time later, the hon. member for Wascana raised a point of order regarding the use of Standing Order 56.1. He was supported by interventions from the hon. member for Joliette and the hon. member for Hamilton Centre, while the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that the motion adopted earlier had been appropriately presented under Standing Order 56.1.

Given that a meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was imminent, I delivered an immediate ruling promising that the Chair would return to the House later with reasons. I am now prepared to do so.

First, the Chair would like to thank all hon. members who intervened on the point of order for their contributions on this question and is particularly grateful that members have taken note of certain key rulings, specifically those the Speaker delivered on September 18, 2001 and October 3, 2006.

A key element in my ruling today is the fundamental precept that standing committees are masters of their own procedure. Indeed, so entrenched is that precept that only in a select few Standing Orders does the House make provision for intervening directly into the conduct of standing committee affairs. In addition to the power the House has to give instructions to committees by way of a substantive motion that is subject to debate, there are, of course, Standing Orders 57 and 78, which can be used by the House to allocate time or for closure proceedings on a bill in committee. It is toward the use of these very instruments that the Speaker directed the House in his ruling of September 18, 2001, on Debates page 5257, where, as the hon. member for Wascana pointed out, the Speaker stated:

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.

Let us now turn to the Speaker’s ruling of October 3, 2006 allowing the use of Standing Order 56.1 to extend, in an open-ended fashion, the debate on Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber bill.

It should be noted at the outset that when Standing Order 56.1 was used in reference to Bill C-24, the bill was then before the House at second reading, not before a standing committee. In allowing the use of Standing Order 56.1 in that case the Speaker did so with some concern and on the basis that:

The precedents available to me, including my own previous rulings, are [therefore] insufficient for me to rule the motion out of order on this occasion.

This is part of the Speaker's ruling quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. At the time the Speaker had more to say. He also encouraged, as had Mr. Speaker Parent before him, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of this Standing Order, a pretty clear indication of the difficulties with which the House has had to deal when Standing Order 56.1 has been invoked in questionable circumstances.

In the present case, the Chair has looked carefully at the wording of Standing Order 56.1, which states in reference to the House itself that the Standing Order can be used to move motions in relation to “the management of its business” and “ the arrangement of its proceedings”. Interestingly, the only reference to committees in the Standing Order is one allowing motions for “the establishing of the powers of its committees”, suggesting that the rule was meant to be used not to reach into the conduct of standing committee affairs to direct them, but rather in a routine manner, to provide them powers they do not already possess. A review of the previous uses of Standing Order 56.1 appears to support this. The only examples dealing with standing committees or standing committee activity the Chair has been able to find have to do with granting standing committees the power to travel. The power to travel is, as all hon. members know, a power standing committees do not possess and so the use of Standing Order 56.1 in that regard falls squarely within the parameters of the rule.

Accordingly, to repeat the words I used when this matter was first raised, the use of Standing Order 56.1 to direct the business of the committee, of any committee, is a new development in the House and one that I find out of order.

I thank all hon. members who intervened for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their interventions, although I believe that you will find in your ruling that there has been precedents set, as was in the case of Bill C-24, and you will rule this motion in order.

I just want to respond to my colleague, the hon. House leader for the Bloc Québécois, who was making the argument that perhaps in some manner, witnesses coming from far afield would be inconvenienced. In fact, just the opposite is true. Witnesses are already here, witnesses from Saskatchewan and other provinces, since there is a committee meeting starting in approximately four minutes.

Therefore, there is absolutely no inconvenience to any witnesses. In fact, it gives them an even longer opportunity to present their case before the committee so that the committee will have the ability, should it choose to sit extended hours.

I would argue that there is more opportunity for not only witnesses but committee members to discuss this bill and in fact, that is quite the opposite of closure. It is giving all committee members an opportunity to speak for as long as they wish, which I think, quite frankly, is entirely democratic.

Document for Committee Chairs

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Halton wants to continue to heckle, perhaps he can add to the debate after I am done instead of just shouting out his nonsense.

The reality is that this is a similar document that all parties produce to help train their individual members. I note that this internal document, as I say, is not a government document. It is something that was produced by the Conservative Party to assist our chairs.

Since the NDP members are so concerned about this, perhaps they could reveal to us their playbook or explain their tactics when they were delaying and continue to delay Bill C-45, the Fisheries Act; or Bill C-44, the amendments to the Human Rights Act; or their earlier extensive delay in filibustering Bill C-24, the softwood lumber act. In all of those things they employed tactics to delay passage of government legislation.

What about a chapter from their playbook dealing with moving concurrence motions to obstruct government legislation from following the due process and the procedure that we have become accustomed to in passing through the chamber? Instead, they resort, almost daily, to moving concurrence motions to delay that legislation.

I have remarked that the further training of our chairs, our committee members and, indeed, all of our caucus is to ensure that we are well aware of any procedural tools that we might have as a government, recognizing that we are a minority government and that we are outnumbered, not only in the chamber but at each and every standing committee. When we are confronted, as we have been by the opposition parties, which have become increasingly obstructionist, with a lot of legislation, we need to ensure we use every possible tool at our disposal to get our legislation passed through the committees, passed through the chamber and ultimately passed through a Liberal dominated Senate to become law in order that we can keep the promises that we made to the Canadian people in the last election campaign.

I have been noting that the people of Canada did not elect a coalition government of opposition parties. They elected a minority Conservative government and we have been trying to govern as such.

It is certainly my contention that this is an internal party document and that all parties have similar types of documents. It is beyond the pale that we would start out this final week with this bogus question of privilege.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cannavino, Mr. Francoeur, good afternoon. I have a few comments to make. Mr. Francoeur, thank you for your testimony and, in particular, for pointing out the contradiction between the fact that the government wants to have stiffer sentences, but is not concerned about the easy availability of weapons. You will not have to work very hard to convince a number of us.

It seems to me that there are two types of measures that are really needed to fight crime. First, there is the firearms registry. If I were appointed Minister of Justice or Public Security, the first thing I would do would be to look at parole. I do not think that this bill will have a big effect on the problems you are describing.

Mr. Cannavino, you will be pleased to know that the Defence Lawyers' Association supports this bill. They told us—see how all is right with the world!—that in practice, magistrates, justices of the peace and judges did not release people on bail who had committed firearms offences. Obviously, not everyone might agree. I introduced a motion on street gangs, and I hope that my colleagues on the government side in a great gesture of friendship such as we have seen all too rarely over the past few years in this committee, will pass it on Thursday morning.

Mr. Cannavino, you were there when parliamentarians considered Bills C-84, C-24 and C-36. You know how concerned the Bloc Québécois and others are about gangsters and street gangs. People in Montreal and Toronto, especially your colleague Mr. Robinette from Montreal, have told us that drive-by shootings are not covered by the definition of criminal organization in the Criminal Code. Should we not include that immediately? When people are intercepted, a drive-by shooting is not enough to prove that they belong to a street gang and can therefore be charged. They can obviously be charged with homicide and other offences, but it would be better to have a charge of gangsterism, since that delays parole and results in longer sentences.

If we have to choose between a bill like C-35, which seems to us to entrench a practice which already exists, and not being more vigilant with the firearms registry and not changing the definition of criminal organization in the Criminal Code, I would opt for the latter approaches.

I would like to hear from your colleague, Mr. Francoeur, yourself or any of the other witnesses who might like to comment, but I would first say that I find the current system, which allows people to serve only one-sixth of their sentences, totally unacceptable. One-third would be understandable. But the revolving door scenario that you have described does not seem to me to have too much to do with Bill C-35; it stems more from the fact that people can serve just six months of a sentence—Some crimes that allow perpetrators to be eligible for release after one-sixth of the sentence are much more serious than these. Gun smuggling is a real concern. There are people eligible to serve no more than one-sixth of their sentences who pose a much greater danger to society, in my view.

I would have liked us to review this issue of serving one-sixth of sentences and of amending the Criminal Code to change the definition of criminal organization, which seem to me to be much greater priorities than bail for firearms offences, which is basically a non-issue in practice, if we are to believe the people who work on the frontlines.

[Greg Yost]

I won't go into the financial end of it, because I'm on the legal issues committee and we have no mandate on the finances. I rather suspect that will be an interesting issue when we get further down the road.

Basically, Bill C-240 was in the House and Bill C-279 was in the House, and when we did the consultation, the support was for a national one run by the RCMP. That's what we've been focusing on. If the federal government passed amendments to the DNA Identification Act or a separate missing persons data bank act with these kinds of safeguards and consents, etc., then the provinces would be under no obligation to make use of it. It would just be a service there for them to use if they wished. The higher your fee for service, the less likely they are to take advantage of it, I would imagine.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, the motion I've introduced is further to the testimony we heard — as you'll remember — at the time of the summary of Bills C-95 and C-24, and to the consultations I've had with Montreal police representatives. It has four objectives. And I'll be introducing a minor amendment that I'm going to explain to you.

First, I was very surprised to learn that the existing definition of criminal organization — that is to say a group that is not randomly formed, of three persons or more, one of the members of which commits serious offences, punishable by a prison term of more than five years, resulting in a material benefit, especially a financial benefit — does not cover the phenomenon of drive-by shootings.

This morning, for example, the Montreal police will be holding a press conference. Six crimes like the one I've just described to you have been committed since the start of the year. I don't need to tell you that that's also true in Toronto and Vancouver. I think we have to amend the definition of criminal organization to include acts by members of street gangs and that we wouldn't be able to rely directly on material benefit.

That's why it is not my intention to reduce the scope of the definition of criminal organization. However, I believe we should include drive-by shootings in it. For example, there have been 120 victims of street gang confrontations in Montreal in the past 10 years. That was the first aspect.

The second aspect relates to Mr. Bélanger's remarks, that the warrants that police officers obtain for GPS systems, which are a device used to follow a car, must be harmonized. This isn't wire-tapping; you can't intercept communications. However, it makes it possible to follow a car's movements and to link individuals to each other. It's very useful for making demonstrations in court.

By way of a third point, I'd like to introduce a minor amendment. The idea is that there obviously are more specialized prosecutors. We're winning the battle against organized crime because Crown attorneys have agreed to specialize. That takes two, three or four years of work; you have to be aware of that.

I think there'd have to be specialized attorneys in connection with street gangs. They have to know their modus operandi, how the individuals who belong to street gangs operate. However, I won't be talking about money because I wouldn't want the government to feel bound. We could remove the reference to the $5 million fund. The government could just make a sufficient fund available to the attorneys general of the provinces, over five years, to help them train specialized Crown attorneys. I wouldn't refer to any amount in particular.

In addition, I've learned that the government made specific amounts of money available to the City of Toronto to train Crown attorneys. I wonder whether Montreal, Vancouver and other communities could benefit from that. It's not that we want to be “Montrealists”, but that's a reality.

For the rest, the fourth part of the motion is obviously that the government establish a data base, a Web site where all court decisions and evidence gathered in all street gang trials would be available to all stakeholders. I want to be clear on this, since I took the trouble to state it: all stakeholders, in my mind, are police officers, Crown attorneys and obviously the ministers concerned, but not necessarily defence counsel.

At the trial stage, the Stinchcombe decision will apply and everyone will obviously have access to the evidence. However, I think that the immediate stakeholders, that is to say the police, the public department and the Department of Justice should have access to a secure file.

That, Mr. Chair, is the gist of my motion, even though you're not listening to me, which obviously gives the impression that we're an old couple. I hope that the proposal to withdraw the $5 million fund will help make everyone more comfortable.

[William Corbett]

Two phenomena have caused me concern in this. If we have elections every two years, we're in trouble because it doubles the workload. The effects of Bill C-24, which requires more and more reporting of financial matters--I think associations have to report certain particulars now that they didn't have to report before--give Elections Canada a much greater grasp of the financial aspects of how campaigns are run. Elections Canada is getting much better at identifying breaches of the rules, if you will.

So the workload is driven by the increasing ability of Elections Canada to monitor and identify non-compliance, and elections every two years. I would say there's roughly two and a half years' work after a particular election. So if we have an election in 2004, 2006, and 2007, the workload will become quite problematic.

[Sgt Guy Ouellette, Retired Sergeant, Sûreté du Québec]

I realize I'll have to be very concise in the next 10 minutes, Mr. Chair.

I was a police officer with Sûreté du Québec for 32 years. I've been retired for six years. I'm highly specialized in organized crime, both biker and Aboriginal organized crime. Most of the case law that was prepared for this committee, whether it be the Leclerc decision, the Carrier decision or the Lindsay-Bonner decision, concerns trials in which I had to testify as an expert witness.

The first anti-gang law was passed 10 years ago on May 2. I followed it, and I'm still very much involved at all levels because I still have to testify regularly across Canada in various cases.

I would have liked to tell you about the opportunity I had to write a book, which unfortunately is only available in French. It concerns the president of the Hells Angels, Maurice Boucher. By the way, those who read the Journal de Montréal this morning will see that picture on the front page. They say the Revenue Department will be seizing Mr. Boucher's houses. I want to tell you that the day we think about seizing their assets, we'll have understood that that's their life blood.

Bill C-53, which parliamentarians passed on November 25, 2005, hasn't yet been used by any police force in Canada. Why? I'd like to tell you right off the bat that organized crime very often takes advantage of the fact that the system is disorganized. It's disorganized because police officers don't talk to each other, because federal agencies don't talk to provincial agencies, because Bills C-95 and C-24, which have become the anti-gang laws, were passed because there were gang wars in Quebec. The rest of Canada didn't care; they were killing each other in Quebec.

We have a bill, Bill C-10, on firearms. Why? Because people are shooting guns in Toronto. And last year in Toronto, 52 murders were committed with firearms, including that of a young girl, Jane Creba, on December 26. Now there's pressure, and we're going to amend the Criminal Code of Canada because, I'm telling you and I repeat, it's the Criminal Code of Canada, not that of Quebec or Ontario.

We've had quite extraordinary results — Mr. Richmond told you about that — with regard to convictions for gangsterism in Quebec. I'd like us to do the same thing in Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.

You'll be hearing from someone from the Vancouver police department two days from now. Do the same thing for Vancouver, and you'll see that there have been very few gangsterism convictions there. You'll realize that, in the other Canadian provinces, when charges are laid for offences under Bill C-24 and C-95, they are withdrawn in exchange for a guilty plea on drug trafficking charges. That's what's called plea bargaining. It has a harmful effect.

I have two examples to cite on this point: one occurred in Ottawa and concerns the Hells Angels Nomads, who are based in Ottawa, in your beautiful city; the other one occurred in Oshawa, another project of an Ontario police department. The guy is going to be sentenced to six years for drug trafficking. But we have the Canadian Conditional Release Act. On a first sentence for drug trafficking, an individual is eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of his sentence; that's called accelerated parole review. As a result, a guy who is sentenced to six years can get out of prison after one year.

What's been done? If he had been convicted on gangsterism charges, the penalty would have been longer, harsher, but we could have asked that he at least serve half his sentence. That would delay his conditional release by the same length of time and would send a message. However, the message we're sending right now is this: we're charging you with engaging in gangsterism, but someone in British Columbia, the president of the Hells Angels, is filing an application to challenge the wording of section 467.11 because it isn't clear. Oops! Another trial is being held in Quebec in which lawyer Benoît Cliche is also challenging section 467.11. And now the blows are coming from everywhere. If you need information that the Vancouver police department has gathered as part of their investigation, I can't give it to you.

It's very, very hard to exchange information. That goes as far as it went in the Lindsay-Bonner case, which you have in your case law report. The Ontario Provincial Police was required to go and execute a search warrant in the exhibit vaults of a British Columbia police department to obtain evidence that would help it convict criminals on gangsterism charges.

We have to stop making up stories, splitting hairs and believing that we're good and nice. We'll be able to deal with organized crime if we talk to each other and if everyone in the system works together.

You parliamentarians have to decide on the fate of Bill C-10. You're leading the parade. You'll have to decide, to conduct a clause-by-clause consideration of a bill on firearms. Thank you! You're giving police agencies tools. Now they have to use them. Thank you! You're giving Crown attorneys tools. Now they have to use them.

Before Bill C-10, section 95 of the Criminal Code contained a provision stipulating that the minimum penalty for possession of a firearm was one year in prison, if the holder was charged with an indictable offence. But only a fine is provided for if the individual is found guilty on summary conviction. I'll tell you that, in my 10 years of fighting organized crime very closely with the units in the field, in a number of cases, people are charged under the summary conviction procedure in order to avoid work, save time and avoid a trial. So the criminals pulled up, took out their little case and paid the clerk their little fine. And we had to start all over again!

As regards gangsterism charges, subsection 515(6) of the Criminal Code provides that it is up to the accused to provide evidence in order to obtain his release, to give the system guarantees. It wasn't normal that there was an extensive operation in Toronto in which 125 individuals related to street gangs such as Jane Finch and another, the Jamestown Crew, were arrested. It wasn't normal that, for the vast majority of these people, it was the third time this year that they were arrested because they hadn't been charged with gangsterism and that the justice system had released them for all kinds of reasons.

For the majority of people who are charged in Quebec, there are automatic release investigations, particularly as regards organized crime. Moreover, I would say that, in more than 60 or 70 percent of cases, people will be detained following their release investigation, which is conducted with the assistance of police officers, experts and so on.

We have another problem in Canada. We want to have laws, we want to have a lot of things, but we have a big file on the Italian mafia. I checked with Claude a little earlier: we don't have an expert witness who can testify in order to prove gangsterism.

I've been retired from the Sûreté du Québec for six years, but I don't have a successor. I'm retired. When you retire, you're supposed to be at home in a rocking chair watching the cars go by your house. But they call me regularly because they have a problem and have to provide evidence of gangsterism. It takes an expert witness who is able to tell the story. So organizations have to provide for that.

It's not normal for a guy like Harry Delva, who, as he told you, is in the field in Montreal North and Ville Saint-Michel to tell you that, every day, in the pool of emerging street gangs, he sees youths of five, six, nine, 10 and 15 years of age, which corresponds to the real police definition of street gangs. However, every six months, he's forced to fight with various departments in order to authorize a program to train a successor. There's nothing permanent in his work, and he has no security. However, it's announced that there will be 2,500 police officers or more and $10 million to invest in prevention programs. Bu, every six months, he is forced to fight for $90,000 in funding. And yet he's the one who has them in his face every day.

I'll conclude by telling you that, in the few minutes you've allotted me, organized crime has fought the disorganized system. The day we manage to regularize the situation and work together just a little bit, there will be no more criminals. I wrote in my book that I find it hard to understand why 15,000 police officers can't control 150 bikers. The answer is simple: we all have to work on the same side and stop fighting over details. Give us the tools we need, and the police officer in the street will make his observations, the investigator will investigate, the attorney will do his job, the judge will decide, the conditional release guy will manage the sentence, and you'll pass laws to help those people. You have a social responsibility toward the citizens of Canada. But there won't be any difference between a gangsterism crime committed in Quebec and another committed in British Columbia, and no one in British Columbia...

Only three years ago, in 2003, the Hells Angels did a big national run in British Columbia. Quebec police officers who went to help their British Columbia colleagues were told that, if one of them was seen monitoring a Hells Angels member, he'd be put back on an airplane and sent home. Such is the fight against organized crime in Canada. I don't want to be very negative, because I still like doing what I do, and I still say yes when I'm asked to go and testify, but I think we have to stop thinking that we're good, that we're nice and that everything is going to solve itself. We all really have to work together.

You represent different ridings in Canada. Apart from Mr. Bagnell, from the Yukon, where the British Columbia Hells Angels go from time to time, all of you have horror stories to tell, whether it be about the Hells Angels in Windsor, the Bandidos in London, street gangs and bikers in Moncton, or about Asian street gangs that do drive-by shootings in Calgary. The same thing is going on in Montreal with the Haitians. The same is true anywhere else in Canada.

So from the moment we work together, we'll achieve good results. Thank you.

[Randall Richmond, Deputy Chief Prosecutor, Organized Crime Prosecutions Bureau, Department of Justice (Quebec)]

Thank you very much.

My name is Randall Richmond. I have been a lawyer and a prosecutor since 1983, and prosecutor for the Province of Quebec since 1988.

I began pleading organized crime cases in the 1990s and I worked in the Proceeds of Crime Bureau (BLPC) from its inception in 1996. In 2000, when the Quebec Ministry of Justice created the Organized Crime Prosecutions Bureau (BLACO), I was named deputy chief of this office, a position that I still hold today.

In addition to my administrative and supervisory responsibilities, I personally pleaded the cases borne from the shooting for journalist Michel Auger. I also pleaded the trial borne of Operations Springtime 2001 and implicating the Hells Angels Nomad Donald Stockford and his associate, the former Hells Angels national president, Walter Stadnick.

The minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights indicate that the committee wishes “to examine the overall effect on gangsterism of Bills C-94 and C-24, adopted in 1997 and 2001”.

As a practitioner specialized in organized crime cases, I can say without any hesitation that the legislative changes brought about by Bills C-95 and C-24 have been extremely helpful and have had a significant impact on our fight against organized crime in Quebec. We have used the tools provided to us by these two bills on a regular basis and continue to do so.

The changes that have been most useful to us can be summarized as follows: wire taps are available more easily and for longer periods of time; infiltration of criminal organizations is easier; pre-trial custody is easier to secure; sentences are longer; and convicts have to serve more time in jail before being released on parole.

Quebec was the first province to apply these new measures and remains the one that has applied them the most. In the Organized Crime Prosecutions Bureau alone, we have charged over 1,000 people since 2001, due in great part to the tools provided by C-95 and C-24 which facilitated the investigations. The acquittal rate in these cases is less than two percent.

Among these people, many were charged with gangsterism, either in its original form as provided by C-95 or in the form modified by C-24.

Since the creation of the Organized Crime Prosecutions Bureau, its prosecutors have secured the convictions of 286 people for criminal organization charges.

Consequently, we have met the following objectives.

First, end the biker gang war that caused 174 deaths and 150 attempted murders.

Second, break up and put an end to the Quebec Nomads chapter of the Hells Angels as well as the puppet club, the Rockers, by securing sentences of 20 years in prison for the Nomads and 15 years for the Rockers, on average.

Third, suppress crime by the Hells Angels across Quebec. Consequently, as of 2005, half of the Hells Angels in Quebec had been neutralized because they were either in jail, on parole, or on the run.

Fourth, break up and put an end to the Bandidos biker club all across Quebec.

Other beneficial effects of our work are worth mentioning: putting an end to biker impunity, putting an end to the climate of fear, and exposing the true nature of the criminal biker gangs. Obviously these results cannot be explained exclusively by the new anti-gang provisions of Bill C-95 and Bill C-24. They must be attributed to the combined effect of the legislative changes with other measures, such as the creation of specialized police task forces, with the participation of different police agencies; lengthy police investigations that targeted whole criminal organizations; the use of civil infiltration agents; the creation of specialized teams of prosecutors, such as the Proceeds of Crime Bureau in 1996 and the Organized Crime Bureau in 2000; the construction of the Grouin Judicial Services Centre; and the renovation of several courtrooms around Quebec, which allowed for the instruction of several mega-trials in different places at the same time.

The results obtained demonstrate that it is possible to prove gangsterism, but one should not conclude that it is easy to do so. On the contrary, it can be arduous. In almost all of the cases where we have charged gangsterism, this came after lengthy investigations of 12 to 24 months, during which wiretapping and physical surveillance were carried out and prosecutors were involved as legal advisers during the investigations.

In addition, in 90% of the cases, the prosecution had at its disposition a special witness, that is, an informant witness or a civil infiltration agent. The special witness facilitates the proof of gangsterism, because he has been a member of that organization and has participated in its activities. He can, therefore, testify to the existence of the organization, its structure, its hierarchy, the identity of its members, and its criminal activities.

A notable exception to this is the recent case of R. v. Aurélius, where 15 people were convicted, including five for charges of gangsterism, without the help of a special witness. In this groundbreaking case, the first to convict a street gang of gangsterism, the prosecution had to rely on evidence from wiretaps, physical surveillance, and about 40 drug purchases made by police undercover officers. It goes without saying that all of these investigative techniques can be expensive.

In conclusion, proving gangsterism with the present legislation is indeed possible, but the necessary resources must be available for investigation and prosecution.

With regard to Bill C-10, it is likely that for most prosecutions of a crime committed with a firearm, proving the use of a restricted or prohibited firearm will be easier than proving a connection with a criminal organization. However, there are cases where long-barrelled guns are used by criminal organizations; for example, see the case of R. v. Rodrigue at the Supreme Court of Canada in 2005. There are other cases where firearms are used in crime, but never found by the police, which can make it more difficult to prove the use of a restricted or prohibitive firearm than to prove the connection to a criminal organization.

So there are indeed circumstances where the connection to a criminal organization can be seriously considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing for a crime committed with the use of a firearm.

Thank you.

Softwood Lumber

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here in the House as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and tell members that a lot of hard work and negotiations went into the softwood lumber agreement. Not only am I proud that Bill C-24 passed, but I am also proud to be part of a government that does what it says it is going to do and works as a team.

On Wednesday I was disappointed to see all but two Liberal MPs stand in the House of Commons and vote against the softwood lumber agreement. This is shameful, given the support for the agreement by the provinces, including the province of Quebec, where the new Liberal leader is from, and the support from industry, labour and unions in Quebec.

How could the Liberals not support an agreement that is obviously in the best interests of Canada? This further demonstrates the Liberal tradition of playing political games. By not supporting the deal, the Liberals are putting their own partisan interests ahead of the needs of all Canadians.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

It being 3:10 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-24.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from December 5 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 third time and passed.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to use the few minutes available to me to offer a brief summary of the situation as it relates to the softwood lumber agreement signed on July 1, between Ottawa and Washington.

As everyone knows, we have not been too eager to support Bill C-24. I come from a region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, that has been greatly affected by the softwood lumber crisis in recent years. That is in fact the reason why I wanted to talk about this issue again today.

Many of my colleagues from Quebec are going through a similar situation. In our respective regions, when the sawmill shuts down, the entire local economy is affected.

For example, the municipality of Ferland-et-Boilleau, in my riding, falls into the one-industry category, because 80% of local jobs depend on that economic activity. Obviously, the problems the forestry industry has been experiencing for several years have had major economic and social consequences for that municipality.

The situation is not rosy for the forestry sector. This agreement is only one step in the right direction. Once again, last weekend, the municipality of Normandin in Lac-Saint-Jean watched as Gémofor sought the protection of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. I would point out that Gémofor employed nearly 150 men and women. The uncomfortable situation the company now finds itself in is not encouraging for the people in that community.

These are just a few examples. But a large number of sawmills, like P.H. Lemay and Péribonka, have been affected by the crisis in recent months.

At present, the government seems to be wanting to wait for the market to sort itself out while abandoning hundreds of businesses to their fate. This is a dangerous game because a number of rural regions could see their economies completely wiped out by this kind of decision.

This industry is indeed on its last gasp, at the end of its rope. It would be better to accept this bad agreement than to risk losing those businesses. Now that the agreement has been ratified, it is up to the government to put a set of measures in place as quickly as possible to assist the softwood lumber industry, which is facing serious difficulties at the very moment when it has been weakened by a lengthy trade dispute.

The industry needs immediate assistance to avoid these plants having to bear the costs of the federal government’s failure to support them.

I had the opportunity to speak on this subject in September and I would once again like to refer to some statistics that prove the new agreement is not enough to ensure the survival of the forestry sector. In early September, the Bowater sawmill at Saint-Félicien was forced to lay off 140 employees for an indefinite period.

The Coopérative forestière de Girardville announced that an investment of a million dollars would be needed to restart its operations.

Finally, the PFS sawmill in Petit-Saguenay is due to re-open its doors after initially shutting down for what was expected to be two weeks. Meanwhile, the sawmill has decided to discontinue its second work shift due to market difficulties.

These are just some examples of what is happening in many municipalities in Quebec and across Canada.

Although it is a statistic that I have already referred to in this House, I would like to mention it again. The softwood lumber crisis led to the loss of 3,000 jobs in my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean—yes, 3,000 direct jobs —and the situation continues to get worse.

We are living through a crisis without precedent and the conditions for profitable operation are very difficult. A good number of forestry companies will have no other choice than to restructure or to realign their activities or their plants in order to remain competitive.

The root cause of the problem remains intact. The situation will continue to get worse if quick action is not taken. The problem is most acute in the resource regions of Quebec and it is difficult to close our eyes to this situation.

For several years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the introduction of a support program for older workers. The Bloc Québécois has intervened three times in the House of Commons to demand the implementation of a new POWA.

Unfortunately, the announcement of the Conservative program in October turned out to be worse than we feared because the assistance is not immediate and takes the form of a two-year pilot project that is under-funded and does not respond to the needs of older workers.

Indeed, a large part of the program consists solely in helping workers retrain. When an entire community suffers the hardship of a massive layoff, real action has to be taken. Regrettably, workers who are more than 55 years old and have difficulty finding another job cannot benefit from such a program.

That is why the Bloc Québécois believes that now that we have accepted a sellout agreement, it is incumbent on the government to put in place programs that will enable communities and companies that depend on the forests to diversify their economies.

The Bloc Québécois proposes to increase the budget that the federal government allocates for economic diversification of forestry regions. It also proposes that the funds be transferred to the Government of Quebec to avoid duplication of effort. Consequently, we are talking about a sum of $50 million over three years, strictly for Quebec. The federal government has the means to assist an economy that greatly needs support.

In closing, I would like to point out that Bill C-24 does not solve the structural problems in the market. In the coming months, measures must be introduced to avoid a collapse of the forestry sector. Moreover, I hope the minister will act on the resolution from the RCM of Lac-Saint-Jean-Est, in my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. The resolution adopted in September calls on the federal government to provide greater support to the forest industry.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague was not here for the earlier part of my speech. The NDP is not supporting the bill. The NDP is vehemently opposed to Bill C-24. In fact, my colleague from Burnaby--New Westminster was the sole voice on the standing committee that objected in the strongest possible terms to having this very flawed piece of legislation rammed down our throats.

Perhaps I misspoke or perhaps my colleague did not hear me clearly, but let me phrase it for him one more time. The NDP is opposed to Bill C-24. We will vote against it because we believe that we left $1 billion on the table, notwithstanding the very real point my colleague raises about there not even being any interest on that money. It is in actual fact the $5.3 billion of illegal duties taken by the United States. If we add even a nominal rate of interest, it is actually much more money than that currently.

We believe that $500 million that is going to the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports will be used to launch the next volley of assault toward the Canadian softwood lumber producers. In other words, we are financing through our own money that was taken from us illegally the next trade challenge against us.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are two key areas that the NDP finds fault with in Bill C-24. The first is the money that was left on the table, the billion dollars that could have been rightfully returned back to the softwood lumber producers.

My colleague is saying that is the past and ancient history. In actual fact we have now financed the next attack of the American softwood lumber producers on Canadian softwood lumber producers because my colleague should not think for a minute that this is the end of the harassment by the Americans. This deal does not protect Canadian producers adequately.

The second objection the NDP has, which I cited earlier, is the whole issue of forfeiting our Canadian sovereignty in the administration of our own softwood lumber industry. I am sure my colleague would agree with me that the notion is fundamentally reprehensible that some other country should dictate to the province of Quebec how it manages its softwood lumber industry in that province. It is an affront to Canadian sovereignty. It is an affront to the jurisdictional sovereignty of the province of Quebec that it would now have to have any of these changes vetted through Washington before it would be allowed to change.

That means a change in stumpage fees, a change in cutting rights, or a change in the way that the forest is managed and administered would now have to be cleared through Washington. The Americans will try to ensure that this does not constitute any kind of a subsidy because in their minds almost everything that Canada does to look after our own best interests constitutes a subsidy.

We are damaged. We are suffering on two fronts: first, the pure financial aspect that we have $1 billion less to create jobs and to revitalize our industry, money that our softwood lumber industry players could have used to reinvest, retool, and use in research and development; and second, this affront to Canadian sovereignty that the Americans will now dictate how we manage our assets in the forestry industry.

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 third time and passed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Before we go to statements by members, there will be seven minutes left in questions and comments for the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre when we return to the study of Bill C-24.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the reason Bill C-24 is fiscally flawed is the payout is based on Canadian softwood exporters that are owed the equivalent of 95% of the total $5.3 billion in illegal duties paid to the U.S. We know full well that the Conservative government fell far short of the 95% target, despite contrary public representations which makes the special tax essential and imposes costs on taxpayers funding these advance payments.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of debating Bill C-24 I was using as an example the similar parallel trade irritant of the Canadian Wheat Board. I think there is a connection, enough of a one to allow me to finish my thoughts in that regard, and then I will come quickly to a summary of the NDP's view on why we are opposed to the current softwood lumber agreement deal.

I was trying to explain that the reason the dual desk marketing system will not work for the marketing of Canadian wheat is that if the open market price is higher than the initial payment, the board gets fewer deliveries. If the initial payment is higher than the market, it gets all the deliveries but it has to sell the product at a loss. It simply cannot work.

In the case of both of these examples, both of these major trade irritants between Canada and the United States, the Conservative government feels compelled to roll over and do exactly what the Americans want it to do. The Americans want the government to give up, even in cases where it is close to victory. When it could have in fact delivered a resounding victory in the softwood negotiations, the government chose not to. It bailed out too early. It left too much on the table.

I would like to quote Margaret Atwood and her view in this regard:

It's said the beaver bites off its testicles when threatened. If true, the beaver is certainly an apt symbol, if not for Canada, certainly for a succession of governments which, when faced with ceaseless bullying, react by carving off pieces of the nation.

That is, carving off our own independence, and I think the words of Margaret Atwood are very prescient and very wise in this regard.

Let me tell members one specific thing. Above and beyond leaving $450 million on the table for the Bush administration, and $500 million that goes directly to the American softwood lumber industry, again so that it can continue its relentless assault on the Canadian softwood lumber industry, one of the things that bothers me most about this deal is that it actually discourages value added manufacturing of softwood lumber in Canada.

My father used to comment on this. Whenever we saw a truck full of raw logs rolling down the highway, logs leaving the country in their round, raw log form, my dad called it economic treason to allow that raw product to leave the country without the value adding that would create quality Canadian jobs. This particular softwood lumber agreement actually discourages value added manufacturing, because the export taxes are based upon the value of the exported product. The softwood lumber deal therefore discourages value added manufacturing by imposing penalties on the value added production and thus creating an incentive for exporting raw logs.

I will quote Stephen Atkinson, the director of paper and forest products research at the Bank of Montreal. He says, for instance:

Let's say you're paying a duty--pick a number again, 15% or 5% or whatever it is. If you can bring in the log without any duty to the United States, then of course it makes sense to put the lumber mill there and create jobs south of the border.

I would like to think that Canadians have moved beyond this image of being hewers of wood and drawers of water. I would like to believe that we have the ability to manufacture and add value to the export of these natural resources, these Canadian commodities. We should not be entering into any kind of agreement that would limit or discourage value added manufacturing for softwood lumber in Canada.

I have 25 good reasons why the NDP is opposed to this deal, but time does not permit my going through them in any great detail. Suffice it to say that we have launched a courageous battle to warn Canadians and to inform Canadians that we are about to enter into a dangerous, precedent setting bad deal.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake for his point of order. He does know that although we are studying Bill C-24, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, like all members, does have quite a bit of latitude in doing this. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will get back to the point.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Winnipeg Centre is going on about the Wheat Board. The debate right now is on softwood lumber and Bill C-24. I would ask that he get back on topic. I would ask that he discuss the matter at hand and not get off track.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate on behalf of the good people of the riding of Winnipeg Centre, especially as we enter the final hours of the final stage of this very long, drawn out and controversial piece of legislation, Bill C-24, which as anybody watching will have realized implements the softwood lumber agreement.

It would be helpful in this final stage of debate to summarize and perhaps detail for Canadians who may be watching just what transpired in this whole agonizing drawn out process, this roller-coaster ride that we have been taken on, which has led us to the point where we are today.

It seems that the Prime Minister and the new Conservative government are moving at warp speed to integrate Canada's security and foreign policies with the U.S. and to shred any competitive advantage over the U.S. in areas such as lumber and wheat as well as an overall harmonization and integration on any number of facets in our relationship with the United States.

It seems that the Conservative government is voluntarily and unilaterally giving up the competitive advantage that we enjoyed over the years in the softwood lumber sector and, as raised by my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie, the sale of our superior wheat, a Canadian brand of wheat that is in such great demand around the world. I will speak to this later.

Bill C-24 deals specifically with the softwood lumber agreement. To set the context for my remarks I would like to remind Canadians that days before Ottawa bludgeoned Canada's lumber industry into this deeply flawed softwood lumber agreement, the Vancouver Sun published the details of a leaked letter from the Bush administration to the U.S. lumber lobby.

In this letter the American administration confirmed its objective was to hobble the Canadian industry for seven years. This should have been shocking to Canadians. Having our competitors reveal in a leaked letter that the administration's intention was not to achieve fairness in the North American marketplace for softwood lumber, but to hobble the Canadian industry should have made us all sit up and wonder who negotiated this deal and wonder if they were really acting in our best interests. I cannot blame the administration for being aggressive that way because it is very good at defending its own domestic industries. This is only the beginning.

What we learned and what our colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster has been trying to point out in every way that he knows how, to alert Canadians to the realities of this deal, is that the Americans will get to keep $450 million of the illegal duties they were collecting. They will get to keep this money to grease the wheels for the protectionist republicans in the White House who were facing tough fights in their mid-term congressional elections. With no strings attached, $450 million goes not to the government of the United States, but to the republican administration to wage war on Canadians who are financing this attack on our trade relations.

Canada's timber industry would be forced to subsidize an ongoing illicit attack on itself. What kind of deal is that? It makes one wonder who would negotiate terms and conditions like that on our behalf. Who are we sending to do our bargaining for us in this regard? It is astounding. All of this is going on with the explicit consent of the Canadian government.

There is even more. This is where a worrisome trend is beginning to develop, a motif, one of the characteristics of the current government. When the industry balked, the current government used intimidation, which is now almost a hallmark of our new Prime Minister.

On August 4 the Globe and Mail quoted a senior government official's warning that industry opponents to this deal “should prepare themselves for the consequences of rejecting it and...might want to start contemplating a world where Ottawa is no longer in the business of subsidizing softwood disputes”.

In other words, they were told that if this deal was voted down, if they did not support this softwood lumber deal, they should not expect Ottawa to help them in any future and subsequent deals. It is some kind of economic blackmail to lord this over the heads of the industry players, saying that if this deal is voted down, if industry players trust their best instincts and vote this deal down, then Ottawa will not help in any subsequent deals. The only conclusion Canadians can draw is that this softwood deal is a deal that is managed of, by and for the American lumber lobby.

Here is the most worrisome thing--and I will say this as clearly as I can because it is a complex notion--even more worrisome than the billion dollars that we are leaving on the table in illegal tariffs and duties collected by the Americans. The most worrisome thing yet is that a supposedly sovereign nation has signed on to an unprecedented clause which requires provinces to first vet any changes in forestry policy with Washington. To me, this is more damaging.

People studying this deal 20 years from now will probably find that the most alarming thing about it is that we have voluntarily forfeited our sovereignty to manage our own affairs in the softwood lumber sector. This is where it raises a question: how in God's name did the Bloc Québécois support the ruling party, the government, to get this deal passed when it is all about sovereignty? I have heard a thousand speeches by my colleagues from the Bloc about Quebec's sovereignty and how they did not want the federal government to trample on the jurisdiction of Quebec to control its own affairs as it pertains to its resources. I support the Bloc in that argument.

How, then, can the Bloc support a softwood lumber deal that has this unprecedented and precedent setting clause that requires provinces to vet any changes they may want to make, perhaps in the stumpage fees, the quotas or the amount of cutting in certain cutting areas? Any of those changes will have to be first cleared with Washington before the provinces can implement those changes. It is an affront to Canadian sovereignty. It is an affront to Quebec's sovereignty. But that is the softwood lumber deal that we are about to sign.

One of the things that people often overlook in all the hype about how thankful we should be that the Conservative government gets along with the Americans is the reality that Canada tossed away a significant victory, which we won not before the virtually useless NAFTA panels but from the U.S. Court of International Trade. It ruled that U.S. duties on Canadian softwood lumber were illegal.

In other words, we were winning the court challenges that we threw aside when we went into the softwood lumber agreement. We snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory, as it were. If only we had stayed with that route. I have heard the minister and others say that they could not keep throwing millions and millions of dollars to lawyers in never-ending court challenges. That is true, but they were not never-ending. We were winning them. We were within a hair's breadth of winning them. We were almost there. We were within days of winning when the government announced that it was going to accept a far inferior package.

That is what is incomprehensible about the artificial urgency on the part of the Conservative government to accept a deal that is substandard. When we could have had it all, the government left a billion dollars on the table.

This is the second time that a Conservative government has done this. Let me take people back to 1986, when the GATT, the World Trade Organization's predecessor, issued a preliminary finding on the legality of U.S. lumber duties against Canada. The government of Brian Mulroney at the time, bent on negotiating a free trade agreement with the U.S., abruptly aborted the challenge, with eager acquiescence to the Americans.

That is another example of where we were well on our way to winning our argument that U.S. lumber duties against Canada were illegal. That finding, too, was nipped in the bud before it could take effect. The finding was never published. It does not take a paranoid mind to assume that the GATT had ruled for Canada. Mulroney foreclosed on the GATT ruling because it would have wiped out his entire argument about the necessity of a bilateral free trade agreement with the United States.

It seems to many of us that free trade is like a computer virus coursing through Canada's social, economical and political systems, eradicating everything unique. Everything that is unique and special and advantageous must be eliminated, it seems. We must harmonize with the United States, it seems, but we find no fault in leaving the Americans with the advantages they enjoy in the industry sectors where they do things better than we do.

But it seems we are supposed to forfeit anything that we do better than they do. The first agricultural casualty in that regard was the prairie wheat pools. They corporatized. They were hoping to surf on the private American market. Instead, they surfed on losses and put the Canadian Wheat Board on a timeline. The Americans began gunning for it before the ink was even dry on their signature to the initial free trade agreement in 1989.

I live in Manitoba, and for those of us who live in the prairie provinces, I can tell members that since then the Wheat Board has been subjected to 11 separate U.S. trade attacks. The cry, as with lumber, has been “unfair subsidies”. The U.S. does not just want to eliminate a formidable competitor in the world wheat market for its multinational agriculture business; it wants that agribusiness to capture the price advantage enjoyed by superior Canadian wheat. This is the pattern that is developing. This is the worrisome motif that is developing in trade relations as contemplated by our new Conservative government.

It is as if the new Conservative government is prepared to do the Americans' dirty work for them in terms of these two specific trade irritants. As an example, it has now begun a process to abolish the Wheat Board's monopoly. I will not go into that in any great detail other than to say there have been very worrisome things happening in recent days. Mussolini would be proud of the current Minister of Agriculture because he slapped a muzzle on the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The directors are not allowed to defend their own best interests. They are not allowed to represent farmers and to advertise in any meaningful way why the Canadian Wheat Board, which has a business case that shows it, is in the farmers' best interests. The government has taken draconian measures to make sure that the Wheat Board directors are not heard, to the point of cancelling a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food today, in fact, so that the directors could not make their own case. I will not dwell on this except to say that there are such natural and obvious parallels between these two longstanding trade irritants between our two countries.

I will simply say this, and perhaps I can do it best by quoting John Morriss, the editor and publisher of the Farmers' Independent Weekly, who says that a dual marketing board is “a chimera”, that it cannot work. He asks farmers to recall the voluntary central selling agency, which was run by the pools in the 1920s, and the voluntary Canadian wheat board, which began in 1935. Both of these voluntary wheat board organizations had spectacular bankruptcies. They were likely the two biggest business failures in Canadian history. The voluntary Canadian wheat board lost $62 million in 1938-39, which was an enormous sum at the time and the largest bankruptcy in Canadian history.

The way we explain this is really quite simple, even to a lay person like me. The reason a dual market for marketing Canadian wheat will not work is simply this: if the open market is higher than the initial payment, then the board gets fewer deliveries, and if the initial payment is higher than the market, it gets those--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. member for his point of order. I know the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie will limit his comments to Bill C-24.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

The member for Winnipeg Centre said that it was 500% more.

All we do is export the natural resource, which hurts us on a number of different things. It hurts us on innovation. Because we do not do any of the research and development, refining industries are not being developed in Canada, which affects a series of other issues. We see the loss of jobs and the loss of good minds for research and development, who leave this country. We cannot attract the brightest and the best. On top of that, we lose on taxation on the secondary product as well. We allow somebody else to take all that.

I am worried that Bill C-24 will set up the same situation in the softwood industry, that we will just be the net supplier of the resource and that will be all we have to offer. However, I think Canadians believe that we can offer more, that we can be the ones to do the research and development, that we can create finished products of which people can be proud and that we can create jobs, not just in those particular industries, but which also lead to spinoffs. I believe Canadians want to be part of that process. It is not good enough for this country to become only an exporter of natural resources, and Bill C-24 leads us down that path.

In summary, I want to say something that is important to note. The Minister of International Trade is currently selling us out on a Korea deal where it is not fair trade. It worries me that this is the template. If we are giving up the ghost on this issue, what will we see on the Korea trade issue?

I have had meetings with the industry committee and industry staff related to the auto sector and under the Korea trade deal the auto industry is up on the block. We are continuing to trade and develop the trade initiatives that will cost more manufacturing jobs in our country by the setting up of a failed trade deal policy. Bill C-24 is really all about the failure of a government to protect its industry, which is about the natural resources of the men and women in this country who deserve to have these resources used to their advantage, not against them.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak today on Bill C-24.

It is important that we acknowledge the work of the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster on this file. He has advocated for many hours to try to get a better deal and improve the current situation.

Sadly, we have not seen the significant changes that would have actually made this a bill that we as New Democrats could support. As well, the bill shows the real weakness of current government policy. As the NDP critic for industry and Canada-U.S. border relations, I can say that this is very significant not only in the context of this particular file, but also in regard to the precedent set by this move.

I want to begin my remarks by noting that the previous Liberal government's administration had been working on the softwood file for a number of years before this deal. The Liberals had not progressed very far, hence we had the workings of the member who is currently the Minister of International Trade, a Liberal at that time and the minister of industry. He started this process before he crossed the floor and he tried to bring a similar deal to the table. It was a deal that I think really spelled out the framework of what we currently have right now, which is really an abominable position to take. It is an outright and complete capitulation of Canadian sovereignty in trade negotiations and it will have long-ranging impacts.

The softwood agreement is also counter to the way that this country has lived up to NAFTA as well as the challenges that we have had in the Canada-U.S. relationship over the years. Despite having a significant series of losses in manufacturing and other types of industry related to the implementation of NAFTA, we have lived up to the agreement. Canada has followed the rules and has done what is right. That has led us to a point right now where our partner, the United States, has determined unilaterally to take a different direction, basically casting that and the agreement out, along with the mechanism process that was supposed to be there for dispute resolution. That is fairly significant.

I want to underline a few things in my comments. We have seen past Liberal governments, as well the current Conservative government, try to profess this myth out there that there is a so-called free trade area or world trade market. They say that if we have open markets and if we compete the hardest, that is all it takes to be victorious, to be champion, and then we will just have to lower corporate taxes to be successful.

That is not the case. In fact, even within our current agreements we have interventions by states and also at the federal level in the United States on a series of industries, which they use to protect employment in manufacturing based industries.

It is important to note that even with an agreement under NAFTA, under which we were supposed to have this dispute resolution, that is where we lost a significant edge in one of the most important and historic manufacturing industries in Canada. It was something that really set the standard for negotiations as a country that matured and was able to increase market share: the Auto Pact.

The Auto Pact is something very near and dear to the hearts of those constituents who live in Windsor-Essex County as well as Oshawa, Oakville and other manufacturing based areas that had new entry access to the American market, based upon a system of fair, principled trade. It was an agreement that was set up to be advantageous not only in terms of our industries here but also to be helpful with the United States in growing the industry at a time when we had world market share very much in our favour.

Something appalling happened during the negotiations. We were promised that the Auto Pact would be fine and would be protected, that nothing was going to take away from what we had. We were going to continue to be on the cutting edge of automotive research, development, advancement and assembly.

We were told that those jobs that every year paid millions of dollars into the coffers of this country were going to continue to be there. Those were good jobs. Through those jobs, we advanced a number of different workplace initiatives by some of the strong, progressive CAW workplace amendments, so that workers were safer and more productive and also received more training.

As well, we expanded the industry so that when there were new products coming forth we would be the ones who would capitalize on that and we would not simply become a dumping zone.

It was promised that the trade agreement would continue to be successful through the new free trade agreement. Later on, the United States challenged it and we lost. What did Canada do? It complied. Canada lived up to the agreement, to what it had signed with its partners. We knew the tremendous damage that it would have on our economy and on working class Canadians, our brothers and sisters who were raising their families, making a decent living, saving for pensions and paying an incredible amount of tax in this country. We were giving up and surrendering that.

Since then, we have witnessed the decline in auto sales, manufacturing and assembly. Canada has gone from fourth to eighth with regard to production and we will continue to slip if we do not have an auto policy.

Something that is ironic in all of this is that Bill C-24 was initially introduced by the Minister of International Trade when he was a Liberal and carried on when he was a Conservative. However, he has never lived up to the much promised auto strategy that he promised the committee and myself in the chamber a number of different times. He did not deliver on that in the recent budget. Not a single initiative whatsoever was moved on that file. He did it for trade and he is doing it with the Korea trade deal, which is another one I will touch on a bit later, but he did not do it for the auto sector.

We gave up this golden opportunity that had flourished in Canada because we believed in the rules and accepted the fate of the rules on this particular industry and our country. This bill is an utter capitulation of the system, the rules of engagement and the terms and conditions because the U.S. did not like the results of those rules, despite the many times we went through court challenges, all the evidence that was presented and the work we did with progressive industry forces in the United States.

I was part of a lobby group that went to Washington in 2003 and met with the Home Builders' Associations and organizations that recognized that the artificial increase of lumber pricing in the United States because of the industry greed on that side was a detriment to many of their citizens because they could not manufacture and produce homes at a level citizens could afford. This artificial increase and denying market access for Canadian products at a competitive level was something that U.S. citizens did not support and wanted changed.

We had a series of different taxation policies that punished Canadian companies. As this process continued, we fought many times in the chamber about how to support the industry through loans and other supports, such as research training, so that at the end of the process we would go back to the successful industry that we had.

It is important to note at this time what is happening in the industry. I have a research paper that was provided to the industry, science and technology committee entitled “Challenges Facing the Canadian Manufacturing Sector: Forestry Products and Furniture Industries. We witnessed a decline in that sector which has lost a lot of really good paying jobs, as well as jobs that have historically been in Canada.

One of the charts, the perfect storm, identifies what has been happening in this industry over a period of time. It mentions the fact that the Canadian dollar has increased over 35% since January 2003 and that its rapid acceleration was due to the natural resource exportation of the oil and gas industry to the United States and other countries. This led to the rapid increase of the Canadian dollar at the expense of other manufacturers. Historically, this has never been faced before. Some would say that the Canadian industry should have been ready but that was impossible to predict in terms of the rapid acceleration and there was no support.

The second thing in the perfect storm was the culmination of the $5 billion of softwood duties paid. The industry faced $5 billion on top of that. Despite having a deal, we will not get all of the money back. What kind of a deal is it when we actually end up having to pay to get out of a deal that will be a bad deal in the end anyway? What kind of nonsense is it when we will be forking over $1 billion? Ironically, most of that money will go to the Bush administration, with no accountability in terms of how it allocates those funds. Other funds will go to subsidize the industry and the competition that we are facing. It will now have a resource to use to subsidize its industry versus our industry.

The third point is that the industry's energy costs have risen by 35%. I have an interesting statistic about pulp and paper and wood furniture products. The total production of pulp and paper products in Canada in 2005 was 5.1% lower than the peak production levels registered in 2000. In 2005, production of paper and paperboard declined by 4.4% and 6.1% respectively compared to the 2004 levels. We are watching it decline. Those three things punish the industry at this time.

What do we do? How do we fix this? We allow the Americans to keep $1 billion of those duties. That does not sound like much of a solution. It does not sound like much of a solution if Canadian citizens are losing out on that resource. It does not sound like much of a solution for the people currently employed in this industry if their foreign based competitors now have the cash resources to undermine their production.

Whether the Americans put the money into further efficiencies, into research and development, toward lowering the prices or to deal with energy costs, whatever it might be, they will now have an advantage. It does not make any sense. It is absolutely offensive that we would sign a deal that we must pay to get out of.

One of the things that I think really sticks in the minds of Canadians right now is this $1 billion and the fact that we could use those funds. We looked at the cuts in the last budget session and at how they have affected Canadian lives. For heaven's sake, if we take the ideology of the government, why would it not want to put another $1 billion on the national debt? I guess it wants to put $1 billion into the pockets of the forestry and lumber producers in the United States and the Bush administration. Is that the government's solution to the issues Canadians are facing today? I do not think so. I think it is alarming.

I must also note that in all of this the Bloc members have not been very successful in negotiating any changes to this bill. They have rationalized the reason why they are supporting it. I understand their pressures and decisions but we should have at least seen a counterpunch on the government for the support that it is receiving. I find that alarming because if we are to have a true building of perspective in this House of Commons we should see something. They could throw them a bone or something that would soften the blow on Canadian workers who are losing their jobs and on the industry itself and the future it faces.

I do want to go through a number of different things here that we are concerned about. One of them is really ironic.

Canadians can see how complicated the bill is and how much information it contains. It is an issue that has taken a number of different years to come through here. At the same time, the committee spent one week going through it for witnesses. How is that even possible, in a modern, functioning democracy, that we could only have one week's worth of witnesses? We have witnesses on a regular basis in our parliamentary committees who spend more time on less settled things. This bill was rammed through the committee stage, denying amendments and debate.

The Canadian public needs to understand that that is not good government. It is about trying to move an embarrassing situation along. Shutting down debate does not make any sense.

We have many friends in the United States and many of them do not support this particular bill because of what it does to our relationships. However, when the Americans actually signed on, through our current trade agreements, they received protectionism clauses.

In some of my earlier remarks I talked about how we lost the auto pact. However, in the actual trade agreement, the Americans have a whole series of protectionism measures for aerospace and bus manufacturing that literally take away the opportunities for Canada to expand these industries. The Americans have this because they decided it was in their national interest. The U.S. government thought enough of those particular industries and the value they added to manufacturing, to the employment base and to the future of the country that it said that free competition did not matter and which country made the best product or which country was the most efficient did not matter, that it would guarantee that the work would only happen in the U.S.

In our own country right now we cannot even decide that for our industry. We would rather capitulate. It does not make any sense. While our competitors are employing strategies, techniques and different types of measures to protect their industries, we cannot even support fairness for our own industries that must compete in that environment.

Another big concern I have is about where this goes. When I look at the bill and the measures in it, I worry about our wood manufacturing, the products, the post-production and having to take down the trees. The whole softwood industry is actually having some manufacturing base.

We only need to look at our oil and gas industries. Despite their billions and billions of dollars in record profits and the fact that they are also receiving subsidies, they put less than 0.8% of their money into research and development. The average national manufacturing industry, in terms of research and development, and other comparable industries invest a modest 4%. That is not good. That is a poor standard on OECD levels and compared with other developed nations. It is not a very good measure but at least it is at 4%.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the third reading of Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products.

The Bloc Québécois members for Joliette and Sherbrooke have worked on the various committees, and their work has finally led to third reading of this bill in the House. Amendments have been made by the various parties. We, of course, made the decision to support this agreement, unlike the NDP members, whom I respect very much.

Why did we decide to support this agreement? The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has often asked us the question. We always give him more or less the same answer. We analyzed the agreement and consulted our companies and our unions. They too analyzed this agreement, but this long-lasting dispute has had a very big impact on employment in our softwood lumber industry. Caught in a bind, our companies and our unions recommended that the Bloc Québécois approve the agreement.

The Bloc Québécois is a party very close to its base, which is made up of workers, unions, associations and industries. In short it is very close to the people and it defends Quebeckers’ interests. So in the end it made the commitment to these economic stakeholders to support this agreement. These include the Québec Forest Industry Council and the various unions, led by the FTQ.

Of course, with regard to the comments by the Conservative Party—which I will return to a little later— that we will recover $4 billion under this agreement, we must not forget that we nevertheless have lost $1 billion. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster is right to say this. This is not a new additional amount of money for the Canadian softwood lumber industry, but money recovered by our industries, which had paid it in countervailing duties. Actually the industry is getting back part of this money, the $4 billion.

This third reading will bring to a close this long legislative process respecting the softwood lumber agreement. The Standing Committee on International Trade began its study of this agreement last May. The committee held numerous meetings to discuss the agreement, which was signed about July 1 by the Conservative government and the Bush administration. I was in Geneva when this agreement was very hastily signed, thus somewhat surprising all members of the House of Commons.

Finally last September 20, the government introduced Bill C-24. Its purpose is to implement the softwood lumber agreement. In addition to determining the procedures for the repayment of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties to the companies, the bill establishes a system for returning the billion dollars to Washington that the Quebec and Canadian companies have to leave on the table and it authorizes the return of the export charges to the provinces. So we get $4 billion but are leaving $1 billion on the table.

Finally, the legislation determines the barriers that will regulate the softwood lumber trade between Canada and the United States, that is to say, the control system that sets up an export charge and export permits.

It is very strange to see that this control system takes the form of amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act. This act is generally used to control trade in arms and dangerous materials or to limit trade with certain countries under economic or military sanctions. In the current case, though, it is Canadian producers who are hit by the restrictions in the act.

Finally, the agreement provides for a complex combination of export charges and quotas. They are very complex. It took us many hours to understand all the issues. After a careful examination, the government of the Quebec nation—the Government of Quebec—chose option B. The Quebec nation was actually recognized in the House because our hon. colleagues voted in favour of the Conservative motion. As we know and as I discussed with a certain colleague here, they did not vote in favour of the Bloc motion. Still, we are now a nation.

I realize that the export quota procedures are not determined by the act but rather by regulation. However, some questions remain. The Quebec industry is concerned, and rightly so, that the agreement provides for the quotas to be attributed on a monthly basis and that the possibilities of exceeding the monthly quota, in case of a major delivery, are so limited that companies might not be able to honour their contracts or even reach their full annual quota.

Prior to this agreement, there was a quarterly quota, but now it is monthly. Insofar as the regulations are concerned, the Bloc Québécois still thinks that the agreements with the companies are very important in order to enable them to reach at least their possible softwood exports.

It is important to remember that the construction industry is cyclical and that lumber deliveries are therefore likely to vary a great deal from one month to the next. This issue remains unresolved. Let us hope that, within the binational panel, the federal government will try to address the Quebec industry's concerns and relax the monthly export caps. Quebec has high expectations about this.

On April 27, 2006, the Conservative government and the Bush administration announced that they had reached an agreement to settle the softwood lumber dispute. The text of the agreement, which the two countries completed on July 1, 2006 and finally signed on September 12, gave rise to Bill C-24.

It is important to give a bit of background here. Although we had been selling softwood lumber to the United States for decades, major disputes arose in the lumber trade in the 1980s, as the American softwood lumber lobby became increasingly intransigent. In May 2003, at the conclusion of an investigation that international tribunals would subsequently invalidate, the American government accused Canadian producers of receiving subsidies and engaging in dumping.

However, it is important to point out that throughout the dispute, the tribunals ruled overwhelmingly against the United States. Washington was never able to prove that American companies were being harmed. All the companies that went before the tribunals received no support from either the Liberal government at the time or the Conservative government.

As for the American claims that Canadian lumber was subsidized, there again, a NAFTA tribunal handed down a clear ruling that that was not the case.

Throughout this lengthy dispute before the courts, the Bloc Québécois has, since May 2002, repeatedly called for an assistance plan including loan guarantees. How many times did we ask the Liberals at the time, in this House, to support the softwood lumber industry? We asked for loan guarantees for companies, but we received no reply. The government did not support the industry, and companies were left on their own to face the huge American lobby.

We did not help our businesses during this dispute. We are supporting this bill against our better judgment, because we have no choice. The present softwood lumber agreement would not exist if our governments had stepped up to the plate and at least listened to what the Bloc Québécois was proposing for supporting the industry. No. The Liberals and the Conservatives turned a deaf ear, and so today we are losing $1 billion under this bill.

When the Liberals were in power they consistently refused to establish this assistance plan. But since they have been in opposition, they have, curiously, changed their minds. It is hard to understand, but the Liberals are saying something completely different. Today they think that the proposals that the Bloc Québécois made for the first time in 2002 are now necessary. This is hard to grasp and understand. They turned a deaf ear for years, both in relation to the program for older worker assistance—which I will come back to a little later in this speech—and in relation to the assistance plan for the industry, regarding loan guarantees for companies.

Unfortunately for the Quebec and Canadian forestry industries, the federal government’s decision not to take concrete measures to ensure better financial health for our forestry industry will be damaging for them—for the industries in Quebec and the industries in western Canada alike, in British Columbia for example, as my friend from the NDP was saying.

Today, the Liberals must bear a large share of the responsibility and acknowledge that they have caused irreparable harm. The Conservative Party has signed an agreement that we support because there was no support in the first place.

When the Conservative Party was campaigning, it will be recalled, it offered Quebec loan guarantees for companies. And then when it came to power, it did the same thing as the Liberals: it offered no support for those companies. It simply signed an agreement.

Allow me to quote a passage from the Conservative Party platform on this point. I do not know whether my Conservative colleagues remember their election platform, but we on the Bloc Québécois benches paid attention to it.

That platform says: “Provide real help for Canadian workers and businesses coping with illegal American trade actions”.

That is what their election platform said. They presented that to Quebeckers. I repeat: “Provide real help for Canadian workers and businesses coping with illegal American trade actions”.

Power does make people corrupt or blind, it has to be said. I do not really know what to say about this, because the softwood lumber agreement does not really reflect the political direction that was announced to Quebeckers regarding the softwood lumber agreement as we saw it in the election platform.

As I said, the Conservatives wanted to support the industry by giving loan guarantees, but they did not do that; no sooner was the government elected than the promise was forgotten. Quebeckers will remember.

I have said on several occasions that the attitude of the Liberal and Conservative governments left a bad taste in the mouths of some representatives of the forestry industry and forestry workers.

Scarce financial resources, abandonment of the industry by the Liberals and Conservatives, not forgetting the intransigent attitude taken by the Conservative minority government in refusing to listen to and support the interests of our industry when it called for changes to the agreement—all these factors certainly contributed to weakening the industry and ultimately forcing it to accept this agreement.

We accept this agreement because we have no choice. The government has put a gun to our head. Thousands of jobs are being lost. People are at the end of their rope. There is no more money. Companies are closing. The government is not giving us what we need, despite enormous surpluses here in Ottawa. It is not listening to businesses. Businesses are telling us that under the circumstances, they have no choice but to support the agreement.

The Bloc Québécois supports this agreement reluctantly. We are supporting it because, as I have told my committee colleagues many times, Quebec's forest industry and Quebec's worker representatives have asked us to. They have studied the agreement thoroughly. These are lawyers, manufacturers and people working in this sector. Their jobs are at stake. Their export needs are high and they need to start producing more softwood lumber so they can export it. Thousands of jobs depend on that. These people have concluded that it is important for us to support this agreement, and that is why we are supporting it.

Nevertheless, we continue to believe that, since the beginning of the conflict, there should have been a plan in place to help the industry. The Conservative government is wrong in thinking that this agreement will solve all of Quebec and Canada's forest industry problems. Because both the Liberals and the Conservatives failed to support the forest industry, it has been crippled by the softwood lumber dispute. It is now facing an unprecedented structural crisis. A number of Quebec forest industry stakeholders have stated that the government cannot claim that this agreement solves everything. They say the Conservatives are now responsible for taking concrete action to help the industry through this major crisis.

I would like our Conservative colleagues in this House to listen to what we are saying. This agreement will not solve all of our problems, so we are asking for an assistance plan to complement it. The forest industry is in big trouble and needs an assistance plan. We have already lost 7,000 jobs in Quebec. Closures announced by Abitibi Consolidated are just the latest in a string of similar announcements over the past few months.

According to the Quebec Forest Industry Council, no less than 7,000 jobs, as I mentioned, have been temporarily or permanently lost in Quebec since April 2005. That is a significant number. Many jobs have been lost due to this government's failure to act. I would even say that, because Quebec still remains within this federation, we cannot master all our economic development levers. Quebec could have supported the industry on its own, but we are still within this federation. We are still here today, asking for this government's support, which unfortunately, we have not yet been able to obtain for the Quebec forest industry.

The Bloc Québécois is calling for an assistance package that includes an income support program—the infamous POWA—for older workers who lost their jobs because of mass layoffs in this sector, as well as a number of initiatives to help businesses become more competitive by updating their equipment or venturing into secondary or tertiary processing activities. The package includes measures such as faster amortization on production equipment, diversification of lumber markets and special tax treatment for the $4.3 billion in countervailing and antidumping duties that will be paid back.

Since the very beginning of the dispute, the Bloc Québécois has been proposing concrete measures to help workers and businesses in the softwood lumber sector.

Now that the bill has support, and if it is passed by the House, we hope that the Conservative Party will propose a plan—

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

The Conservatives are speaking now. I hope they will have the guts to actually stand up shortly in the House and defend this bad agreement. We know that they will not because they understand and they are ashamed of this deal too. They just will not admit it.

After members of the industry from across the country had said to not sign this draft agreement because it was absolutely horrible for them, using their typical bullying techniques the Conservatives rammed it through on July 1. They announced it on a Saturday. I found out at a Canada Day celebration at Heritage Village in Burnaby, B.C. It was unbelievable that they had signed what many people described this summer as the worst agreement that Canada has ever initialled. July 1 was a sad day for Canada.

Summer hearings were immediately set up to hear back from the industry. There actually was consultation. The trade minister refused to consult because he heard back from the industry that the deal was absolutely atrocious, but the committee decided to hear from the industry, softwood workers and softwood communities. What it heard was not only that this was the worst deal ever initialled by a Canadian government, but we also found out that it was commercially non-viable. That is what was attested to by witness after witness.

The Quebec industry voted against the agreement 35 to 12. Witness after witness this summer clearly indicated that this was an absolutely horrible deal. What is more, the Conservative government, in its incredibly youthful and one might say juvenile zest to try to rehabilitate the sordid reputation of the Minister of International Trade, in a desperate measure, pulled out all the stops to ram this thing through regardless of the testimony.

One notable example was Stephen Atkinson from BMO who said that this was a guaranteed way of assuring that Canadian logs would create jobs in American mills because it would stimulate raw log exports, but I will come back to that in a moment.

We heard testimony throughout the summer. Obviously, the industry and softwood workers were opposed and then the bullying started. We saw the government pulling out all the stops to push the industry to accept this deal no matter what the cost. That is what the government did. It pushed it.

What it received, grudgingly, from the industry were conditional letters of support, which the government has never released. The conditional letters of support were based on the Conservative government achieving 95% support from the industry. It never achieved that. In fact, it never even achieved close to that. The conditional letters that the Minister of International Trade was running around with, holding up, and refusing to show to the media or to anybody else, which is a public responsibility, showed very clearly that unless it had 95% support it did not have the support of those companies.

What did the government do? It bullied a certain percentage of the industry. Whether it was 50% or 60% we will never know, though access to information requests have been made. We are sure that the Conservative government will try to cover up just as much as the previous Liberal government tried to cover up with ad scam and other various scandals.

The Conservatives promised to be more transparent and that was their very first broken promise. They have not been transparent about this at all because they know it is embarrassing. They badly botched the negotiations. The industry reacted and they tried to bludgeon the industry into submission. What they got were very tepid letters of conditional support that were never operative because they did not get the 95%.

Then they said they would simply change the agreement behind closed doors and that is what they did. They rewrote portions of the agreement. It was unbelievable. They did not have the required level of industry support, so they simply rewrote it. They told industry that there was no way that they could rewrite or renegotiate any of this badly botched negotiation. That turned out not to be true, just another mistruth.

Then we come forward to this fall and Bill C-24 was before the international trade committee. The first thing the NDP said was that there were folks who expressed interest in being witnesses and should be allowed to testify. The NDP proposed two witnesses who testified and raised serious concerns about Bill C-24. It was inadvertent, I am sure, and the trade minister only does things in a very political and haphazard way, but there was a double tax written in to Bill C-24.

What was very clear was the intent of the government in the draconian nature of Bill C-24 regarding the penalties. People would get 18 months in jail if they countered the intention of the Minister of International Trade. There were special penalties.There was the ability of the government, not only to go after softwood companies, mom and pop operations in northern British Columbia, northern Saskatchewan, northern Ontario and northern Manitoba but to go after their commercial clients.

If there was any discrepancy between what the Minister of International Trade said the softwood companies owed and what the companies said they would actually owe under these punitive taxes and draconian measures, the minister had the right to go after commercial clients and go after trust funds, even if they were set up 10 years before. The government basically had, through Bill C-24, a total blank cheque with our softwood industry.

We raised this issue at the committee of international trade. We said that these witnesses, who had identified themselves from British Columbia and from right across the country, should be allowed to come forward and testify. They were not witnesses that the NDP recruited. These were witnesses who said they wanted to testify and went to the clerk of the committee.

What happened, unbelievably, was that the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc said that there would be no testimony. They would not hear from anybody else. They heard from two witnesses who raised serious concerns about the draconian measures, about the poor drafting, and about the effects of this legislation. They did not want to hear from anybody else. They just wanted to get the thing through.

The NDP, unfortunately, in this Parliament, has only one seat on the committee. Hopefully in the next Parliament we will have many more and the NDP will have a greater role to play. This kind of shoddy, slipshod, and irresponsible approach to governing is something that certainly Canadians rejected on January 23 and now they have seen the Conservatives at work. They know they are just as bad. Canadians will be looking at, I think, other alternatives, and I believe the NDP will be one of them in the next election.

Essentially, we proposed 98 amendments to try to fix some of the most egregious parts of this bill and we tried to save the Conservatives from themselves. We were also trying to save softwood jobs.

We were opposed to this agreement, but we did our due diligence. There were 98 sections of this bill that should have been redrafted. However, the Liberals and Conservatives were working together at the international trade committee with the support of the Bloc, and unfortunately said that they were not going to actually treat these amendments in any rigorous fashion. They were not going to deal with the issue of double taxation and companies being penalized twice. No, sir, they were not going to fix this at all, and they rammed it through in just a day and a half. They rammed it through without due consideration.

In fact, most sections of this bill have not been scrutinized anywhere. What they did was simply adopt it. In fact, it was difficult for members to keep up with the voting. There was no debate and no discussion on over half of this bill. There was no debate and no discussion on the Draconian measures of putting people in prison for 18 months. It was a simple show of hands.

Conservatives and Liberals said that if mom and pop operations made a mistake, and the Minister of International Trade did not like it, well, hell, they would be put in prison for 18 months. No due diligence was done. There was absolutely no due diligence. It was unbelievable.

So, we now have in front of us a badly drafted bill, pushed forward by the Liberals and Conservatives principally. And last night, in trying to eliminate some of these clauses, such as the double taxation clause, again, Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc were all voting to keep those provisions in the bill. That is what we have now. We have Bill C-24, a shoddily, hastily crafted piece of legislation with serious errors in it, even from a Conservative perspective, not receiving due diligence at committee, not receiving due diligence in this House, and now the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc want to ram through.

Well, 4,000 lost jobs in the last few weeks, I think, begs the question: What is this House doing, ramming through this legislation when 4,000 jobs have been lost directly, and 10,000 jobs directly and indirectly? It has been a hemorrhage across this country, particularly in western Canada, particularly in British Columbia, and Quebec of course, where we have seen almost 2,000 jobs lost.

What is in this softwood sellout? We talked about some of the references in the bill. First, the most important point is that on October 13 we won in the Court of International Trade. The money has to be paid back. The American government is already paying back to the companies which did not sign on through EDC and that is most companies which showed very clearly that the industry did not have confidence in this deal. The Minister of International Trade is hiding the facts from the public because he knows it is embarrassing that most companies did not sign on to the Export Development Corporation.

Second, and this has been well documented. We are giving a billion dollars to the United States that we did not have to. We won and every penny should be coming back. The Conservatives, because they are, to say the least, financially irresponsible, just shovelled that billion dollars right over to the United States, but half a billion of it goes to the American softwood industry that has been attacking our softwood industry now for years.

They were at the end of their rope. They had no longer any ability or capacity financially to go after our softwood sector. It was the end of the road for them this year. Now, again, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, we have a government that is giving half a billion dollars to them for the next stage of assaults on the Canadian softwood industry and companies.

Another aspect of this deal is that we are imposing tariffs on ourselves that are higher than the illegal American tariffs that preceded them. We actually saw tariffs in October going up when we have won those victories and the only thing that was stopping the tariffs from being taken off completely was the ECC judgment that the government should have put in place for August. Unbelievably we are now paying more.

Why have we lost 10,000 jobs directly and indirectly? It is simple math. When the tariffs go up, it becomes financially non-viable and that is what we are seeing now: jobs lost in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and northern Ontario. I am quite sure we are going to see a lot of Conservatives losing their seats because of their irresponsibility and Liberals too. In northern Ontario there are Liberal MPs who have been pushing this deal. That is absolutely irresponsible.

It is important to note that for Canadians who are listening right now, they actually had to pay the refund. Until we won on October 13, when the American government started paying back the money to the companies that did not sign on to the Conservative government's bad deal, the government's plan was to use the EDC and have Canadian taxpayers pay the rebates. If we had not won in the Court of International Trade on October 13, Canadian taxpayers would be paying through EDC, so it is important for Canadians to know that they would have been picking up the tab for this badly botched deal.

It is also interesting to note that there is a clause within the agreement which allows the Americans to terminate it any time. All they have to do is allege non-compliance. This is important for our Quebec friends, but also for people right across the country. This means that if a provincial government, British Columbia or Quebec, were to make any changes to forestry practices, the Americans could simply allege non-compliance and terminate the agreement. They could keep the billion dollars and run. What could be more irresponsible than that? We are talking about a government that has completely abrogated any sense of responsibility, and any sense of due diligence for softwood workers and communities across the country. That is absolutely appalling.

I talked about the anti-circumvention clause and the fact that we now have to go to Washington. Any provincial forestry practice changes need to be vetted through Washington. That is incredible. We have running rules that are, to say the least, non-viable, retroactive, and after the fact. We sell our product and then at the end of the month we find out whether or not we made money or whether we have to close down.

The most egregious fact is that there is nothing for softwood workers. There is not a penny for softwood communities. This stimulates raw log exports and shuts down value added production.

What we should do is stop this agreement on third reading. If the Bloc Québécois is prepared to vote against it, the agreement can be stopped. The money is already in the hands of the industry. However, we cannot give the Americans the right to come and change our forestry policy. We cannot give them a billion dollars and we cannot allow the American industry to come and attack our softwood lumber industry.

We need a policy that works. I implore the hon. members to vote against this agreement on third reading, but if they fail to, it will be up to the other chamber to vote against it and stop this bad agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed to have to stand and speak at third reading of Bill C-24. I am dismayed because here is a case where clearly due diligence and responsibility of parliamentarians was lacking when there is legislation that touches in such a direct way the lives of Canadians across the country from coast to coast. When that due diligence is not paid, we end up with legislation such as we have before the House now at third reading. This is what is so deplorable.

In a moment I will go into the process that led to this illegitimate birth based on a complete and utter deception by the Conservative government. What is astounding, certainly to people in softwood communities across this country, is the role that the Liberals and the Bloc have played in getting this deplorable legislation through now to the point where we are at third reading, despite the fact that we have seen 4,000 direct jobs lost in the softwood industry since this deal was provisionally rammed through based on whether or not Parliament would actually adopt Bill C-24. Of course, if we do not adopt it, then we can actually start to get those jobs back.

These are 4,000 direct jobs and according to the steelworkers we are looking at 10,000 direct and indirect job losses. This is in a matter of only a few weeks.

It is no wonder that the Conservatives are not standing up in the House to defend this badly botched negotiation, this badly botched deal. What will be left for Canadians to consider, if indeed this week the House votes to proceed, is the role that the Liberals have played in actually bringing Bill C-24 to the floor of the House of Commons.

Without the support of the Liberal Party we would not be at third reading now. Without the support of the Liberal Party Bill C-24 would still be in committee. Members would still be addressing the egregious errors that have been made in drafting this piece of legislation. We would still be hearing what many organizations and representatives from softwood communities asked for. We would still be hearing testimony from these organizations from across the country that wanted to speak to Bill C-24. I will come back to that in a moment.

Basically, we started at the end of April with the framework agreement that was announced in the House. The NDP saw problems with the agreement right away. We raised serious concerns about where the government was going. One of the aspects of the framework agreement in April was the fact that we would suspend litigation.

At that point we were a few softwood board feet short of winning final victory. Canada had only two pieces of the legal process to go through. One was the ECC challenge that would have taken off the tariffs once and for all in August. The second was the Court of International Trade judgment. It is unbelievable that despite efforts by the Conservative government to intervene in court to stop Canada from winning a final victory on softwood lumber, we won on October 13. The American government is already repaying the industry because of the court judgment on October 13.

The first alarm bell at the end of April was that the Conservative government was intervening to stop us from winning those final victories that would establish the fair trade that Canadians were seeking in softwood lumber.

We then came to an agreement that quickly ran off the rails. We have the Minister of International Trade, the illegitimate member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, someone who could not get re-elected in that riding no matter how much he tried. This is his last mandate there after having switched parties.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood properly, my hon. colleague wants the Bloc Québécois to support his position and vote against Bill C-24, therefore change our minds in mid-stream because we saw the light all of a sudden.

We have been studying the agreement since the very beginning, as well as the bill of course. If I continue my hon. colleague’s line of thought, he wants us to withdraw our support and the industry to keep the money it has already received. Of course there have been judicial rulings to the effect that Canada was right and the United States was wrong. But there is more to it than that. We had an agreement that the United States would reimburse our money if we signed. The Conservative Party did say, of course, that they were leaving a billion dollars in the pockets of the Americans. We should certainly ask why. What were the Conservative Party’s reasons for leaving a billion dollars in the pockets of the Americans? It was probably for future considerations. What are these considerations? We will one day find out.

I do not think, though, that we can simply withdraw at the last minute when money has already been returned. Things have to be done properly and with a certain amount—and I do mean just a certain amount—of mutual trust. The situation has progressed to the point of no return. The companies have received most of their money. They are already getting ready to carry on with their development and, in contrast to what my hon. colleague seems to think, not to lose jobs but to improve them and also improve the industry.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

As my dear colleague says, clearly, it was necessary to save what was left because there was not necessarily very much left.

For that reason people were obliged to accept the agreement almost by force. Today, for several hours in the Standing Committee on International Trade, we saw my colleague from the NDP arguing like a Liberal in holy water to uphold the interests of his region. During that time the committee was full of controversy. Nevertheless, I obviously respected my colleague’s enthusiasm in wanting to move the matter forward.

The bill in its present form leaves many gaps that will probably cause problems in the implementation of the agreement. Those aspects could have been anticipated and corrected in order to allow the Canadian forest industry to develop adequately, or even better than that, because we have to make up for what has been lost.

Of course, there are still potential irritants in the bill. However, we must accept it because people have told us to do so and are asking us what we are waiting for.

I repeat also, for the benefit of my colleague from the NDP, that we give our support to Bill C-24 without enthusiasm and with some reluctance.

The downward negotiations by the minority Conservative government have clearly served to place the forest industry in danger, especially in Quebec. In addition, refunding the illegally collected money, contrary to what the Minister of Industry actually seemed to believe at one time, is neither a miraculous injection of cash nor a gift from the government. In fact, the industry’s own money is being returned to the industry, and we must never forget that, because the communities will not forget it.

It is forgivable, I think, to talk politics a little in this House, and in my opinion the Conservative Party will have to answer for this bill, this act and this agreement all across Canada in the next election. And that election is not far off. That is why we must settle this matter. It will always be possible to make improvements later.

As we all know, several committees will have to work on enacting this legislation and promoting the industry. Moreover, the modest sum of $50 million will come out of the $1 billion and be allocated for promotion. That is not much, except that the United States will have the benefit of a larger sum to develop their industry.

Once again, we would have preferred that the softwood lumber industry be part of a real free trade agreement with the United States.

Certain individuals claim that the softwood lumber issue is now settled for the next nine years. Can we really count on any promises made by the Americans? After all, they are the ones who came along and imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on Canada. Can we really hope that when it no longer suits them, they will sit down and negotiate to improve the situation and conditions for both sides? I doubt it. Anytime the Americans change their tune about the softwood lumber file, Canada and Quebec ate the ones that automatically suffer the consequences.

Thus, I do not belive that the softwood lumber sector will be left undisturbed for as long as seven or nine years. I think the next issue will arise much sooner than that. We must therefore negotiate an agreement within NAFTA, calling on the Americans to stop their protectionist activities in whichever areas and industries they like.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-24, in the hope that the forest industry and softwood lumber industry can use the money illegally taken from them and now returned to them to get back on track, become more modern, more competitive and more innovative in secondary and tertiary processing. The resulting value added, the surplus value, must be profitable to those industries once and for all, and must be paid back to the people who worked in the industry and the businesses themselves.

In closing, I hope we can improve the forest industry as quickly as possible for the benefit of the people who have dedicated their efforts, their energy and, in some cases even their lives, to the industry.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have reached the last step: we are beginning debate on third reading of the bill.

Today we are discussing Bill C-24 regarding the softwood lumber agreement settling the dispute between Canada and the United States. In practice, this bill leads us straight to the agreement between the United States and Canada.

We cannot talk about Bill C-24, particularly at this last stage, without referring to the agreement and the situation that has almost always characterized the softwood lumber sector. The softwood lumber trade with the United States can be traced back 150 years. There have been problems and disputes with the United States for a very long time. We opted for free trade even before that. Free trade would normally have covered all goods and services between the two countries so that they could trade freely with one another. However, once again, the United States complained five years ago. They began legal proceedings and imposed huge tariffs on Canadian and Quebec lumber crossing the border, claiming that it was subsidized and that dumping was occurring. They demanded countervailing and anti-dumping duties.

During that period, $5.4 billion in duties was paid to the United States. Imagine what that money could have done had it been invested in bringing procedures and processes up to date and modernizing equipment. Imagine how innovative a healthy forest industry would have enabled us to be in terms of remanufacturing. We know that Quebeckers and Canadians have great imaginations and can act fast to produce just about the best product at the best possible price for export to the United States. But the United States decided to collect crippling duties from the forest industry: $5.4 billion.

The Bloc Québécois recognized the problem years ago. It even tabled proposals and recommendations for programs in this House and in committee.

It made sense for us to ask the Liberal Party, which was in power at the time, to offer the industry loan guarantees. The United States was siphoning money away from companies, and their litigation did not hold water; it made no sense and was not logical. We knew that we were headed for a court victory. It was only a matter of time.

However, being robbed of $5.4 billion makes time move very slowly. There were tangible losses—job losses almost all over Canada. Some regions and provinces were hit harder than others—even Quebec, in some sectors. The situation demanded the effective application of loan guarantees so that companies could continue to survive in the first place, and maybe even grow despite this setback.

In fact we knew very well that they would win in court and that, one way or another, the United States would have to reimburse Quebeckers and Canadians, and the entire forestry industry.

When they were in power, the Liberals refused to assist the forestry industry and grant loan guarantees. During the election campaign—nearly a year ago, when it was in full flight—the Conservatives promised to help the forestry industry and were prepared to give loan guarantees in the event that they were elected. Some Canadians—a minority overall, if we consider the absolute number of people who voted—decided to place their trust in the Conservatives. They were soon disappointed, given the fact that the Conservatives have not kept their campaign promises, their campaign commitments.

There followed negotiations about which the House was not necessarily informed. The outcome of those negotiations was an agreement that they tried to present to us as the deal of the century, but it was the deal of the century only for one of the two parties, which is going to save a billion dollars. I am under the impression that the ideal outcome of an economic transaction is in fact that both parties be completely satisfied. We have to remember one important factor here. When we are talking about parties, we are talking about people, people who work in the industry. We are talking about the industry itself, companies, company owners, workers, everyone who works in the forestry industry. That is who the party was here in Canada and Quebec.

The same thing was true in the United States, but the people who were representing the entire forestry industry in Canada claimed that this was a huge win. Well the real winner is the United States, which bagged the billion dollars that stayed in the United States. That is big money. That is in fact a sweet deal for them, after illegally collecting $5.4 billion. They come out of it with a billion dollars. Mr. Speaker, if you were 100% in the right and I owed you $5.4 billion, you would not be content with $4.4 billion. You would ask me for all of the money owing.

That is what the forestry industry would have wanted. But given the time that had passed, given that the Conservatives did not want to offer loan guarantees and the Liberals had also not wanted to offer loan guarantees, those people were being strangled in their day-to-day lives, and they were not able to make any progress at all at that point. It was all they could do to keep their operations going, and especially to keep their businesses afloat. That could have meant that thousands, tens of thousands of people could have lived with their families, in their communities, in their regions, and that the economy would have functioned.

We were presented with this agreement, Certainly, to start with, everyone was unanimous in saying that it made no sense at all. What were we going to have to do? We knew very well that the government had the prerogative of signing and implementing the agreement. It did so. And then, we can be sure that discussions took place and a number of companies that were still denouncing that agreement felt obliged to accept it at a certain point.

I know that conditions are not the same in all regions. My colleague from the NDP, who is a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, has described quite a different situation in the region he represents, British Columbia. Clearly the situation there is in no way similar to the conditions facing the people of Quebec.

I respect him, of course, when he says that the Bloc Québécois is going against nature. The Bloc Québécois feels no great enthusiasm in supporting Bill C-24. Everyone knows that because we have said so. All of my colleagues who have spoken since the start of debate on Bill C-24 have said and repeated that they are not eager to support Bill C-24. Indeed, the bill is a carbon copy of an agreement that no one really accepts. We have been forced to accept it.

Consultations and representations took place and Quebeckers, like people in other parts of Canada, recognized that it was necessary to move forward in order to—

[David Emerson, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

moved 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 third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, judging by last night's 12 votes on softwood lumber related matters, all members of this House are starting to suffer a little bit of softwood lumber fatigue. Hopefully, they are beginning to understand the kind of fatigue that the softwood lumber industry is experiencing after the better part of two decades of protectionist attacks and trade disputes dealing with softwood lumber.

It is a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today to begin deliberations on third reading of Bill C-24, an act to implement Canada's commitments under the softwood lumber agreement. Once again, I ask that all members of the House support this bill.

To begin, I would like to thank all members of the House and particularly those members of the House Standing Committee on International Trade for their close study of the bill and their proposed amendments.

Much has happened since this bill was first introduced in the House on September 20. On October 12, the softwood lumber agreement officially came into force. Three weeks after that Export Development Canada commenced refunds of duties to sawmills and producers in many of the more than 300 communities in Canada that are dependent on the forest industry.

This has been a much needed infusion of cash for this sector at a time of very weak lumber markets. Thanks to the accelerated process we developed through Export Development Canada, over 93% of lumber companies participating in the accelerated refund mechanism have now received their refunds.

That is more than $3 billion disbursed ahead of schedule and Export Development Canada will clean up the balance of those refunds in the next few weeks. Considering what this money represents for forestry workers and communities, this is a critical period because this industry is facing some very tough times. Lumber prices are in a cyclical low as a result of weaknesses in the U.S. housing market. Energy costs are up and the exchange rate advantage enjoyed a few years ago has now been erased by the strong Canadian dollar.

Cash provided by the agreement will help lumber producers reinvest in their enterprises, improving efficiency and helping to weather that downturn in lumber prices. What is more important, it will let them do so in a more stable, more predictable trade environment, an environment where the rules are clear and where for the first time in years we are not dragging the dead weight of litigation and the crippling attacks of U.S. protectionists.

We cannot overestimate the importance of a stable environment to our lumber industry and now Canadian companies are investing again. They are buying U.S. companies. They are investing in technology. They are assuming the mantle of global leadership in an industry where Canada has historically been a world leader.

What do I mean by stability and certainty? We are talking about seven to nine years, the life of this agreement, during which Canadian forest policies are going to be protected from further protectionist attacks by U.S. interests. If there is a moratorium on trade actions, it would give our industry a sustained period to begin to rebuild and to plan their future.

We have an agreement which provides mechanisms for improving and strengthening the trade framework. We will be improving it through improved operating rules. There is an opportunity to examine exit ramps for further regions in Canada to come out from under some of the remaining restrictions in the softwood lumber agreement.

We have a provision for an examination of the coastal industry in British Columbia which, as members will know, has been in decline for 10 to 15 years now. We will now work with the province of B.C., with the industry, and with our U.S. counterparts to ensure that the softwood lumber agreement evolves and provincial policy and Canadian policy evolves in such a way as to breathe new life into the coastal industry in British Columbia.

We will have an opportunity through this agreement to look at the value added sector and what we can do to improve conditions for the growth of the value added sector here in Canada.

We have a dispute resolution mechanism which is a non-NAFTA dispute resolution mechanism. It will provide for quick, clear, transparent and fairly immediate resolution of disputes arising from this agreement.

In weak markets, which occur regularly in the lumber business, as anyone familiar with this industry knows, we do have a framework which is flexible. We have opportunities for provinces to choose how they wish to manage and react to markets when prices are below certain threshold levels. We have retention of revenues. When we have an export tax in place, those moneys stay here in Canada and the largest portion will be returned to the provinces from where the tax was collected.

When we think about the agreement and members of the House make a decision on how to vote on the agreement, we should think long and hard about the alternative. Our lumber producers have spent the better part of the last two decades engaged in costly and drawn out legal battles with the United States. They know that winning the battle is not the same as winning the war. Our victories in a number of trade courts, both with the NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, were helpful in setting the stage for a negotiated settlement.

However, litigation was never intended to be an end game. The government has not seen it that way. The last government did not see it that way, and the vast majority in the industry never saw litigation as a route to the final solution in softwood lumber. It was always intended to give Canada a strong basis for negotiations. Taken to the limit, litigation has proven to be a sinkhole into which we can pour hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars. It is a ticket to affluence and opulence for U.S. trade lawyers, but it is not a ticket to full free trade in lumber.

Some have suggested that Canada should have held out for the ultimate win in litigation, which they claimed would come some time in 2007 or beyond. Every member in the House must recognize that legal victory is never certain. On any given case, it is never certain. Every member must recognize that the United States, or its softwood lumber lobby, could simply file a new case the very next day.

There is little to prevent the U.S. from changing its laws to erase the basis for our legal victories. Only an agreement, such as the one we have reached, can prevent new cases and a new dispute from erupting immediately. In weak lumber markets, such as we have now, that is the time when Canada is most vulnerable to the most egregious, painful and destructive attacks by U.S. protectionists.

The NAFTA is a good trade agreement, but it was never devised to avoid trade disputes and trade litigation, whether originating on the U.S. side or the Canadian side. Those who reject a negotiated softwood lumber agreement are basically arguing for a sustained attack on U.S. trade law. That would be a war of attrition and I do not think it would be a war that we could win with the emerging and growing protectionist sentiments in the U.S. It is a war that would be fought on the backs of Canadian companies and Canadian workers. In the end, the legal victories would be empiric victories, the pain would far exceed the gain.

That is why the government took action, and it started right at the top. When our Prime Minister met with President Bush in Cancun earlier this year, they decided that resolving this dispute was fundamental to the Canada-U.S. trade relationship overall.

Together with the active involvement of industry and the provinces, we negotiated an agreement that is good for lumber communities and good for Canada. This agreement eliminates punitive U.S. duties. It ends costly litigation. It takes our lumber producers out of the courts and puts them back where they belong, growing their businesses and contributing to their communities.

For the next seven to nine years no border measures will be imposed when lumber prices are above $355 U.S. for a thousand board feet. When prices drop below this threshold level, the agreement provides provinces with flexibility to choose the border measures most beneficial to their economic situation. All export charge revenues collected by the Government of Canada through these border measures will stay in Canada. The agreement returns more than $5 billion Canadian to the industry. That is a much needed infusion of capital for an industry and the workers who rely on the lumber industry.

Make no mistake about it, if we turn our backs on this negotiated softwood lumber agreement, that some members continue to advocate, that would mean a return to the courts. It would mean greater job losses for the people and communities that depend on softwood lumber.

Ask the major lumber producing provinces that joined the overwhelming majority in industry in supporting this agreement, ask the producing companies, and ask the workers, if they really want to continue with a softwood lumber trade war at a time like this when markets are weak and protectionist pressures are strong and growing in the United States. Ask them if they would like to go back to paying U.S. duties. Ask them if they want to take on new legal attacks, new cases, and new duties, and further fill the pockets and the coffers of U.S. law firms. Ask them if they want to follow the opponents of a negotiated settlement like lemmings off another cliff in an act of collective economic suicide.

Our lumber communities have suffered long enough. They need the stability and the resources that this agreement provides. This agreement is the best way forward for our softwood lumber industry and the over 300,000 Canadians who rely on it. It does not solve every problem, but it does provide the framework for resolving outstanding problems. We will work with provinces, with industry, and with communities to build a great future for a great industry. I ask members to support Bill C-24.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-24.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from November 29 consideration of 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, as reported with amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Groups Nos. 1 and 2.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I stand corrected by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who is no slouch when it comes to filibusters. He knows the importance of standing up on principle and in fact he worked very hard in a previous Parliament to try to stop regressive legislation in the area of aboriginal affairs. He did a great service to this country.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster tried the same with respect to softwood lumber. But for the fact that his colleagues from the other opposition parties let him down, it would have been a completely successful overhaul of this legislation. Clearly we are now debating a small number of those amendments that did make it through the committee process before the other parties decided to clamp down, to stop my colleague from speaking, to silence him on this very important issue.

That is regrettable. This place should always be open to hear constructive debate and criticism. He did that by way of these amendments. We know that the amendments were not deleterious or trivial. They were all substantive and would have made the legislation much, much better.

As it is, at almost the final stage of the bill, we are left debating a most imperfect piece of legislation. The bill will do enormous damage to this country in all aspects of our sovereignty as a nation, may I suggest, at a time when we are discussing the whole definition of what it means to be a nation.

While we have stood in the House and recognized that the Québécois and the Québecoise form a nation within a united Canada, at the same time we have acknowledged that under the present government and the previous government, we have lost our sense of nationhood in terms of Canada as a country. We have given away so much of what is important to this country that we have been left to scramble and try to piece together a meaningful definition of what it means to be a nation.

This is why. Here is a bill where we are giving away our sovereignty. We are kowtowing to the Americans. We are giving the Americans a billion dollars because we would not stand up to the Americans and ensure justice was done in terms of our own lumber producers and manufacturers. This is a serious situation. That is why we are debating it today with our every breath and we are trying to bring some sense into this process.

It is important at this moment to bring forward the latest evidence, the most important study yet done in this area in terms of the economic impact on our country of Bill C-24. Today's Quorum contains an article from today's Globe and Mail which has the headline, “Lumber deal will devastate B.C. mill towns”. The article says, “The Canada-United States softwood lumber agreement will devastate British Columbia resource towns if parliament ratifies the deal”. That is according to a report done by the very prominent and credible organization, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which has produced accurate reports in many instances.

I say it is credible and reliable because it is the organization that over the last six or seven budgets has accurately forecast the surplus available to the government. It has been far more accurate than the officials in the Department of Finance. If we look at the statistics over the last six or seven budgets, the government, mainly Liberal, I might add, forecast a surplus of about $23 billion for that whole period. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives forecast a surplus of $75 billion for that period of time. Would anyone care to guess what was the actual surplus for that period of time? It was $70 billion. Which was closer, the Government of Canada at $23 billion, or the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives at $75 billion? CCPA was right on the money.

Let me put on record its conclusion. After an in-depth study about this issue, the CCPA said that the softwood lumber agreement is a bad deal. It said that combined with forest policy changes that the B.C. government made in a failed attempt to appease the softwood lobby, it harms the province's ability to generate much needed jobs in resource dependent communities. It said that before it is too late, political leaders should speak to block its final passage into law. Today we appeal to all members in the House to block the passage of Bill C-24.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in this critical debate on an issue that is important for the future of our country.

We are talking today about Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement, and we are talking about a legislative process that ran amok, despite the best efforts of the New Democratic Party caucus and particularly those of our trade critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

I want to add my congratulations for the member's steadfast work on this very important issue over many months. Despite the many obstacles that were put in his way, despite all kinds of intimidation by other members in the House, this single member persevered and resolved to fight to the very end to stop this bad deal. That deserves commendation. It deserves noteworthy recognition in this House.

I want the member to know that we appreciate the long hours he has put in, especially at the committee level, where in fact he single-handedly tried to provide the constructive criticism needed to improve this bill, despite the fact that the other opposition parties and critics had abandoned this matter and left the whole issue for the Conservatives to pursue, as they determined was appropriate for their own agenda.

We know the story. In fact, we know what our critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, went through as he attempted hold the committee to task for its commitment to hold cross-country hearings on this critical issue. There was an all party agreement for that process, but somehow, somewhere in the deep recesses of this place, the Conservatives got through to the Liberals and the Bloc, who willingly gave up this commitment, who kowtowed and allowed themselves to abandon a public consultation process. That is unforgiveable.

A commitment was made. Canadians across this country were waiting for those hearings. We ought to have fulfilled our obligations. In fact, I can remember that in August of this year when our caucus was meeting in Thunder Bay there was an absolute demand across the board for those hearings and for an opportunity to participate in the process. People have a lot to say and have very deep reservations about the softwood deal. They have been denied that opportunity.

If that was not enough, the committee dealing with Bill C-24 then proceeded to try to shut down my dear colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, despite the fact that he put in hours and hours of research and developed very constructive amendments. In fact, he developed 96 amendments.

[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--

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier to Bill C-24 and I could not help, as this debate is closing, but to take the 10 minutes that I am accorded to add my voice to this most difficult situation. I want to use this opportunity to tell Canadians some of the facts that occurred. We come to this honourable chamber to deal with facts and not innuendoes.

When we sit in this honourable chamber, we sometimes say things that are not accurate. I do not want to use the words “not truthful” because that is unparliamentary language, but members say things that are not accurate. Yet, we walk out of the chamber feeling pretty comfortable. I choose not to take that position, but to take this opportunity as the debate closes on Bill C-24 to put some facts on the table.

As the member for Burnaby—Douglas concluded his remarks he said that we were on the verge. I assume he meant we were on the verge in final arbitration to once again have a ruling in Canada's favour.

I had the privilege, if I may say, to chair the committee that addressed this issue. As I mentioned in the past and I will take the opportunity once again, the entire industry literally came before the committee and gave testimony. Members from the Bloc spoke about this earlier. Let me put on the record who attended. The committee heard from the Québec Forest Industry Council; the BC Lumber Trade Council, mentioned by the New Democratic representative who just spoke; Canfor Corporation; West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd.; and Weyerhaeuser Company. We are talking about all the industry representatives.

What did they tell us in committee? They thanked us for the support that the Liberal government had been providing throughout this ordeal. They were here to tell us that they needed our financial assistance and government support because they knew they were going to win and they wanted to be there.

We do not just cut cheques. Obviously, there has to be a committee inquiry and we have to hear from witnesses. As a committee we have an obligation to summarize all the findings and make recommendations, which is exactly what we did. There were recommendations which are here in the report.

The parliamentary secretary and the member for Burnaby—Douglas were present. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster was also on the committee and knows very well the recommendations. He heard them firsthand. There were recommendations from the New Democratic Party that members from the Bloc approved. The recommendations from the Liberal government of the day included a provision to provide financial support.

Having said that, the response will be that I am still upset. No, I am not upset with what happened. Canadians spoke in the last election. Liberals respect the outcome and we have to work with it.

The member for Burnaby—Douglas said that we were on the verge. If we were on the verge, why did the Conservatives betray the lumber industry and overthrow the Liberal government prematurely when there was a commitment to have an election at some point in time as the then prime minister indicated? There is no question. I agree with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois that this is a bad deal.

When the Minister of Industry signed the agreement and members of the community and the industry did not agree, the new Conservative government, as it wishes to be called, turned around and said it had been muzzled to put this deal together and asked how to do it. This is how it put the deal together. It went to the players in the lumber industry and said that if they did not accept this deal, the government would tax them on top of it.

Let me quote from the newspaper. It says here, “Ottawa plans to tax holdouts”. In other words, if they do not accept the deal, the government will tax them on top of that. It does not matter that it has taken over $5 billion their money.

On the money, there is great concern. I challenge the parliamentary secretary, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry. I am hopeful that one day they will show us a cheque for over $4 billion. Quite frankly, the people I speak to and I hear from do not feel that money will come to Canada. That is a challenge I hope the they will pick up on and some day stand proudly, if they have that cheque, and say that they got our money back. I do not think that money is coming.

During the presentations, over and over again, we talked about the NAFTA dispute mechanism. We know very well there are some problems in it. When the deal was first put together, it was put together with the thought of that day. Along the way, things change, such as environments and conditions, and on an ongoing basis we try to refine and improve it.

Unfortunately, what has happened is that in the middle of the game, the Americans decided to change the rules. They are trying to punish us because we have developed a very efficient and cost effective product where we can put our lumber out to the international community and compete fair and square.

What I am upset about, as are many of my constituents, is they are going to hold over $1 billion of our money of which they say half a billion is going to go to supporting the Katrina fund. That is an honourable thing to do. However, as we know, parliamentarians and Canadians responded to the call of the Katrina disaster. We raised money. I do not think that was a wise decision. On the other hand, we do not know up to this very day where the half a billion dollars will go.

Would the parliamentary secretary get us some information on this? Canadians want to know where their money is going.

From the day the deal was supposedly made until now, it has been almost a year. If an average Canadian had over $5 billion in the bank, that would provide him or her with some interest. Is that interest coming to Canada, or is that interest going to stay in the United States of America? That is another question Canadians are asking.

The member earlier said that this was a great deal. Canadians are still asking what the deal is all about. Why is this deal so great? Is it great because we have been robbed of over $1 billion? Is it great because if conditions change overnight, the Americans can change the rules? Is it a great deal because it has already cost us jobs? I want to know what is so great about this deal so I can tell my constituents.

It does not affect me personally, coming from an urban riding such as Scarborough Centre, but it does affect the peripheral industries around me, whether it is housing, et cetera. Directly it does not affect employment in my riding, but it affects my province of Ontario as a whole. However, when it affects the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia, rest assured it affects each and every Canadian, and I bring that to the attention of the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister.

I want to thank the member from New Westminster, who really did work hard on this file during committee, and the members from the Bloc. I am sad today because they do not reflect on what happened and what the recommendations were in that committee. They know very well, as the member for Burnaby—Douglas said, we were on the verge of putting this deal properly where it belonged.

Unfortunately, and I am not going to go into it, the government was no longer there. Here we are today, succumbing to the pressure of the Americans, giving up well over a billion dollars, and it is costing us jobs on top of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement. I have done so on several occasions this session because this is very important legislation. It is very important to people in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas. It is very important to the people of British Columbia, as indeed it is to people all across Canada.

I have to say that this is a very badly botched deal. It is a very badly botched deal and this is a very badly botched piece of legislation to enact that deal. There is always more to be said about the ineffective nature of this bill and its discrepancies and the problems with this piece of legislation and this deal.

I want to begin by paying tribute to my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, for the outstanding work he has done on this legislation and this deal, which includes his hard work, the hours he has put in and the dedication he has shown to getting the best possible deal for the people of Canada, for the lumber producing communities in this country and for the people who work in the lumber industry.

He has put in the hours. He has done the work to get a decent deal for Canadians and to then have a piece of legislation that actually was effective and worked. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, we have ended up with neither of these, because the government botched the negotiations to begin with and because the legislation has been so badly prepared.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster was the one who fought to have summer hearings. He was the one who was prepared to come back from his summer vacation, to come back to Ottawa in the summer, which is no joy, as I am sure hon. members will know. We are from British Columbia and we enjoy the cool summer weather, while here in Ottawa there is none of that. To work through an Ottawa summer is giving up a lot when one is from British Columbia. It was something that he was prepared to do to take on this important work. Those hearings did go ahead. We were able to hear from people who had concerns about this legislation.

As well, during those hearings in the summer there was a further promise to have hearings in the regions. There was a promise to have hearings in Quebec, in northern Ontario and in B.C. A promise was made to go to the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region, to Thunder Bay and to Vancouver to hear from communities that were directly affected. We were to hear from the people who were directly affected, the elected officials who represent those communities locally, the companies located in those communities, and the other businesses affected by this deal and this dispute.

Unfortunately, those hearings were cancelled. After the member for Burnaby—New Westminster worked so hard to get those hearings for the people in the regions of Canada that are directly affected by this legislation, after he got it on the agenda, the committee later turned around and cancelled those hearings.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster fought so hard to get those hearings and I think that was a despicable turn of events. Those people needed to have the opportunity to sit face to face with members of Parliament working on this issue and tell them about the problems they were having with the deal and this legislation. That opportunity was snatched away from them. There is no excuse for having backed out on that promise that was made by the committee.

I also have to say that I think the process the standing committee undertook when it was looking at this legislation, the process that shut down debate on the legislation in committee, is one that I think is particularly reprehensible.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, over the course of his hard work on this legislation, came up with 98 proposals on how this legislation could be improved and clarified. He worked hard to develop those 98 amendments and get them on the agenda of the committee.

Unfortunately, the committee decided to limit his ability to put them forward, to limit the debate in the committee, and to put time limitations on how long he had to address his proposals before the committee. The first limitation was a three minute limitation on each amendment.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak again about Bill C-24, this time as part of the review of the second group of amendments proposed following the clause-by-clause study of the bill in committee.

I would like to begin by commenting on what was said by my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, whom I have the great pleasure to work with on the Standing Committee on International Trade and whose competence I value.

Sometimes, we have similar opinions. At other times, we disagree, on issues such as the recognition of Quebec as a nation or how attentive the Bloc Québécois is to the needs of our industries and unions.

Since the debates began in this House, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has said several times that he and his party have consulted representatives of the industry and forestry workers on numerous occasions to hear their objections to Bill C-24.

However, we in the Bloc Québécois have also consulted industry representatives and workers in Quebec. They have asked us to support this agreement, because the industry has been brought to its knees by the constraints that have been imposed on it for so many years. That is why we support this agreement.

We must not forget that from the very beginning of this long and difficult conflict four years ago, despite the Bloc Québécois' many questions and its pressure on them, both the Conservative and Liberal governments refused to take action in this House to ensure better financial health for our forest industry and stable jobs for thousands of workers.

The Liberal and Conservative governments forgot—or probably chose to forget—one major thing: the importance of preparing a plan to support the forest industry and forestry sector workers by, for example, establishing a loan guarantees program to help some of them avoid bankruptcy. But despite multi-billion dollar surpluses, neither government did or is doing anything to support our industries.

Unfortunately, for more than 40 months, the Liberals stubbornly refused to provide any kind of assistance program and the Conservatives, who probably wanted to prove that they could be just as obstinate as the Liberals, decided to take the same approach.

Sometimes, when we put forward proposals to help our Quebec industries, we hear them laughing. The Liberals were stubborn. However, the Conservatives' refusal is not surprising. We know that in terms of economics, they prefer a laissez-faire ideology. They are not aware that their vision is doing a lot of damage to our forest industry.

During the last election campaign, the Conservative leader stated several times that he would help the forest industry by providing loan guarantees. The Conservatives made a commitment. They promised to support the industry with loan guarantees. After the election, they did not keep their promises about an independent employment insurance fund, the fiscal imbalance, or an assistance program for older workers, to name just a few.

Subsequently, the Prime Minister signed an agreement with his new friend, President Bush—an agreement that gave away $1 billion in duties illegally collected by our neighbours to the south. He gave President Bush a $1 billion gift. Of that $1 billion, $500 million will go to the American companies that started the conflict in the first place.

It is possible that this money will be used to modernize their companies and even used by these same industries to start a new legal war against the Quebec and Canadian forest industry.

This is an agreement and a bill that we support, but unenthusiastically.

During this entire dispute, it seemed obvious to me that the United States won with their strategy of dragging out litigation as long as possible.

Short on financial resources and abandoned by the Liberals and now the Conservatives, the forest industry was on its last legs and could no longer continue to fight in the courts, even though it won the many cases that were heard.

The industry, without support, asked the Bloc Québécois to recover some of this money that the U.S. government withheld illegally. Yes, illegally, since Washington was never able to show in any court that its companies were adversely affected, or that its claims, that Canadian wood was subsidized, were founded.

Where are we now? Government representatives are saying that the Quebec and Canadian industry is getting its money back, as though this were an unexpected gift to the industry. This money is not a subsidy. This is industry money, only part of which is being recovered. But politics being what it is sometimes, the Conservatives seem to be claiming that they are subsidizing the forest industry with their own money.

A number of times we heard the Minister of Industry and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, with whom I enjoy working, tell us that the return of these duties represents a new cash injection, which will be very beneficial to the softwood lumber industry. There is no cash injection and no program of action to support the industry. It is false to say that this is a gift or a new cash injection since the industry paid this money in countervailing duties. Our industry is only recovering some of the money illegally withheld by Washington.

It is in this context that the industry and representatives of Quebec's forestry workers are reluctantly asking us to support the agreement, that the Bloc Québécois, as the party accountable to these industries, these unions and these constituents, has decided to take this direction.

However, since the beginning of the dispute, it is obvious that we would have preferred the government to support the industry in order to help its workers get through this very difficult period.

With the government's support, this industry could have developed and become more competitive, which would have minimized job losses. But, no, this federal government—whether Conservative or Liberal—chose to do nothing. It apparently did not have the money. It has a surplus of $13 billion, $14 billion or $15 billion, yet it cannot support industries. It says it does not have the means. This has led us to where we are today.

As we have stated repeatedly in recent months, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill because the forest industry and the representatives of workers in Quebec have asked us to support the agreement. The NDP is still questioning us about this, namely, why we support this agreement. We constantly repeat: because we are close to the people who work in our industries and close to our unions. That is why we support this agreement.

However, since the very beginning of the dispute, we have maintained that the government must intervene. We cannot pretend, as the Conservative government maintains, that this agreement will solve all the forest industry's problems.

We know that it will solve very few of them.

As I mentioned, the forest industry has become vulnerable because of the lengthy softwood lumber dispute and it now faces an unprecedented structural crisis.

Clearly, the forest industry has been unable to overcome the tremendous difficulty it has been facing in recent years because of the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.

According to the Quebec Forest Industry Council, more than 7,000 jobs have been permanently or temporarily lost in Quebec since spring 2005. By refusing to act, the Conservatives—like the Liberals—have demonstrated blatant irresponsibility in this file. They must now assume their responsibilities.

If the government is still not convinced that an assistance program is necessary, it need only look at the number of jobs lost. The industry needs a support program, older workers need a support program, and the employment insurance program must be improved. We are waiting for this government to act.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of 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, as reported with amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 2.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I will do better than just tell the hon. member what will happen next week, I will tell him how we will conclude this week.

This afternoon we will be on the report stage of Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow and Friday the House will be adjourned for the Liberal leadership convention, and we will all be watching that with interest.

On Monday it is my intention to call ways and means Motion No. 12, a motion to refer Bill C-30, the clean air act, to a legislative committee before second reading. We will continue that week with Bill S-5, on tax conventions, and Bill C-34, on the first nations education agreement.

On Tuesday we will then consider the third reading stage of Bill C-24.

Later on that week it is my hope that we will begin the debate on the marriage motion. I will continue to consult my colleagues with respect to a date for the final vote on that. After that it is my intention to proceed with Bill C-28, the budget tax measures.

I hope that is of help to the hon. member.

National Peacekeepers’ Day Act

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to respond to a point of order that was raised by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on Tuesday, November 21 during debate on Bill C-24, the softwood lumber products export charge act.

I referred to the Minister of International Trade, that he had committed a treasonous act. I was referring to the time when he crossed over from the Liberal Party shortly after the last election to the Conservative Party. I realize that wording was unparliamentary and I would like to withdraw it. Hopefully it will end at that.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's first question concerning my preferred schedule, my preferred schedule would be a schedule where all government business gets expedited and passed in the next three weeks and have the other place return the bills that we have already sent them. That is my preferred option.

In any case, if that is not possible or probable, we will continue today with the debate on the Bloc opposition motion and tomorrow we will begin on the government's motion in the name of the Prime Minister, followed by report stage of Bill C-24 and Bill S-5.

We will continue with the business from Friday next week, with the exception of Tuesday, November 28, which of course will be the final allotted day. We will be adjourned for Thursday and Friday of next week, Mr. Speaker, as you may already be aware.

I can indicate to the hon. member that we will be proceeding with the motion that he referred to and we will get to it before the Christmas break. I will be continuing my discussions with House leaders of all political parties as to some parameters and to get some common agreement on the conduct of that debate.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you.

The most conclusive study on mandatory minimum sentences was conducted for the Solicitor General of Canada, by Mr. Crutcher and Mr. Tabor. These studies are very clear: mandatory minimum sentences do not act as deterrent, nor do they have an incidence when it comes to reoffending. There is no doubt about this. There is a whole host of studies demonstrating that they do not work.

This bill is ideologically based and attempts to give a false sense of security. This is why, unfortunately for some, the opposition parties are likely to do what they have to do by voting against this bill at committee stage. If you'd like, Mr. Petit, I'd be willing to bet you a large beer.

Now let's come back to organized crime and Bill C-95, which has become Bill C-24. I'd really like you to take your time and tell us... First, your appraisal of the mega trials is interesting. In my opinion, an offence under sections 466 and 467 of the Criminal Code should have been established. Indeed, during the 1990s, the Department of Justice thought it could break up organized crime networks by relying on the conspiracy provisions. I remember having discussed this with senior officials who were convinced networks could be pulled apart simply by virtue of the conspiracy provisions.

I didn't agree; I really thought the notion of a gang needed to be defined, because the existing definition wasn't always functional. Initially, a gang was five people who committed five offences over five years. Then, a parliamentary committee suggested three. Warrants for wiretapping were extended. The whole process was enhanced. This meant that the major organized crime networks were able to be broken up, not as a result of mandatory minimum sentences, but rather, because law enforcement was given the tools it needed to gather evidence, including wiretapping, which is the best way to dismantle organized crime. As a result of the decision in Stinchcombe, it became possible to bring people before the courts. This decision made complete disclosure of the evidence mandatory. Initially, people weren't happy about this. Eventually, people learned to deal with it.

Having said this, Ms. Beare, I would like you to say more about your fears concerning gangsterism and its effects on Bill C-10, which you referred to at the start of your presentation.

I'll then have a short question for the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-24 for the third time, this time in relation to consideration of the second group of amendments that were proposed after the clause-by-clause examination.

The clause-by-clause examination of the bill by the committee involved some 132 proposed amendments. Some of them may have been proposed for the purpose of dragging out the debate. In any event, there were some amendments that did make sense, and it would have been in our interest to accept them too.

We are debating a bill in which there is still room for improvement. That much is obvious. The situation is complex. What Parliament is having to do is to legislate, to pronounce on a bill that has to be consistent with an agreement that has been signed, an agreement that, I am persuaded, any normal person would have simply rejected.

We must consider the context, however. The NDP is fond of telling us that the fact that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of and even supports Bill C-24 makes no sense. In his argument, my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster said that he was defending his constituents’ interests passionately, forcefully, and that he has consulted them and consulted them again. We have done the same thing. The same consultations were done in Quebec, with the unions, the owners, the forestry companies and employees, with everyone who has been strangled, who has been suffocated by the situation. In one sense, this situation has virtually been created and encouraged by both governments: the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government.

From the beginning of the softwood lumber dispute with the United States, the Bloc Québécois had proposed that very specific things be done to assist this industry.

Our first suggestion was obviously that loan guarantees be instituted. If that had been done, we would not be where we are now. We would not be here talking about things that have happened and that may happen again. This agreement does not settle everything and it leaves the United States government ample latitude for getting out of it in a mere 18 months and for starting to impose duties all over again. Bizarre as it is, this bill operates to impose duties. Canada is imposing duties on its forestry industry.

The United States did that, and our industry in fact won every case it brought. We were just about to get a judgment, the final judgment, which would have required that the United States reimburse the Canadian industry, one way or another. If that had happened, they would have made the repayment without keeping a billion dollars for their own benefit.

In addition, the Liberal Party, which formed the government initially, did not want to take practical measures to help the forest industry. Hon. members will also recall that during the election campaign, the leader of the Conservative Party promised to help the industry by providing loan guarantees, a promise he quickly broke after the election. Then he reached an agreement with the United States, at the expense of the people who paid duties, which were collected illegally, it must be said.

As well, $1 billion is staying in the United States and helping the United States far more than Canada and its forest industry. Obviously, we would have preferred that the government support its industry and help it through a rough time, that the forest industry be able to grow and become competitive, and that the United States not make new accusations that, of course, were unfounded.

The government backed away from its responsibilities, and as a result, we will have to live with an agreement that no one would have been willing to accept. Yet the government forced people to accept it. The Liberal Party and the NDP will probably come out against this agreement because they probably know that, in the end, the bill will be passed anyway in order to help the forest industry as soon as possible.

We are currently studying the two groups of amendments. We have finished studying the first group and are now analyzing the second group. Roughly 95 amendments have been proposed and only 19 have been kept. The Speaker will decide which amendments we will debate, and the list has been pared down quite a bit. In fact, some amendments that are no longer on the list were very interesting and could have made the bill better.

Obviously, we cannot improve the agreement, but we can improve the bill by ensuring that it contains more specific provisions and that Canada will not be taken advantage of in specific situations.

There are many different ways to help the forest industry, different measures the government could have implemented to protect the forest industry. Who will really benefit from this agreement? Yes, the industry will recover $4.4 billion, but what about that $1 billion that will stay in the United States?

What should we make of a government that lets people steal enormous sums of money?

What was the government thinking when it decided to give the United States a billion dollars? That money could really have helped the forest industry.

The Minister of Industry says that recovering these duties will give the softwood lumber industry the cash it really needs. He says it is a cash infusion, but it was the forest industry's own money in the first place. This is basically a refund.

In conclusion, I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill reluctantly. The Conservative minority government's concessions will put the forest industry in a dangerous position, especially in Quebec. Contrary to what the minister seems to think when he says this is a cash infusion, the return of illegally collected money is neither a gift nor a miracle; it is simply giving back what belongs to the forest industry.

We hope that in the future, the forest industry will never again have to put up with its own government pulling a fast one on it.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the past month I have done a great deal of reading and listening with regard to the government's softwood lumber agreement and I have come to only one conclusion, which is that this softwood lumber deal is a sellout and it is bad for Canada. There are many reasons why and I would like to take some time this afternoon to list a few of those reasons.

First, it is based on the falsehood that Canadian softwood lumber industries are subsidized. This falsehood was exposed and rejected in every NAFTA and U.S. commercial court ruling, all of which have clearly sided with the Canadian industry.

Second, it gives away $500 million in funds owned by the Canadian softwood industry to subsidize the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports.

Third, it provides $450 million in funds to the Bush administration that the President of the United States can use at his discretion, without congressional approval and without any accountability. One can only wonder at what George Bush will do with these ill-gotten Canadian funds.

If we put those two together, it is nearly $1 billion. This is $500 million so the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports can come at us again and $450 million in the hands of the President of the United States. I do not know about other members but it gives me chills just thinking about that.

In addition, this deal can be cancelled unilaterally at any time and does not provide stability and predictability to the Canadian softwood industry. It constrains trade unreasonably by applying punitive tariffs and quotas that hinder the flexibility of the Canadian softwood industry. It also infringes on provincial constitutional prerogatives by not just Ottawa but by Washington. It is bad enough that Ottawa can interfere in provincial jurisdiction but to have Washington calling the shots is just unconscionable.

The softwood deal also kills the credibility of the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism which would have ensured a full refund to the Canadian softwood industry of the entire $5.3 billion of illegally collected duties. Was it not just recently that both the Liberals and the Conservatives were delivering the siren call of the NAFTA deal and how important that was? To see it being scuttled and totally abandoned now is quite remarkable.

This deal sets a bad precedent not only for softwood lumber but for any other industrial sector in Canada. That should send shivers through this country, not just the softwood industry but every other industrial sector. It opens the door to U.S. attacks on all Canadian industries. They can target any industry and go after it because they were very successful with softwood. They will find a group and then follow the same plan as before.

The deal does nothing for the thousands of workers who lost their livelihoods over the past five years. There is nothing in the softwood lumber agreement to deal with the major disruption that the U.S. abuse of trade rules has caused to the working families in the communities of Canada. There is absolutely no compensation for people who have lost their jobs or for the communities that have suffered as a result of those job losses.

This deal will also potentially trigger significant job losses through further consolidation caused by the quotas and export taxes and by discouraging Canadian value-added production and stimulating raw log exports. Value-added industries are the key to our economic future. If we are to be hewers of water and those who can only use our resources to export, we will not progress at all in this modern economy.

The deal also forces a further downsizing of the Canadian softwood industry, with the accompanying huge impacts on softwood communities throughout Canada.

The deal discriminates against Canadian companies that refuse to sign the softwood lumber agreement by resorting to bullying and fiscal arm-twisting. This is an abuse of power.

This deal will not deter American litigation in the near future, as evidenced by the recent move of the Bush government to overturn the United States Court of International Trade, CIT, decision of April 7 and July 14 which ruled that the Byrd amendment could not apply to Canadian merchandise.

I believe I have given a significant number of reasons. In fact, I have just outlined 14 reasons why Bill C-24 is fiscally flawed. The payout is based on Canadian softwood exporters who are owed the equivalent of 95% of the total $5.3 billion in illegal duties paid to the U.S. We know that the Prime Minister has not reached the 95% target, which means additional costs to the Canadian softwood industry and to taxpayers. Taxpayers should be watching this bill very closely because they will be the worst for its passing.

The 15th reason is that the participation process was flawed. While U.S. customs has put in punitive taxes on about 1,500 Canadian softwood companies, the minister responsible initially conducted secret meetings with a core group of about 25 large softwood companies. The consultation process must be far broader than that.

The Standing Committee on International Trade passed an NDP motion in support of further hearings on the softwood issue in northern Ontario, Quebec and B.C. More hearings are needed, not fewer. More hearings are needed by the committee to ensure the recommendations that need to be in place are indeed in place.

The deal does not account for the seasonal nature of the market. Companies are not allowed the flexibility to sufficiently carry forward export quotas to other months, which would lead them to consistently undershoot their export ceilings.

Also, at current or potential market benchmark prices, the Canadian softwood industry would pay more in punitive tariffs under the softwood lumber agreement of 2006 than the current illegal American tariffs. Can anyone imagine making a deal in which we pay more? It is like asking someone to hit us over the head with a mallet. If we pay more and have more charges, we will be less competitive. It is like being asked to be hit again.

The quotas will not replace the export tax until 2007. As of October 1. everyone, east and west, will pay a 15% export tax for three months. This is a considerable sum of money. Also, Canadian softwood companies that seek a refund through the EDC could be losing interest on their money. They could forfeit about 20% of their return and pay an additional tax of 19%. So much for Conservatives the tax fighters. This is astounding.

Bill C-24 contains no contingency provision pertaining to entry into forest and softwood lumber agreement 2006. Consequently, when the tax of 15% goes into effect on October 1, a Canadian softwood company may still be paying an additional 10.8% to the U.S. on that day.

The 22nd reason, and we are logging up quite a few here if you will pardon the pun, Mr. Speaker, is that the Provinces of B.C., Ontario and Quebec are behind this deal for the wrong reasons. The reality is that the three provinces are overexcited about getting the money and have given little consideration to the longer term, broader implications of this deal.

I have many more reasons and I wish I had time to go through all of them but the current Prime Minister was clear on how the softwood lumber agreement should be negotiated. In Hansard on October 24, 2005, he said:

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.

I will repeat what I have said before and I will be as clear as I can. This is not the time for negotiation or for compliance and that was before the final legal victories. I speak from the heart and for my constituents in the forest city of London when I say that this is a sellout. We cannot accept this deal. We must negotiate something that works for Canada and Canadians.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to pick up where I left off yesterday in debating the Group No. 1 amendments to Bill C-24. At the time, I was reminding Canadians everywhere who have not been following the softwood lumber issue perhaps as carefully as those of us who have been seized with the issue, that it seems the government is moving at almost warp speed to shred any competitive advantage that Canada may enjoy over the United States in the case of lumber and, as I will develop further, in the case of wheat.

Just days before Ottawa bludgeoned Canada's lumber industry into this deeply flawed softwood lumber agreement, the Vancouver Sun published the details of a leaked letter from the Bush administration to the U.S. lumber lobby. This is not a conspiracy theory. This was accurately reported in the Vancouver Sun and its veracity has never been challenged. In the letter, the American administration, the Bush administration, confirmed that its objective was to hobble the Canadian industry for seven years. It is no longer paranoid to assume that this was their goal. This was a stated fact.

Nor does it end there. The most shocking thing has been pointed out in great detail and with great courage and strength, I might add, by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, who has been perhaps the sole champion on behalf of the Canadian public on this issue through committee stage and still is now as this plods through the House of Commons. Perhaps the most horrifying statistic that my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster pointed out is that fully $450 million of the $1.3 billion that we left on the table in illegal duties, which the Americans will get to keep, will re-grease the re-election wheels for the protectionist Republicans.

Canada's timber industry will thus be forced to subsidize the ongoing illicit attack on itself, all with the explicit consent of the Canadian government. Let us imagine it. We are fueling the administration by the $450 million in this fund to continue these attacks, and not only on our lumber industry, because the Americans will have won that battle. Who knows what other industry sectors they will be targeting next? I will talk about the Wheat Board in a moment, and my colleague from Hamilton raised the issue of the steel industry, which is of course very concerned.

There is even more. The softwood deal is trade that is managed of, by and for the American lumber lobby. A supposedly sovereign nation, Canada, has signed on to an unprecedented clause in this agreement, a clause that requires provinces to first vet any changes in their own forestry policy with Washington. I say that with some emphasis, because I myself was shocked. I have not been following this softwood lumber agreement as carefully as have some of my colleagues, such as my colleagues from Skeena and Vancouver Island North, where the lumber industry is key and integral to the very viability of their economic regions.

I was dumbfounded, but what confused me even more is that my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois who are in support of the softwood lumber deal are the enablers that are allowing the Conservatives to ram this deal down our throats. On the issue of sovereignty alone, one would think that my colleagues from the Bloc would have blown the whistle on the bill and refused to participate in it to any degree. They, of all people, should acknowledge what an insult to the sovereignty of Canada it is to have to go cap in hand to Washington to make any substantive changes to the way we administer our own forestry industry.

The House resumed from November 21 consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity in the final minutes of this debate today on the amendments to Bill C-24 to, if nothing else, recognize and pay tribute to my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who on behalf of all Canadians has done a valiant job in representing their interests in the face of this appallingly bad trade deal that sells out Canadians.

I do not think it has been raised enough here today. The House has probably heard a number of reasons why the NDP is opposed to this bill, but I do not think Canadians realize how the member for Burnaby—New Westminster was muzzled in committee, and blocked and barred from bringing these important issues where they properly belonged, which was at the House of Commons standing committee studying Bill C-24.

I have never seen anything like it. The tricks and stunts that the committee, in cooperation with Conservative, Liberal and Bloc members, pulled to unilaterally and undemocratically silence our colleague at committee should be noted here. I believe sanctions should in fact be brought to bear because members ganged up on him, muzzled him and reduced his time.

Let me explain what they did. They were in a televised room where committees are often heard, so that the general public can follow these meetings, and they turned off the cameras. They said they would not have it televised because they thought the NDP member was going to be speaking at some length on many of these amendments and the clause by clause analysis of the bill. That is what committee members are supposed to do. That is what good opposition MPs do in a clause by clause analysis of a bill.

The first thing they did was turn off the cameras. Then I believe, against the rules of the House and I will try to make that case in another place, they arbitrarily limited his speaking time to three minutes per clause. This is a bill of such complexity that most lawyers would have a hard time getting their minds around it. Most lay people, who may take an interest at home or at a sawmill where they work and have a vested interest in this bill, would really struggle to try to understand aspects of this bill within a few minutes.

That was not good enough. They then slammed his speaking time down to one minute per clause. This is all by some cooperation with the other three parties trying to muzzle and silence the valiant attempt of this fourth party opposition member. There is only one member on that committee from the NDP. He alone was fighting the good fight on behalf of Canadians and they conspired to silence him.

Time does not permit for me to--

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak in support of the good work that my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, has done on highlighting the challenges with the bill.

The member had put together 25 reasons why the House, as Canadian parliamentarians, should not support the bill. I will not read all 25 of them, but there are a couple I want to highlight.

One is it gives away $500 million in funds owned by the Canadian softwood industry to subsidize the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports. This coalition is the Canadian industry's main competitor. Everybody fully expects it to us this money to fund its next round on why the Canadian lumber industry is unfair to coalition members.

The deal can also be cancelled unilaterally at any time. It does not provide stability and predictability to the Canadian softwood industry. In basic terms, this agreement can be terminated unilaterally after 18 months without cause or explanation. The agreement can be terminated immediately by the Americans if they feel Canada has not complied with the terms of the agreement.

This leads me to a really important reason why we should oppose this. It infringes on provincial constitutional prerogatives by both Ottawa and Washington.

We do not want to have any kind of foreign oversight on our lumber industry in British Columbia. The softwood lumber industry in British Columbia is a critical element in our economic prosperity. We do not want somebody from outside telling us how to run our lumber industry.

The agreement does nothing for thousands of workers who have lost their livelihoods over the past five years. It will also potentially trigger significant job losses through further consolidation caused by quotas and export taxes which could cap market access and growth.

It is on these two points that I want to spend some time.

Back on October 13 the member for Burnaby—New Westminster issued a press release about 2,500 jobs lost in the softwood sellout and more to come. In the press release he talked about these job losses on the first six days after this agreement was announced and predicted there would be ongoing job losses.

Just recently, on November 16, Western Forest Products announced that it would be shutting down a mill in New Westminster. One of the offshoots of this is we know that some of these logs will be shipped south of the border as raw log exports and will have no benefit whatsoever to our local communities. I wish to read this quote from the United Steel Workers Western Canada director, Stephen Hunt, about the company's decision to close the mill. This encapsulates what we are seeing. He said:

It's crazy. It's like having food for nine kids, feeding eight and selling the last one's cheeseburger out from under him. When a company is given access to enough of our trees to run a mill and is still allowed to close it down, there is something very wrong in this province.

We have seen that happen so many times in British Columbia. This is just the last in a long line of mill closures. Ninety-five per cent of the land in British Columbia is Crown land. That means it is owned by the citizens of British Columbia. Surely in any other enterprise we would say that the beneficiaries of a publicly owned facility or any other owned facility would come back to the owners. We would say that the owners should receive direct benefits from that.

In British Columbia we are allowing, and the softwood lumber agreement exacerbates this, our resources to be shipped out of the province to be processed somewhere else with no direct benefit to the people there.

Let us talk about dollars and cents just for one moment. If we mill those logs close to home and if we look at secondary and tertiary manufacturing, we actually contribute to a tax base.

We cannot reduce everything to dollars and cents, but we certainly know that when we have mills operating in our local communities, we employee workers and they paid their taxes. This means we can continue to pave our roads and pay for our school taxes and all the other good benefits that come from good paying jobs in communities. Not only that, there are spinoff jobs. There are truck drivers, caterers, cleaners and mill repair companies. All those jobs stay in our community when we process the logs close to home. However, what we are doing is shipping the logs somewhere else for processing.

I know I have talked about Youbou a number of times in the House, but in this last ditch effort to hold back the softwood lumber agreement, it is incumbent upon me to remind people what happens to a community when we close down a significant operation. This is the Youbou story. It is an abridged edition. I would love to read the whole thing, but it is called “The Last Hurrah”. It is an article written by Keith Dickens shortly after the mill closure. It says:

On Friday, 26th January 2001 at 3:10 p.m. the last log was cut in Timberwests Youbou Sawmill. The thirty-six foot long fir log brought to a close seventy three years of continuous production at the Youbou plant and a proud sawmilling history for the communities of Youbou and Lake Cowichan. As the last moments approached a radio call was relayed throughout the plant, it simply said, “Last Log.” This was the signal for virtually every employee to gather around ‘A’ Mills, 42ft Carriage...

We are talking about 73 years. We are talking about generations. When I met with some of the Youbou sawmill workers, they told me about how their fathers, their brothers, sometimes their grandfathers had worked in this mill. It had been a proud tradition in the Youbou community, 73 years worth of proud tradition, and the company that it was closing it doors. One of the reasons it closed was because of raw log exports.

The article goes on to say that TimberWest wanted to close the mill so it could increase its raw log exports. After the mill closed, local citizens staged a log truck count to track the number of trucks leaving the Cowichan valley. Over four days, 450 full logging trucks were tallied. This represented about 9,000 cubic metres per day, or 1.8 million cubic metres per year, enough to keep a good sized mill running for between three and four years and provide 200 well paid sawmill jobs and probably 400 to 600 jobs in spinoff industries. Put another way, over a three year period, these jobs could have put as much as $19 million into the local economy.

We often have a tendency often to boil everything down into dollars and cents. We talk about the bottom line and about profit and loss. What we fail to talk about is the impact that this kind of sawmill closure has on people's lives. We had people who had worked at that mill for 25 or 30 years, and all of a sudden they were turfed out. To many of them, it was their whole life's work. It was their proud tradition to have worked in that sawmill.

I talked to these workers a couple of years later, and I continue to have ongoing conversations with some of them. Some of them have never gone back to full time, full year employment. Not only did we destroy the sawmill workers hopes and dreams for their future, but we also took apart their families. Some of these workers had to travel to other communities for work. Some of them have been unable to find steady work. We have not found a way to measure in dollars and cents the impact on these people's lives.

One thing I did not talk about was the lack of first nations, Métis and Inuit consultation in this process. It is another very good reason why we should not support Bill C-24. We should turn it back to the committee. We should ask it to do further investigation and a much more extensive consultation with the communities that are affected.

I urge each and every member of the House to vote against this flawed legislation. Let us do the good work we need to do to protect our forestry industry, our workers and our communities.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24 is a sellout. It is another example of a decision made to appease our American friends.

What are some of the points?

It is based on the falsehood that Canadian softwood lumber industries are subsidized. That is not the case.

It gives away $500 million in funds owned by the Canadian softwood lumber industry to subsidize the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports. That does not sound right.

It provides $450 million in funds to the administration of the United States, which will be used at its discretion, without Congress approval and accountability.

It can be cancelled unilaterally at any time, which does not provide stability and predictability to the Canadian softwood industry.

There are other points. I will go on a bit more about them later.

Our Prime Minister betrayed the workers in Canada's forestry sector. The government gave up a billion dollars to Washington. Now the Bush administration will have its say in how our forestry industry is managed.

Furthermore, an agreement was reached without any real opportunity for true, open and transparent debate on the issue. This also reminds me of what is happening to the Canadian Wheat Board.

The proposed dismantling of Wheat Board single desk is much the same chain of events. For a long time the Americans have wanted to see this happen. It is just another example in a series of sellouts of our Canadian sovereignty.

This does not surprise me in light of the context of what we call the proposed North American union. If we look at this, we can see why this is happening. We can see that there is no doubt that there is a proposed takeover of Canada by the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, a deal through which we are being led by increments into what is called the North American union.

The SPP, the Security and Prosperity Partnership, was launched in March 2005 as a trilateral initiative to fast-track this deep integration of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. through the harmonization of 300 common areas of legislation and regulations. Discussions on plans for continental integration went underground once the member for LaSalle—Émard, Vicente Fox and George Bush signed the agreement in March 2005.

And now we see officials from Canada, Mexico and the U.S., former ministers from previous Liberal governments, North America's top corporate executives, and top Canadian and U.S. military brass, meeting in secret at the executive Fairmont in Banff a little while ago, in September, as sanctioned by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. No media or general public from any of the three countries were informed about or invited to this meeting. The government has refused to release any information.

At the same time, we are seeing ourselves bullied into signing the softwood lumber deal, which, within only a few days of signing, has resulted in the loss of 2,500 jobs, with many more on the way. I had feedback on this in my riding when I was there just a few days ago.

We are witnessing a movement toward a Canadian military economy, based on the American model and fashioned after the U.S., as we divert billions of tax dollars to the military-industrial complex to spend on hardware to fight the wrong mission in Afghanistan.

As I mentioned earlier, we are witnessing a blatant attempt to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, a great Canadian success story, for the benefit of multinational corporations that now control 80% of the world's grain trade.

The pattern is here. We have to wonder where democracy factors into all of this and why there is all this secrecy among all of those powerful people. Under this proposal, what would a North American union look like? Would the wages of the workers in Mexico be brought up to the level of the minimum wages we enjoy in Canada, or would it be the other way around? Will the U.S. finally develop a universal health care system for citizens? Or will we adopt its system? Will we create a new currency or adopt the U.S. dollar? What will the new union flag look like flying along the NAFTA superhighway as they build the four lanes from Mexico to Alaska?

Once again, I suspect that all of these deals, step by step, are in a series of steps in a recipe for lower standards and a lower quality of life in many areas such as food security, air safety, environmental norms, health care, labour and human rights. All of these are issues that our party is trying to stand up for and fight for on behalf of average Canadians. Canadians have a right to decide whether these plans for merging our three countries are really in the best interests of anyone who has not been invited to those meetings.

Let us continue and look at some of the aspects of the softwood lumber agreement. It constrains trade unreasonably by applying punitive tariffs and quotas that hinder the flexibility of the Canadian softwood industry. This deal infringes on provincial constitutional prerogatives, by both Ottawa and Washington.

What is most important is that it kills the credibility of the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism, which would have ensured the full refund of the money illegally collected. What does that do? It sets a precedent for other industries and other aspects of society that challenge the rules of the NAFTA process. It sets a bad precedent not only for softwood lumber but also for the whole industrial sector in Canada.

It fits in with framework that I have just talked about with this supposed or proposed North American union. What does it do for the thousands of workers who have lost their livelihoods over the past five years? Would this potentially trigger significant job losses through further consolidation caused by the quotas and export taxes which would cap market access and growth?

The agreement also forces further downsizing of the Canadian softwood industry, with the accompanying huge impact on softwood communities throughout Canada. We are experiencing that in my riding of British Columbia Southern Interior, where things are becoming more difficult and jobs are being lost in spite of this agreement.

The agreement discriminates against Canadian companies that refuse to sign on by resorting to bullying and fiscal arm-twisting.

I could go on and on. I see this as one of the steps that is the same as the proposed dismantling of our Canadian Wheat Board or the threat that might be there on supply management. Apparently there is not, but we think there is. It is all in regard to the whole idea of this North American union and the potential loss of our sovereignty. For this reason, I oppose this deal.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would almost like my colleague from the New Democratic Party, who has just spoken, to take back his words. He said some inappropriate and false things.

Yes, the Bloc Québécois was pressured, but the pressure to support Bill C-24 did not come from the political environment. This pressure came from the business community, from the people who own sawmills and paper manufacturing plants. Besides these businesspeople, the unions unanimously asked the Bloc Québécois to support this agreement, which is not all that good, but which for them is a question of survival.

My question is as follows. What would the member opposite have done if the people from the steel sector in the Hamilton region, that is, the workers, union leaders and employers, had put pressure on him to support a bill that, in his opinion, was not right? What would he have decided in such a situation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak to 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. It is the part that states, “to amend other acts as a consequence”, that caused the discussions that we had back in Hamilton.

When I ran for Parliament in the last election I made a pledge to my constituents that they would have, in this member, someone who would represent the people to the government and not necessarily the government to the people.

When my constituents saw the machinations in the House, and especially after hearing the stories of the issues our critic from Burnaby—New Westminster faced in committee, the obstruction and the ongoing problems of trying to get an honest dialogue going on this particular issue, the folks back in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek wanted to know how we reached such a point in time.

I will be gentle here because in the areas to which some of the members were speaking they were not using what I would refer to as kind language. They were referring to what I, in their stead, call rogues and scoundrels because I have done that in the House before. They want to know how this trend happened and how we arrived at this point in the House.

I have spoken to this before in the House. A prototype of the Avro Arrow was marched out earlier this year. It was a reminder to many Canadians. I was a young boy at the time of the Avro Arrow. All of us caught the spirit of that particular endeavour. Canada would be a leader in aircraft development in the world.

Some of us will recall that discussions were held with the government of Dwight D. Eisenhower around the Beaumark missile and significant pressure came about from that U.S. president. The Americans did not want us building this particular aircraft, even though Canada had five prototypes ready to go. As I said, we were in a position to take that leadership role.

In the opinion of the folks back in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, that was the beginning of the change. They believed in the prime minister they had at the time, a prime minister who was a Progressive Conservative, Mr. John Diefenbaker. However, he caved in, and the day was known throughout the province of Ontario as black Friday because the heads of 15,000 families lost their employment. Sometimes both spouses worked at this particular plant and their futures were gone. Some were more fortunate than others. They were able to move to the United States and become involved with NASA.

Moving along from that, the trend that the folks back home are speaking about is that they saw that continue on. Many workers lived in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and worked in manufacturing. Our area was the heartland of manufacturing.

What happened in the 1980s is that the discussions around free trade started taking place and the apprehension started to ripple through our community. A tentative draft agreement was signed on free trade in, I believe, 1988, and the very day it was signed, lo and behold, Firestone laid off 1,300 employees and closed its plant based on the fact that it could warehouse its materials now and did not need to manufacture in Canada any more.

I do not want the government today to believe I will only pick on Conservatives. I will not do that because part of the history of how we arrived at today has to be borne by the Liberal Party opposite. Prior to the Liberals being in government, when they were in search of power in 1993, they had advertisements in the newspapers, as many will recall, promising that there were some things that party just would not do. One of the things the Liberals promised they would not do was sign the NAFTA agreement. The other thing the Liberals said they would do is cancel the GST.

This is of particular note in Hamilton East because the member for Hamilton East ultimately had to resign her seat and run in a byelection as a result of that broken promise. A few short weeks after the 1993 election, the Liberals signed NAFTA. The people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek have had doubts in their governments since those days and these doubts continue today.

The people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek watched the party opposite, when it was in government, break promise after promise.

Following the last election, a member, who was elected to the House as a Liberal and who had held the portfolio that negotiated and worked on the softwood lumber deal, crossed the House to the government side. We heard not nice words said about that earlier today, which I will not repeat in the House, but we have to wonder how the people in that member's riding felt when they elected a Liberal and woke up to a Conservative. I guess they would have a certain sense of betrayal, which, I guess, follows through when people are looking at this particular deal negotiated by that individual. Many people have used the word betrayal when they talk about this particular agreement.

I would like to refer to some dates that are quite important. The hardest day to look at is late on Canada Day when the Prime Minister announced that the government had agreed with the United States to a final text on the settlement of the softwood lumber dispute. To announce that on Canada Day, and add insult to injury to the people who worked in that industry, is beyond belief.

We go on a little later and we find that on August 22 the government announced that the provinces of B.C. and Ontario were in support of this agreement, that it would be tabling enabling legislation in the fall when Parliament reconvened and that it would be a confidence vote.

Here is where we get into the area that I know concerns our friends in the Bloc. At that point the pressures came to bear on them. I still have difficulty with this coming from a community with other industries that I know will be affected by this, but the Bloc chose, because of the pressures applied to it, to support the government and move this legislation forward. When we look back in history I think it will be seen as a mistake. I am sure that the members opposite would debate me on that point at this point in time.

As a result of that support from the Bloc, on October 12 the softwood lumber agreement, as amended secretly by two governments, entered into force. The Standing Committee on International Trade conducted one day of hearings on Bill C-24 and refused to accommodate any additional witnesses, including many groups, such as first nations and trade unions that wanted to be heard. Only the NDP presented witnesses for the hearings at that stage.

Earlier I asked how it was that the Liberal Party helped blocked those hearings, hearings that should have gone across our country.

In conclusion, I want to mention the giveaway of $500 million in funds owned by the Canadian softwood industry to subsidize the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports. By whose definition is that fair?

The agreement has no stability. It can be cancelled unilaterally at any time and it does not provide stability or predictability in our Canadian industry. As we have heard before in the House, it kills any credibility of the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism, which would have ensured a full refund if we had allowed it to run its course.

It has also been stated that we have won court case after court case. Why in the world did we need to negotiate on our knees? This is a precedent that will damage manufacturing across our country and it is a total sellout.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am naturally very pleased to speak here today at the report stage of Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006.

I would like to begin my speech by making a few comments on the motions we are studying today. There are a number of them. Many of the motions were moved by the NDP—a party that is not comfortable with this agreement—some by the government, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois.

We examined these motions and we conducted a clause by clause study of this bill. We would have preferred the bill to be amended to give a little more flexibility to the definition of “independent manufacturer” so as to allow more processed wood products to possibly be excluded from the agreement and therefore cross the border without restrictions.

We believe that the wording of this bill is too restrictive and prevents processed products from freely entering the United States. Had there been greater flexibility, the two signatory countries could have enforced the agreement with fewer restrictions and therefore could have increased the trade in secondary and tertiary processing products.

We feel that the future of our industry is especially dependent on its ability to develop new products and process them here. There will unfortunately be job losses if the forest industry continues exporting wooden planks that are eventually processed abroad.

In view of the act’s vagueness in this regard, we believe that this addition could have improved the way in which the bill before us today works—a bill, I remind the House, whose purpose is to implement the softwood lumber agreement reached last July 1 that laid out in particular the procedures for returning the countervailing and anti-dumping duties to the companies and established rules for the return of the billion dollars to Washington.

This legislation determines the barriers that will regulate the softwood lumber trade between Canada and the United States and establishes procedures for the federal government to return the export duties to Quebec and the Canadian provinces.

This bill does not specify how export quotas will be allotted. That will be done by regulation. The Quebec industry is concerned, and rightly so, that the agreement provides for these quotas to be allotted on a monthly basis. In the past, they were allotted quarterly. It would help our industry survive if the regulations could be more flexible.

It is important to remember that the construction industry is cyclical and lumber deliveries tend therefore to vary substantially from one month to another. Unfortunately, this issue still has not been resolved in the bill and the government has not made any specific promises. That is a cause for concern.

At best, the binational council responsible for overseeing the agreement will deal with this problem. We hope that the government will try through this binational council to make the monthly export ceilings more flexible.

It was on April 27, 2006 that the Government of Canada and the Bush administration announced the conclusion of a framework agreement settling the softwood lumber dispute. The agreement reached by the two countries on July 1, 2006 and finally signed last September 12 has led to Bill C-24, which is before us today.

We have said on many occasions over the last few months that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-24, but not very enthusiastically. We have consulted industry representatives and representatives of forest sector workers on this. The unions also asked us to support the agreement.

My colleagues in the NDP say they do not understand the position of the Bloc Québécois because it supports this agreement. We have spoken with experts, with those who are affected in Quebec, because we are ready to defend our industry and we are close to our unions, as the NDP should be in other provinces. Those people told us that it was time to get out; that they could not carry on any longer, they were bleeding to death. They needed an agreement; they needed to get back the countervailing duties as quickly as possible to try to get out of this crisis. Of course, this agreement does not put an end to the crisis, but we believe that, at this time, it is the best thing to do.

They said that, while the agreement was not satisfactory, they preferred to accept it rather than to continue to fight in the courts. There was no progress; there were negotiations, then no negotiations. The industry and the representatives of workers in Quebec asked us to support this agreement and that is what we are doing. To act otherwise would have been irresponsible.

It must be clearly understood that the Quebec and Canadian softwood lumber industry is in a very difficult situation. We know; we are all well aware that the forest industry was weakened by the softwood lumber dispute, and that it is now facing a structural crisis without precedent. The government must not think that by signing this agreement it has found a solution to the softwood lumber crisis.

Since April 2005, 8,700 jobs have been lost in the forest industry in Quebec. Of those 8,700 jobs, 2,850 are lost forever. The importance of a support program for older workers to make up for those lost jobs is becoming greater every day.

The companies that have survived are in serious financial difficulty. Equipment is not being replaced, investments are not being made and the competitive ability of these companies has been seriously affected. We must not forget that this situation also affects pulp and paper companies—of which there are many in the Trois-Rivières region—who are the owners of the sawmills that produce almost 80% of softwood lumber in Quebec.

In short, the forest industry, which is widespread in the Mauricie region and elsewhere in Quebec, no longer had the resources to continue to fight. The representatives of this sector told us that and they asked us to support this agreement.

There is reason to wonder whether the forest industry would have accepted this agreement if it had been in a stronger position. However, since the beginning of the dispute in May 2002, both the Liberal and Conservative governments refused to take action to ensure that the industry was in better financial health.

The Liberal and Conservative governments must assume their responsibilities and explain the very difficult situation in which our forest industry currently finds itself.

We hope that this agreement, which is very unsatisfactory for our industry—even though the industry and our unions in Quebec are asking us to support it because they have been bled white and cannot carry on because of a lack of support—will be a good lesson for the House because the Bloc Québécois has made many requests since I was elected in June 2004.

What did the Bloc Québécois ask of the Liberals over all those years? It asked for loan guarantees to support the companies and help them avoid bankruptcy; it asked for employment insurance to be relaxed and made more accessible; and it asked for an income support program for older workers. It asked for support for processing activities to provide new markets for Quebec’s lumber, and it asked Ottawa to assume the onerous legal fees incurred by the companies that fell victim to legal harassment by the United States. Instead of that, under this agreement we are paying the fees incurred by the Americans.

The industry has structural problems and this softwood lumber agreement does not help to solve them. The president of the FTQ stated that along with this agreement, the Conservatives now have a duty to take concrete action to help the industry survive the major crisis it has been enduring for years now.

I will conclude by emphasizing that the Bloc Québécois would have preferred a return to free trade in all forest products as a way of settling the softwood lumber dispute, which continued for more than four years.

Unfortunately, though, that is not what this agreement provides for.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster who has done such admirable work on the bill before the House. He has been unstinting in the effort he has put into opposition on Bill C-24, in contrast to what has happened with the other opposition parties. He has consistently been a strong voice on every aspect of the legislation, while other opposition parties have caved in and supported the government's side on amendments without even any debate. They have moved amendments, voted against them and moved on without any real debate. It is a shocking indictment of our democracy. Again, I pay tribute to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for the opposition he has provided.

I first spoke on the bill last month at second reading. One of the things I said was that the softwood lumber agreement would further downsize the Canadian softwood industry and that there would be huge impacts on softwood communities and on workers in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. Little did I know how quickly that would start to happen.

In my own community of New Westminster, Western Forest Products has announced that it will shut down its sawmill on February 7. It will be laying off 284 workers. Industrial consolidation has been a part of this, but also the impact of the softwood lumber tax on the coastal forest industry were given as reasons behind the closure of this mill.

Brian Harder, who is the president of the Steelworkers Union Local 1-3567, which represents the workers in New Westminster, says:

I think it is a direct result of the softwood lumber agreement. [The mill] makes wood for the American market, does it profitably, yet they are shutting it down....

The closure of the 92-year-old New Westminster mill came as a surprise because it has been profitable.

The workers are devastated. Their future is gone. This crew has done everything asked of them to improve productivity. Yet for all the work they have done, they are out of a job now.

This affects not only the workers. It also affects their families and my community in New Westminster, the small businesses where these workers spend their money.

I spoke earlier about my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster and the work he has done on this. He proposed to the committee that it hold public hearings. The government and the opposition voted it down. The only public hearings that were held on the legislation were in Nanaimo, British Columbia, on Vancouver Island, and in Thunder Bay. Those public hearings were supported by the Steelworkers Union and a large number of people came out to speak in opposition to this legislation.

I do not know why the government is so afraid to listen to the people whose lives are impacted by the very legislation it puts forward in the House.

The committee only heard from two witnesses. One, a lawyer, Elliot Feldman, testified that people who did not follow the new rules set out in the bill could be sent to prison for up to 18 months. He also called the bill draconian in nature. He said that it would allow for inspections without warrants and for the government to seize transferred funds at any time. That is pretty alarming testimony.

Another witness, trade lawyer Darrel Pearson, pointed out that the lack of precise definitions in the bill could trigger more litigation and trigger it almost immediately.

As I said, there were only those two witnesses at that stage of the committee hearings.

It is important to go back and talk about the trade victories that Canada had on this legislation.

On August 13, 2003, NAFTA ruled that the 18% tariff imposed on softwood lumber by the U.S. was too high. Two weeks later, the WTO panel concluded that the U.S. wrongly applied harsh duties on Canadian softwood exports.

On August 10, 2005, the extraordinary challenge panel under NAFTA dismissed American claims that the earlier NAFTA decision in favour of Canada violated trade rules.

In March the NAFTA panel ruled in Canada's favour, saying that Canadian softwood lumber exports were not subsidized. The total duty collected by the U.S. at that point was $5.2 million.

This deal kills any credibility that the NAFTA dispute mechanism may have had. It was supposed to ensure the full refund to the Canadian softwood industry of the $5.3 billion in illegally collected duties. It makes the dispute mechanism of NAFTA totally meaningless and useless.

It seems the deal can be cancelled unilaterally at any time and it does not provide stability and predictability for the Canadian softwood industry.

Bill C-24 is fiscally flawed, as well. The payout is based on Canadian softwood exporters, which are owed the equivalent of 95% of the total $5.3 billion in illegal duties that have been paid to the U.S. We know that the Conservatives have not reached the 95% target, which means additional costs to the Canadian softwood industry and to the Canadian taxpayer. Most important, the deal does nothing for the thousands of workers who lost their livelihoods over the past five years. There is nothing in the softwood sellout to deal with the major disruption that the U.S. abuse of trade rules has caused to working families and to our communities all across the country.

As I said earlier, it is going to trigger significant job losses in the future through consolidation caused by the quotas and export taxes and by discouraging Canadian value added production and stimulating more raw log exports, which is something that none of us wanted to see. Sadly, the agreement discriminates against Canadian companies that refuse to sign on to the softwood sellout by resorting to a bullying and fiscal arm twisting tactics.

Many companies and workers in my community were opposed to this deal. They have not been heard by or listened to by the government. Their concerns were not part of the agreement. The participation process was flawed. While U.S. customs slapped punitive taxes on about 1,500 Canadian softwood companies, the Minister of International Trade secretly consulted with a core group of about 25 large softwood companies. These are the only companies to which he listened, not the majority of companies in British Columbia or in the rest of Canada, the smaller forestry companies, their workers and their families. They were not heard.

The deal will not deter American litigation in the future, as has already been shown by the recent move of the Bush administration to overturn the U.S. Court of International Trade decision of April 7 and July 14, which ruled the Byrd amendment could not apply to Canadian merchandise. It was another win for Canada that the government chose to ignore.

The Conservatives are trying to tell Canadians that the deal will end litigation, but years from now, looking back, we know this argument will be unconvincing as more and more small communities feel the pinch of job losses and mill closures. The deal does not account for the seasonal nature of the market. Companies are not allowed the flexibility to sufficiently carry forward export quotas to other months.

The softwood industry was bullied into supporting the deal. Witnesses at committee confirmed that the Conservative government coerced the softwood industry into accepting a flawed deal. The bullying forced the cash strapped softwood industry to capitulate, just a few months away from winning the final legal battle against American tariffs.

We have seen the effects of the softwood dispute across the country and we have particularly seen them in my province of British Columbia. Coastal communities, communities like mine on the Fraser River, have been so negatively impacted by this. It really has had a terrible impact. These trade disputes are not just games. They have real effects on the lives of real people.

I urge the government to rethink this and I urge the opposition parties to unite behind turning this bill down.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disturbing to hear such things. People who are watching these House debates must be wondering what is going on.

We know that the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has often repeated—as did the member for Hamilton Mountain—that the industry does not want us to vote in favour of Bill C-24 and that it even wants us to oppose the agreement that was already reached.

In Quebec, we consulted everyone, including the industry and forestry workers, and everyone wants us to pass Bill C-24. So, that is what we will do, on behalf of the industry and the workers.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is now with even less enthusiasm that I again speak to Bill C-24.

As I was saying, this bill aims to impose charges on certain softwood lumber products exported to the United States and charges on the refund of certain customs deposits paid in the United States.

It is positively appalling to see a bill that imposes such charges on an industry that is having enough problems, in addition to charges—that I would say are illegal—imposed by the United States for many years.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the softwood lumber agreement that was signed is not the breakthrough of the century. This is really not what the softwood lumber industry needed. The United States, which imposed duties on softwood lumber for many years, levied approximately $5.4 billion from the forest industry, of which $1 billion will be returned to the United States. As for the other $4.4 billion, it will be paid back to the industry.

The reason the forestry industry is having problems at present is clearly because of inaction on the part of one government after another: inaction by the Liberal government followed by inaction by the Conservative government. From the very beginning, the Bloc Québécois repeatedly called on the Liberal government of the day to implement measures to support the forestry industry. First, the Bloc asked for loan guarantees. It knew that some day the industry would win its cases against the United States. So the government could have given advances, or lent money, or guaranteed loans. That would have given the forestry industry a chance to preserve a large number of jobs.

It would be wrong to say that this would have preserved all those jobs, because we know that the softwood lumber industry is cyclical. A large share of the job losses could have been avoided, however, if the Liberal government had given loan guarantees at that time. As well, the Bloc suggested a number of other measures and is still suggesting them, in spite of the implementation of the agreement, Bill C-24, and the law that will ensue.

The Conservative government came next. The worst thing is that even in January of this year the Conservative government was making campaign promises saying that it would support the forestry industry. It would have supported it precisely by giving it loan guarantees. As soon as the government was elected, the promise was forgotten. That was the end of loan guarantees. The government negotiated a softwood lumber agreement.

There are a number of bizarre circumstances in this case. For example, the government was negotiating an agreement while the industry was engaged in proceedings against the United States. How would the United States see this situation? The government was negotiating with them, the industry was bringing proceedings against them. The United States was in a position of strength. They knew very well that the courts would find that what the United States was charging the softwood lumber industry was illegal. Canada and the industry would have recovered all of the duties that had been collected by the United States.

At the same time, the Conservative Party was negotiating an agreement. What, exactly, was going on? We might think that what was going on was appalling.

The money of course belonged to the softwood lumber industry—$5.4 billion dollars—and the agreement signed by the Conservative government let $1 billion of it go. Why? As administrative fees for collecting duties charged to the Canadian forestry industry? This is a completely bizarre situation and we cannot follow it. Today, however, we have to acknowledge that the agreement exists and that the purpose of this bill is to act on it and to implement the softwood lumber agreement. We know perfectly well that something else could have been done, and certainly that the Bloc Québécois is not particularly enthusiastic about this outcome. Nonetheless, the industry has asked us to support it through all the ups and downs it has been through and all these problems, problems that I would say were virtually invented by the United States, throughout this long period of time.

In Quebec, the industry, if I may say so, was on the brink of bankruptcy. People want the forestry industry to survive in Quebec, and certainly they needed to recover that money, their money the United States had made off with. So they let $1 billion go, money that will moreover, and this is odious, assist the United States forestry industry. This makes absolutely no sense. So this begs the question. Why? Why did the Conservative government let $1 billion go to the United States of America when the forestry industry needed it so badly? Why?

Why give someone $1 billion if you know perfectly well that the courts and the judges are going to tell you in the end that the duties imposed by the U.S. were illegal? Why leave $1 billion in the U.S.? Since nothing in the hypotheses we might come up with makes sense, we could quite simply say that it is for future considerations. What are they? I leave it up to the people, the public and other MPs to figure out what it might be, though it definitely will not be anything very brilliant or perhaps even legal.

We know exactly who comes out ahead in the softwood lumber agreement. I repeat, of the $5.4 billion, only $4.4 billion has been reimbursed, and $1 billion remains in the United States. Who is the winner here? The U.S. companies, of course, which are going to cash in $500 million and are going to invest in their industry, in their businesses. A $50 million fund will go to initiatives aimed at promoting the use of wood for both residential and commercial purposes, and $450 million will be left to the discretion of the American government. This is an unexpected windfall for the Republican Party. At that point, it was just in time for the elections. Still, we know how that turned out. Not everything can be bought.

To conclude, I repeat that the Bloc Québécois reluctantly supports this agreement. The cut-rate negotiations of the Conservative minority government will have served to jeopardize the forest industry, particularly in Quebec. The return of funds collected illegally, contrary to what the Minister of Industrye appears to believe, is not a miraculous injection of money, or a gift from the government. It is the industry’s money that is going back to the industry. We must never forget that.

It is time to give the industry a chance to recover, at least for the companies that have not already given up the ghost.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with little enthusiasm that I rise now to again speak to the House about Bill C-24. This bill aims to impose export charges—

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-24, the softwood lumber products export charge act.

I have spoken on the bill at various stages, but I feel quite strongly that this bill is the wrong way to proceed. I am very disappointed that we have a Minister of Natural Resources on the Conservative side who seems to be missing in action. Where is the Minister of Natural Resources in defending our forestry communities? Where is our Minister of Natural Resources in dealing with the issues that are presented in the softwood lumber deal, which is a bad deal and sets a horrible precedent?

However, not only are there those issues. I am not surprised that steelworkers are concerned about this. If I were a worker in the steel industry, I would be concerned. If we can win every single battle at the NAFTA panels, as well as independent reviews as to whether softwood in Canada is subsidized, but we still cave in and cut a deal, what does that mean for other sectors? I would be concerned if I were a steelworker.

The Minister of Natural Resources has a responsibility to speak out in support of our natural resource economy, but where has the minister been? Recently two large Canadian icons in the mining sector, Inco and Falconbridge, were taken over and gobbled up. Where was the Minister of Natural Resources? Maybe he was in China trying to sell uranium or trying to do something over there, but he was not here defending Canadian interests.

He is not listening to the forest industry and forestry communities when they are telling him they need to combine into larger entities so they can compete globally but that we have a process at the Competition Bureau which does not support this. We know that the domestic forest products market in Canada is very small. The market is the United States, Europe or Asia. There are really no competition policy issues for domestic consumers of forest products in Canada. Would one not think that the forest industry companies could consolidate in Canada so they could get the economies of scale and scope they need to compete internationally? No, because the process is flawed. The minister stands up and says he is going to fix it, but we are still waiting.

Where is the Minister of Natural Resources when the industry says it has a huge problem with energy? Energy used to be a competitive advantage in our forest products industry in Canada. Where is the minister when the industry talks about that?

The forest industry has huge possibilities in regard to converting biomass into energy, into electricity that in fact would be surplus to its needs. It could sell that electricity to the grid, but it needs support, policies and programs to help make the conversion. The stress that the forest industry is under today does not allow it to make those needed investments. This would have a huge, positive environmental impact and it would also help the industry competitively in reducing its energy costs significantly. The cost of energy is one of the industry's big problems.

Where is the Minister of Natural Resources in talking to the Minister of International Trade to say that we have to diversify our markets? We cannot rely as we used to on the U.S. softwood lumber market. Whatever we do, we know that it is not a stable market for us. Where is the Minister of Natural Resources in talking to the Minister of International Trade and saying that we have to find more markets for our products, markets other than the United States?

Where is the Minister of Natural Resources when the industry tells him that we have huge labour shortages looming in the forest industry in Canada? What is the minister doing about that? We do not hear anything from the minister on these very important points.

With respect to the deal, where was the Minister of Natural Resources in speaking out for communities? I understand that there are some communities whose members of Parliament are listening to the sawmills and the companies in their towns, and so they should. But companies go to them and say they would like the members to support a deal because the federal Conservative government is holding a gun to their heads. Federal ministers are saying to them that if they do not sign the deal, they will cut off all support to the forest industry.

What kind of coercion is that? That is called duress. No wonder some of the companies are saying that we should sign the deal. It is because they do not have any real choice. How can the forest products industry in Canada fight a countervailing duty claim by the United States without support from the federal government? It cannot be done. The industry knows it.

Our Liberal government supported the industry in the fight. We had a two-track process. We were supporting the industry in the fight through the NAFTA panels, the litigation and all that morass, and we were also looking at whether we could negotiate a deal. We never saw a deal that was worth cutting and the deal before us is no such deal either.

The agreement sets out certain aspects that are very disadvantageous for the forest products industry. It calls on the companies to drop their lawsuits. Once they drop their lawsuits, they can sign on and get their rebate. In fact, the rebates are going out as we speak, through the Canadian Export Development Corporation, at an irrevocable discount, I might add. If this deal is not followed through on, those companies will not be able to get the 20¢ that they have left on the table, the $1 billion that the Conservative government has left on the table.

However, some of the companies are doing it because they do not have much choice. The government has basically pulled the rug out from underneath the forest products industry in Canada.

The previous Liberal government proposed a package of $1.5 billion. In fact, in today's environment, that ante probably would have to be increased. It would have supported the industry. It would have supported the industry in using biomass energy to help companies reduce their energy costs. It was a package that would have helped them diversify their markets. The package would have helped them innovate. It would have helped them with some tax measures and made them more competitive with the U.S. softwood lumber producers and the U.S. forest products industry.

Where was the Minister of Natural Resources while the sawmills, pulp mills and newsprint operations in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia were dropping like flies? Where was the Minister of Natural Resources in defending these forestry based communities? We do not hear from him. What initiatives has the minister come forward with? Nothing. This is a tragedy, because the forest industry is being devastated. It is being hurt very badly and we do not hear a peep from the Minister of Natural Resources.

We hear something from the trade minister, but we do not hear anything from the Minister of Natural Resources. We hear that he is travelling in China and here and there, but we do not hear anything about concrete measures that would help the forest industry in Canada.

Next, there will be foreign takeover proposals for our oil and gas industry and our forest products industry, and maybe there will be more in our mining industry. Where is the Minister of Natural Resources in speaking out?

We know what the position of the Minister of Industry is on these points. His position is that the markets will solve everything, the markets will prevail, and the government has to get out of the way and allow the markets to resolve everything.

What about the question of whether this is in Canada's national interest to allow our natural resource icons, our natural resource assets, to be gobbled up by companies outside of Canada? Does this make any sense? We should have a debate in Canada about this. We should not allow foreign companies to just take over Canada by stealth. Let us have a good public policy debate about it.

Where is our Minister of Natural Resources when it comes to standing up for Inco, for Falconbridge, for the oil and gas industry and for the forest industry? We do not hear much from him. This is a time when the Minister of Natural Resources should be defending the interests of our forestry communities and our natural resource communities across Canada. We hear nothing from him. It is a shame. It is a crime.

It is most unfortunate, because the gun is being held to the heads of some of these companies. The companies then go to their members of Parliament and say that they need their members of Parliament to sign this deal. It is a bad deal, they say, but they do not have any choice because the Conservative government has pulled the rug right out from under them.

These issues are understandable. If we had a Minister of Natural Resources who actually stood up for the forestry communities, we would not be in this mess. We would not have the policies being dictated by a Prime Minister who goes to Cancun and allegedly comes back with something. He did not come back with anything. We are now mired in Bill C-24, which should be defeated forthwith.

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's efforts to vainly defend the indefensible, which is this badly botched deal and this badly flawed bill.

What is interesting, in the exchange with the Liberal member opposite, is that it is quite clear that there was even more botching in the process of drafting the amendments that were supposed to fix the first draft of botches that came in Bill C-24.

The parliamentary secretary said that Canadians needed to think about what life was like before the softwood sellout. The answer to that is very simple: the 4,000 people who had jobs then do not have them now after the signing of the agreement. In the last four weeks, 4,000 jobs have evaporated into thin air. Canadians who think about what life was like before the softwood sellout can think of the thousands of people who are no longer working and the thousands of families that have lost their breadwinner because of the appalling incompetence of the government.

The parliamentary secretary referred to some repairs that were made to this badly flawed bill, Bill C-24. We only heard two witnesses at the standing committee. A number of errors were identified. Why were other clauses, like clause 6, clause 25 and clause 18, not repaired?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in her comments, the parliamentary secretary referred to some of the government amendments it is seeking to have accepted at report stage of Bill C-24.

By our examination, six of the seven government amendments, which deal with the Atlantic Canada exclusion, reduce or roll back some of the amendments proposed by the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. In her speech, the parliamentary secretary thanked him for his good work. We believe his amendments, which were supported at the committee by Conservative members, improved the position of Atlantic Canada's historic exclusion. Yet at report stage, we find the government intends to roll back what its member had proposed as an amendment, an amendment supported by the Conservatives at committee stage.

We see the same thing with respect to the definition of independence, which was included with respect to Canada's independent lumber remanufacturers. The committee included this definition in the legislation, supported by some government members. We were surprised at report stage to see the Conservatives trying to turn back the clock, or undo what we thought had been some very positive work done at committee.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain why they have changed their minds?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today to report on the deliberations in the Standing Committee on International Trade on Bill C-24 to implement Canada's obligations under the softwood lumber agreement.

I would like to start by thanking the committee for its close study of the bill. The members worked hard across all party lines to put forward amendments that took into account the concerns of industry and the pressing need to implement the bill in a very timely fashion. It was truly a team effort. I know I speak for all members on this side of the House when I express our gratitude for the energy and ideas brought to bear on the bill. I am confident that their collective contributions and amendments have helped to clarify important elements of the bill.

Today I would like to update the House on the amendments approved by the committee.

The first amendment stems directly from a request from the Maritime Lumber Bureau. The bureau represents lumber companies throughout Atlantic Canada. As members know, the softwood lumber agreement already excludes Atlantic provinces from an export charge. This reflects a long-standing history whereby these provinces have been excluded from U.S. trade action.

Bill C-24 included provisions respecting the exclusion of the Atlantic provinces. However, the bureau wanted to ensure that this exclusion was further clarified in the bill. Therefore, led by the government and in particular the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, the committee discussed and passed this important amendment.

This clarification leaves no doubt that exports from the Atlantic provinces are excluded from the export charge and that a charge will only be imposed if there is a circumvention of the agreement. It also brings other exclusions, those of the territories and the included companies into the same clause. To ensure the proper functioning of the Atlantic Canada exclusion, the government will be proposing a few technical amendments to the bill at report stage.

Our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments that stemmed from concerns expressed by the Quebec Forest Industry Council. The first is a proposed amendment to clarify the timing with respect to the date of shipment for exports sent by rail to the U.S. Second is a proposed amendment to further clarify the definition of FOB value, which is the freight on board cargo, in the legislation. As with the Atlantic exclusions, these amendments directly address the concerns of the lumber industry.

The next amendment concerns independent remanufacturers. As the House knows, the softwood lumber agreement ensures that independent lumber remanufacturers will not have to pay an export charge on the value added component of their products. In fact, this was an essential component of Canada's position throughout the negotiations and in direct response to industry requests. However, the industry asked for further clarity. Therefore, the bill, with the government's amendments at report stage, will make clear how the independent remanufacturer will be treated and certified.

The government also put forward a number of amendments to reflect the agreement's entry into force date of October 12, 2006.

These proposed amendments, while relatively minor in nature, will give our lumber exporters an added measure of certainty and predictability to go forward and plan for the future. Indeed, time is of the essence for the bill. Canada's lumber industry is facing a number of challenges. Lumber prices are at the low end of their cycle and production costs are rising. Combine these challenges with the continued strength of our dollar and we can begin to understand what our industry is up against.

That is why, as the amended bill makes it through the House, we should remind ourselves of the importance of moving it through in a timely manner. Our lumber companies need the stability, predictability and cash that the agreement provides.

The agreement eliminates punitive U.S. duties. It ends the costly litigation, which has gone on for far too long. Under the 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 the country, growing their enterprises and contributing to Canada's economy. It provides stability for industry hit hard by years of trade action and drawn out litigation.

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 that most benefit their economic situation. I should add that all export charge revenues collected by the Government of Canada through these border measures will stay in Canada and not end up in the U.S. treasury, which was the case before.

The agreement returns more than $5 billion Canadian to companies, a significant infusion of capital for the lumber industry and the workers in more than 300 communities across Canada who depend upon it.

I am happy to report that the Export Development Canada duty refund mechanism, which we developed to expedite refunds to companies, is ahead of schedule. More than $1.8 billion has already been dispersed to companies, and Export Development Canada will continue to make expedited refunds over the coming weeks.

While the money is good news in itself, we must also consider what this money represents for the forest workers and the communities. The badly needed cash provided by the agreement will help our lumber producers reinvest in their enterprises, improve efficiency and weather the current downturn in lumber prices. Most important, it will let them do so in a stable and predictable trade environment.

We cannot overestimate the importance of this kind of stable environment to our lumber industry. Along with the refunded cash, the stability and predictable environment created by the agreement will allow lumber companies to make long term plans and grow. It will also put us on the right path toward fostering further development and integration of a stronger North American lumber market, one where Canadian companies can play an essential and leading role.

Contrast this positive new environment with what life was like before the agreement. Our lumber producers have spent the better part of the last two decades engaged in a number of drawn out legal battles with the United States. They know that just because we win one battle, it does not mean we win the war.

Our victories in a number of trade courts, including NAFTA and the WTO, were simply appealed by the U.S., costing millions in legal fees and creating much uncertainty for the industry. In fact, some estimates pegged the total cost of fighting these battles for governments and individual lumber companies alike at over $300 million since 2002. The enormity of these fees stands as a testament to the high price of continuing with the strategy built entirely around litigation.

When I hear calls to continue litigation, I remind people of the steep price of taking this path and the extremely uncertain outcome waiting at the other end. This is a case where there is simply no trade peace waiting for us. There is only continued litigation, crushing legal fees and punishing U.S. duties.

Therefore, I would ask all members to carefully consider the cost of turning our backs on this agreement. Ask the lumber companies that are getting over $5 billion Canadian back to reinvest in their enterprises and weather the tough economic times in which they find themselves. Ask the major lumber producing provinces that join the overwhelming majority of industry in supporting the agreement. Finally, ask the hundreds of thousands of people in lumber producing provinces across the country who rely upon a stable and predictable trade environment for their livelihoods. Ask them if they would like to turn back the clocks to a time when this agreement did not exist.

The government believes our lumber communities have suffered long enough. We believe they need the stability and resources that the agreement provides. We believe the agreement is the single best way forward for our softwood lumber industry and the over 300,000 Canadians who rely upon it.

I am confident that the majority of parliamentarians agree with this assessment. Therefore, I ask for their support of the amended Bill C-24, and I thank them very much.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the debate on Bill C-24, I keep hearing the member for Burnaby—New Westminster continually bring up the position of the Bloc Québécois on this bill. Time and time again, my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois who spoke on the bill have explained the situation of the forestry industry and the people who depend on it, with respect to the softwood lumber issue and the agreement with the U.S.

Time and time again, we have said that our industry in Quebec literally had a gun to its head; time and time again, we have said how many sawmills in Quebec had to be sold to American interests; time and time again, we have repeated that we in the Bloc Québécois stand up for our Quebec industries. We are the voice of the industries and people of Quebec in this House.

On many occasions, however, I have seen colleagues from the NDP put forward all sorts of arguments that did not take into account Quebec's position.

Why is the NDP defending the Canadian position so strongly today? Why is it shouting from the rooftops that this is not a good bill and that—

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will first state the position of the Bloc Québécois on the proposed amendments to Bill C-24, Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, and, then, outline the position of the Bloc Québécois on Bill C-24 per se.

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to the following amendments.

Under Motion No. 4, the government would not be required to enforce the act; that does not make much sense in the context of fiscal legislation. Motion No. 25 greatly complicates the collection of export taxes and the enforcement of the act. We understand that the New democratic Party does not want the act to come into force, but Quebec lumber companies want it to.

Motions Nos. 83 and 84 would have the act become effective as of November 1. The fact of the matter is, however, that the anti-dumping duties were removed on October 12. Adopting these two motions would mean leaving the lumber trade unregulated for two weeks, which is contrary to the terms of the agreement.

To help members understand the position of the Bloc Québécois on the thorny issue of Canada-U.S. relations with respect to softwood lumber, I will describe once more our party's approach.

It is important to understand that the Bloc Québécois is unenthusiastically supporting Bill C-24.

This bill allows the implementation of the July 1 softwood lumber agreement between Ottawa and Washington by: setting the terms and conditions for the return to Canadian lumber companies of countervailing and anti-dumping duties representing 81% of the money currently held by Washington and about 65% of the amount that these companies have paid, taking into account variations in the exchange rate over the past four years; setting the terms and conditions for the return to Washington of the billion dollars that companies have to leave on the table; setting trade barriers that will govern the softwood lumber trade between Canada and the United States, including export taxes and export permits; and authorizing the payment of export tax revenue to the provinces.

The industry has stated nearly unanimously that this agreement was not satisfactory. It has, however, concluded that it was better to accept this bad deal than to continue fighting. In a word, the industry is at its wit's end.

The attitude of the federal government, be it Conservative or Liberal, has left a bitter taste. By refusing its support, it has considerably weakened the industry, forcing it to accept this agreement for fear of seriously jeopardizing its future.

The Bloc Québécois, after consulting the industries and workers in the forestry sector during the summer, came to the conclusion that it had no choice but to support the agreement because the industry, with its back to the wall, could not wait any longer. To act otherwise would not have been irresponsible.

The Bloc insists, however, on stating clearly that although the bill must be approved, the government cannot claim to have settled the problems the industry is facing. The industry is dealing with structural problems and the softwood lumber agreement does not solve them.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is calling for the government to implement a series of measures this fall to assist the forest industry, which is facing serious difficulties at the very moment it has been weakened by a lengthy trade dispute.

We want an income support program for older workers, an economic diversification program for communities that depend on the forests and special tax status for the 128,000 owners of private woodlots in Quebec.

In addition, we want an increase in funding for the Canadian model forest program of the Canadian Forest Service, and special tax treatment for the $4.3 billion in countervailing and anti-dumping duty that will be refunded by the American authorities to recognize the losses incurred by companies. We also want accelerated amortization of equipment; a program to stimulate innovation and improve productivity within the forest industry; a market diversification and wood marketing program; and, finally, financial compensation for maintaining forest access roads.

Some of these measures will become meaningless if they are not introduced this year, a pivotal year for the industry. The Bloc Québécois is counting on the Minister of Finance to properly respond to these needs when he makes his financial and economic update announcement.

Bill C-24 contains legislative measures to implement the softwood lumber agreement of last July 1 between the governments of Canada and the United States.

All of the provisions take effect from October 1, 2006. Since the bill was not yet approved on that date, the measures that it contains will be retroactive to October 1, 2006.

It introduces an export control system in the softwood lumber sector, which I will now describe.

Ironically, this control still takes the form of amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act. This act is normally used to control trade in arms and dangerous substances or to limit trade with particular countries under economic or military sanctions. Here, though, it is the products of Canadian firms that are being hit by the restrictions in the act.

In provinces like Quebec that choose to be subject to a lower export tax but have a ceiling placed on their exports, the bill provides that exporters must acquire a licence, which is a kind of export permit. It will enable Ottawa to ensure that companies cannot exceed the quota allocated to them under the agreement.

The methods of allocating export quotas are not specified in the act. This will be done later by regulation. The Government of Quebec has suggested that 94% of the quota should be allocated to companies on the basis of their past exports, with the remaining 6% available on a first come, first served basis.

The Quebec industry was concerned that the agreement provided for quotas to be allocated on a monthly basis—one-twelfth of the annual quota—and that the possibilities of exceeding this monthly quota in case of especially large deliveries were so limited that companies would be unable to honour their contracts or even reach their full annual quotas. We must remember that the construction industry is cyclical and lumber deliveries tend therefore to vary considerably from one month to another.

This issue still has not been resolved, and the government has not made any specific promises. At the most, the binational group responsible for ensuring that the agreement works well will deal with the problem. The Bloc Québécois hopes that the government will try through this binational group to make the monthly export ceilings more flexible. In order for this to be done, the bill already provides all the latitude needed to accommodate greater flexibility because things are done through regulation.

I could go on explaining the entire bill in this way, but I will stop here, Mr. Speaker.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite a question. The reality is that the committee was becoming quite dysfunctional. Mostly because of the NDP filibustering, the committee was not going to get past the first clause.

We all knew that the Bloc and the Conservatives would push the bill through committee. We, being the wise Liberals, the party of the centre, we tried to get some amendments in at committee that would help the lumber industry, not only in Atlantic Canada but right across Canada. We made the best of the situation. We cancelled the filibustering that was going on by the NDP and the rhetoric that was not making any sense.

Yes, we pushed some amendments through because, at the end of the day, the Bloc and the Conservatives were going to push the bill through and we needed to make some constructive changes to the bill. Those are the changes we are pushing for and the changes we still want to see but we are adamantly against Bill C-24.

We wish that in the future the NDP could be a little more cooperative at committee and make things work. It is the season and I am still waiting for my Christmas card.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to take the intervention of the member for Sydney—Victoria.

The Liberal members on the committee rammed through Bill C-24 and refused debate on most of the bill. Aside from the section on the maritime lumber exemption, which we in the NDP supported, the Liberals rammed through every section. Now the member for Sydney—Victoria stands in the House and says that the Liberal Party is opposed to Bill C-24.

The reason Bill C-24 is in the House today is because of the Liberal Party. The Liberals were the instigators. They were the ones who pushed this bill along. It would still be in committee and we would still be looking at changing some of the most egregious errors that were made had it not been for Liberal members ramming it through.

I do not know how to take the member's intervention. Is it possible that he has finally realized that the Liberals made an egregious error and they are apologizing to Canadians from coast to coast to coast for having rammed through Bill C-24 and having done the Conservatives' dirty work? I hope that is the case but I think it is another example of Liberal double-talk. The reality is that the bill is in the House today because of Liberal support.

We know the bill is bad for Canadians but it is the Liberals who forced it through. The bill is here in the House now, after being rammed through at record speed, because of Liberal Party support.

The NDP has been the only party actively standing up and saying that with the thousands of lost jobs that have resulted since the bill was rammed through provisionally a month ago, with the billion dollars that we are giving away, despite a court decision that says we do not need to give away a single penny, with the export tax that is leading to job losses and shutting down value added production in this country and the fact that this deal stimulates raw log exports, we must ask why the Liberal Party forced this bill through.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak at report stage of Bill C-24, commonly referred to as the softwood lumber bill. It is with great disappointment that we have witnessed some of the actions of the members opposite trying to make our committee non-functional.

The hon. member said that he liked me, but it is with great sadness that I find that the hon. member is taking me off his Christmas card list. This is not the spirit of the season and I hope he reconsiders.

During the 2006 election of the Conservative Party of Canada it outlined its softwood lumber strategy. In that platform the Conservatives promised to be tough with the American government, defend the Canadian softwood lumber industry, and stand up for the forestry worker and help the struggling communities.

Looking closely at the Conservative platform, specifically the small section on forestry, we see several promises. I would like to take a moment to go through a few of those promises today and how they apply to Bill C-24. One promise was to get tough with the Americans on this file. The Conservatives promised they would: “Demand that the U.S. government play by the rules on softwood lumber”.

I do not think that anyone who read this promise thought for a second that what the Conservatives really meant was they would turn their back on years of hard fought negotiations, turn their back on the cornerstones of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and turn their back on the sustainability of forestry communities. In their haste to appease the Americans and score some political points they capitulated on issue after issue.

Over the years our previous Liberal government fought time and time again through trade panels and international dispute resolution mechanisms to win battle after battle on softwood lumber. Whether it was at WTO or NAFTA, time and again we won those rulings. Admittedly, time and again the Americans appealed these rulings. Protecting their domestic lumber industry was paramount. One need only look at the Byrd amendment to see the lengths they would go through to secure their industry and by extension, the power of the lumber industry of the United States was going to work against us.

Big lumber in the U.S. wanted to limit access to Canadian softwood lumber into what the Americans perceived as their God-given domestic markets despite NAFTA and WTO rulings. Quite frankly they lobbied, bullied and pushed, and dragged out the process in the hope of maximizing their profits and waiting for someone to come along and give in to their demands. That opportunity materialized in the form of the Conservative government across the floor. So desperate were the Conservatives to get a deal, to show action on this file, that they stormed ahead and committed to a flawed agreement.

This agreement has concerning implications, not only for the softwood lumber industry but for other Canadian producers. Polls show that Americans are in support of free trade in principle. In fact, 66% of Americans are in favour of free trade; however, this support crumbles the second that the so-called free trade is not in their best interests.

This is not entirely surprising, but it does point to the fact that if today we capitulate on the softwood lumber, what will be next? Will it be beef, automobiles or grain? Who knows what is going to be next? That they have given in on this file shows lack of resolve, again for cheap political points. The Prime Minister pointed out some kind of great new bond with the American administration but is, frankly, a travesty.

This brings my comments on Bill C-24 to another promise made by the Conservative Party in its blue book. On page 19 in the Conservative 2006 platform it states that the Conservatives would defend the rights of Canadian producers and demand the “return of the more than $5 billion in illegal softwood lumber tariffs to Canadian producers”. We on this side of the House know only too well that the Conservatives are not that good with the math. In 1993 we inherited their deficit mess and we worked long and hard to balance the books of this mismanagement.

That being said, here we are today, and the Conservatives have lopped off a full $1 billion from their promise. That is $1 billion in illegal collected duties. That is $1 billion of our Canadian economy. To lop this right off and give it to the American administration and to the lumber industry, not only demonstrates the Conservatives are bad at math but they are bad negotiators. It is clear to all but the party opposite that at least half of this funding will be used by the American lumber industry to fund legal and political attacks against our industry.

Can we imagine $500 million of Canadian money being used by the American lumber industry to lobby against us? It is unbelievable. The Americans must have thought it was Christmas back in the spring when this deal was being made, and it will be Christmas again when the legislation is passed.

The Conservatives are throwing away the lumber industry to the wolves. With Bill C-24 they have backed the Canadian softwood lumber industry into a corner, and what is worse, they have given the American lumber industry a stick, a $500 million stick. What is more, after just 24 months, Canada's proud new government has given its opponents an escape clause to walk away from the deal. What shrewd negotiations, they have given away all we have gained through our trade agreement resolution process.

They have given opposing industries in the United States funds to lobby for two years against our industry, at which time they can pull the plug and possibly gain increased domestic and international ports again, financed by our Canadian funds. That is how the government protects its domestic industry. That is how a government fights on the international stage for just treatment.

Recently, the Prime Minister has been going around suggesting that he does foreign affairs differently than the past government. He does it differently all right. He walks a different walk and he talks a different talk indeed. He is walked over by the Americans, has miscommunications with the Chinese, and he ignores the European Union. That is hardly a stellar new approach.

Realizing my time is short, we could talk all afternoon on the travesty done here. I want to finish my comments by remarking briefly on the excellent work of my colleague, the Liberal critic for international trade, the member of Parliament for Beauséjour.

In the House we are all aware that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador traditionally receive what is called the Atlantic exclusion. This exclusion recognizes that the lumber industry in Atlantic Canada is different because it is primarily conducted on privately owned land. The Americans have perceived this to be more in line with their domestic market and have therefore waived the tariffs that they impose on the softwood lumber imports from the rest of Canada.

When the recent softwood lumber deal was struck, the exclusion was in that agreement. However, when Bill C-24 was tabled in the House of Commons, the legislation did not have the same language. The Maritime Lumber Bureau raised these concerns with the hon. member for Beauséjour and other parliamentarians. The result was an amendment which was passed at committee to make the language more clear to ensure the continuation of the Atlantic exclusion.

I want to applaud my colleague's work on this amendment and his efforts to work out a deal so the new wording in the bill could be included and the exclusion maintained in exchange for our cooperation with some of the amendments put forward in committee.

We hope that the government resists the urge to roll back these improvements that are part of the report stage amendments. This betrayal will be noticed by the provincial governments, and must make members, like the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, very happy with the changes in these rollbacks.

Despite this agreement at committee, I want to be very clear that our party does not support Bill C-24. It is flawed legislation brought back by the Bloc and the Conservatives where possibly they tried to make improvements such as the Atlantic exclusion. The reality is that we have been duped. We can only hope that our interventions here at report stage will make members in the Conservative Party come to their senses and pressure their leaders to have the bill withdrawn from the House and negotiate a new deal for the betterment of all softwood lumber producers.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. In fact, it is the case and, even worse in Bill C-24, what we are adopting and what the Liberals and Conservatives are trying to foist on the House, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, is a bill that provides American definitions of virtually everything, including definitions of tenure and of related and unrelated people. All of those issues now go to the American coalition and it now has in place definitions that the Americans will be able to use against us.

Even better, thanks to the Conservatives' generosity and with the support of the Liberals, they now have half a billion dollars--

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay is absolutely right. He has been one of the most vocal people in standing up for northern Ontario. He has been a champion of northern Ontario, as has the member for Sault Ste. Marie. We have two members in the House who have been standing up for northern Ontario jobs.

The reality, as the member for Timmins—James Bay has just pointed out, is that we are hemorrhaging jobs in northern Ontario because of this badly botched softwood sellout. We are hemorrhaging, with closures and layoffs right across northwestern Ontario. We saw it in Thunder Bay, but we are seeing it right across northern Ontario.

The Liberals, who have been saying that somehow they are opposed to this, have been working with the Conservatives and pushing this along. I do not know how a single Liberal member from northern Ontario can stand up and say that the Liberals have been fighting the good fight after what happened at the Standing Committee on International Trade, when the Liberals did the Conservatives' dirty work to push this bill through.

The reality is that we are in the House now debating Bill C-24 in its badly botched form because of the Liberal Party, because of those Liberal members. They are the ones who pushed this through. They are the ones who said no, they did not care about softwood, that was just for the TV cameras. Now we are in the situation where we have a badly flawed bill that does not even do what the Conservatives said it was going to do because they screwed up the definitions and badly botched the drafting. Now we have a situation where northern Ontario is going to pay the price for having Liberals who are refusing to stand up for that region.

Not only are we seeing this in northern Ontario, but we are seeing it right across the country. We are seeing lost jobs everywhere, from B.C. right through to northern Quebec, and those lost jobs are a direct result of this badly botched softwood sellout.

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

As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has just pointed out, the more we learn about this deal, the more we realize this House is failing in its responsibility to softwood communities across the country. It is failing utterly and completely.

There are double taxation provisions and no provision to allow those companies to go back and push for the kind of justice they should be seeing. Clause 39 has to be deleted.

We are looking through these various motions, Mr. Speaker, that you have regrouped, I would say somewhat hastily. I would disagree with the provisions that you put forward.

The other aspect we touch on in Motions Nos. 83 and 84 is the fact that we have a deal that was put into place, badly botched from the beginning, that forced companies to pay a double tax at the border. When this was hastily and shoddily thrown together on October 11, the illegal American tariffs were still in place. It went from a 10.8% tariff to an additional 15% tariff that companies had to pay. They have to pay this and the government has no idea for how long. There were no witnesses allowed, but when we questioned officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, they had no idea when the illegal American tariffs had been taken off. We stepped forward and asked very clearly, why would we put into place provisions of this agreement when illegal American tariffs were still in place? Why would we pay 15% on top of 10.8%? We have said in these motions very clearly that the putting into effect of this agreement has to be November 1.

There was absolute chaos at the border. We have seen absolute chaos in the months since this was provisionally put into effect. There are 4,000 lost jobs, nearly 300 in my community. There will be other members of the New Democratic Party, the only party that is standing up for Canadians on this issue, who will be stepping forward and talking about job losses in their communities as well. There has been utter chaos at the border and companies are paying a double tax. They are paying the 10.8% and an additional 15% on top of that. We have said that the date has to be November 1.

For goodness' sake, 4,000 jobs have been lost because of the incompetence of the federal government, because of its complete lack of understanding of softwood in British Columbia and in other parts of western Canada. Those jobs have been lost. The government, even if it insists on ramming through this deal with the support of the Liberals, has to stand up and realize it made an egregious error. It screwed up. It implemented the deal hastily. To save face for our intellectually malnourished Minister of International Trade we had to rush this job. Because we rushed this job, the government screwed up and companies have had to pay twice.

It makes sense that we make adjustments to the bill, a bill with which we disagree profoundly, but we are trying to save the government from itself, so that the provisions of the deal take effect November 1. There need to be provisions for the companies where double taxation took place at the border, where companies paid the Americans these forced export taxes of an additional 15%.

Bill C-24 is horrible for the softwood companies and the 4,000 families whose breadwinners have lost their jobs. They can attest to that already with four weeks of absolute collapse of the softwood sector because of the incompetence of the government. If the government is absolutely set on ramming this bill through with the support of the Liberals, at least the government should make some provisions for the disastrous situation it has set up.

Disaster is not too strong a word when we are talking about 4,000 lost jobs. We are talking about raw log exports being stimulated now because, as we were told this summer when we saw the softwood agreement coming, this is a recipe for raw logs from Canada creating American jobs. Setting up the 15% export tax, self-imposed, when we won in the Court of International Trade on October 13 is absolutely absurd.

Now we have a bill that is even worse than the sellout, a bill on which the homework was not done, the due diligence was not done. The Standing Committee on International Trade completely failed Canadians. The ministry completely failed Canadians. The minister who has failed his constituents has now broadened his reach. He has betrayed everybody.

We have a situation where the implementation of the softwood agreement is being imposed at the same time as the illegal American tariffs are still being imposed. It is absolutely senseless and absurd.

In this corner of the House there is one political party that Canadians know will stand up for them and will stand up for softwood communities. My colleague from Timmins—James Bay and I went to Thunder Bay. We talked to softwood workers there. They told us how badly they feel about this. They have seen mill closures in northwestern Ontario.

I was in northern Manitoba a week and a half ago where there have been layoffs and shutdowns because of this badly botched softwood sellout. In northern Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in British Columbia there will be public meetings coming up and we will be going into Conservative ridings. This has been a badly botched deal. It is a badly flawed bill. The government and members in all four corners of the House have to make some adjustments to it so that the most egregious impacts are not continued to be felt across the country.

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

moved:

Motion No. 4

— That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 25

— That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 77

— That Bill C-24, in Clause 100, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 87 with the following:

(a) specifying any requirements or conditions that, in the opinion of the Government of Canada, should be met in order for a person to be certified as an independent remanufacturer;”

Motion No. 83

— That Bill C-24, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 89 with the following:

“which it is made but no earlier than November 1, 2006.”

Motion No. 84

— That Bill C-24, in Clause 108, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 90 with the following:

“earlier than November 1, 2006.”

Motion No. 94

— That Bill C-24, in Clause 126, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 100 with the following:

“have come into force on November 1, 2006.”

He said: Mr. Speaker, I stand to address this first group of motions to amend this badly botched Bill C-24. It is important to give some initial information to the public at large who are watching us today just how badly this bill has been treated. It was badly botched from the start. The negotiations were badly botched. As one person in the softwood industry notably said, Canada capitulated on everything. Subsequent to that there were further capitulations over the course of the summer. Now we have Bill C-24.

As the New Democratic Party members have been paying the most attention to this bill, we can say that the bill itself is badly flawed, badly botched. However, unbelievably the majority of the Standing Committee on International Trade, the Bloc, Conservative and Liberal members, refused to hear from witnesses across the country from coast to coast to coast who wanted to testify on this badly botched bill.

Unbelievably we heard from only two witnesses and they raised the issue about the poor drafting of the bill and some of the perverse impacts of this horrible legislation. Yet the committee just ramrodded through this legislation. In fact, half of the bill was not even considered in committee. There was no debate whatsoever on amendments. In fact, many of the amendments that were rejected were not even considered by the committee because the committee did not want to do its due diligence on the bill. We are now at report stage and amendments are being brought forward. What do these amendments do?

In the first group of amendments we are endeavouring to repair the incredible botch job that was done by the government on Bill C-24. One of the two witnesses who were allowed to testify before the Conservatives and Liberals shut down any testimony testified to the fact that there is this perverse double taxation in the bill itself. Because the government was not able to do its homework properly, we end up taxing twice any company that actually goes through the EDC formula. Unbelievably, that means that the companies that go through the Export Development Corporation are the ones in a sad, sad position with their cashflow and they actually do not get back 80¢ on the dollar. They get back 67¢ because the government in botching the drafting of this bill has taxed them twice. It is unbelievable.

Now that the government with the support of its Liberal allies has botched the bill, we are endeavouring to give an opportunity to those companies to go back to the minister and get refunds on the money that they should not have paid in the first place. That is why I moved Motion No. 25. We are essentially saying that since the bill does not allow those companies to come back except under the very strict provisions of the Financial Administration Act, those companies should have the opportunity to get back the money they should not have paid in the first place.

The reason most companies have rejected the government's plan, the reason that less than 50% of companies signed on to this strange, bizarre Export Development Corporation punitive tax, double taxation as we know, is no secret. The reason is the ruling on October 13 where the Court of International Trade in the United States said that Canada is entitled to get back every single penny. We do not have to go through this sellout. We do not have to go through the lost jobs, 4,000 to date since this badly botched deal was put in place provisionally, 4,000 jobs including many in my community.

We have a badly botched sellout. We have a badly botched deal. We have a committee that was out of control refusing to do its due diligence on the actual provisions of the bill. Far be it from the NDP to have to approve the bill because we disagree with the sellout in principle, but the committee did not do its due diligence. It is completely irresponsible. That means to softwood communities across the country we are now dealing with a deeply flawed bill.

There were virtually no witnesses, no due diligence and now double taxation. As usual, the NDP is having to be the effective opposition. We are saying to wait, that this bill is even bad from a Conservative point of view. Is there not one Conservative willing to stand and say, “I am sorry, we screwed up. We are going to try to correct the most egregious errors in this deal”? No.

Let us look at another element that we are trying to adjust. A committee that is out of control has adopted definitions for tenure that the United States pushed and on which the Conservative government just capitulated. They directly affect the B.C. timber sales program. It is unbelievable. Now tenure is defined the way the United States defines tenure. It means that the timber sales program which is designed with a sealed bid process is now defined as having tenure, which means the United States under anti-circumvention can raise the B.C. timber sales program that was directly put in place to try to get around those punitive illegal measures of the United States. It is unbelievable.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are 95 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-24. Motions Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 35, 36, 46, 53, 74, 79, 82 and 95 will not be selected by the Chair as they could have been presented in committee.

Motion Nos. 30 to 34, 37 to 45, 47 to 52, 54 to 73, 76, 78, 80, 81 and 85 to 93 will not be selected by the Chair as they were defeated in committee.

Motion No. 11 proposes to amend clause 12. The Chair has been informed that an error was found in the report to the House on Bill C-24. This situation resulted in the tabling of a motion at report stage. The error in question has to do with an amendment to an amendment that was rejected in committee on a recorded division. The report to the House indicates, in error, that the amendment to the amendment was adopted. Accordingly, the Chair thanks the hon. member for Gatineau for tabling a motion at report stage in order to correct the report, but this was not necessary. I will ask that the bill be reprinted after third reading in order to add the following amendment to clause 12:

That Bill C-24, in clause 12, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 36, on page 7, with the following:

“incurred in the placement aboard the convey--”

Accordingly, Motion No. 11 will not be selected by the Chair.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

There are a large number of motions which have not been selected for report stage, either because they were identical to motions defeated in committee or because they could have been presented in committee.

The Chair feels that it may be appropriate to take a moment to review the selection criteria for report stage.

On March 21, 2001, the Speaker made a statement on the selection criteria for motions at report stage as follows:

First, past selection practices...will continue to apply. For example, motions and amendments that were presented in committee will not be selected, nor will motions ruled out of order in committee. Motions defeated in committee will only be selected if the Speaker judges them to be of exceptional significance.

Second, regarding the new guidelines, I will apply the tests of repetition, frivolity, vexatiousness and unnecessary prolongation of report stage proceedings insofar as it is possible to do so in the particular circumstances with which the Chair is faced. ... I also intend to apply those criteria in the original note.... Specifically, motions in amendment that could have been presented in committee will not be selected.

Consequently, the Chair selects motions which further amend an amendment adopted by a committee, motions which make consequential changes based on an amendment adopted by a committee and motions which delete a clause.

Aside from this, the Chair is loath to select motions unless a member makes a compelling argument for selection based on the exceptional significance of the amendment.

The Chair cannot predict every possible scenario, but it reminds hon. members that every bill is carefully examined in order to preserve the delicate balance between protecting the rights of the minority and the ability of the majority to exercise the right to vote.

Therefore, the motions will be grouped for debate as follows: Group No. 1 will include Motions Nos. 4, 25, 77, 83, 84 and 94. Group No. 2 will include Motions Nos. 6 to 8, 13 to 19, 22, 28 and 75.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 4, 25, 77, 83, 84 and 94 in Group No. 1 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported with amendment from the committee.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Bills C-95, C-24 and C-18 have been passed on gangsterism and organized crime. As a law enforcement agency, you are surely very happy there is a public gun registry and, unless they are inconsistent, everyone who believes in deterrence believes in the soundness of the public registry for the registration of firearms.

I’m not asking you for an opinion on the gun registry but on gun trafficking itself.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, we will be calling that debate that the hon. member just mentioned in due course.

Today, we will continue the debate on Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders act.

There is an agreement to complete Bill C-25, proceeds of crime, tomorrow. In a few moments I will be asking the approval of the House for a special order in that regard.

When the House returns from the Remembrance Day break, we intend to call for debate a motion in response to the much anticipated message from the Senate regarding Bill C-2, the accountability act. As well, we hope to complete the report and third reading stages of Bill C-24, the softwood lumber act.

Thursday, November 23 will be an allotted day

I want to inform the House that it is the intention of the government to refer Bill C-30, the clean air act, to a legislative committee before second reading.

International Trade

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, the committee has considered 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, and has agreed on Tuesday, November 7 to report it with amendments.

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

I would like to quote from Le Petit Robert, the French language dictionary which is the authoritative reference where the French language is concerned. In fact, it was my first French dictionary when I arrived in Chicoutimi.

The definition it gives for the verb “recevoir” is as follows:

Se voir adresser (qqch). 1. Être mis en possession de (qqch.) par un envoi, un don, un paiement, [...] Recevoir une lettre, un colis, un catalogue. J'ai reçu une lettre de mes parents.

For example:

Recevoir un cadeau, des étrennes. L'aumône avilit « celui qui la reçoit et celui qui la fait ». Recevoir de l'argent. [...] Recevoir une somme, un salaire, une gratification.

That is how the verb “recevoir” is defined in the Petit Robert.

Now, Mr. Chairman, coming back to this clause on page 39 of Bill C-24, the current wording in the French version is: “Le ministre peut faire droit à la demande”, which would be replaced by: “Le ministre peut recevoir la demande”. Mr. Chairman, rather than saying that, my suggestion is to say: “Le ministre reçoit la demande”. That is my opinion, and I would certainly...

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move amendment NDP-36.

In the current legislation, a person who has been assessed and objects to the assessment has only 90 days after the date of the notice of motion of assessment to file a notice of objection with the minister.

Now, certainly that's more than the 60 seconds that the government is giving for debate on clause-by-clause here, or the few scant seconds that they're providing in terms of due diligence, but 90 days is not enough time to necessarily appeal assessments. For some of these softwood companies, they already have an onerous administrative burden.

In this amendment, what we are suggesting is that it be 150 days, a longer period of time for these companies, so that they actually have the capacity to appeal the assessment in the midst of all of the other administrative charges that are brought onto them by Bill C-24.

A hundred and fifty days is a reasonable period, and a hundred and fifty days should be—

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

I'd like to move, Mr. Chair, that the committee suspend its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-24 until the full impact of the amendments has been assessed by the ministry.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm still hoping that there will be common sense around this table and that members of the committee will realize that what is happening here is irresponsible. That's what I'm hoping. One might consider me an idealist, but I honestly believe parliamentarians believe in their hearts that they have a responsibility to softwood companies and softwood communities across the country that are going to pay the price for what is happening today.

Currently, under Bill C-24, records are required to be retained for any period specified in the demand. So what we have is that the minister can basically force any period upon the softwood companies. We talked about six years, and that's already onerous, but beyond that now, the minister may demand that records be retained for any period. What this amendment does is provide for a reasonable period. Now, according the government, “reasonable” is, I guess, 60 seconds--or even better, 10 seconds.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I don't think 60 seconds for our softwood industry is asking too much. Obviously the government would disagree with me on that, but that will be something that softwood communities will be able to judge in the next few months.

Currently within Bill C-24, among the many onerous provisions that we are railroading through, ramrodding through without scant consideration, we are asking companies to keep records for six years. For these companies that already have the administrative burdens, already have the punitive taxes, the double taxation that has been adopted in clause 18, despite warnings, very clear warnings to the committee, the punitive taxes that they're paying at the border, and the fact that a whole host of amendments that would have improved this legislation have been refused, we have here a situation where we're requiring these companies to keep six years of records. This amendment I've moved, amendment NDP-31, would ask that the records be retained for half that period.

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

First off, Mr. Chair, I'd like to see that motion in writing. Secondly, this very clearly overrides the powers that were given to this committee when Bill C-24 was assigned to it.

There were very clearly no rules enforcing the limited period of time, a few scant seconds, in order to cast the vote. I'm assuming that this means--

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

Yes, Mr. Chair, but if you would give me a moment's consideration....

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm moving amendment NDP-20.

As we're going through at this breakneck pace of sixty seconds a clause, we're forgetting what's actually happening to the softwood companies out there. Currently under this legislation, in a case where there's a discrepancy of less than $2, the amount owing by the person is deemed to be nil. We are suggesting that amount should be raised to $100.

The obligations of this bill are incredibly heavy and onerous on softwood companies. The punitive actions—18 months in prison if you don't obey the law under Bill C-24—are completely irresponsible. It is a draconian bill by any stretch of the imagination. Very clearly, the only two people we called on to be witnesses outside of the government attested to that, and then we shut down debate. We shut down hearings. We shut down any possibility of folks actually getting to comment on this bill. We need to have it raised to $100--

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, your comments, with respect, are completely inappropriate. Sixty seconds is not an adequate time, regardless, when we're dealing with the complexity of a bill such as Bill C-24. Under no circumstances is sixty seconds adequate, and you know that as well as I do.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it's not particularly clear, since we are told that it has to go to the Minister of National Revenue.

But in the Bill, it doesn't say “the Minister of National Revenue”; it says “file with the Minister”, and nothing more. As a general rule, Bill C-24 refers to the Minister of International Trade, whereas here, it just says “the Minister”.

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

Well, I'm speaking against this subamendment, Mr. Chair.

Here, again, we have the punitive aspects of Bill C-24. We're taking sixty seconds for each of the 110 clauses that are in this bill. It's absolutely absurd. And now we have this subamendment that would essentially allow the Minister of International Trade to forward information to the Ministry of Revenue. We're talking about companies that have already been penalized and beaten up year after year. We now come to the point where this very punitive, draconian, dictatorial, mean-spirited regime is imposed on them, and what we are doing is forwarding information between the Ministry of International Trade and the Ministry of Revenue. It does not make sense, particularly given the punitive measures that we'll be going through later on this evening, punitive measures, case after case--18 months in jail for people who are just trying to run a softwood business. It's absolutely absurd.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we go on this hell-bent, sixty-second-a-clause, rapid run through Bill C-24, never before seen in parliamentary history, we have to realize that each of these clauses has substantive import and importance to the softwood companies that are going to have to deal with each of these clauses that are being run through at unprecedented breakneck speed.

I've offered a subamendment to ensure that ministerial information or information going to the minister is kept confidential. The type of reporting is extremely onerous. Many people testified this summer that the administrative burden around Bill C-24 was absolutely appalling. Not only was it not viable for a business, but the administrative weight caused additional charges. So they have to know that the information is kept confidential--

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

Mr. Chair, despite the ramrodding through of this legislation, each clause in Bill C-24 has an impact on softwood companies, on mom-and-pop operations right across the country. We're not making it easy for them to make any sort of viable business. We know that the softwood sellout itself is not commercially viable. There is a whole host of clauses that are retroactive to these companies, and as every single witness who appeared before this summer who actually is involved in the industry said, it is not commercially viable when things are retroactive. We have to make things simpler and easier for the softwood companies, and one of the ways to do that is to ensure that they get effective and adequate notice from the minister. That can only happen by registered mail. Notify a person in writing, how? Drop a letter in the mail and assume that it gets to somebody? With registered mail, we know that the party involved has received the notice from the minister. And we have to make it easier for the softwood companies.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through this comical circus it is actually supposed to be called due clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24, and we haven't had that. What we've had is a bit of a kangaroo court, ramming through amendments that are going to hurt lumber remanufacturers in British Columbia and the softwood industry, particularly those companies that were so cash short they had to sign up to the EDC. That's only 25% of the companies, but nonetheless they're important.

Here we have a situation in clause 24 where the minister notifies of cancellation, but without any real substantial direction. In our amendment we're saying it has to happen by registered mail. Essentially we are saying that this egregiously bad bill, which is being rammed through at lightning speed without due consideration, has to be changed.

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

This is absolutely incredible. I thought I'd seen it all, but I haven't. I've seen a government that is hell-bent on driving the softwood industry right over the cliff, without any attention to any of the details. There's the poor drafting of Bill C-24, and there is the shutting off of television cameras so the public can't be aware of what this government is doing, with the assistance of two opposition parties. That's something I can certainly understand, because if the public knew what this government was doing, there'd be an even greater cost, in British Columbia particularly.

What we have is a bad bill that is being made worse by the lack of attention to detail by members of this committee, who are ramming through amendments that make it even worse than it was before.

For Bill C-24, clause 24, amendment NDP-17, which I move, we add that “registered mail” should be added to the cancellation and effective dates so they're not simply set by fiat of the minister; they are set by registered mail.

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

Thank you very much. We're on the same wavelength now, Mr. Chair. I hope that continues.

This amendment amends Bill C-24 in clause 18 by adding after line 12 on page 14 the following:

It does not include the final scope ruling made on March 3, 2006.

As we heard from Elliot Feldman in the one day of testimony this committee held.... Even though literally a dozen organizations from across the country indicated they wanted to testify in this committee, all of them were refused. The only two who were able to appear were Mr. Pearson and Mr. Feldman.

Mr. Feldman made it very clear that due to poor drafting in this bill we end up including end-match lumber, not excluding it. What we end up doing--in the same way as with the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers and the issue of tenure that we have just stomped all over in a most irresponsible way; in the same way that we have repudiated the traditional Canadian interpretation of what constitutes related or unrelated persons, which has crucial consequences after going through many WTO and NAFTA rulings--is saying that what the Americans decide is okay with us.

So the final scope ruling made on March 3, 2006, effectively includes in this agreement end-match lumber. No one who is paying their due diligence to this bill would include end-match lumber when the traditional position of Canada and the provinces has been to exclude end-match lumber.

What are we doing with this? Are we simply throwing caution to the wind and adopting these motions holus-bolus without proper thought to the consequences? Are we actually taking that little bit of testimony we agreed to hear from Mr. Feldman, who said to be careful and don't include end-match lumber, that that would be irresponsible...? He suggested in his testimony that we include an amendment that says very specifically it does not include the final scope ruling made on March 3, 2006. This is something that members on all four corners of the table should support, because it just makes sense. It ensures that end-match lumber is not included--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I very eagerly would like to debate it, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity.

I'll be sitting in from time to time, Mr. Chairman, so thank you for recognizing me in this clause-by-clause analysis of Bill C-24.

I should point out, Mr. Chairman, it's unique--to me--to have time limits of three minutes put on motions, amendments, subamendments. We are probably setting history, to some degree, in having such a narrow limitation and opportunity to debate motions that can be, I'm sure we would all agree, complex in their nature.

The second thing that's novel, by way of introduction of my remarks on government amendment G-5, is that we're in a televised room but the television cameras don't seem to be following the debate.

Can I ask, from a point of clarification, if this meeting is televised or if it isn't, Mr. Chairman?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This gets back to the complete lack of clarity as we ram through, clause by clause, hell-bent, no matter what the consequences are. We've just given up on independent lumber remanufacturers by giving up on tenure. We have given up on the traditional Canadian support of the definition of who are related or unrelated persons. Here in this particular clause, though we support very much the intent of the Maritime lumber exemption, it is very clear that the wording needs to be tightened.

We had a subamendment offered that would help to address to a certain extent the issue of what indeed constitutes effective wording for Maritime lumber exports. We have New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or Newfoundland and Labrador. The original wording was that you had to have primary processing in all four of those provinces in order to qualify under the Maritime exclusion. Very clearly, Mr. Chair, we're seeing a bill that needed to be changed, with problems that were very significant.

Though I'm happy we are addressing one small part of what is a pretty irresponsible piece of legislation, the reality is that the decisions we're making in all of these other clauses have the same kind of impact we're seeing in clause 14 and in clause 10.

Why would we endeavour to fix clause 10 and clause 14 and not endeavour to fix errors that are even greater in other parts?

When the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association ask to come before committee, they are refused; when they ask that tenure be considered on a B.C. basis, and not as defined in Ottawa, we refuse that; this committee just rams through essentially amendments that are appallingly irresponsible as far as the lumber remanufacturers are concerned.

We have here in clause 14 some improvements, some redress. But I cannot stress enough to members of this committee, Mr. Chair, that we as a committee have to realize that the errors that are in the maritime lumber exemption, which should have been an exclusion, are errors that are repeated elsewhere in this particular bill, and they're even worse in other sectors.

We address it part of the way by addressing the subamendment that was adopted earlier, but by no means do we address the entire issue of the mistakes, if you like, or errors in drafting that took place with Bill C-24. It was done far too rapidly. It needed to be addressed, as parliamentarians should be addressing—

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As folks read these transcripts, which will be distributed across the country, particularly to lumber remanufacturers in British Columbia and elsewhere, it will be interesting for them to note that we have two arguments here. One argument is the NDP argument, based on what's actually in the agreement, what's actually in Bill C-24, and the egregious errors made in the drafting of the bill. The other argument, that comes from the government, is completely personal. Rather than defending any aspects of the deal, I guess because it's indefensible, they simply go for personal attacks.

That's very interesting, Mr. Chair, but it begs the question: are they well informed about what they are adopting?

Mr. Harris made a comment about companies awaiting their money. There are two problems with that. Number one, as of last Monday the taxpayers were picking up the tab of $950 million. Tembec received $242 million of that. This is through the EDC, so it's the taxpayers picking up the tab. The companies have received their money through the EDC process.

Last Friday, Mr. Chair, we actually had a situation where customs and border protection in the United States started to make the payments that came from--and I'll cite this--the New York City decision, October 13, at the Court of International Trade, that:

...all of Plaintiffs' unliquidated entries, including those entered before, on, and after November 4, 2004, must be liquidated in accordance with the final negative decision of the NAFTA panel. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.

So Judge Restani, Judge Barzilay, and Judge Eaton said Canada won. We're entitled to all the money back.

What is the debate around Bill C-24 right now? What is the debate around clause 13, where we tried to limit the punishment, the self-imposed punishment, this government is imposing on our softwood industry despite the ruling of October 13? What's at stake?

What is at stake is about $1 billion and thousands of softwood jobs. We've lost 4,000 already, and we apprehend further losses of jobs, because this agreement is not, as every witness throughout the summer has attested, commercially viable.

Companies were bludgeoned into accepting a deal. They expressed their opinion by having only 25% support for the EDC program. If that does not show a lack of confidence by the industry in this government, I don't know what does. I mean, 75% said no to EDC; 75% did not sign up for the EDC process. Why? Quite simply, they are getting 100% of their money back through customs and border protection. If you're getting 100% dollars, why would you go through this bad bill and get 67¢ back--with the double tax here, which we'll be talking about later, maybe this evening--through this process? The folks in the softwood industry have said no, and they've said no very clearly.

The smoke and mirrors from the government does not--

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you.

This is a subamendment to this clause that, as a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 in clause 16 be amended by replacing line 8 on page 12.

Okay, sorry, I need to back up here. This was just handed to me as a wonderful amendment to that. We will start it over again.

The amendment, with reference number 2438017, is to be further amended by replacing lines 1 to 10 of the proposed amendment with the following, “who is certified under section 25, in accordance with the procedure established under schedule 1”, and schedule 1 is the actual wording from the agreement that has already been tabled.

I'll try to stick to the amendment. As a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 in clause 16 is to be amended by replacing line 8 on page 12 with the following, “name is set out in schedule 2 is exempt from”.

Also as a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 in clause 16 is to be amended by replacing line 14 on page 12 with the following, “regulation, amend schedule 2 by adding”.

Also, as a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 in the schedule is to be amended by replacing line 1 on page 100 with the following, “Schedule 2”.

As a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 is to be amended by adding the following, “Schedule 1” at line 27 on page 99.

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

On Bill C-24, clause 11, what we have is a series of rates and punitive charges that are applied to softwood companies. On October 13, the United States Court of International Trade ruled on the softwood dispute. It was something, of course, Mr. Chair, that the Canadian government endeavoured to prevent, unbelievably. It endeavoured to intervene in a court of law to stop Canada from winning. Here is the judgment that was delivered on October 13 by Justice Restani, Justice Barzilay, and Justice Eaton in the Court of International Trade in New York City.

Accordingly, all of Plaintiffs’

--that's Canadians--

unliquidated entries, including those entered before, on, and after November 4, 2004, must be liquidated in accordance with the final negative decision of the NAFTA panel. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.

Mr. Chair, what we have is a final victory in the Court of International Trade. It is an enforceable decision, and we have seen, Mr. Chair, that U.S. Customs and Border Protection are now paying out 100% dollars to Canadian softwood companies. We have the judgment that completely obliterates any need, if ever there was one, to capitulate as we did this summer in the softwood lumber agreement, reflected in Bill C-24. We have a legal case that is binding and is allowing those moneys to come back into Canada now, and what we are considering here is the imposition of punitive taxes. It's absolutely unbelievable, Mr. Chair, that we would impose on our softwood industry punitive tariffs when we know that we have won in the Court of International Trade and we know that Customs and Border Protection in the United States, despite the government's pretensions that it would take two years to make those payments, is actually making the payments now. It started last Friday. Those first cheques went out.

Why are we penalizing our softwood industry? Why are we insisting that somehow they have to pay these punitive self-imposed tariffs when we know very well that we do not have to do this? We have seen massive job losses, Mr. Chair, in the last few weeks--nearly 4,000 jobs have been lost across this country--because these punitive tariffs mean lost jobs. This was a badly botched negotiation. It was unnecessary. We won in a court despite the fact that the Canadian government intervened to stop us from getting the remedy. We have no reason to impose this penalty and we should act accordingly.

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

I haven't spoken to it. What we've had is clarification from the panel. We know now that this is in order. As a result of that, I would like to speak to it now that it has been found to be in order, and I thank you for that.

I think this gets to the crux of what we are doing here today, Mr. Chair, which is to try to endeavour to lessen the series of penalties that are imposed upon Canadian softwood producers right across the board: eighteen months in prison for countermanding in any way Bill C-24; exceptional powers to go in and interfere with directors of companies and to interfere with trust funds they may have set up at any time in their lives. These are all issues that are front and centre in how we approach Bill C-24.

Now we have a situation where in the agreement itself we have simply, and I'll state it for the record: “Canada shall retroactively” impose on the entities or entities responsible for any excess shipments from the Maritimes a charge equal to “$C X, where X is determined according to the following formula”.

The formula--

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to now speak on the new clause 10.1. I think it is still the same confusing way of putting into place the numbering system for these new clauses. Though I disagree with the way the clause and numbering system is being put together, I do support the principle of what we are adopting.

I wanted to speak more specifically about northern areas, particularly the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. I must say that despite the fact that we have improved this aspect of Bill C-24 to a certain extent, we still have a way to go, Mr. Chair. What we have is a situation with the softwood industry that is incipient, to say the least.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The problem we're having here is that we're complicating even further clause 10. As we initially talked about, clause 10 was botched in the drafting. We had very clearly, from the text of the softwood lumber agreement, an exclusion of the Maritimes from the provisions of the softwood lumber agreement. That's something that is historical. That's something that has been established over time. And I think it's fair to say that this is something that all four parties around this table have supported.

So having that exemption from the historical litigation that has occurred around softwood lumber over the last few years, and that was only resolved on October 13 with our final victory in the Court of International Trade, that has now led to U.S. Customs and Border Protection starting to pay back 100% dollars to the companies, which renders Bill C-24

obsolete, most definitely.

The historical Maritimes exclusion was not moved from the softwood lumber agreement to Bill C-24. Now we have a situation where we're endeavouring to fix this.

In a sense, with the wording of both CPC-2 and L-2, which we support in their essentials, we're still in a situation where we're referring back to the clause 10 we have crafted--which is, to say the least, somewhat contradictory in terms of what we have, or what we would be adding, in new clause 10.1. Effectively we're endeavouring to build into that a clause that refers to the specific maritime exclusion--Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador--and also exports from the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut Territory.

It's very clear, Mr. Chair, that this is something that would need to be clarified as well in terms of subamendments.

By referring to clause 10 here, I think we would muddy the waters even further. In endeavouring to fix that particular clause by referring back to clause 10--we're now creating new clause 10.1--what we are doing is putting into place a series of building blocks of confusion, a labyrinth. If we are creating new clause 10.1, it stands on its own to refer to the exports of softwood lumber products excluded from the charge, specifically the four Atlantic Canadian provinces and our three northern territories.

As Mr. Jean mentioned when he moved the subamendment, as was right for him to do, by having that wording in there--Mr. Menzies referred to this as well--what we're doing is adding further confusion to the overall thrust of clause 10 and new clause 10.1 and how they interact.

I'm concerned about that confusion. I'm concerned about--

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We do not support this amendment. Canada and the United States agreed to change the effective date of the softwood lumber agreement from October 1 to October 12. It is therefore necessary to make several amendments to Bill C-24 to ensure that Canada meets its obligations to collect the charge as of October 12. The proposed amendment would establish November 1 as the effective date when Canada would begin collection of the charge. The government's motion would establish the correct date of October 12. So we do not support this amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Despite the fact that I disagree with a lot of your rulings, you are on your toes as well today, though I would appreciate a little more respect for the time allocation.

Coming back to this in clause 10, it is an amendment of the initial date that is contained within the softwood agreement and in Bill C-24. What we have right now, Mr. Chair, is a date set at September 30, 2006. There is no doubt that this date has to be changed. What is the logical date that would need to be put in that is not going to be harmful to softwood communities across the country?

Mr. Chair, what has indeed happened, as we saw with the incredible confusion around mid-October, is that the AD and CV duties continued to be collected at the border in the United States past the “put into effect” date of the softwood lumber agreement.

Even though we have not adopted this legislation, it's important for folks to note that this government has just rammed in a deal, even though it's unravelling as we speak. The reality is that this was imposed when the date for the actual putting into effect of the agreement came. There were two duties being levied, and depending on whom you speak to, that continued for a number of days. As you know, we raised these questions at the committee hearings when the government officials were here, to find out exactly what the last date was that the illegal AD and CV duties were collected. We do not know at this point when those double duty collections actually ended, Mr. Chair.

Because of that, and because of the incredible strain that softwood companies have been under, what we need to do is set a date that actually respects their ability to work through the process, their ability as companies to try to right the wrongs of this egregiously bad agreement. The date that makes sense is the end of October.

To this day, we don't know exactly when the AD and CV duty collection ended. We do know when the duty collection started for these self-imposed penalties that are actually higher than the illegal American tariffs. We went from a 10.8% tariff to a 15% tariff overnight, Mr. Chair, and we saw what the results of that were: thousands of lost jobs.

In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean regions, and on the North Shore, some 1,700 jobs have been lost in one week alone. Across the country, 4,000 jobs have been lost since this Agreement came into effect.

This disastrous result is due to the badly botched...

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

I'm aware of that, Mr. Chair.

I like to clarify these things, even if you do punish members who ask questions of the panel or who ask questions of you for clarification. This is legislation that has enormous consequences. We've seen that in clause 6. I think it is to the shame of the committee that 11 of the 12 members did not understand what they were voting on, that essentially what we were doing is taking the legal victories that we had and turning them around into legal language that is actually a net loss for Canada.

When we go to clause 10, Mr. Chair, the NDP has been supporting for some time the Maritime exclusion. We were surprised and dismayed that in the drafting of this bill, as with the other errors that we have already seen in clause 6, an egregious error, clause 10 was very clearly a massive drafting error. There is no doubt about that, in the same way the softwood sellout was done rapidly and poorly and resulted in strong capitulation.

We see in Bill C-24 that the drafting was done so rapidly that the Maritime exclusion became a nil-level exemption. It was something that could have come back later on, because it was included within the text of Bill C-24. And because of the vagueness of the language, it could come back to bite the Maritime lumber industry significantly. So, Mr. Chair, there is no doubt that this needs to be substantially amended; it needs to be fixed.

The problem we're having as a committee, Mr. Chair, is that this is only one of a whole host of problems that exist and that the members of the lumber community want to see addressed. The problem is, Mr. Chair, as a committee we're not hearing from any of those. We've had one day of witnesses, and once those witnesses started to raise these serious concerns, the committee shut down any possibility of having other interventions. Again this morning, with the first nations, shut them down. We don't want to hear from them.

The Maritime lumber exclusion is only one of a host of problems with Bill C-24.

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

I just have had very clear confirmation, Mr. Chair, of why this process is not working. We've had two interventions, from the Conservative Party and from the Bloc, who seemingly are completely unaware of the capitulation that is made by referring to clause 6 in this manner.

What we are doing is saying that regardless of whether or not they treat each other at arm's length, the related persons are deemed not to deal with each other at arm's length. This is something that has been a major issue in British Columbia, and yet we've had an amendment that was important and endorsed by many of the lumber industry in British Columbia, because of their concerns that this definition is the United States' definition of arm's-length transaction rather than the Canadian definition, thrown aside without any due consideration.

We've been dealing for five and a half hours with this bill. This is the first major case where we have a major capitulation that the government is refusing to bend on.

It is a definition that has consequences, Mr. Chair—enormous consequences, because what we're doing is throwing away our legal victories. We fought for this principle at the WTO; we fought for it at NAFTA. Now, in subclauses 6(1) and 6(2), what we are doing, essentially, is throwing away those legal victories.

Mr. Chair, there is no more potent and visible example of why this process of ramrodding through this entire bill in the course of a day does not make sense than this one in clause 6, where, after years of legal victory at the WTO—and the Liberals should know this, because they were in government at the time—and at NAFTA, we are simply, in the course of a few minutes, throwing all that away and putting into legislation a definition that now confirms what the coalition has been saying all along about Canadian companies: that it doesn't matter if you've been treating that related person at arm's length; what it means now is, according to the Canadian government, full capitulation—we'll simply take the American definition.

This has consequences not only for this bill. It's not at all clear whether this bill will even go through, as the deal falls apart. Only 25% of the companies have signed on. That tells you something, Mr. Chair: this badly botched bill is going down. But if we adopt this in legislation, you can bet your bottom dollar, Mr. Chair, the coalition will be coming back and pointing to this—this work done at 10:20 in the morning on a Tuesday, as we ramrod through Bill C-24—and they'll be pointing to it as an example that Canada accepts the American definition of what constitutes arm's-length transaction.

So here we have parties all uniting to sell out Canada's interest--

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to speak against this latest chapter in railroading. Mr. Chair, what we saw last Thursday and what we're seeing today is the railroading through of legislation that has profound consequences for the softwood industry and for softwood communities across the country.

We're looking at a situation in which, on October 13, we won the victory in the Court of International Trade. As of last Friday, Mr. Chair, what we've seen is that Customs and Border Protection is now paying out 100% dollars to the companies that have not signed on to the government's botched arrangement. So we have companies that have arranged through EDC and are actually having deductions made from their moneys that they shouldn't have to have made because we won October 13 and because there are 100% dollars coming back.

We don't have to give away $1 billion. We don't have to impose these handcuffs on our softwood industry. We have to go very carefully in considering Bill C-24 clause by clause.

We've had only one day of witnesses, Mr. Chair. Again, we've had the refusal on behalf of this committee to hear witnesses, even though we've had witnesses from across the country indicating very clearly that they want to be heard by this committee. It is incumbent upon us to be very careful and to be very responsible when we are moving to consider the clause-by-clause amendments.

Mr. Chair, what we have here before us is something that would put us out of sequence. The Atlantic exemption is something the NDP fought for. I was very happy to see the comments by Monsieur LeBlanc in today's newspaper, talking about the fact that the NDP's work last Thursday helped contribute to pushing the government to repair at least that portion of Bill C-24.

The normal process of clause-by-clause amendment, as you well know, Mr. Chair, is sequential. It is done that way, sequentially, so that, assuming the drafting has been done right, we can work through the bill clause by clause, moving from one clause to the next one that is related. By doing this, we are throwing that sequence out. We are throwing out the sequence that has been established by the bill. I believe it is going to lead to further confusion, Mr. Chair, as we continue on into the evening and the early morning hours tomorrow and as folks get tired.

Definitively, this is not the way to approach legislation, especially legislation that has such a profound consequence on the lives of Canadians in softwood communities across the country. If we're going out of sequence, what we're essentially doing is throwing a monkey wrench into our own functioning as a committee. We then come back to what is out of sequence, and I can predict right now, Mr. Chair, that we're going to have difficulties. People are going to be unaware of where we are. There's not going to be the consideration that needs to be taken.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Chair, it is very clear that the motion that we adopted does not preclude motions being raised at the beginning of this meeting, and this is directly related to Bill C-24. The First Nations Leadership Council has directly requested to appear before the committee on Bill C-24.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I have ruled this out of order. In the motion we passed we said, “That clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24 be completed before considering any other committee business”. This is other committee business, Mr. Julian.

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

I would like to move that the BC First Nations Forestry Council be invited to testify before this committee. I will speak to the motion.

As you know, Mr. Chair, this week the BC First Nations Forestry Council, which is an organization sanctioned by the B.C. First Nations Leadership Council, representing virtually all B.C. first nations, heard that the Standing Committee on International Trade was moving forward to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good morning, everyone. We're here this morning, honourable members, to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24.

As members are aware, the committee adopted a motion at its meeting of October 31, 2006, to limit the amount of time allotted for the consideration of this bill. Pursuant to the third paragraph of the motion we will first vote on all of the clauses that do not have any proposed amendments. These clauses are 7, 8, 9, 16, 20, 21, 22, 27, 29, 30, 31, 35 to 39, 42 to 47, 51, 52, 53, 58 to 63, 71, 74, 79, 80, 85, 90, 91, 92, 97, 101, 102, 103, 110, 112, 115 to 119, and 121 to 125.

On the other clauses of the bill for which we have received amendments, each member may speak once to each amendment for no more than three minutes. Since subamendments are amendments to amendments, each member may also speak once to each subamendment for three minutes.

After all of the amendments to a clause have been adopted, each member may speak once to the clause, amended or not, for a total of three minutes. Should there be any motions moved related to this bill, each member may only speak once for three minutes. Motions not related to the bill cannot be moved.

The motion states that the committee must finish consideration of the bill before the end of the day, and the end of the day is midnight. Therefore, should we get toward the end of the day, I will use my discretion on how long I believe it'll take to vote on the remaining amendments. We'll start doing that at the time that seems appropriate to ensure that we are finished by midnight, should we be approaching midnight. I remind all members that 12 noon would work fine too.

Let's start with the procedure. We're going—

Mr. Julian.

Standing Committee on International Trade

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment too and maybe help give you some insight into the proceedings that led up to this intervention by the hon. member. The committee adopted the said motion in a recorded vote. I would suggest that this is absolutely parliamentary procedure. If the hon. member had been serious about actually discussing Bill C-24, as the rest of us were trying to do, he might not have spent four and a half hours filibustering committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order that stems from a meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade held last Thursday, November 2.

Subject to the interpretation of the Speaker, I know that he cited, in relation to a question that was asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, in a point of order that was raised on October 6, that in relation to legislation before the House in relation to committee members, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice indicates that the Chair will become involved if the question at issue is whether a committee has exceeded its powers in its clause by clause review of a bill.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Bill C-24, the softwood lumber bill, is before that committee.

Last Thursday, the committee adopted a motion that reads as follows: “That the total number of minutes of debate per amendment per member be limited up to a maximum of three minutes; that three minutes per member also be allotted to the clause, amended or not; that the committee finish clause-by-clause consideration for Bill C-24 by the end of the day on Tuesday, November 7, 2006; that all clauses that have no proposals for amendment be voted on together in one vote at the start of the meeting on Tuesday, November 7, 2006; that Bill C-24 be reported back to the House on Thursday, November 9 or as soon as possible; that the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24 be completed before considering any other committee business; and that any debate on motions related to Bill C-24 be limited to three minutes per person, per motion”.

Considering that two clauses certainly go beyond the mandate that was given by the House to the Standing Committee on International Trade, that is, limiting the total number of minutes of debate per amendment to a maximum of three minutes, which is unprecedented, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in parliamentary history, and also that all clauses that have no proposals for amendment be voted on together in one vote at the start of the meeting on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, it gives rise to my point of order.

It is unbelievable that this might happen, but my point of order consists of the fact that the mandate that was given by the House to the committee was to consider, clause by clause, the extensive number of clauses of Bill C-24. There are over 110 clauses of that particular bill, and we now have, in a very real sense, an inability to consider it clause by clause and an inability to propose the amendments. As we know very well, Marleau and Montpetit, at page 874, state, “Motions to amend a clause of a bill do not require notice”.

To this extent, there were no instructions from the House that actually provided that guideline to the committee, and we now have no opportunity for amendments on all of the clauses that might be pushed forward tomorrow morning. We also have a very strict limitation on the ability to improve what is, in my opinion, an extremely flawed bill.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, on October 6, you said that when we talk about clause by clause review of a particular bill, you have the right and the ability to intervene as far as a committee is concerned.

Going back to precedents, I cite from Marleau and Montpetit, footnote 400, which references the minutes of the Standing Committee on Industry, March 23, 1999, meeting 104:

In 1990, following a lengthy examination of Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Statistics Act, and the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Chair of the Finance Committee unilaterally terminated debate on a motion to limit further debate and set out a schedule allotting time for the remainder of the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. The Chair’s decision was appealed and sustained by the Committee.

Similar action took place last Thursday, November 2 at the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Further to that notice in Marleau and Montpetit, it states:

The Committee subsequently made a report to the House outlining its concerns about the manner in which debate had been limited and asking that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Today that committee is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It continues:

The House concurred in the report... After study, the Privileges and Elections Committee suggested that Standing Order 78 (time allocation) was the appropriate vehicle to use when proposing a limit on committee consideration of a bill.

Standing Order 78(1) states:

When a Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that there is agreement among the representatives of all parties to allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at one or more stages of any public bill, the Minister may propose a motion, without notice, setting forth the terms of such agreed allocation; and every such motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment.

We have a situation whereby a committee has clearly arbitrarily set the most severe limits in Parliament's history on discussion of this bill. The committee has not received those instructions from the House of Commons. Very clearly, precedent shows that when a committee goes beyond what instructions were given to it, the House must provide that direction. So I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that in light of this draconian motion of closure that is being imposed on the Standing Committee on International Trade, you would request of the Chair of the standing committee not to proceed forthwith tomorrow morning, but rather to hold off until you, as Speaker of the House, can make an appropriate ruling in regard to this very draconian abuse of parliamentary privilege.

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

No, Mr. Chair. I did take a breath and I'm going to actually take some water.

I would like then to come back to the fifth clause of his very extensive, rather mean-spirited motion, I would say--mean-spirited to the principle of having committees actually do their due diligence and do their work; that is, that clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24 be completed before considering any other committee business.

Well, Mr. Chair, this is perhaps the most important element. We have other committee business that has already been submitted, and as you are well aware, the committee business that I gave adequate notice of motion on...in fact, in one case we've had adequate notice of motion that goes back exactly two weeks. So we've had more than adequate notice of motion on these, yet if we look at his fifth clause that I'm proposing we delete, essentially what we are doing is eliminating any possibility of hitting these important bits of committee business that are already effectively on the agenda, because notice of motion has already been sent out.

First off, there is the issue of the motion that calls on the Government of Canada to stem the current market disruption, in specific categories, in the Canadian apparel industry, by immediately invoking article 242 of China's accession protocol to the WTO and putting in place restrictions or safeguards on the growth of specific categories of apparel imports from China.

This is a motion that I submitted on Tuesday, in good form, and the impact of the fifth clause--

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

Mr. Chair, I'm raising new information.

I have not raised the concern that essentially other amendments we may identify would not be able to be brought forward because of Mr. Menzies' particular motion. It's November 7. After that, even if we discover an egregious short sight in terms of how this bill is structured, we will have already voted on all of those clauses. Very clearly, Marleau and Montpetit says we have the right, indeed the responsibility, to bring those motions forward.

What I am proposing is shifting Mr. Menzies' date to a much more reasonable date. The much more reasonable date is November 28. It is in three and a half weeks' time, Mr. Chair. In three and a half weeks' time, I believe we will have done the due diligence on the bill to actually go clause by clause and improve those clauses that desperately need to be improved.

As a member of the opposition, I would submit that by November 28 we would be willing to vote on all the proposals that do not have amendments. It could be done in one vote. We could also do it clause by clause. It can be done with cooperation, not with a date imposed of next Tuesday, but with a date that is reasonable.

Let me move to the fourth clause, Mr. Chair. We talk about Bill C-24 being reported to the House on Thursday, or as soon as possible. Very clearly, here is another issue. In previous clauses, clauses that are a precedent to this main fourth clause, which really is the heart of this.... We're going to vote en masse for all of these unamended motions. Regardless of whether we've done our job, we're going to put the bill out and report to the House on Thursday, or as soon as possible. On Thursday we will bring back a bill that is distinctively flawed. We are bringing it to parliamentarians who will actually know that it is distinctively flawed and that we as a committee have not done our due diligence. So fourth clause is really the heart of this motion. It is one that I think as parliamentarians we can all see is irresponsible.

On the fourth clause, Mr. Chair, what we do is take out the Thursday date and we allow for it being as soon as possible.

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

What I would like to do now, Mr. Chair, is speak to the motion itself and to each of the individual clauses, because I think it's important for this committee to fully consider the impact of this particular motion and what this means for committee business.

I've had a moment during the break, Mr. Chair, to go to the washroom and reflect a bit on all of the aspects of this particular amendment and what this does to the committee's ability to work. So let us look at the subamendments I am offering.

Essentially, Mr. Menzies is imposing an artificial deadline, or the end of clause-by-clause consideration.

It is one thing to say that all clauses that have no proposals for amendments be treated in one vote; it is completely another to say that this committee, whether it's done its due diligence or not, will actually have a deadline set, at the end of the day--and it's hard to tell when that is. Is that 11 o'clock or 5 o'clock or midnight? There's no idea. but the committee as a whole will just throw what's left of Bill C-24, regardless of how bad the drafting is and regardless of the issues we've seen....

We've certainly seen an extensive number of issues that have come up in the course of that one hearing we held with Mr. Pearson and Mr. Feldman. They raised a wide variety of issues that were extremely important, extremely relevant to the bill as a whole.

To say that this committee has to finish the clause-by-clause consideration, no matter how poorly the work is done, no matter how poor the actual result is, would be, I think, a serious mistake, a serious error. It would be irresponsible to do that. We're talking about companies that are on the ropes. We've seen the job loss over the last couple of weeks since this deal was imposed.

Now we have Bill C-24. We have the time to consider it. The government has already made payments--$263 million to Tembec, for example--

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will say you're guiding us very effectively through this.

I am pleased to be able to speak now to what we will be voting for together, which is essentially NDP-2.

There are two components to that. There is a link, as you mentioned, which is reducing the percentage that is paid--and the companies would be paying it in treasury bills--down to the inflation rate. We don't have those numbers yet, but presumably we would be able to get them at some point through the course of these hearings. I believe what we do find, as I mentioned earlier, is that indeed we would bring down the treasury bill cost to the inflation rate and then we would increase...in paragraph 4(2)(b), which would be from 2% to 4%.

Effectively, what is the impact of that? In this case, we are talking about moneys that, in a sense, the government actually owes to softwood producers. When we look through all the many clauses of Bill C-24, and I won't use the words “draconian” or “dictatorial”--somebody suggested mean-spirited--we see many provisions of the bill that are so. There's very little in this that actually helps to support the companies that are suffering the brunt of this across the country, whether we're talking about the seed for Alberta, Saskatchewan, or Manitoba...certainly northern Ontario, northern Quebec, and even the Maritimes.... We'll be coming back to the issue around the Maritimes a little later on in our considerations as we move through clause-by-clause.

I will come back to what these companies are suffering and how best, as a committee, to respond to what they've been going through over the last few years. What they've been going through is cruel, and certainly being punished by these illegal, punitive duties is something no industry in Canada has had to suffer to the same extent.

We come to Bill C-24, and to the interest charges that would be levied to them. Essentially, the way Bill C-24 was originally crafted, in subclause 4(2) it said:

For the purposes of every provision of this Act that requires interest at a specified rate to be paid on an amount payable by the Minister to a person or applied by the Minister against an amount owed by a person, the specified rate in effect during any particular calendar quarter is the total of

(a) the rate determined under paragraph (1)(a) in respect of the particular calendar quarter, and

(b) 2%.

If we look at line 35, at the rate determined, that is essentially the treasury bill rate that we mentioned earlier, the rate of the treasury bills. Essentially what we did, looking at NDP-1, which this modifies also...as you mentioned, it is consequential, so we have to, in a sense, go back and forth between the two amendments to ensure everyone understands the full ramifications of these particular amendments.

By going back and forth between the two amendments, and I am putting the primary focus of my comments on NDP-2, what we do, for the purposes of subclause 4(2), is we reduce the rate that would be paid by the government to the company, in the case where there's interest payable by the minister.

Hopefully, other amendments that we'll consider later on in our deliberations will also help to right the playing field that exists so that we're not talking about this mean-spirited bill, but something that softwood companies can actually use in a much more effective way to help them further their business interests.

One of the key aspects of that is furthering business. As you know, Mr. Chair, and any other member of the committee who has been involved in business knows, the cost of capital, the cost of money, is a key component to that. How do you access funds? How do you access funds that are actually owed to you by the Government of Canada?

Mr. Chair, there are a variety of ways of doing that. We've reviewed some of the calculations around the core measure of inflation and how that in effect lowers the cost of capital when companies owe money to the government. Essentially, because we're talking about a big, big stick contained within this legislation, when money is owed to the government those companies are very much in trouble.

So by lowering the rate of money owed to the government, or by lowering the cost to companies so that they're not paying these excessive punitive penalties, we've lowered the cost of capital, in a sense, to those companies. They won't be paying, and won't be seeing, corresponding increases in the amounts of money owed.

Where do those go? They go, of course,

to accounts payable.

Mr. Chairman, when I was taking financial management classes, proper management of accounts payable was considered extremely important. Businesses that know how to adequately manage their accounts payable are able to lower their costs, whether these amounts are owed to other businesses or, such as here, to the government. The ability to reduce these costs is extremely important. This is what we are doing here with the first amendment.

This will benefit small businesses like those of the Estrie, and more particularly in Northern Quebec, in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, in Northern Ontario, in Timmins, in James Bay and other regions, because they have very little room to manoeuvre. They have to make money every day in order to pay their bills and taxes. This is why properly managing their accounts payable is so important to them.

I often congratulate the member for Sherbrooke, because Sherbrooke University is a good university. I studied financial management there and I found that the approach they took to financial management of a business was very well balanced. One must begin by adequately managing accounts payable, and then reduce the cost of these payables. This is what we are doing with our first amendment.

This is why our motion reads:

That Bill C-24, in clause 4, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 3 with the following: “(b) 4%.“

Motions NDP-1 and NDP-2 go together. They are somehow twin motions. I agree to putting them to a vote together, even though I was less pleased with the fact that this was decided after the fact, but this has been corrected. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having made the correction.

By passing those twin motions, we will reduce the cost of accounts payable because we will reduce the interest rate on amounts owed to the Government of Canada. At the same time, this reduction, due to the wording of paragraph 4(b) which says that the rate should be based on the yield of Treasury bills, has a real impact on both money to be paid and money to be collected.

Therefore, if we lower the interest rate on the government's accounts receivable, we also reduce the rate it pays out to companies. This is an important aspect.

It is just as important to manage accounts receivable as accounts payable. Accounts receivable of a business are a very important asset when you have to go meet with your banker. We know that the government approached bankers to get them to push companies to sign the softwood lumber agreement, which they did. The reason why the government approached banks is that banks are important for businesses.

Banks play a major role, just like the network of credit unions, which is very extensive in Estrie and elsewhere in Quebec. The Mouvement Desjardins is the largest financial cooperative in North America and it has enormous capital at its disposal. This coop does a very good job with softwood lumber companies. But the caisses populaires, the credit unions or banks that finance those companies always want information on their accounts payable and the applicable rates of interest. The issue of accounts receivable is therefore extremely important. We should not underestimate its importance, because accounts receivable are more than simply being owed money. These accounts appear in the financial statements that are established at year-end. Accounts receivable can have very broad implications. This is not an insignificant subject we are discussing today.

What we are seeking is a better balance. On the one hand, we reduce the amount companies have to pay to the government by bringing down the interest rate. This is important in terms of the accounts payable. On the other hand, this does not reduce the interest rate that the Government of Canada must pay to those companies.

Let us take for example a small softwood lumber company located in Estrie. It deals with the caisse populaire of Sherbrooke, which is a credit union that has great involvement in the life of business people in this whole area. When the manager or the representative of that institution sits down with the representative or the head of that business, the first thing he or she will ask to see are the financial statements of the previous year and whether these have been audited by a chartered accountant. Without financial statements, you cannot even sit down with a banker. When you are dealing with a credit union, where people know each other better, the business person will be able to meet with the manager but will not be able to discuss financing without showing financial statements.

The first thing banks or credit unions look at in the financial statements of a business is the assets and liabilities, including accounts payable, their percentage, their turnover, whether they have increased or decreased over the last few months or the last year or couple of years, whether the business has financial difficulties, etc. All of those aspects are shown in the financial statements as audited by a chartered accountant. Accounts payable play an important role.

Next, banks will look at accounts receivable, at the assets of a business, whether there are substantial accounts receivable from the government and whether this will have an impact on the financing of the business. It is a critical aspect because if it appears that accounts payable increase and that accounts receivable decrease, the business will be told to at least try to get that money as quickly as possible. But the law gives very few tools to corporations to make the government pay them the money it owes, which is why we have a rather draconian way of doing things.

So, with those measures, companies cannot go to the government and insist that they immediately need the money owed them. We cannot ask these companies to live with such uncertainty. It is not only companies who are faced with uncertainty, but also their employees, the financial institutions that provide financing to them, such as caisses populaires, credit unions and banks.

These people look at every line in the financial statements to make sure that the business is solvent. One important factor in this review of financial statements is the turnover in the accounts payable and receivable, as well as the amounts that the business can expect to receive.

It is important to provide this service to softwood lumber companies, whether they be located in Estrie, in Abitibi, in Northern Ontario or in British Columbia. On Vancouver Island, for example, the softwood lumber industry is very strong. Local credit unions and lumber companies are jointly making a large effort, but nevertheless, due to the situation that we know all too well, 4,000 jobs have been lost over the last few weeks and many operations had to close. The situation is very serious for these people.

Bill C-24 allows us to offer something substantial to those companies. On the one hand, in terms of the credit unions and banks that provide financing to them, we must reduce the interest rate they pay when they owe money to the government. This is the first step, a first improvement. At the same time--and just as important--, when the government owes them money, they should be entitled to a better balance. I could read that subsection again, if a member so requested, but I do not think it is necessary. I believe everybody understands very well. We reduce the rate from the annual yield of Treasury bills down to the rate of inflation, while increasing from 2% to 4% the additional percentage paid to those companies.

Why is this important? We know that the lumber industry is seasonal, that the labour turnover is important at certain times of the year and less so at other times. Bill C-24 recognizes the seasonal nature of some parts of the industry, for example in the calculations based on the months of production.

Since Canada is a northern country, it is obvious that during the winter months, in some areas, it is not possible to log trees and to do all the field work that is required. We also know that in some areas, manpower is unavailable to the lumber industry at certain times of the year, for example in the fishing season or during periods when other primary industries are active. Therefore, we have workers going from the lumber industry to other industries.

Why is the seasonal nature of the softwood lumber industry significant? Because it is part of the factors that the industry and all businesses taking part in it must take into account in terms of financing. All companies must adjust to these fluctuations between periods in a year. We are not talking here about manufacturing a toy or a car, which entails steady levels of performance throughout the year.

Things are different in the natural resources sector. This is why financing is such a critical aspect for those companies. They have no other choice but to rely on the support of financial institutions. They are not doing so out of self-interest or because they like having a cup of coffee with the credit union manager, but because they have no other choice.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that, and I will be offering an amendment at the end of my speech, in reaction to Mr. Cannan's proposal.

Because indeed, Mr. Chair, that's what is at stake here. As we heard on Tuesday, we talked about draconian legislation. We have to make sure that every clause is fully amended, that every one of these punitive.... The punitive nature of the bill is quite incredible. But we have to make sure that essentially we're not jeopardizing the softwood industry, those poor softwood companies that have borne the brunt of the last five years.

So essentially because of that we have a wide variety of punitive measures, which have to be duly considered. They have to be fully considered because indeed what we are talking about is the future of our softwood industry.

Now looking at Mr. LeBlanc's proposals in clause 25, for example, he's offered a very extensive amendment at that stage, which I think is well thought out, as most of what Mr. LeBlanc does is thought out with a great deal of forethought and with the appropriate consultation.

Now this motion of Mr. Cannan's would basically eliminate any sort of in-depth debate on the provisions of that particular clause. We have Mr. Casey's amendments, and more from Mr. LeBlanc.

Then we have some of the elements around the punitive nature, which I mentioned—the 18 months certainly—but going further than that, the punitive nature of the government being able to go to softwood directors on an individual basis. This is after what is essentially an imposed assessment, because we've certainly heard from previous testimony that there is an assessment done by the Government of Canada. The assessment is done, but certainly the companies don't have the ability to respond to it. Effectively their recourse is tax court, which could take about a year, from the testimony we heard.

So we're looking at a procedure. If we adopt this bill without the amendments, as I believe Mr. Cannan is pushing, without the real in-depth discussion of the implications of each of these amendments, we would end up with a bill where the assessments are made, where the companies have no recourse in the short term, or recourse really in the medium term either, and then essentially the extremely punitive measures—a bit like what I see Mr. Cannan's motion as being, in trying to close off debate—take effect.

The punitive measures are as follows. The companies and the individual directors become responsible for those debts. Now these are assessments that are imposed, and the companies have no real way of reversing them in the short term. It's up to the minister.

From there, they're going through tax court. Perhaps on a long-term basis, they can expect to see some modification of the assessment. But the government has draconian tools, as Mr. Feldman testified, to go to those individual directors and say to them, you're responsible, and then look at those individual directors to see if they've transferred funds at any time. That's the way the bill is currently crafted.

The amendments we're bringing forward, that the opposition is bringing forward, are dying to address that. But imagine a company in Prince George, where a wrong assessment has been made and the company is going through the long process of tax court to try to get some repudiation of the assessment. Then the government can wade in, go to those individual directors and say to them, “Well, have you transferred money at anytime in your life? Do you have an educational trust fund for your kids? Have you transferred money to your spouse?”

They cannot only go after the individual, the softwood owner and director who started a small softwood company a few years ago in the Cariboo or Prince George, the areas of British Columbia that are highly impacted by Bill C-24—highly impacted if we do not do our job as parliamentarians to fully vet and investigate this bill....

What we see is that those directors and their spouses and their children could have the government going after them for moneys owed for an assessment that might well be incorrect. But the procedures, the systems of checks and balances that exist in other legislation, as we've seen, don't exist in Bill C-24. So that system of checks and balances that we as parliamentarians are responsible for maintaining does not exist. Essentially, a director can be...

pursued by the government, and the same goes for his or her children and spouse. If we are talking about the Abitibi, a small company could find itself in the same situation. The amount of money due would be determined by the government. The calculation is not always very precise and the company could not go after the government. It would have to rely on the tax court, and that takes time, sometimes up to a year. There therefore would be no recourse. These directors and their families would see the government go after them. There is no system of checks and balances vis-à-vis the powers the government is assuming under Bill C-24. Small softwood lumber company directors are seeking justice and fairness and they wish to be treated with respect.

Other punitive elements of this, Mr. Chair, lie in the fact that not only can the company directors have the government going after them, but you actually have commercial clients of these softwood companies.... For example, in Quesnel, British Columbia, if that small company gets an incorrect assessment, and essentially what they're doing is trying desperately to stay afloat, they have to pay the assessment. If they don't pay that assessment, their recourse in tax court takes too long, and then you can have the government, under the current wording of Bill C-24, actually go after their commercial clients.

What are the implications of that, Mr. Chair? What are the implications of this kind of draconian legislation that says now if you are a commercial client of a Canadian softwood industry...

Be careful, because if you are the customer of such a company, the government can go after you. This possibility would exist under the bill if it is adopted. Who would want to do business with a softwood lumber company from the North Shore, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area or the Abitibi-Témiscamingue? Who would want to do business with a softwood lumber company in Northern Ontario?

Who would do business with a softwood company in Saskatchewan, Alberta, or British Columbia? If there are cashflow difficulties, we're in a situation under this draconian legislation that essentially what we could have is the government going after those clients.

So the perverse impacts of that kind of situation, once word gets out, if we were to adopt Mr. Cannan's motion and just ram it through with no due consideration of the amendments--just ram it through, and let's not go into any depth, let's just treat this as question period, very brief, nothing of any depth or any substance to it. The implications of just ramming this through are significant and they are irreversible, Mr. Chair--irreversible--because the decisions we make now could well run many of those companies that are already on the ropes right out of business, either directly, through the punitive measures that are imposed on those companies, the fines, the imprisonment, the fact that you can go after directors and certainly go after directors' families, but also because of the ability of the government to go after the commercial clients....

What we will see, those of us who've been in business, is a shying away of companies that don't want to get involved with companies that might be liable to draw them into legal difficulty with the government. Who would want that? What commercial client would want to be involved in a company that may have the government coming after them? Yet this is one of the very perverse and very unfortunate consequences of badly crafted legislation.

We have responsibilities. We have the responsibility as parliamentarians to fully vet this legislation. We have the responsibility to go through clause-by-clause in detail and indepth to ensure that essentially we do not at any time make decisions that would imperil the softwood companies that are left.

If we simply allow things to stand, if we simply allow the fines, the imprisonment, half of this legislation, more than half of the legislation...in fact, if we go from clause 50 on, I believe, we are looking at punitive measures, clause after clause after clause.

In the front portion of the legislation, we have legislation that imposes double taxation, double penalties. We have legislation that, at this point, desperately needs to be amended. That's whether we're talking about how the lumber remanufacturers are defined, which has been a serious issue that folks have raised, and the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association certainly raised that--and I'll come back to that in a moment.

In the back end of the legislation, as we've seen, we're talking about draconian measure after draconian measure--draconian measures that follow one after the other, penalties, fines, jail sentences, all for folks who just wanted to create jobs in their community and who just wanted to sell value-added softwood products. That's all they wanted to do.

So what we have when we go to the front end of this legislation, if we take Mr. Cannan's motion and if we have the government impose this on us, and what we have in the back of the legislation is draconian in nature and it has to be amended. We cannot simply allow the legislation to leave this committee as it is written. It simply cannot, and I don't see how any parliamentarian around this table would support such draconian measures for softwood companies in Quesnel, B.C., in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, or in northern Alberta, and we can look right across the country, in The Pas, Manitoba--I'll certainly be going there to meet with folks in the softwood industry next weekend--and when we look at the north, northern Ontario, and certainly the reaction we've seen there in the softwood industry...a concern about the draconian nature of this legislation.

The representatives of the industry in Quebec are a little worried about this. And if you take the industry in the Maritimes, we have amendments...

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

Mr. Chair, I do not believe it's the kind of motion that's in order. Certainly when we're dealing with clause-by-clause amendments, what we're dealing with is very important legislation, and we have to have the opportunity to express ourselves. So certainly all members from all parties have amendments that are brought forward to this committee. We certainly know, and we've heard from the testimony on Tuesday, that how we treat this bill is of utmost importance. If we make mistakes in how we treat this bill, mistakes on how we choose to amend the various concerns that have been brought to our attention, either through the witnesses we heard on Tuesday or those who were refused to be allowed to be witnesses through the discussions this morning.... So we have some very serious concerns.

This is a highly technical bill. It contains numerous clauses and subclauses, in each of which the wording will have fundamental impacts on the softwood industry across the country.

I was in Thunder Bay just a few days ago talking to softwood workers about the impact of Bill C-24. I believe, in fact, softwood workers in Thunder Bay were one of the first groups to write in to this committee to say they wanted to testify in front of the committee. They want to testify because they're concerned about the impact of the bill. They're concerned about the impact of the bill because they're not certain that the government will accept the amendments that have been offered from the opposition parties.

We've had numerous amendments from Mr. LeBlanc, which are important amendments that I think will have an impact on improving this bill. I'm not sure if it will be improved to the extent that it would actually be something that anyone could support, but certainly to improve it we've had amendments.

Mr. Cardin and Mr. André tabled amendments. This means that there are amendments that are important to the members seated around this table. The practice in the House of Commons is a very simple one. With regard to committees, we do not attempt to muzzle people who are trying to present amendments, who are speaking to them. Often, as the case may be, the interactive aspect of the debate around each amendment is extremely important, because it facilitates improving the bill. This way of doing things traces back to the very beginnings of Parliament. Committees have an important role to play with regard to amendments to bills. Each member has something to contribute. It is today completely out-moded, Mr. Chairman, to attempt to muzzle members of Parliament or to curb debate.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to be moving to my conclusion shortly. I appreciate the committee's patience, because this is an extremely important issue.

How we calculate the inflation rate is something that I know all members find interesting, because it has such a marked impact on our daily lives. We need to know that our inflation rate is accurately calculated. It should include all of the essential goods that appear in the Bank of Canada calculation of the monthly variation in prices on which the annual estimate of the inflation rate is based. Certainly, the fact that there are regional variations is something we have to take into consideration as well.

We should be studying these regional variations with attention. Only careful study will give us an accurate picture of the inflation rates in each of the regions of our vast country, because there are significant differences, without a doubt. Because of the resource base in various parts of the country, there are substantial differences in the composition of our national basket of goods and services.

The Bank of Canada does a passable job in representing this core inflation rate. Surely no member of this committee would disagree with the idea that the inflation rate is much less punitive than imposing what we have in the current wording of Bill C-24, where we take the Treasury Board rate plus 4%. This ensures that we have an interest rate that not only respects the fact that the Government of Canada is not receiving those funds, but also respects how difficult it has been for softwood companies over the past few years and how difficult it will continue to be for them. Any interest that is owed is based purely on the core measure of inflation, as opposed to the kinds of penalties we see in clause 4.

I'd like to thank the committee for its indulgence in hearing me out on the inflation rate. It's certainly a passionate subject for me, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on it.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Moving to amendment NDP-1, as was expressed in the brief hearings we had on Tuesday on Bill C-24, the concern here is the overall impact on the softwood industry. What we have in the current Bill C-24 is a case where moneys that are owed effectively to the Government of Canada are subject to a rate calculated through the Government of Canada treasury bills sold at auctions of Government of Canada treasury bills during the first month of the calendar quarter and 4%. Essentially, in this clause as it's currently crafted, Mr. Chair, what we're doing is imposing an additional penalty on softwood companies.

As witnesses on Tuesday attested, we know this is a pretty draconian bill. There are a series of penalties that we'll be discussing in the course of the next few days. But the reality is that a lot of these penalties are penalties that should not be imposed on the softwood industry. They've already suffered enough, and they're certainly suffering from the softwood sellout itself.

Now, if we look at Bill C-24, we have clauses that are additional penalties—additional punishments, if you like—on how these companies are treated. When there is interest to be paid at a specified rate—and we've already acknowledged that because of the decision of the Court of International Trade on October 13, these taxes and these penalties do not need to be paid—the way the bill is currently configured, what we end up with not only penalizes the companies having to pay these taxes that they shouldn't have to pay because we won in the Court of International Trade, but we're also very clearly including a 4% penalty on top of

(a) the rate that is the simple arithmetic mean, expressed as a percentage per year and rounded to the next higher whole percentage where the mean is not a whole percentage, of all amounts each of which is the average equivalent yield, expressed as a percentage per year, of Government of Canada Treasury Bills that mature approximately three months after their date of issue and that are sold at auctions of Government of Canada Treasury Bills during the first month of the calendar quarter preceding the particular calendar quarter, and

(b) 4%.

That's the way the bill is currently worded.

Assuming that the Government of Canada treasury bills are above the inflation rate plus the 4%, we have companies paying taxes that they should not have to pay, because, as I mentioned, the Court of International Trade said we don't have to have these self-imposed taxes. In addition, in clause 4, we have this quite egregious penalty.

As a result of that, what we have offered up is an amendment that would simply allow the rate of the interest penalty to be paid by softwood companies. These are small softwood companies right across the country. These are folks who are already going to suffer from many aspects of the bill unless we clean it up. To have them pay the treasury bill rate plus 4%, as opposed to what our amendment proposes—which is the rate that is the Bank of Canada core measure of inflation calculated in respect of that....

In other words, what we do by incorporating this amendment is, in some way, to soften the blow of the double penalties that these companies are going to have to pay. We're talking about an onerous administrative burden. We're talking about onerous financial burdens, as we've heard—and hopefully we'll have the time and due diligence to go through clause 18 to eliminate the double taxation that occurs.

It seems to me quite straightforward and quite simple that we don't want to penalize and doubly penalize companies that have been operating in good faith, companies across the country that have paid the price of this agreement.

Mr. Chairman, what we are proposing is very simple. We are proposing to replace the suggested wording, in other words, the rate that is the simple arithmetic mean of Government of Canada Treasury Bonds. I have read the text in English, and there is no need for me to repeat it in French.

We are proposing an interest rate that would be the average return on Government of Canada Treasury Bonds, plus 4%. Very clearly, the effect of the bill would be to penalize, to attack, to harm these companies, who are already paying double: first of all, they are getting less money than their rightful share, money that was illegally collected by the government of the United States. Secondly...

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will now then go to the next order of business, which is clause-by-clause of Bill C-24.

We're just going to change and get Susan in position here to answer any questions on the process.

Do you have a point, Ms. Guergis?

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

Certainly, Mr. Chair. I apologize.

Let us take Bill C-11, for example, which is being considered in the transport committee. We have now had four weeks of hearings from witnesses across the country on that particular bill, and in fact we are looking at a period of six weeks to submit amendments.

In this case, the opposition was extremely cooperative. Eight days after receiving a clause-by-clause report, it submitted clause-by-clause amendments to the bill. That level of cooperation is something that wasn't seen either in this or the previous Parliament.

So I would hope that the government would cooperate back, given that we have made concessions, both in terms of the time required for amendments and also in extending the time today for the hearing.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to come to the most important thing, the actual witnesses themselves, and what they have said in requesting to be heard in front of this committee. Whether it's by teleconference, video conference, or in person, I think this is of much less important than the fact that they want to appear.

Russ Cameron of the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association stated the following. He urges you to convene committee meetings so that the parties affected by Bill C-24 may appear as witnesses and express their views on this pending legislation:

We realize that sessions were held earlier in this process as we appeared at them, but things have changed a great deal since that time. For example, we were originally assured that all our interest would be returned to us, but now Canada will take some of it too. We were originally told in writing that we would get all our money back if we elected not to sell to EDC at a discount, but now Canada is imposing a special charge and will take that money from us too. We were originally told that 95% support was required, but when it was not there, Canada changed that requirement. We were originally told that all litigation must be dropped, but when it was not dropped, GOC changed that requirement too.

We have yet to see the much changed final agreement that the GOC plans to force upon us, yet we are currently operating under it. We now have experience with what this agreement will do to our industry and we need the opportunity to relate this new knowledge to the Committee.

At the July 31 Trade Committee meetings, a motion by Mr. Julian was passed to take the Committee to the affected parties and hold meetings in BC, Quebec, and Ontario. This has not yet occurred

--and we ask you to follow through with this motion.

The Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association represents 120 B.C. companies, employing over 4,000 Canadians. Our annual sales are $2.5 billion on four billion board feet.

So that's Russ Cameron from the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association writing to urge this committee to have hearings on Bill C-24 before we move to clause-by-clause consideration.

We have a letter from Frank Everett, and Bill Derbyshire, who's president of Local 1425--

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

Mr. Chair, with respect, that's not a point of order. What we're talking about here is that folks across the country, with a level of expertise, have written to this committee, written to you, through the clerk, to indicate their interest in testifying. That is a completely different situation from what members might be submitting as lists of witnesses for consideration.

What we're seeing here is a reaction across the country. It's called democracy, and it's a welcome thing.

That people who have a real interest in the future of the softwood industry would write to us, would write to you, through the clerk, I think, indicates a level of interest, number one, in Bill C-24, but number two, and more importantly, it indicates the level of concern. Some of these perverse impacts of Bill C-24, if they're not appropriately considered.... If we don't get the type of due diligence and the type of input that we certainly need from these folks across the country, what we may indeed be seeing is the adoption of clauses or amendments that will have perverse impacts. We certainly heard on Tuesday that those impacts could be very serious.

I'd like to come back, Mr. Chair—

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

I would now like to move the first motion:

That the Standing Committee on International Trade hear testimony from those organizations, businesses and municipalities that have recently written to the Committee to request to testify on Bill C-24, and that they be heard either in person, or by video, or telephone conference before the beginning of clause by clause consideration of Bill C-24 by this Committee.

I'm moving this motion because on Monday of this week the government started making payments to the EDC. It's taxpayers' money, but it provided the support to the softwood industry that we've been advocating for many months. For nine months we've been saying that the government has the ability to do this. On Monday, the government made an initial payment of $950 million. We credit the government for doing that. It would have been better if it had been six or eight months ago. The important thing is that those funds from taxpayers are now going to the softwood industry. This allows the committee the opportunity to do our due diligence on Bill C-24.

As we heard from witnesses on Tuesday, there are some critical aspects of this bill that need to be considered. On Tuesday we received an important bit of information from the only witnesses we brought in, aside from departmental witnesses. Credible as government witnesses are, it's important to hear from outside folks. We heard that there is a risk of double taxation in clause 18. That's one element that we heard about on Tuesday.

The second element, which is a very important one, was the question of the actual language of Bill C-24. Mr. Pearson provided strong testimony that if we have loose language, or language that is vague or incomplete, we may be setting ourselves up for litigation that would happen almost immediately.

So the few witnesses we have heard informed us of important risks. If we don't do a measured, complete due diligence on Bill C-24, we could well end up provoking a further crisis in the industry, either through continued litigation, because Bill C-24 hasn't been drafted with the required exactitude, or through double taxation components or other perverse impacts. If we don't do our due diligence, we may indeed find that we're doing more harm than good.

These were the only witnesses we invited. Members around this committee table were invited to submit names, and I did so. Some colleagues haven't, but that may be understandable in light of who we requested. This is a different situation. We're talking about folks across the country who have indicated their interest in coming and speaking to us on Bill C-24, providing their expertise. Whether they come from industry, whether they're workers in the softwood industry, or whether they're municipalities, they're impacted by Bill C-24. There is real concern across the country about what this committee may be doing. From the letters we've received, we've gotten a clear indication that these groups, these folks who are experts in the area of softwood lumber and understand the impacts of Bill C-24, want to be heard. And they want to be heard before we enter into clause-by-clause consideration.

Let's look at who's asked to appear before us. We have Russ Cameron, the president of the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good morning, everyone. Let's get started.

We're here today to deal with 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. We're here today to give clause-by-clause consideration to this bill.

We have as witnesses, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Stephen de Boer, director, softwood lumber; Carl Hartil, deputy director, softwood lumber; Dennis Seebach, director, administration and technology services; John Clifford, counsel, trade law bureau; Michael Solursh, counsel, trade law bureau; and from the Canada Revenue Agency, Ron Hagmann, manager, softwood lumber; and Cindy Negus, manager, legislative policy directorate.

Welcome to you all once again. You're getting to be familiar faces here, but hopefully not for too many more meetings.

Before we get into the meeting itself, I want to mention a few things. The officials are here to answer questions on the implications of amendments. There is also, of course, a legislative clerk to answer questions on procedure, and she will be moving over here when we get through the initial business. The officials really can't comment, of course, on any political questions. They're here to speak to the amendments and not from a political commentary point of view, so if you go there, I'll certainly interrupt at that point.

The committee has packages of amendments. They have been distributed to all members to facilitate the work. Part of the package is a package of sheets that show certain clauses in the softwood lumber agreement that are also included in other acts. They're kind of standard clauses that have been used in other acts, such as the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, and so on. This is to make you aware that these are clauses that are used elsewhere. You are aware of the other contents, but I simply wanted to point that out.

I'd like to thank the members for respecting the deadlines for amendments. At this time I'd also like to say that we've had three motions from Peter Julian--proper notice has been given--and we will deal with two of those motions right now, Mr. Julian, if you're ready. The third one will be dealt with after clause-by-clause is finished, because we had agreed to proceed with clause-by-clause. That's the agenda. It has nothing to do with clause-by-clause consideration of the softwood lumber agreement, so it will be dealt with at the end of the clause-by-clause procedure.

You can go ahead with the other two motions, Mr. Julian. Please go ahead and read the first one.

[Russ Cameron]

Thank you very much for having me out here. I will take every opportunity I can to try to get you not to pass Bill C-24.

[Russ Cameron]

This has not occurred, and we ask you to recommend that the House follow through on this motion before passing Bill C-24.

[Russ Cameron, President, Independent Lumber Remanufacturers' Association]

It should be under ten. I'll just read this and then have the questions.

I thank you for inviting the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers' Association, which I will refer to as the ILRA, to appear before your committee. Our 120 member companies represent the majority of British Columbia's non-tenured forest products sector. Non-tenured means that we do not harvest public timber that has been administratively priced by provincial governments. We pay market price in competition with the Americans and the rest of the world for all of our input wood fibre. We are small, family-owned companies employing over 4,000 employees. Annually we do $2.5 billion in sales on four billion board feet. We sawmill; we remanufacture; and we wholesale. Our markets are all over the world, but our primary market is the United States.

The constitution of the ILRA directs our group to maximize the socio-economic benefit per cubic metre of Canadian timber harvested by promoting business conditions that result in the further processing of wood products in Canada. We are the only growth opportunity in the forest sector, as we are the companies that employ more Canadians to do more work to less wood fibre by adding value to it. We're a collection of Canadian entrepreneurs who are used to having hurdles placed in front of us. In one way or another we always seem to find our way around or over supply problems, currency fluctuations, market swings, foreign competition, and the like.

Today, my members want me to tell you about a new hurdle that we may not be able to get around. As you know, a group of our competitors in the United States, known as the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, has used the U.S. Department of Commerce to impose conditions upon us to make us less competitive in the U.S. market. We have jumped this hurdle before and we knew that we could do it again. The trick is to survive to see the victory. Most of us did survive, although just barely, and we ultimately won this fight on all fronts. Even the U.S. government attempts to circumvent the NAFTA and WTO victories were thwarted by the U.S. Court of International Trade, which recently ordered the withdrawal of the duties and the return of all the deposits. Not only that, we finally had the coalition on the ropes. They've lost half of their original membership, as measured by their ability to fund future cases. They even had to resort to recruiting small timber landowners and remanufacturers with the promise of money via the Byrd Amendment, but now they have lost even that tool.

With yet again no return on investment, the prospect of the coalition's being able to launch and fund a fifth softwood lumber case was looking very poor for them. Even if they could get a petition together and funded, it is doubtful if they could ever get another finding of injury and a punitive level of CVD or anti-dumping. They had just confirmed to NAFTA that the actual CVD rate should have been zero all along, and they can no longer use zeroing in their calculations of anti-dumping.

We also must remember that the U.S. government is seeking to be the big guy in this series of binational free trade agreements instead of being just another name plate and a chair at the WTO. As you know, they are in the midst of negotiating a bunch of these FTAs. The administration's appetite for another round of softwood lumber is waning, as they know that these other countries have been watching them try to skate around their NAFTA obligations while wondering what, if the U.S. disrespects their agreements with their friends, they will do to them.

This in itself begs the question of why anybody would make a deal with someone who does not freely abide by the one they already have. But Canada has done just that, and we now face a hurdle that we may not be able to pass. The Canadian government has joined forces with the coalition and the U.S. government in their fight against us. They seek to moot our legal victories. They are taking our money from us and using it to provide funding and a return on investment to our U.S. competitors. They are imposing commercially unworkable business conditions on us. They are taking over the role of the U.S. Department of Commerce, ensuring that our products will be uncompetitive in the United States.

The objective of the U.S. coalition in this agreement was to have our government impose taxes and quotas upon us, which would make us uncompetitive in the U.S. market. Getting their legal fees paid and a return on investment was just a bonus. With Canada's help they have succeeded. The vast majority of our U.S. competitors use U.S.-grown wood fibre to produce duty-, tax-, and quota-free, value-added products. We cannot compete with them if our federal government taxes the products that we make in Canada for export to our primary market.

It must also be remembered that we are not the only country producing value-added wood products for sale in the United States. We cannot compete in the U.S. market with countries such as China, when our government taxes our exports and their government does not tax theirs.

We had been suffering under a 10.5% duty that allowed us to ship as much as we wanted. Instead of negotiating a deal that led to free trade, or taking our legal victory--paying no duty and getting all our money back--the Government of Canada has apparently decided that our industry is better off being forced to pay 15% to 22% and to give away a billion of our dollars to our competitors. This is to ensure that they will be sufficiently rewarded this time, which will virtually guarantee a next time.

Even the Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance, which is the umbrella group for Canada's major forest companies, recognizes this. On Friday they filed a response to the U.S. Court of Appeals opposing the U.S. and Canadian governments' efforts to have the coalition's constitutional challenge of NAFTA chapter 19 vacated. In supporting the coalition, the Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance stated:

While we vehemently dispute Petitioner's baseless characterizations of the reasons for the softwood lumber dispute and the conduct of the Canadian parties, we do agree that there is almost certain to be future lumber litigation initiated by the Petitioner, and the parties inevitably will end up before NAFTA BNPs again in the future.

Given that this agreement makes another case almost certain, they're saying let's find out now if it is worth bothering with NAFTA, or maybe we should just go straight to the Court of International Trade.

The ability to even do business under this agreement is very questionable. Depending on a composite price, there are eight different possible tax percentages and three different values for calculating it.There is the possibility of actually turning the shipment around if one of three different shipment levels has been exceeded. And it could apply either regionally or individually. These tax rates or quotas will change every month. One of the taxes will even be retroactive.

Our members are extremely discouraged. Let me read a comment from one of them to illustrate. You need to know what a “surge mechanism” is first. The 10.5% duty is now a 15% tax. But if a region ships over its quota in a given month, the tax goes to 22.5%. That's called the “surge mechanism”.

So here is his comment. I've received many, but this one's very illustrative:

The new fundamentals are just starting to be realized by most people. I just had my first experience. My last cut made a very small profit if the tax is 15%. I lose if we surge. The interesting part about this is that it feels kind of like the lottery. I will find out next month if I won or lost. Further, I find that it leads to a very interesting business decision. Do I double down? Repeat the process and double my profits, or double my losses? I don't know if I am making money or losing money while trying to make this decision.

We can't do business like this. We buy wood fibre at arm's-length market prices, and we manufacture it to serve niche markets with custom products. It takes time. We cannot even quote our customers if we do not know at what level our government will tax our shipments when they're ready to ship or if they will retroactively want more tax at a later date.

The uncertainty and lack of stability inherent in this agreement is already resulting in questions from our increasingly nervous bankers. Our members believe their already stressed businesses will suffer further negative impacts if this agreement proceeds. They believe it will result in further decreases in Canadian value-added processing and that there will be further employment losses and business failures.

The Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association urges you to recommend convening international trade committees again, so that the parties affected by Bill C-24 may appear as witnesses and express their views on this pending legislation.

We realize that sessions were held earlier in this process, as we appeared at them, but things have changed a great deal since that time. For example, we were originally assured that all our interest would be returned to us, but now Canada will take some of it too. We were originally told in writing that we would get all our money back if we elected not to sell to the EDC at a discount, but now Canada is imposing a special charge and will take that money from us too. We were originally told that 95% support was required, but when it was not there, Canada changed this requirement. We were originally told that all litigation must be dropped, but when it was not dropped, the Government of Canada changed that requirement too.

We have yet to even see the much-changed final agreement that the GOC plans to force upon us, and yet we are currently operating under it. We now have experience with this agreement and what it will do to our industry. We need the opportunity to relate this new knowledge to the trade committee.

At the July 31 trade committee's meeting, a motion by Mr. Julian was passed to take the committee to the affected parties and hold meetings in B.C., Quebec, and Ontario.

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

First of all, I would like to thank the witnesses today for their legal opinions about Bill C-24. Every opinion is of benefit. The arguments will come from opinions.

Mr. Feldman, in respect of your opinion on Mr. Julian's suggestion about the double charge, a company like Canfor stands to get about $870 million back. If your opinion is correct, they could be facing an additional $156 million charge. If they had concerns about it, do you not think that as we speak they would be landing with a planeload of lawyers? Don't you think that if they had these concerns they would be doing due diligence the instant this bill was off the presses?

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

We are speaking to Bill C-24, Mr. Cannan.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To come back to your comments, Mr. Pearson, about the loose or vague language contained within the draft legislation, my question back to you is this: how probable would there be litigation arising from this to clarify the loose language, and how soon might this litigation arise?

In other words, if we don't do our due diligence on Bill C-24, when would litigation possibly arise, coming out of the loose or vague language?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Good morning, Messrs. Feldman and Pearson. I will speak in French because I can express myself better in that language. Thank you for being here today and for giving us different points of view about this bill.

You are no doubt aware that the Conseil de l'industrie forestière du Québec and all Quebec industries supported the agreement: the figure generally given, Mr. Harris, is 92% of industries in support. Nevertheless, this support was unenthusiastic, as you know. The demands of the various parties for support to industry through loan guarantees and other means gradually created a form of pressure. We are now reaching the final stage. The agreement was signed on July 1, in Geneva, where I was as well. The companies were exhausted. In Quebec, they wanted to be reimbursed. They were experiencing major job losses, suffering from a lack of support and similar problems. Here we are now with Bill C-24. We in the Bloc Québécois will support it because we have been told to do so by Quebec industry and our party is responsive to its members.

According to what you said, this bill does not fully reflect the agreement. You spoke about tax treatments under the agreement that were not included in the bill. I undertand what you are saying, of course. My colleague Mr. Cardin, who is not here, told you that your testimony was interesting, but that we had reached a different stage. Criticism must be taken into account. We are trying to move forward, because the pressures are enormous. The companies, who have begun to receive reimbursement, first had to complete a form, which was anything but easy. We know that the process is lengthy and that there are issues involved in all of this.

The companies want to be reimbursed. No one wants to go back before the courts: that would be going round in circles, unless there is an election, as Mr. Cardin was saying. Even then, it would not deal with the company issue.

Are there any amendments you would like to make to this bill, without casting doubt on all of the contents and the fact that the companies want reimbursement?

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

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

I am delighted that you are here today, Mr. Feldman, Mr. Pearson, and Mr. Woods. It's very important. This committee has to do its due diligence on Bill C-24, and the concerns you're raising are very significant and are something the committee needs to take into consideration.

I'm very pleased to follow Mr. Harris, because Mr. Harris raised the issue that he thinks other people may say other things about Bill C-24.

Now, we know, Mr. Chair, that in the last few days a number of organizations, municipalities, and industry representatives have written to the clerk to indicate that they want to be heard on Bill C-24. So I will raise a notice of motion. We have three notices of motion we sent to the clerk this morning prior to this committee. But I'll read mine out so that it's on the record:

That the Standing Committee on International Trade hear testimony from those organizations, businesses and municipalities that have recently written to the Committee to request to testify on Bill C-24, and that they be heard either in person, or by video, or telephone conference before the beginning of clause by clause consideration of Bill C-24 by this Committee.

That's a notice of motion for the beginning of the meeting on Thursday, Mr. Chair, and it's a good segue from Mr. Harris's comments.

I'd like to come back now to a point you raised, Mr. Feldman. In this turn, I'm going to concentrate on you. Mr. Pearson, I'll come back to you for questions on my next tour.

Mr. Feldman, you raised the issue of the payments that have been made. Essentially, the taxpayers picked up $950 million yesterday in payments out to companies. I certainly applaud this, as you did, and that the government has finally acted. They should have acted nine months ago and done this. We've said all along that the government had the power to take taxpayers' money and apply it to help the industry, and indeed, yesterday they proved that they can and that we were right on that matter.

Since the industry is receiving those taxpayers' funds, the issue, of course, is due diligence on taxpayers' money. We had a judgment on October 13 that essentially awards all the money back to Canada, as a taxpayer. And given that the taxpayers are picking up the tab, I guess the question would be what would happen--you referenced the fact that this committee and Parliament have the right to turn Bill C-24 down--if we indeed did turn down Bill C-24. How would that judgment of the Court of International Trade apply, and when would the taxpayers essentially get the money back that has been forwarded or advanced through EDC?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Your time is up, Mr. Harris.

I would like to encourage everyone to focus on Bill C-24. Let's stick to the subject at hand. We have the gentlemen here for less than an hour, so let's get on with the questioning.

Mr. Julian, go ahead, please. You have seven minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Harris, perhaps we could get back to Bill C-24 and the issues surrounding that.

[Dr. Elliot Feldman]

There may be two or three ways in which I'd like to approach your question.

First, the agreement does not dictate to Parliament what Parliament has to do. That is, Parliament has a choice over this legislation. If there were no Bill C-24, the agreement would fall apart. But it wouldn't be as if the two federal governments were able to come together and tell Parliament it must pass this bill. To the contrary, the architecture of the agreement is that this legislation was supposed to precede. And what preceded was the ways and means motion, which is a temporary act, not this definitive legislation.

So without advocating any position at all, I'm merely trying to clarify for you that when you say this is done and you're now compelled to adhere to the terms of the agreement through this legislation, I don't think that's exactly so.

You could elect not to pass this bill. If you did that, you would undo the agreement, because the bill is supposed to be about the export tax, and the export tax is absolutely a condition of the continuation of the agreement.

The main point I've raised this morning is that the other taxes--the surcharges, the income tax, and so on--were not part of the agreement, and there's no obligation to pass those in relation to the agreement.

But as to the export tax, if you elected not to pass that, which is your prerogative, you would undo the agreement. But it's not as if the two governments could dictate to Parliament that you have to pass this bill.

[Dr. Elliot Feldman]

I certainly don't want to be part of a revisionist history. The industry was not at the table, did not participate in the negotiations, and is not signatory to the agreement.

We were consulted fitfully. We received drafts on very short time horizons. We were not consulted about Bill C-24. We received no drafts of Bill C-24. We received no explanations of the intentions or ideas behind Bill C-24 at any time. So as to the bill, from me at least and I think also from Mr. Pearson, you're getting a fair reading from reviled lawyers--it's lawyers, after all, who are going to have to deal with the bill—and we're reading it back to you as best we can, interpreting what the draft says as best we can, but not having been consulted at all, at any stage, about this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Monsieur Cardin, first of all, we're not going back into discussion of the agreement. Secondly, Mr. Feldman appeared before the committee a couple of times on the agreement, so he certainly was involved.

Go ahead, gentlemen, but please stick to the Bill C-24 questions.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning gentlemen and thank you for being here today.

To begin with, I must admit to you that there has been a time lag. This is unfortunate, particularly as I share virtually all of the concerns about which you have informed us. The fact remains that we are now studying Bill C-24, which is based on a signed agreement that almost has force of law. We are dealing here with statutes that would apply in Canada.

We at the Bloc Québécois had discussed many subjects, including the exchange rate. We had also discussed the tax treatment that could be applied if new amounts were received. The tax status can vary almost dramatically from one company to another. Some may be penalized indirectly, depending on the tax treatment applied. What you have been informing us of today should have been negotiated under the agreement. As it happens, the bill under review today implements the agreement. The process is therefore already underway.

Would you say that there was genuine consultation on the part of the government with a view to preparing and formulating this agreement? Given that the agreement has been signed and that what is at issue now is passing Bill C-24, it could be said that it is the end of the process.

At the beginning, the government told us repeatedly that 90 per cent of companies were in favour of this agreement. Were specialists like you able to contribute to the drawing up of this agreement?

[Darrel Pearson, Senior Partner, Gottlieb & Pearson, International Trade & Customs Lawyers, As an Individual]

As to the reason for our participation and our role here today, in answer to your question, in general it can be said that Gottlieb & Pearson has been representing the Canadian importing and exporting communities in Canada since 1969, and of course, we're committed to that task. Today we serve the role more properly described as amicus curiae, so we have no client per se. These comments are the comments of myself and my firm.

I have a few introductory remarks and then I'm going to focus on three technical aspects of the legislation and seek to be of assistance to this committee.

As we review Bill C-24, the focus of our attention must shift to assisting Canada's softwood lumber industry by facilitating the softwood lumber export business to the United States, which is consistent with the 2006 treaty, the SLA, under a new legislative regime. Under the assumption that Bill C-24, as it will be amended, will pass into law, Parliament must create a law that is transparent, as user friendly as possible, and does not constitute a non-tariff barrier to trade.

In my view, the committee should focus on ensuring that the statute and regulations to be promulgated are as devoid of ambiguity as possible, do not cause undue, unnecessary financial and/or administrative hardship, and facilitate and do not obstruct trade. This calls for more precision than is evident from a reading of the bill. We should also be ensuring that the bureaucracies that will support the implementation of the treaty receive adequate resources to assist exporters and to enforce the law fairly and reasonably.

We understand this committee will consider suggestions intended to help ensure that technical aspects of the legislation are addressed. While comments are technical and while the industry has endured disruption and hardship in the past, the technical interpretation of the implementing legislation will have immediate as well as long-lasting effects on the industry's competitiveness and investment decisions.

So in that context, I wish to offer the following observations from our review of the bill, focusing on three elements: first, the industry; second, the charging section and related sections; and third, exporting from a region.

Starting with the industry, the draft bill, in our view, fails to adequately define the industry and softwood lumber in clauses 2 and 12 of the bill, and in what will be new section 8.4 of the Export and Import Permits Act. Clarity of definition of key terms and phrases is critical to the issue of both jurisdiction and the scope of taxation. For this reason, more precision is required.

Clause 2 simply defines the phrase “primary processing” as “the production of softwood lumber products from softwood sawlogs.” Softwood logs are not defined. Softwood lumber products are likewise not defined, but rather are to be merely named or listed in accordance with new section 8.4 of the Export and Import Permits Act.

In turn, the phrase “primary processing“ is not defined except that we may infer that it is a form of process that changes undefined softwood logs into undefined softwood lumber products. While these terms and phrases may be understood by some, if not many, in the industry in a general colloquial sense, clear definitions--that is, legal precision--is critical to permitting all the stakeholders to understand their application, and specifically to the implementation of the charging and related clauses, clauses 10 through 17 of the bill.

There is similarly a lack of definitional precision as to what constitutes the phrase “semi-finished” or “finished” softwood lumber products. The bill does state that “remanufactured” in clause 12 contemplates “changes in thickness, length, width, profile, texture, moisture or grading, has been joined together by finger jointing or has been turned.” Remanufacturing can ostensibly create semi-finished or finished softwood lumber products, and this does not address the possible distinction between the two. In other words, what degree of change by remanufacture creates a semi-finished versus a finished softwood lumber product?

Without a clear definition of softwood lumber products and the other phrases, the problem is compounded. Precision in definition is relevant to jurisdiction as well as to the calculation of the base of taxation, because the phrase “export price” is determined by reference to these key terms and phrases: “softwood lumber products”; “primary processing” and “last primary processing”, which I'll return to in a moment; and “remanufacturing”.

The meaning of “last primary processing ” in relation to softwood lumber products should be clarified, particularly as the phrase “primary processing” is defined to mean production of logs to softwood lumber products. That is a clear inconsistency that has to be addressed. The reference is paragraph 12(2)(a).

Those are comments about the industry and the key phrases that will help define processing, etc., as well as the products. I'd like to turn to the charging section now, clause 10.

One pays a charge if one exports a softwood lumber product, which is undefined except that it will be named on a list. The term “product” is simply too vague. It is not clear in the proposed legislation when, at what point in time, or at what time in processing one moves from a softwood log to a product. The list will not address this issue, and since primary processing is left without a specific definition, the degree of processing offers no help in establishing the meaning.

Second, the time of export is measured relative to loading, but the legislation fails to address what specifically constitutes the act of exporting or who is exporting. The reference is clause 5.

Third, clause 9 offers an exception to exports that pass in transit through the United States, and applies to goods that pass in transit through other countries en route to the United States, but there is no definition of “in transit”. For example, does this mean in customs control, or does it contemplate goods entered into a free trade zone or entered for consumption and re-exported without sale or modification in the extreme?

A great deal of the comments I'm offering you come from our experience in litigating and interpreting other forms of customs legislation. These are the very types of issues that have unfortunately had to be resolved by the courts unnecessarily.

Finally, the proposed legislation provides for region-based commitments and regional exceptions. Subclause 11(2) provides that a softwood lumber product is deemed to be exported from the region where the product underwent its “first primary processing”--there's a new phrase. This last phrase could be a corollary to the “last primary processing” phrase, but is no more precise than “last primary processing”. The legislation needs to address the meaning of “primary processing” of a lumber product, particularly as it specifically provides that the processing converts a log to a product. Again we have a contradiction in the usage of the terminology. This creates a potential problem in relation to counting volumes for quota purposes; the application or exemption from the charge; and the calculation of the charge amount due to the timing, the reference price, and volume quota factors. I'll elaborate very briefly.

Export prices are dependent on an FOB value where the last primary processing took place, and that could be different from where the product is exported. The bill contemplates that the region of export can be different from the physical location of export due to the deeming provision, or it could be the same in certain regions.

Export allocations are to be issued to benefit recipients with preferred rates of charge, but there is no reference to the mechanism of the allocations. We know there's going to be some form of quota regime, but we don't have any information concerning how that will work. There is no structure to that, except the delegation of that authority to the minister.

Proposed subsection 6.3(2) of the Export and Import Permits Act, provided for in clause 111 of the bill, requires more precision as to the entitlement for quota, under what conditions it is to be transferable—because there will be economic rents associated with the transfer of the quota, which we've seen in every other quota regime—and we also have to address whether or not there are any situations in which the transfer could be cross-regional.

Discrimination between independent and non-independent remanufacturers and the determination of export price are accomplished through the use of these phrases: “last primary processing”, “last processing”, and “remanufacturer”. If only primary processing is involved, the export price is the FOB value where that processing occurred; if remanufactured by an independent manufacturer, the export price is the FOB value where the last primary processing took place, possibly back one step; if the remanufacturer is not independent, the export price is the FOB value where the last processing occurred, but that begs the question as to whether the last processing is the same as remanufacture.

As to the concept of independence, the minister certifies independence under clause 25, but there is a void of factors or considerations and the bill contains no definition. There is a provision for related persons, but that, I believe, is not intended to be applicable.

If the considerations, as per the treaty, are exclusively tenure rights or relationships with those withholders of tenure rights and/or purchasers from the Crown, these should be spelled out in the definition in the statute. If there are broader considerations, these should be indicated generally so as to circumscribe the authority of the minister.

One last point: the export price in the absence of a determinable FOB value is, according to paragraph 12(2)(d), a market price determined in a sequential manner in arm's-length transactions. Unlike other customs and special import measures legislation that account for differences in quantities and trade levels through adjustments, this bill does not do so; nor does it provide for the means of selection where there's a choice within the price category. This will lead to uncertainties and disputes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Dr. Elliot Feldman]

It contains provisions to ensure that illegal actions of the United States Department of Commerce are not expressly endorsed by the Government of Canada and this Parliament, and that private companies deprived of access to dispute resolution within the agreement are not abandoned with no recourse. Their case, Wynndel Box vs. Gorman Bros., is the last of the litigation involving private companies that indisputably has not been mooted by the softwood lumber agreement and cannot be resolved without government involvement. It's in everyone's interest not to leave their case festering as an embarrassment to both governments, apparently afraid to let the challenge be heard before a NAFTA panel.

Assuming our advice is not followed, and the relevant part of clause 18 is not deleted, as I've suggested this morning that it should be, then to subclause 18(1), in the definition of “United States duty order,” paragraphs (a) and (b), after the words “as amended”, the following words should be added: “but disregarding the final scope ruling made on March 3, 2006.” One of the amendments to which the language refers is the amendment that added “end-matched lumber illegally after five years” to the scope of the orders. The addition of those words would mean that refunds of duty deposits on end-matched lumber would not be subject to the special charge.

The minister then has discretion over the export control list. Pursuant to section 6 of the Export and Import Permits Act, at the direction of Parliament, he should exercise that discretion, consistent with clause 112 of Bill C-24, to strike end-matched lumber, because it never should have been included. Because of its inclusion in annex 1A, Parliament must direct the minister to fix the problem. These two steps would effectively extinguish the pending litigation, saving both countries from the embarrassing way in which they have been treating their obligations to name NAFTA panellists, remove the last issue affecting private companies, who have no rights in dispute resolution within the agreement, and deny the United States a final illegal act in defining the products covered by the agreement.

Finally, this agreement entered into force on October 12, not October 1. Throughout Bill C-24 there are references to October 1 as the effective date. All these references should be corrected so that the bill conforms with the facts. Regarding interest accrued to participants in the EDC program only until October 1, Parliament should consider requiring a correction. On the U.S. side of the border, interest in fact accrued until October 12, when the orders were revoked. Moreover, U.S. law requires interest accrual until the liquidation of entries. For purposes of the legislation going forward, clause 10 needs to be amended because it provides for calculation of surcharges based on an October 1 effective date. The easiest option would be to waive the surcharge for October. An alternative would be a pro-rated calculation of the surcharge for October. Either way, without an adjustment there is a risk of a retroactive surcharge based on a partial month of data, which would be contrary to the intentions of the bill.

Thank you for my extra time, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to do the best I can to answer questions or discuss other parts of Bill C-24

[Dr. Elliot Feldman, Trade Lawyer, Baker Hostetler]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm appearing on behalf of the Free Trade Lumber Council.

I'm pleased to appear before the committee as it deliberates over the implementation of the softwood lumber agreement. I want to express my personal gratitude for the scheduling adjustment that made it possible for me to appear. I know it took the cooperation and interest of all parties, and I'm participating today very much in that spirit.

I recognize that substantial exhaustion has taken over the softwood lumber file. There's a strong desire to believe the battle's over. Do be careful: it isn't over. Just last week the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports told a U.S. court that it is certain there will be more litigation, and not necessarily in the distant future.

It's important that this legislation not only stabilizes but also strengthens the Canadian industry. I believe it can. Failure to strengthen the industry could haunt this Parliament beyond tonight's Hallowe'en.

The softwood lumber agreement--as initialled on July 1, signed on September 12, and even as amended on October 12--does not include a tax on refunds of cash deposits illegally collected on softwood lumber by the United States since May 2002. This money has earned interest, but while being held, not invested, importers of record could not choose to remove it from the United States. It has lost very considerable value because of an appreciating Canadian dollar.

The decision to settle the softwood lumber dispute with the United States, when it was taken and the manner it was pursued, was a government decision, not an industry decision. In light of the very significant financial losses suffered by the industry caused by the dispute, which the government broadly has acknowledged in its defence of the settlement, the government could have elected to waive all taxes of these refunds, including income taxes. After all, the settlement of the softwood lumber dispute was not supposed to be a revenue opportunity for the federal and provincial governments, and there's nothing in the agreement that requires any taxation of refunds.

The interest accumulated is much less than the loss in currency exchange, which was entirely beyond the control of the companies. The return of the principal is arguably not taxable income at all, merely the return of funds already belonging to the companies. Whatever tax treatment there is to be, Parliament should be conscious that there is nothing in the agreement about taxes on refunds. The decision to tax the refunds thus is independent of any legislative requirements to implement the softwood lumber agreement.

Bill C-24, in my view, contains at least one serious problem with reference to the tax on refunds--namely, accepting that the refunds apparently are to be garnished and taxed. The background to the tax is important for appreciating why I believe there's a problem.

The policy decision to impose a special charge appears to have been reached for two reasons: first, to assure that Canadian taxpayers, other than those in the softwood lumber business, would not have to fund any of the $1 billion guaranteed payment to the United States that is in the agreement; and second, to punish those companies that declined the government's offer of advance payment on refunds, preferring to wait for the United States to return cash deposits with interest.

According to the original plan in the agreement before it was amended, companies electing to participate in the EDC advance payment program would surrender to EDC approximately 20% of the funds due them. With participation of companies holding rights to 95% of the total returns due, the 20% premium to be paid would have funded in its entirety the $1 billion guaranteed payment.

Two problems arose. First, there was some grumbling about so-called free riders, those companies that would not receive advance payments but also would not contribute to the $1 billion payment. There was virtually no acknowledgment in these discussions that the EDC participants were striking a bargain, getting their money back more quickly in exchange for a fee. Instead, focus was on companies preferring to deal directly with the United States for their refunds.

It appears that some of the concern about fairness developed when it became apparent that EDC might not deliver funds much more quickly than the United States. But substantial EDC payments were made yesterday, comfortably ahead of schedule, which should dispose of that concern.

A further concern seemed to develop when it was understood that accrued interest on funds coming from EDC would stop on October 1 under the terms in the softwood lumber agreement, but that non-EDC participants would receive interest accrued up to the day their customs entries were liquidated. That concern also should be eliminated, for under U.S. law there can be a lag of no more than 30 days between the cessation of interest accrual and the payment of refunds. With the first EDC payment yesterday, 30 days after October 1, treatment would appear to be no more favourable on interest for the non-EDC participants.

Second, the government did not obtain participating pledges from holders of 95% of the refunds due. The October 12 amendments solved the problem of removing the related condition precedent, but not the problem of funding the $1 billion; hence, the special charge seems to have been conceived as a way to make the companies not participating in the EDC program nevertheless fund the $1 billion. Nothing, to my knowledge, was said about the reverse fairness that these companies electing to wait for refunds on a schedule determined by the United States without advances would be taxed anyway, thereby with no benefit.

The concept underlying the special charge, therefore, was to tax only the companies not participating in the EDC program, however fair or appropriate Parliament would think that might be, but that is not how Bill C-24 is drafted. The draft makes everyone pay the special charge. Moreover, the bill forbids refund of the tax to anyone, including EDC program participants.

The problem occurs because of drafting in two places, perhaps three.

Subclause 18(1) defines “specified person” to mean “a person that filed the documents and information required under the applicable United States law in respect of the importation of any softwood lumber product into the United States during the period beginning on May 22, 2002 and ending on September 30, 2006.” That definition effectively includes all importers of record of softwood lumber.

Subclause 18(3) imposes the special charge on all specified persons who receive a refund.

Subclause 18(4) then states: “The charge under subsection (3) is payable by the specified person even if the refund is issued to a designate of the specified person.” “Designate” is the term used for the escrow funds, so all importers of record, without exception--including, incidentally, non-Canadians not resident in Canada, whom importers from this legislation cannot lawfully reach--must pay the special charge. There are no exceptions. The EDC participants will have returned to them only about 82% of the refunds plus interest owed. On the money refunded to them, they will also pay the special charge, that is, they will pay the special charge in addition to the 18% they do not receive when they receive their payment from EDC.

The public promise from the government has been that these importers of record would receive refunds of the special charge, but clause 39 states: “Except as specifically provided under this Act or the Financial Administration Act, no person has a right to recover any money paid to Her Majesty in right of Canada as or on account of, or that has been taken into account by Her Majesty in right of Canada as, an amount payable under this Act.”

Nowhere in the act, and hence nowhere as “specifically provided under this act”, is there a provision for the refund of any funds collected under the special charge.

There's broad discretion in the Financial Administration Act, but it would take very creative and potentially controversial interpretation to construe any of it as “specifically providing for refunds of taxes” mandated in a law that postdates that act.

Paul Robertson testified before this committee last week that the solution to the problem is to be found in the Financial Administration Act, but he didn't say where or how. We might speculate, looking into the Financial Administration Act, at subsection 20(2), except that the language, “purpose that is not fulfilled”, might be hard to square with collecting enough money to fund the $1 billion; or perhaps in section 22, except that the discretion there would conflict with the “specially provided” language in Bill C-24.

Most likely the discretion is in subsection 23(2), which authorizes the Governor in Council to “remit any tax or penalty...where the Governor in Council considers that the collection of the tax...is unreasonable or unjust”.

Still, without an adjustment in the phrase “specifically provided” in Bill C-24, the mandate to “remit any tax or penalty” in the Financial Administration Act would not appear to reach a tax imposed later, for which there is no special provision, in fact, in the Financial Administration Act.

And there's a question of fairness—the very basis of the mandate in that act. EDC participants entered a bargain for early payment; others accepted potentially later payment and therefore declined the bargain. Rhetoric about free riders notwithstanding, it's not obvious that reliance on a clause about fairness would authorize remittance to one group and not the other. There is no other apparent rationale for these taxes, which cumulatively will exceed the $1 billion owed the United States.

In an effort to gain acceptance for the agreement, carrots and sticks were brandished like medieval weapons, but always with the common assumption that the refunds were to fund the $1 billion promised to the United States.

Buy why? When asked about loan guarantees, the government said the EDC could afford to advance all the money owed the industry, so presumably the government has other sources to fulfill its pledge.

Why not embrace the simplest and best solution to the writing of Bill C-24, to embrace the principle of no new taxes? Delete clause 18 in its entirety and use the Financial Administration Act not to create refunds on dubious authority but to waive the income taxes on the basis of authority indisputably there. The only tax this bill ought to require is the export tax required by the softwood lumber agreement.

I want to quickly address two other points. Mr. Robertson, when he appeared before this committee one week ago, acknowledged that individual companies have no recourse to the dispute settlement mechanism and that the mechanism was not designed to address any of their concerns.

Last spring, not long before the initialling of basic terms on April 27, the United States Department of Commerce illegally modified the scope of the products covered by the anti-dumping and countervailing duties to include end-matched lumber. The Department of Commerce rejected the request of private companies for a review of this illegal scope determination. Subsequently, this amended scope became part of the agreement and is now part of Bill C-24 in two different places, pertaining both to the special charge and to the export tax.

We consider the inclusion of this product an error, and I'm setting out here how to fix it. I'm also indicating why it's particularly important to do so. The two companies most affected requested NAFTA panel review. The two governments, Canada and the United States, have failed to fulfill their NAFTA obligations and have not named panellists. The NAFTA secretariat, failing to meet its obligation to name panellists from the rosters when the governments failed to name them, has neither acted nor responded to pleadings.

There is a cure available in Bill C-24 for this problem—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good morning, everyone.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2006, we're dealing with 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. I read that just to remind people that we're not here to debate the softwood lumber deal; that debate is over, or at least it's not before this committee. We're here to deal with Bill C-24, which is an implementation bill.

We have as a witness, from Baker and Hostetler, Elliot Feldman. Again, welcome.

And from Gottlieb & Pearson, international trade and customs lawyers, we have Darrel Pearson, senior partner; and at the table with him, Michael Woods.

So we will take the opening statements in the order that we have on the list here, starting with Mr. Feldman. Perhaps you could state who you're representing here at the committee today, as you appear, and then go ahead with your opening statements, and we'll get to the questioning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The clerk thought the steering committee agreed that provided Bill C-24 is finished, we would then do this.

We'll make the amendment and add that. It's what was intended.

Is that agreed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We've agreed to extend the time on Thursday, and we'll have ample time to go through clause-by-clause. On the notice, we'll have added extra time in terms of nine to one. We may even add another time later on, but we're not likely to need it.

Something that will really help is the cross-reference for standard clauses, which is about 90% of this bill, a standard used in other legislation. Every member will be able to cross-reference ahead of time the clauses in Bill C-24 to the clauses in the Excise Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, and the other acts these clauses are used in. It should be helpful in dealing with the standard clauses more quickly.

Yes, Mr. LeBlanc.

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

We have witnesses on Tuesday, Mr. Chair, and for us to say we set a deadline for amendments and then have witnesses who I think will be adding a lot of content to Bill C-24, it just doesn't make sense. It's not logical. It doesn't make sense to say “Well, we appreciate your testimony, but we've already closed off the possibility for amendments”.

I can understand Ms. Guergis's concern that we set a date. We're talking about a couple of days more and witnesses appearing on Tuesday. It's through nobody's fault that today's session was with the trade officials rather than with the witnesses who we brought forward. That was unfortunate, but that's what happened.

So, given that we had to change that date, it makes sense to keep the possibility for amendments open until the end of the business day on Tuesday so there would be time, from the testimony, for any direct amendments that any member around this committee chooses to be put forward--and it respects the witnesses, as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

So your starting point would be in Bill C-24, a certain clause. That clause is used in these other acts as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We have only about three minutes before we go to dealing with our subcommittee report. I do have something first, and then, Mr. Julian, if you have a question or two we'll get to you.

This act includes a lot of clauses that are included in other acts. It would be really helpful if we could get a cross-reference to the standard clauses that are used in Bill C-24 and also used in, for example, the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, which is the GST act, and the Income Tax Act. So if we could get those cross-references it will certainly help us in clause-by-clause.

When members see that these are standard clauses used, there's likely to be a lot less question and a lot less debate needed on those.

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

You seemed to be looking to your right. I wanted to make sure I had your attention.

I'd like to thank Ms. Negus for referring to those four pieces of legislation that have the same kinds of draconian clauses that we're discussing today in Bill C-24. I would appreciate it if you could send to the committee those exact references for each of those clauses, because in each of those four pieces of legislation that you cite, there's a system of checks and balances.

I think what we're struggling with today is the fact that there do not seem to be the same checks and balances within Bill C-24 that may exist in other legislation. It would be helpful to have those pieces of legislation, in order to see how we can make this legislation much more balanced.

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

I'm talking about Bill C-24, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to clarify that it's not the government's own money. It's taxpayers' money that would be used for this little shell game of reimbursing companies with taxpayers' money, because we won't be getting money from the United States for many months.

The other thing we established on Tuesday that's important to clarify is there is no provision in Bill C-24 for what you've mentioned, Mr. Robertson. It may be a promise to the government, but we're dealing with the hard facts of Bill C-24.

In Bill C-24, the situation that Monsieur André speaks of is very possible. We've established that it's very possible. There are no provisions in this legislation to ensure that won't happen. In fact, the legislation is very clear.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

However, the special charge of course is not ordinary in any sense of the word; it's quite extraordinary. My point is, and I think it's well taken, you have this special charge that is imposed, and essentially a company that sees that special charge imposed is forced to pay it before they can see any money coming back through the taxpayers on EDC, and then it has an appeal process that conceivably would take over a year. That's the important point, I think, for this committee to know as we deliberate and do our due diligence on Bill C-24.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good morning once again, gentlemen.

At today's meeting we're continuing the review of Bill C-24, Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act , with the officials from the department.

We have with us again today, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Paul Robertson, director general, North America trade policy; Brice MacGregor, senior trade policy analyst, softwood lumber; Dennis Seebach, director, administration and technology services; and John Clifford, counsel, trade law bureau.

From the Canada Revenue Agency, we have two people today: Ron Hagmann, manager, softwood lumber; and Cindy Negus, manager, legislative policy directorate.

I thank you all very much for coming here once again.

We will start directly with questions. Of course, as usual, at least one or some of you will be here when we actually go through clause-by-clause next Thursday, and we're looking forward to having you here again.

I do appreciate your taking the time. I know you have a lot to do with your time. Some members of the committee did feel that we wanted you back, so we appreciate your coming.

We'll go directly to questioning.

Mr. Temelkovski. Go ahead, Lui.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to what I consider to be an extremely important issue.

First, beyond the issue that we will be discussing for the next few minutes, there is something all Canadians should recognize as well. Despite what my hon. colleague from the official opposition, the opposition chief whip, has stated, the intent of this motion is not to discuss whether provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent. It is not even about whether an agreement was broken. The purpose of the motion today is the official opposition, and I suspect in concurrence with other opposition parties, clearly wants to hijack the workings of Parliament. The members of the opposition are using procedural tactics, which are available to them, to delay proper implementation of government legislation. They are using delaying tactics, in other words, to disallow full discourse and debate on government legislation, which we introduced into this place. They are doing that for their own political partisan reasons and, frankly, that is not only objectionable, it circumvents and undermines the purpose of this place.

My hon. colleague, the chief opposition whip, said in her opening remarks, when she introduced the concurrence motion, that the provisional Standing Orders served a number of purposes. One is to allow opposition parties the ability to introduce motions, to speak and to question government members. However, she also said something extremely important. The provisional Standing Orders or the Standing Orders should allow the government to conduct its business. In other words, it should allow the government to govern.

I totally agree with that. The Standing Orders should allow governments to govern. On one hand, the chief opposition whip agrees with that statement. Yet on the other hand, and proof is in today's concurrence motion, which is the fourth of fifth concurrence motion we have had in the last two weeks, she is delaying the ability of the government to govern. That is the first point and I want to get it on the record.

This is highly objectionable. I think most Canadians would agree with me that the purpose of Parliament is to pass legislation or to at least have healthy debate on the it. Yet by the very action of the opposition members, that debate is not taking place. They are finding ways, through procedural tactics, to shelve any meaningful debate on legislation that the government plans to bring forward.

This aside, that is their right. Under the Standing Orders, they can introduce concurrence motions. They have done so. We are now debating the motion for three hours instead of debating government legislation, but so be it. I will accept that because it is something that is available to all opposition members.

I want to turn my attention to the motion at hand. I again want to emphasize that the real issue in the debate on Standing Orders, whether the provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent, is not the issue. The issue is there was an agreement in place that was broken. I believe strongly that agreements and words are extremely important in this place. We could not operate in this place if we had a culture in which a word that was given could be broken at a whim.

I know you, Mr. Speaker, being the senior statesman in this place, would understand. Over the last few decades you have worked in this place and represented Canadians here. I suggest to you that you feel quite strongly that when one gives his or her word to a colleague, that word should be respected, that word should be honoured and to break that word is extremely serious. This is the issue with which we are dealing.

Even though it has been talked about before, let me give the scenario that occurred, chronologically.

On September 19 of this year, the meeting of the House leaders took place, at which time the government House leader talked about extending the provisional Standing Orders for approximately 60 days, until November 21. The reason the government House leader introduced this was because the previous agreement was that the provisional Standing Orders would stay in place only until October 10. If they were not put into place in a permanent fashion at that time, we would revert back to the old Standing Orders.

The government House leader then said that we should have some all party discussion on whether these provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent or whether they should perhaps be amended somewhat. He proposed to extend the provisional Standing Orders until November 21, an additional 60 days. He suggested that during that 60 day extension, the staff of all four parties get together and discuss whether there should be amendments or whether we were happy with the provisional Standing Orders as written. Then we could adopt them into a permanent state, with or without amendments, by the November 21. All House leaders said that was reasonable and they agreed to it.

The following day, on September 20, the government House leader, in this place, introduced the motion asking for unanimous consent to extend the provisional Standing Orders until November 21, as agreed upon in the previous day's House leaders' meeting. It was unanimously agreed upon. That is why I say there is indisputable proof that there was an agreement made at the House leaders' meeting of September 19.

I have great respect for all of my colleagues in positions such as whips or House leaders, or caucus officer positions. Not only do I have respect for them, I absolutely know they are intelligent people who would not allow a motion to pass unanimously unless there had been an agreement. In other words, if we, as the government, tried to pull a fast one and we asked for unanimous consent for a motion and we tried to slide something through, if there had not been an agreement the previous day at the House leaders' meeting, my colleagues on the opposition benches would not have given unanimous consent. However, they did not do that. Everyone agreed to pass the motion unanimously, which again verifies my contention that there was an agreement in place. That is indisputable.

Now having proved that there was an agreement in place, what happened? Rather than waiting until November 21, rather than waiting for all staff members from all opposition parties and the government to get together to examine these provisional Standing Orders to determine whether there should be amendments made and rather than honouring the agreement, on October 5 of this year, at the procedures and House affairs committee, the chief opposition whip introduced a motion, without prior consultation, stating that she wished to make the provisional Standing Orders permanent immediately. That was in violation of the agreement, which stated they should remain in effect until November 21. This is the issue that I am debating. An agreement was broken.

The reason the opposition whip introduced this motion was payback. Opposition members were upset at us because we used a provisional tactic several days beforehand, Standing Order 56.1, and we caught the opposition by surprise.

The circumstances were this. Bill C-24 was being debated in this place. It was the softwood lumber debate, legislation which we had introduced and we wanted to get passed as quickly as possible. Our colleagues from the NDP, during debate, kept raising amendments and subamendments, and then putting up speakers to deal with those amendments and subamendments. That is perfectly acceptable under the Standing Orders of this place. NDP members were, in other words, using procedural tactics to delay implementation of Bill C-24. They did not agree with Bill C-24, so they were using procedural tactics to delay the implementation of it as long as they possibly could.

The Conservatives disagreed. We felt this bill was an extremely important piece of legislation that would benefit the softwood lumber industry and finally put an end to years and years of litigation and dispute between Canada and the U.S. We wanted to fast track the bill. We wanted to stop with these sorts of procedural delays, get the debate completed, get the bill to committee, and ultimately vote on it in this place.

What did we do? We employed a procedural tactic of our own. It is called Standing Order 56.1(3). For those in the gallery and the Canadian viewing public, it is what I would suggest is a fairly arcane procedural Standing Order, which says that there needs to be 25 members of the opposition in this place to defeat a motion that we were about to bring forward.

One day, knowing that the opposition tends not to show up to work very often, the Conservatives introduced a motion which would, to cut to the chase, effectively limit the amount of debate that the NDP would be able to use. In other words, it would stop the NDP from using its procedural tactics to continue to delay the implementation of this bill.

The Conservatives introduced a motion and all of a sudden, by the rules of this place, all of those opposed to our motion had to stand and be counted. There needed to be 25 opposition members to defeat our motion. What happened? There were only 21 opposition members in this place at that time.

I would suggest that speaks volumes about the intentions of the members opposite who actually do not think it is that important to show up to this place during routine proceedings. Nonetheless, only 21 members stood, so the NDP could not defeat our motion. Consequently, it was stymied in its attempts to delay discussion and debate on Bill C-24.

In other words, because of the procedural tactic the Conservatives used, the opposition was angry. Opposition members were very angry and decided they had to push back, that there was payback and there were consequences. They were angry that the Conservatives pulled a fast one like that, embarrassed NDP members, and stifled their ability to talk about a bill they did not agree with.

What happened? On October 5 in the procedure and House affairs committee the opposition whip introduced a motion to break an agreement. She introduced a motion that would place a permanent status on the provisional Standing Orders. She said no, the opposition was not going to honour the agreement to wait until November 21 and was not going to honour the agreement to allow all staff members to get together and examine the provisional Standing Orders to see whether amendments should or could be made. It was going to say to heck with that, it wanted to break the agreement, and wanted these Standing Orders to be made permanent immediately.

That is the issue. The opposition members broke their word. That much is indisputable. In every question and comment period, I have asked every member opposite the simple question of whether there was an agreement in place and not one of the members has had the courage to stand here and say, “Yes, you were right, there was an agreement and that agreement was broken”. They try to change the channel, skirt the issue, and stand in this place to say that is not really issue. The issue is that we should be discussing these provisional Standing Orders. That is the issue.

When members give their word of honour in this place, I suggest they must honour that word. This place could not operate without it. We all know that. From time to time in committees, opposition and government members get together and say, “We are debating something in committee. Can I count on your support?” If somebody says yes, that word is taken as that person's bond.

If we start breaking agreements and breaking our word, then our word is meaningless. This place will not operate. I will give an example of something that affected me, but will show all members how I try to conduct myself in this place.

I was first elected in 2004. I was new to this place and new to the committee structure. I was on, ironically enough, the ethics committee at that time. During debate of some motion that was coming forward, the hon. NDP member for Winnipeg Centre, I believe, gave me a phone call and told me he was introducing something and that he would like my support. He explained his position to me. I said it sounded reasonable and made sense, so I said I would vote with him and support him when that initiative was brought before the committee.

I found out fairly quickly that perhaps before giving one's word one may want to consult with one's own party because I found out afterwards that it was not the position my party wanted to take. They gave me some very salient and cogent sort of explanations of why we should oppose the initiative that the member for Winnipeg Centre was going to introduce.

It came before the committee and what did I do? I voted with the member. I opposed our party's wishes. I paid for it. I had a discussion with some of our caucus officers who told me that they did not really appreciate my position, but the reason I did it was because I had given the member my word and was willing to live with the consequences. That is how this place must operate, I would suggest.

We have a fundamental issue and that is the issue of the day, the agreement that was made at the September 19 House leaders meeting has been broken. Nothing else matters. These provisional Standing Orders, I could live with them as they are. I could live with them with minor amendments, but that is not the issue.

An agreement was broken and it was done deliberately for partisan reasons, not for the benefit of Canadians, and not because we want to get these provisional Standing Orders in effect today. They would have been effect in any event come November 21 because I would guarantee that all members of the committee, prior to November 21, would have brought forward a motion to deal with it before the deadline ran out. It would have been voted in favour. Those provisional Standing Orders would have been adopted with or without amendments.

However, the opposition party and the chief opposition whip brought this motion forward as a form of what probably may be considered as political payback, but in effect the opposition broke an agreement. It broke its word and that is the issue that we have to deal with here.

We will always disagree on fundamental issues. We will always agree to disagree ideologically, politically and philosophically, but I would suggest, and hope, that every member in this place would agree that when a member of this place gives his or her word to another member, that word should be honoured, and it is not.

We have had, in my opinion again, a serious breach of trust in this place. Some might suggest that the trust has been lacking for a long time. I could agree where some members would suggest that this place is not conducive to trustworthiness. Certainly, all parties are suspicious of the motives of other parties from time to time.

I am quite convinced, even as I speak now, that there are members in the opposition ranks who feel that my motives are politically driven. I just want to assure them, whether or not they take me at my word, that they are not. I absolutely believe that when one gives his or her word in this place, it must be honoured.

We are starting to break down the ability of members to trust one another in the most primary and fundamental environment of asking whether another member will agree to support one and to support a piece of legislation. When a word is broken, when a trust and a bond is broken, I do not believe we can operate efficiently. That is the issue.

I would ask in summation that every member in this place stand during their comments or in their questions, and please accommodate me and answer one simple question. Do they not believe that when one gives his or her word in this place, it should be honoured?

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

Since Mr. Feldman can't make it to Ottawa on Thursday, I'd like to suggest that the three witnesses I've put forward should be heard next Tuesday, and that the trade officials should come back. There are a lot of questions we still have to ask on this briefing on Bill C-24, and I've not exhausted my questions by any means. I'm sure it's the same with other members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you all, gentlemen, for coming. I think you've gotten us off to a good start in dealing with Bill C-24. Your input and help today is much appreciated.

We have some other business to deal with, and we have to be out of the room by 11 o'clock. On Thursday's meeting, it will be just a 9 to 11 o'clock meeting, because the witness for whom we were going to extend the meeting, Mr. Feldman, can't come. So it'll be a 9 to 11 meeting, as scheduled.

I remind you that any amendments members of the committee would like to bring on Bill C-24 should be to the clerk by Friday.

For next Tuesday, Mr. Julian, you've asked to have Mr. Feldman fit into the program. Would 30 minutes at the start of the meeting be appropriate?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As Mr. Cardin pointed out, we're not exactly thrilled by this agreement. In light of all the job losses over the past few weeks since the implementation of the agreement, and given that the WTO clearly said that we were entitled to all of the money and that there was no need for us to tax our own companies, I find it somewhat ridiculous that we're looking into this.

Having said that, on our agenda for today is the clause-by-clause study of the bill and we thank you for joining us.

I want to start with subclause 18(3) of Bill C-24. It says:

Every specified person in respect of whom a covered entry is to be liquidated as a result of a revocation shall pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada a charge at the specified rate on the amount of any duty deposit refund that relates to the covered entry.

Further down, in subclause 18(5), it says:

The charge under subsection (3) becomes payable by the specified person on the later of

(a) the day on which this Act is assented to, and

(b) the day that is the earlier of

(i) the day on which the duty deposit refund is issued to the specified person or a designate of the specified person, and

(ii) the day on which the specified person sells the rights to the duty deposit refund to Her Majesty in right of Canada.

I'd like you to lead us through the practical implications of that particular clause.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Perhaps we can't discuss the finer points of the tax system, but since we have with us public service experts familiar with the ins and outs of legislation, I was merely asking them what we, as principal stakeholders, can do to resolve the taxation issues.

It's legitimate, Mr. Chairman, for us to ask how we can intervene within the framework of Bill C-24 or some other legislation. I'd like someone to clarify the issue for me.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

I'm sorry if you find that I'm belabouring this point, but the fact remains that when the agreement was negotiated, I firmly believe some thought should have been given to this aspect of the issue. Indeed, as you said, the current framework in which the Income Tax Act is applied does not lend itself to this. However, you did raise one point. Since different companies operate in different fiscal environments -- and I always come back to the Canadian government's generous gift of $1 billion to the Americans -- the normal thing to do would have been to make some interesting arrangements for companies from a taxation standpoint. After all, the legislator is the one who decided whether or not to give an advantage to an industry in order to help it out. Potentially then, a plan could have been formulated to give companies the choice of opting, or not, for a different tax treatment.

The committee is examining Bill C-24 and all of its potential, or unlikely, repercussions. If the government opted to give an advantage to the forest industry, who should be issuing directives regarding specific tax treatments?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Therefore, there could be significant implications. Why is it that when they negotiated the agreement, our representatives did not think about the costs, particularly as the agreement automatically rewards the US for imposing antidumping and countervailing duty. We reward the US by conceding $1 billion to them and indirectly, we're penalizing our industries, allowing them little flexibility and no tax breaks so that they can report this refund at some point other than in the current fiscal year.

Given that Bill C-24 amends various acts with a view to implementing the agreement, should provision be made for this kind of arrangement, or should we make allowances for a different kind of tax treatment than the one proposed by CRA?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

In terms of the implementation of the agreement and Bill C-24, no mention was ever made of how, in the case of companies...Since 2002, in keeping with a generally accepted accounting and taxation principle, charges paid have presumably been tax deductible in the current fiscal year. Now, I would imagine that companies will be receiving a refund in one lump sum, or almost, paid over the course of the same fiscal year.

Has Revenue Canada, working with the other departments concerned, ever considered paying the refund in separate instalments or applying it to the fiscal years in which expenses were incurred, so that companies, even if they can and do defer losses, are not necessarily taxed in the same fiscal year?

[Paul Robertson, Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased to be before you today to explain the legislation. I think everyone has in front of them a deck that's been prepared identifying the major sections of the bill, which I'll go through. What I'll do is identify the page I'm on, and then when I move to the next page I'll notify the committee, so we can work in sync in that direction.

With respect to the summary of Bill C-24, the bill provides the necessary legislative authority to meet Canada's obligations under the softwood lumber agreement by imposing a charge on exports of softwood lumber to the United States, and on refunds of duty deposits paid to the United States, and by amending certain acts including the Export and Import Permits Act, the EIPA.

The charge on exports took effect on October 12, 2006. Bill C-24 allows for the implementation of the other obligations under the agreement relating to the border measures administration such as registering with the Canadian Revenue Agency, CRA, obtaining export permits issued under the authority of the EIPA--you'll recall that's the Export and Import Permits Act--and filing returns and paying certain charges.

Bill C-24 authorizes payments to the provinces, as well as payments to meet Canada's obligations under the agreement. This is directed to the payments to U.S. interest. The Minister of National Revenue is the minister responsible for the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, which we refer to as the “act”.

If we could go to page 3, it looks at the charge on softwood lumber exporters. Bill C-24 mirrors the agreement's obligations with respect to charges applicable on softwood lumber exports, options A and B. Section 11 provides for the imposition of the option A and option B charges when the reference price of lumber drops to or below the United States dollars $355 per MBF. Exports from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the B.C. coast and the B.C. interior are subject to the border measures.

Export price and remanufacturers. Section 12 establishes the export price on which the charges will be applied and provides for a favourable first mill treatment for independent remanufacturers. That is to say no charge is payable on the value-added component of the remanufactured products. In order to benefit from the first mill treatment independent remanufacturers will be required to obtain a certification from the Canadian Revenue Agency pursuant to section 25.

Surge mechanism. Section 13 gives effect to the surge mechanism, which increases the amount of the charge payable by 50% when regions operating under option A increase exports in excess of 110% of its allocated share for a month. That is to say the trigger volume. The allocation share is based on the region's share of the United States market during 2004-05. The surge mechanism will operate retroactively, meaning that exporters will be charged the extra amount following the month in which their region surged. This surge mechanism will only apply when lumber prices fall below $355.

We will continue on with the charges on softwood lumber exports, page 4 of your presentation. With respect to the Maritimes, the Atlantic provinces are excluded from the obligation to pay the export charges. Lumber producers in this region rely fairly heavily on timber from private lands and were excluded from the U.S. countervailing duty order. The exclusion applies to softwood lumber products first produced in the Atlantic provinces from logs harvested in those provinces, or in the state of Maine, that are either exported directly to the United States or shipped to non-Atlantic Canada provinces and reloaded or reprocessed and then exported to the United States.

Section 14 provides for the application of an anti-circumvention provision to ensure that only lumber from the Atlantic provinces is excluded from the export charge. Exports from the Atlantic provinces that exceed 100% of the region's quarterly softwood lumber production and inventory will be subject to a charge of Canadian dollars $200 per thousand board feet.

There are excluded companies: subject to certain conditions, 32 companies that were found by the U.S. Department of Commerce not to be subsidized are excluded from the obligation to pay the export charge. Clause 16 gives effect to these exclusions.

Next are regional and production exemptions. Consistent with the agreement, Canada and the United States are to establish within three months of the effective date a working group on regional exemptions. The working group is required to develop substantive criteria and procedures for establishing if and when a region uses market-determined timber pricing and forest management systems. Canada and the United States are also required to make best efforts to incorporate the findings of the working group into an addendum to the agreement within 18 months after the effective date of the agreement.

Clause 17 provides the authority for the Governor in Council to exempt regions from the export charges should a region satisfy the criteria developed by the regional exemptions working group. Clause 17 also provides for the exclusion of products from the application of the charge.

The agreement provides for the future consideration of exclusions for lumber produced from private land logs and U.S.-origin logs.

Next is third-country refund. The third-country adjustment mechanism included in the agreement and clause 40 of the act provides for the retroactive refund of export charges, up to the equivalent of a 5% charge, collected in any two consecutive quarters in which three conditions apply when compared with the same two quarters from the preceding year.

These conditions are that the third-country share of U.S. lumber consumption has increased by at least 20%, that the Canadian market share of U.S. lumber consumption has decreased, and that U.S. domestic producers' market share of U.S. lumber consumption has increased. This provision will not apply to any region operating under option A that has triggered the surge mechanism.

We go to page 5 of the deck, which deals with the charge applied to refunds of duty deposits.

In order to fulfill Canada's obligations to provide $1 billion U.S. to the United States and to ensure that all companies benefit equally from the agreement, clause 18 imposes a special charge on all softwood duty deposits refunded by U.S. Customs. The rate of the special charge will be calculated as a fraction, the numerator of which will be $1 billion U.S., and the denominator of which will be the total of softwood duty deposits and interest held by the U.S. as of entry into force of the agreement. The rate is approximately 18%.

The special charge will be applicable to all companies receiving the softwood lumber duty refund. However, the government intends to remit the charge to all companies who participate in the Export Development Canada deposit refund mechanism. Under that mechanism, participating companies will direct EDC to pay their portion, approximately 18% of the purchase price of their deposits, to the U.S. interests.

I will go to page 6 of the deck, which is on administration and enforcement.

Exporters, even those that are excluded from the requirement to pay the export charge, are required to register and file monthly returns with the Canada Revenue Agency. The return must be filed within 30 days following the month in which the lumber was exported.

Bill C-24 also includes provisions that are standard in modern tax legislation. They provide authority to provide refunds, collect interest on amounts not paid when required, waive or cancel interest of penalty, and keep records, and they include requirements to provide documents or information. The bill establishes offences and penalties for failure to file a return or to comply with a demand or order, for making a false or deceptive statement, for failing to pay charges, and for disclosing confidential information.

Inspections may be conducted by persons authorized by the Minister of National Revenue, and prior authorization will be required for inspection of a dwelling house. Investigations are subject to search warrant requirements. Additional clauses address information respecting non-residents.

These are standard provisions that are required to enforce any tax measure. Confidentiality of information is addressed in provisions that prohibit unauthorized disclosure and that authorize disclosure necessary for Canada to implement its obligations under the agreement.

I turn now to page 7, which are the EIPA amendments. You will recall the Export and Import Permits Act. The act is amended as follows: the export control list is amended in a manner to require export permits on the products covered by the scope of the agreement; authority is provided for the Minister of International Trade to establish a quantity that may be exported from an option B region in a month, to establish the basis for calculating export quantities, to establish by order a method for allocating export quantities, to issue export allocations and consent to transfers of allocations, to establish that an EIPA permit may have a retroactive effect, to require applicants to keep records and authorize inspections, to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting softwood saw log origin and respecting export allocations, and finally, to amend offence provisions to capture offences related to export allocations.

On page 8, you will find payments to provinces. Bill C-24 provides for payments to provinces, out of the consolidated revenue fund, of revenue collected from the export charges paid, less costs incurred by the government for administrative and legal matters related to the act and the agreement. These payments will not affect equalization payments to the provinces.

With respect to payments to accounts, clause 103 of the bill provides authority, on requisition of the Minister of International Trade, to make payments out of the consolidated revenue fund in order to meet Canada's financial obligations under the agreement.

Page 9, the second last page in your deck, is about other key provisions. With respect to regulations, the Governor in Council has authority to make regulations on issues such as the payments to provinces, allocation of quota, and other matters to carry out the purposes of the act. Clauses 107 and 108 state that certain regulations made under the act will have retroactive effect, for example, the export permit regulations.

On the issue of expiry, further authority is established for the Governor in Council to make regulations to declare that the charging provisions, clauses 10 to 15, would cease to be in force in the event that the agreement is terminated. The remaining provisions of the act would remain in effect to reserve the necessary authority, for example, to collect overdue payments, interest, penalties, and to make payments to provinces.

With respect to transition provisions, the option B border measure will not come into force until January 1, 2007, given the time required to put in place the information technology necessary to administer the quota regime and the need to consult with provinces and industry stakeholders on the rules governing the regime. During the transition period, lumber exports from all regions will be subject to the export charge under the option A border measure. Exporters of lumber from regions that choose option B but are subject to the option A export charge will receive a refund of the difference between the export charge levels for the transition period. A refund will occur if exports from these regions during the transition period do not exceed the region's volume restraint had option B been in effect.

To ensure that Canada can retroactively enforce the export charges, the majority of the provisions of the act will be deemed to have come into force on the day on which the agreement comes into force, and that is October 12, 2006.

One exception to the general coming into force rule is the provision that provides that the operation option of option B will come into force on a day fixed by the Governor in Council—that is to say, January 1, 2007. Also, because offence provisions cannot be applied retroactively, the sections of the legislation dealing with offences and punishment will only come into force upon royal assent. Even though the offence provision cannot be enforced retroactively, the obligation for exporters to pay the charge remains.

The last slide in the deck deals with what is not in Bill C-24. What is not in Bill C-24 are certain provisions of the agreement, because they do not require enactment under Canadian law. For example, the obligation to create the binational industry council, which we spoke of the last time I was here, does not require legislation. The softwood lumber committee and the technical working groups in article XIII of the agreement are purely institutional and administrative and do not require statutory authority.

Similarly, the dispute settlement provisions in article XIV can be administered without being enacted in legislation. The obligation for all litigation to be terminated, via the termination of litigation, is a precondition of entry into force and therefore does not require any legislative action.

With respect to the duty refund mechanism provided for in annex 2C of the agreement, EDC already has the statutory authority to operate such a mechanism.

Some treaty obligations and commitments, such as the information exchange requirements and anti-circumvention provisions, do not require implementation in Canadian law.

There are also certain provisions in the agreement that are U.S. obligations and logically cannot be included in the Canadian legislation. These include the revocation of the U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders, the refund of duty deposits, the obligation to collect no-injury letters from the U.S. industry stakeholders, and the U.S. commitment not to initiate a new trade action.

Chair, I apologize for the rapidity with which I've gone through the major elements of the legislation, but in the time remaining, it's our intention to be answering the questions on various sections and to elaborate where members would like elaboration to be done.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. We're here today pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2006, to deal with 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.

We have this morning, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Paul Robertson, director general, North America trade policy; Dennis Seebach, director, administration and technology services--he's not here yet, but he will be here; Brice MacGregor, senior trade policy analyst, softwood lumber; and John Clifford, counsel, trade law bureau. Thank you. And then from the Canada Revenue Agency, we have Ron Hagmann, assistant manager, softwood lumber.

Thank you all very much for being here today. I understand that you're prepared to go through the bill in a general way and to refer to certain clauses as you go along. Just go ahead and do that, and then we'll open up to questions after that.

Please proceed, Mr. Robertson.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me assure my colleagues that this is not an attempt to run out the clock, but I do want to make a couple more comments for the record.

The first comment is to underscore what Mr. Hill said. Yes, out of principle I cannot vote for the original motion--not because the standing orders are not good enough, but because of the fact that we had an agreement. That's the point.

Ms. Jennings, let me put it this way. You say you have a good memory and you say you cannot remember. I would point out again that the unanimous consent given to this motion by all parties the day after the House leaders' meeting is indisputable proof, in my view, that there was an agreement. You may not recall it, but there had to be one. I can guarantee you, and you know it to be true yourself, that you would not have given consent to any motion we brought forward unless there was prior consent. I know Monsieur Guimond would not. That was proven yesterday when we tried to make a motion, as I mentioned, to put the NDP vote on record as supporting the Liberal amendment on Bill C-24. Monsieur Guimond said no, because we did not consult with him ahead of time.

All of you are disciplined enough that you know if someone stands up in the House and says “Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent--”

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Okay. So the two meetings next week would focus on Bill C-24 in the order you described.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, thank you.

I notice lunch isn't here, but we'll suspend for maybe five minutes.

Gentlemen, you can stay at the table, or you can take a break if you like. We will have some very brief discussion on our business for Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Agreement, and it may take very little time. We'll do that, then we'll have lunch and continue the discussion.

So perhaps the members could stay for a few minutes for discussion on Bill C-24 and what will happen on Tuesday with that.

We suspend. I don't know if that's the right term because we're going on with our meeting.

On Bill C-24, there are really only two things I have to say. The department officials, of course, will be the first witnesses to come on Bill C-24 and they'll be here on Tuesday. That's the standard procedure. The other thing is it's going to be important in this discussion, and as a committee we've discussed this before, to stick with the implementation agreement and not to get into debate on the Softwood Lumber Agreement. Of course, that agreement has been signed and it's a done deal. Not only that, Parliament has passed the money, approved the spending. Clearly that's been agreed to.

What we will be focusing on are expert witnesses giving advice on the implementation agreement. We have four witnesses as well as the departmental officials who have been suggested. Three are from Mr. Julian, and one, I'm not sure from whom. The three from Mr. Julian are Elliott Feldman--we've had him at the committee before--Steven Shrybman, from Goldblatt and Mitchell; and Darrel Pearson, from Gottlieb & Pearson in Montreal. We can decide how to arrange those. We also have the Maritime Lumber Bureau because they have some technical concerns about the implementation agreement.

Any discussion on this?

Mr. Julian.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

We are down to about five minutes before we need at least five minutes to discuss Bill C-24.

Apparently we could continue this. At eleven o'clock we could get our sandwiches and food and come back to continue the discussion as it has been going, for at least a while—maybe a half hour or so. Does that sound reasonable?

Mr. Hodgson, you have to leave at 11, I understand, but we'll continue with the other three, if that's okay.

All right. It sounds as though everybody else can stay.

We'll now go to Mr. Maloney. I know it's been a long wait.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We've heard a lot about border issues. We've heard a lot about interprovincial issues. You've mentioned the Pacific Gateway, the railways, the transportation, and the ports.

We were recently in Vancouver and had a presentation from the port authorities. They told us in no uncertain terms that they're definitely not capable of dealing with any more incoming trade unless we fix the infrastructure within Canada.

Can we increase our trade 20%, double-digit, and expect our current infrastructure to manage it? I think the answer is no.

Do we have the labour skills in force that we need, and will we have them in the next ten years? The answer is no.

Can we move our goods to the United States faster, as they're doing in Europe?

Borders are gone. We as Canadians go over there, and we try to drive between one country and another. We slow down at borders, and they flag us to go faster and faster, which means trade is moving faster and faster.

What are we doing here? We're talking about fences with the United States. We're talking about providing guns to border guards. We're talking about passports. Do you not think this is contrary to trade? I would think it is.

On a small scale, if I need to import a bag of beans to Canada and then transport it all across Canada once it gets here, and if I know I can't do that...before we go outside, we'd better look inward and make sure that our own gate is fixed, going out and coming in. We have labour issues. We have paper issues in terms of following all the trade going in and out. We saw that with Bill C-24. There will be more paperwork that needs to be done. How ready are we for that next step? That's one part of the discussion I'd like to pursue.

The other part is, should we be trading with big economies such as China, Brazil, and India, or should we, at the same time, be trading with other economies?

I was in business for twenty years, and my experience has told me that we build trade, commerce, and relationships. Every time there's a new president or prime minister, we look to see who came to see them first, or who he or she went to see first, to build what? To build a relationship. In Canada, we have so many people of so many countries who have relationships with so many countries. Those are the natural resources that Canada has and that we're not taking 5% advantage of.

Trade, for us, is very easy to do around the world because we can speak their language, we understand their culture, and we understand the way they do business. It's very easy for us to do. But can we get our house in order here, build up the capacity in Canada to be able to bring all those goods in and to be able to ship them out? At this time, I can't unequivocally say yes. Rather than pursuing large economies for trade, maybe we can start with smaller economies. You see, small economies of twenty years ago are big economies today.

As Ben mentioned, the long-term plan would be good if we start with the smaller economies. Maybe some of them will become the giant tigers we face today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Myers.

We'll go to Mr. Murphy next. We can go to about five minutes to eleven with this, because Mr. Julian has graciously taken his motion from today off the floor--only one was on the floor. The other one he can choose to bring forth any time he wants, and he's not going to do that today.

We'll have about a five-minute discussion on Bill C-24. That's all, I expect. And then we can have the informal lunch at 11 o'clock still, just so you know. All committee members, staff, and the other guests appearing are welcome to stay for that lunch.

The list is now Mr. Temelkovski, Mr. Maloney, and Mr. Williams.

Mr. Murphy, we'll finish with your response to Mr. Cannan's question on that issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

At 10:45 we do have a couple of things for the committee to deal with for about fifteen minutes. One is a very brief discussion on Bill C-24, the softwood lumber bill, and how that will start on next Tuesday. I don't think there's a lot to discuss on that, but Peter Julian also has two motions before the committee. One was passed at the last committee meeting, but it was passed in a form that we discovered really didn't allow the clerk to prepare the report, so we need a little bit of discussion to deal with that.

Mr. Julian, if you want to deal with the second motion at today's meeting.... If we could put it off to the next meeting, that would be very helpful, but that's up to you.

Let's go ahead then. If we can start with each participant giving a little bit about their background, and then very briefly, not in an opening statement, talk about what Canada's trade policy should look like, in a very general fashion....

Because of the way we're set up here, we'll go around the table very quickly, having each person at the table introduce themselves, not with a long speech, but when it comes to the members of Parliament, just give your name and riding.

I'm Leon Benoit. My riding is Vegreville--Wainwright in Alberta. Let's just go around the table this way.

Mr. Menzies.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-24.

The House resumed from October 17 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.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party. We are opposing Bill C-24 vigorously. We feel that this is a bad deal for Canadians and I certainly want to talk about it being a bad deal for people from British Columbia.

I want to start by talking about a couple of things. One is how tirelessly the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has worked on this file. One of the things the member has called for is public hearings in which a committee could go out and hear from people from coast to coast to coast. I think it is a grave failing that this has not happened.

That process would have allowed industry, workers, communities and first nations to talk about the very real impact in their own communities. It would have talked about what it is like to be faced with either already lost jobs or the looming prospect of job loss.

It would have provided the committee with an opportunity to hear from municipal councils concerned about the fact that many of our smaller communities in British Columbia are heavily reliant on the forestry sector for their municipal tax base. It would have allowed the committee members to hear directly from council members and from citizens of those communities about what it feels like in their own communities to be worried about their municipal infrastructure being at risk because of the fact that their tax base is threatened.

I think it is a great loss for committee members and for the House not to get that on the ground experience from community members.

I think the other glaring omission in this piece of legislation, and on the current Conservative government's part, is the fact that there are not adequate funds to address the transition currently happening in the forestry sector. Many forestry workers have already lost their jobs. There is a very real need for education and training funds, for pension bridging, for assistance to older workers who may not be able to find employment, and for some recognition that many workers will also need assistance in relocating to other communities. We need an active transition fund in place.

There used to be a program called industrial adjustment, which worked closely with industry, labour and communities when communities were going through transitions. The federal government cut that very good program a number of years ago. There is now no mechanism to get that kind of community driven process. It is the community driven process that can talk about the problems in the community and identify the very concrete solutions that will make a difference.

The other piece that is missing is the whole issue around loan guarantees to industry. We know industry is suffering right now with the lack of certainty in the softwood lumber field. It was incumbent on the past Liberal government and certainly is on the current Conservative government to look for a loan guarantee program that would help industry over this very difficult period. Because no matter what, whether this agreement goes through or not, by the time industry gets cheques in their hands, some of these industry players will already have closed their doors. Then where will the help be for communities suffering from the transition?

There are a couple of other issues I want to touch on in today's debate. I am sure other members have quoted from the article I will mention, but I have a direct link to my own community about this. It says that the softwood deal will spur more raw log exports. It is an article written by Ben Parfitt from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. He says:

Nearly two-thirds of the 82-agreement is appendices, including one outlining which Canadian products are subject to export taxes.

It is a “dizzying” list, he says. He talks specifically about a glaring omission:

Throughout the appendix, however, one searches in vain for the word “logs”. Yet the on-again, off-again dispute with the US has always been about how provincial governments price publicly owned trees, not whether they somehow underwrote the costs of specific manufacturing processes.

Later on in the article he talks about a “flash forward”. This is really critical for my riding:

Flash forward. Despite the policy changes, the US insists with the current deal on capping our market access. And Canada and BC--to their lasting discredit--have agreed. Once the caps are exceeded, costly export taxes kick in. Except, that is, on logs. Now look at BC's coast. One company--Western Forest Products--directly controls nearly half the logs on public forestlands. It, along with other coastal companies, already has log export approvals from the province.

Now, thanks to the scrapping of provisions linking forest tenures to sawmills, we face the prospect of increased log exports should further coastal sawmills, as is widely anticipated, close. And why wouldn't they? The “reward” for processing US-bound lumber may be a 15 per cent tax when certain export or price thresholds are exceeded. The corresponding tax on logs is zero.

I have raised that issue because in my riding raw log exports have been a major, major problem for a number of years. There has been a valiant and diligent group of people called the Youbou Timberless Society, a group that sprung up as a result of the Youbou mill closing four years ago. A great number of the people from the Youbou mill never did find permanent full time employment again, which has had an incredible effect on the community of Youbou and the surrounding area of the Cowichan Valley.

One of the chief proponents behind the Youbou Timberless Society is a man by the name of Ken James. These people have been working very hard over a number of years to raise the awareness of the impact of raw log exports on our community and other communities on Vancouver Island and in British Columbia. They decided to count the number of trucks that were leaving the area with logs. They did a tally on Highway 18, between Lake Cowichan and Duncan, and tallied 157 logging trucks in 10 hours.

Over four days, from 6:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Youbou Timberless Society members counted slightly less than 1,000 trucks in my riding, 1,000 trucks loaded with logs. Not all of them were leaving the riding, but many of them were leaving the riding with logs to be processed somewhere else.

Where is the responsibility to our community to make sure that the resources from our community are processed closer to home, producing jobs so that people can support their families and pay taxes? As we know, people who make a good dollar actually pay taxes and are the ones who fuel our economy. They are the ones who make sure our hospitals and our schools stay open. They are the ones who make sure our roads get paved. It seems reasonable and fair that we actually look for ways to make sure that we process the resources from our proud province and from our grand country of Canada as close to home as possible.

Later on in that same article, again quoting James, statistics quoted show a corresponding rise in raw log exports from about a half a million cubic metres in the early 1990s to an annual three million cubic metres since the provincial Liberals took power in 2001. That is an outrageous increase in resources leaving our community and our province. That is a direct loss of jobs and of quality of life.

One of the other items that is omitted, really, in this softwood lumber agreement is first nations. On August 10, the First Nations Leadership Council wrote a letter about the Canada-United States softwood lumber agreement, stating:

--the new SLA [softwood lumber agreement] makes only one reference to First Nations in Article XVII anti-circumvention item 2.(f)...payments or other compensation to First Nations for the purposes of addressing or settling claims....

That is it. That is the only mention of first nations in the softwood lumber agreement.

That is an important issue in British Columbia, because of course in British Columbia, as many members of this House are well aware, there are extensive treaty negotiations under way. Some of them have been under way for decades and one can only dream that they would actually get settled in our lifetime.

The fact is that there are these treaty negotiations under way and many of them are not nearly close to being settled. The leadership council had asked, given the new relationships and transformative change accord and a number of other unresolved land questions, that there be some consideration in the softwood lumber agreement, and in discussions leading up to it, of the impact on first nations in British Columbia. Of course that was not done. There seems little opportunity at this point in time to do it.

This is one of the things that public hearings would have helped to address. It would have given first nations leadership an opportunity to appear before the standing committee to talk about the impact on their communities.

I urge this House to reject this flawed agreement. I urge this House to look for creative solutions which would ensure that our communities stay healthy and viable, that we retain the right to process our resources close to home and that we retain the say over our industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to again speak on the softwood lumber products export charge act. I did have the opportunity to address the House earlier in the debate, but needless to say there is a lot more that can be said about this bad deal.

When I ended my speech last month, I gave the final word to the Prime Minister and I would like to start there this time. I want to quote the Prime Minister who said in this House on October 25, 2005:

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.

Those were the words of the current Prime Minister here in this House almost a year ago. It seemed like he was making an argument for the United States to comply with the court decisions that were made in the softwood lumber dispute. He was making that argument very clearly.

Sadly, it seems he has reversed his position completely now. It seems he was actually calling for us to fall in line with the desires of the American industry, the American government and the American protectionists. It is a very sad turnabout and a very dramatic one. It is a capitulation to those interests that have been working so hard to destroy the Canadian industry and with it Canadian communities and Canadian jobs.

It is so ironic that the Prime Minister's reversal comes at a time when a just and fair victory for Canada was in sight. It has been said many times that this agreement and this legislation actually snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. That is exactly what is happening here.

Unfortunately, the victory that Canada was on the verge of has been lost because of this proposal and this legislation. That is why it is a bad deal for Canada, a bad deal for British Columbia, and certainly a bad deal for my home riding of Burnaby—Douglas.

The ironies continue. It was just last Friday afternoon that another court case was decided in Canada's favour. That case before the U.S. Court of International Trade, CIT, found in Canada's favour. That court said that every last penny of the $5.3 billion of illegally imposed duties on softwood lumber exports over the years had to be returned to Canada. That money was taken from Canadian companies, Canadian communities and Canadian workers. That court said every last cent had to be returned. This was just last Friday where there was yet another victory in the courts.

Indeed, we were running out of court opportunities. We were getting down to the wire on every last one of them. Incredibly, it was Canada's Ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson, when he was before committee this summer who said the opportunities for court action on this were coming to an end. We were absolutely on the verge of a wholesale victory on this issue in the courts. Unfortunately, that has all been thrown by the wayside by this agreement and this legislation.

I want to come back to the speech I had hoped to deliver the first time around and some of the points that I did not have time to talk about.

If this is such a great deal for Canada and for the Canadian industry, I have to wonder why page after page of this bill is devoted to punitive measures to punish Canadian businesses that do not comply or do not agree with this legislation. If this was such a great deal for Canada and for Canadian businesses and communities, why has such emphasis been placed on punitive measures in the legislation?

I was surprised to hear in this House last month a Conservative member from Atlantic Canada say that the government would have to pursue an amendment to its own legislation because the wording of the maintenance of the Maritime lumber exemption was not strong enough or clear enough, and did not actually use the word “exemption”.

It is hard to believe that on a part of this whole controversy where there is absolute agreement in every corner of this House around the need to maintain the Atlantic Canada exemption, that the government could not even get the wording right in this legislation on that aspect of the bill. It could not even get it right when everyone agrees how important that is. It could not get it right when its representatives from Atlantic Canada were so involved to maintain this exemption.

I think that is another example of how bad this bill really is. If there is a point where there is no controversy, where there is a clear agreement and where the language has been accepted for some time, why that language could not even make it into this legislation is beyond me. If the government cannot do it on that front, what is happening on the other clauses that are more controversial and more complicated?

Another important flaw in this legislation is that it does nothing to address the serious issue of the export of raw logs. One observer of the forest industry in British Columbia, and someone who has carefully poured over the agreement and the 82 page appendices to the agreement, notes that this legislation goes out of its way to be specific about what is covered, about what aspects of the softwood lumber industry are covered. In fact, he says it is dizzying in its specificity. He also says:

Taxes will apply to “coniferous wood, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed, of a thickness exceeding six millimetres”. In similar minutiae, wood siding, flooring and fencing are discussed.

That is all very well, but not once in this agreement and in this legislation does the word “log” appear. We know that the export of raw logs is a serious issue facing the industry. It is certainly a serious issue for the industry in British Columbia.

To fail to close a loophole around the export of raw logs from private lands is a huge failure. It gives raw logs from private lands a competitive edge over logs processed, for instance, in British Columbia.

This will discourage value added production and jobs in B.C. and will stimulate more raw log exports to the United States where workers will process them. It robs Canada and Canadian workers of opportunities and jobs. Jim Sinclair, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, has pointed out that:

More than 3,300 jobs in the forest sector were lost to log exports in 2005 alone and an estimated 27 mills closed at a cost of 13,000 jobs between 1997 and 2004.

This is work that should have remained in Canada, with Canadian workers and in Canadian communities. It is an absolute travesty that this has been allowed to happen. It is further unbelievable that this opportunity to deal with this issue has slipped through our fingers and another reason why this is a bad deal.

When we add those jobs lost to raw log exports, as the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour pointed out, when we look at the fact that 3,000 jobs have been lost in the last week in the forest industry alone, we come to realize just how bad this legislation and this deal truly is.

Bill C-24 also subjects any change in provincial forest policy to approval by the United States. It is incredible that we would give up our sovereignty in that way.

I think that Steve Hunt, the United Steelworkers Western Canadian director, said something that is very instructive with regard to this. He said:

This deal doesn't need tweaking, it needs a complete rewrite. The proposed Agreement was part of a “sell-out strategy”. If this is what talks between [the President and the Prime Minister] have achieved, then we'd prefer continued litigation, rather than a Softwood Lumber Agreement that might only last a few years and gives up provincial sovereignty over forest policy.

I think it is very clear that this is a bad deal. It is a bad deal for Canada, for British Columbia and for Burnaby. What will happen with that $1 billion in illegally collected tariffs, which we will not get back because we will forfeit to the United States? It will go directly to the lumber industry to mount the next campaign against our industry. It is incredible that we should even be discussing the bill at this point in the House.

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.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before I start in on debate, I would like to make a point. I realize a lot of people had questions for the last member and therefore you could not recognize everyone. It is always a difficult job in this place. However, I wanted to ask the hon. member a question, and I think I can answer it myself, about the number of sawmills she had in her riding. I have 15, and every one of them supports this agreement. I believe the answer to my question would be a big zero.

When we talk about the industry, we should have some knowledge about the industry. Members in this place discuss the bill as if they have some knowledge about the softwood lumber industry. In reality, it is simply political posturing, and I really begin to lose patience with it. As Speaker of the House, you have lots of patience, and we certainly try to follow your example, but it is difficult sometimes.

There has been a lot of politics and posturing around the bill, but let us take some of those positions that members in this place have brought forward. Let us take the position that we will continue for litigation. We have had 24 years of litigation, and 24 years is a long time with no end in sight. We will litigate, but as long as the Byrd amendment is in place in the United States, we will continue to have litigation. Therefore, it is important to have some clarity and certainty on this issue. Bill C-24 brings that to the softwood lumber industry.

I spent a good portion of my life working in the lumber industry as a logger. My family members are still loggers. My grandfather owned the local sawmill. I can assure the House that It is a tough life, but it is a good life as long as we have some certainty that we can sell our product.

The Liberals great failure was not reaching an agreement, which is the reason they are not supporting this. For the life of me, I still do not understand our Atlantic Canadian members who are all say they will not support the agreement. The agreement is the future for the sawmill industry and the softwood lumber industry in Atlantic Canada. The agreement allows us certainty for our exemptions, which have been hard fought for outside this place.

The previous international trade minister, under the former Liberal government, put Atlantic Canada's exemptions for countervail and for anti-dumping on the bargaining table to try to get an agreement prior to the last election. The Liberals would have given up Atlantic Canada's hard fought for exemptions. The Liberals did not get those exemptions for the industry. Industry got them by proving to our American counterparts that our industry was on the same basis as theirs. Seventy-two per cent of all the land in Nova Scotia is privately owned. Our mills are exempt from countervail because of that. We do not subsidize the industry. It works on a free market basis, the same basis on which the American industry works.

The great thing about Bill C-24 is that it allows flexibility, it allows for change and it allows for regional differences.

If we allow the bill to pass, I fully expect all my NDP colleagues from Atlantic Canada and all my Liberal Party colleagues from Atlantic Canada to support it because it is a good bill for Atlantic Canada and it is a good bill for the rest of Canada. It recognizes regional differences. It recognizes an industry, to be perfectly frank, which was in a state of collapse because of the mismanagement of this file by the Liberal government.

What does the agreement do? It is good for Canada. It is good for the United States. It eliminates the punitive American duties. It returns more than $4.4 billion to producers. It provides stability for the industry. It spells an end to the costly litigation and the long-running dispute between Canada and the United States.

Bill C-24 is a good bill. The return of the $4.4 billion alone will benefit communities, workers, truckers, and the whole sawmill industry from coast to coast in this country. Our deposit refund mechanism has been developed with Export Development Canada and will allow Canadian companies to receive their share of deposits practically immediately, within four to eight weeks after entry into force of this agreement.

Rather than attack the Minister of International Trade, my opposition colleagues should applaud the minister. He more than anyone else worked to bring this agreement to fruition. He went through the tough slogging. As a former industry person he was able to talk on an equal level with his American counterparts. He knew what was required at the bargaining table. He worked for a just end for the softwood lumber industry right across Canada. He did not do that by pitting British Columbia against Nova Scotia. He did not do that by pitting Ontario against Quebec. He did it by bringing in an agreement that has flexibility and recognizes regional differences. Somehow our counterparts in the opposition cannot seem to wrap their heads around that.

I can tell the House what would happen if we did not have this agreement. We would continue with litigation. The American industry is protectionist. No one is questioning that. We know it, and that is not going to change. We had to get the best agreement we could get. We had to get an agreement that would give surety to the industry and move forward from that point. If not, we would be stuck in litigation forever, and companies and sawmills, loggers and individuals, and communities and families would face devastation across this country.

There are 600 communities that depend upon the softwood lumber industry to survive. I can guarantee that many of those communities would not survive this crisis without this agreement. If the NDP do not want to go along with it, fine. If the Liberals do not want to go along with it, fine. But clearer heads will prevail and this agreement will allow those communities and those families to survive.

The termination clause in the agreement is something else that has been misrepresented in this place. With respect to the criticisms regarding the termination clause, let me note that termination clauses are standard features of international trade agreements. The discussion here is as if this is the only agreement with a termination clause. Under international law, without a specific termination clause, agreements may be terminated at any time with 12 months' notice. This has a minimum of 18 months' notice with a year added on to the end of it. That is two and a half years.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to speak on this subject today. I fully expect all my opposition colleagues to support this great agreement for Canada.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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

Mr. Chair, I have the utmost respect for the member from Sherbrooke, who has done good work as part of the Standing Committee on International Trade. I listened with great interest to his speech about Bill C-24.

Despite my respect for the member, I must say that I do not understand the Bloc Québécois' position at all. Seventeen hundred families have been in dire straits for the past week because of this agreement. We all know that this is a botched agreement. Furthermore, it now includes a provision to discourage circumvention by preventing the Government of Quebec from changing its forestry policies without consulting the Bush administration.

Last Friday, the Government of Quebec learned that this provision prevented the government from taking steps to protect the hundreds of families in distress because of this agreement.

André Boisclair, leader of the Parti Québécois, said very clearly that this is a bad deal. He does not support the agreement; he condemned it.

I do not understand the Bloc's position. The Parti Québécois condemned the agreement because it ties Quebec's hands, but the Bloc still seems inclined to support it. I hope that will change.

My question relates to two provisions. As we all know, Bill C-24 was botched. Clause 10 effectively doubles the duties, and clause 18 provides for punitive levies against companies. Is the Bloc ready to work with the NDP and demand—

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is again with pleasure that I will speak to Bill C-24. The last time I was supposed to speak at second reading but, because of the amendment by the Liberals who wanted to draw out the debate, I had to speak about the amendment. I will now speak directly to the bill at second reading.

Just now I heard something completely absurd from the Conservative member. It is extraordinary that such imagination is used to hide a government that is incompetent in the extreme. She said—and I am not quoting her directly as you can look in the House of Commons Debates—that had the members of Parliament accepted an agreement earlier, such as the one negotiated by the Conservatives, there would not be as many unemployed individuals.

In this House, there is no difference between the Liberal and the Conservative Parties. As I just recently became the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade, I decided to do a bit of research. In 2001, almost one year before the agreement expired, the Bloc Québécois proposed several measures to help the forestry industry.

The legal proceedings launched by Canada and by the industry had not yet begun when we proposed measures such as loan guarantees for the companies. At that point, there were not only the countervailing duties that were being paid; there were anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties. The industry had a need for that kind of support.

All the while, the Bloc Québécois strongly recommended and called for loan guarantees to save the forest industry. Those loan guarantees were refused by the Liberals. One of the Liberal ministers became a Conservative and again the loan guarantees were refused. Such loans would have enabled the industry to survive the crisis while the suits to defend those rights, rights upheld by many tribunals, were pending before the courts.

Now, they tell us that they have an agreement. Normally in any economic transaction, in any agreement between two parties, if one party is adversely affected it is not the other party who gains. One does not give 20% of one's assets to the party that has treated one unfairly for years. Who was the winner in this affair? Who won a billion dollars? It was the United States.

How are we to understand that one party, on the strength of a number of decisions by various tribunals, having to wait perhaps only a few months more until the decisions are implemented, should agree to leave a billion dollars in the hands of our neighbour, who for all practical purposes had been exploiting us for several years? How can you explain such an attitude, unless it was to buy a special friendship with the Bush government?

As a result, the Prime Minister, his acolytes, his members and ministers, got together and prepared an agreement that means the forest industry will continue to depend, probably for many years, on the whims of the Americans.

In fact, we know that the Americans can call an end to this agreement whenever they feel like it, even if it is supposed to be guaranteed for seven years. I heard the Liberal member say earlier that, in fact, if the government had done its work properly, if it had guaranteed loans and provided support to the industry and to workers in the forest industry, we could have waited and in the end we would have won at the international court, NAFTA and the rest. It was recognized everywhere that there was no dumping and no subsidies.

Now, with the agreement, we are certain that 15% duty will have to be paid and volume will be limited as well. That fact will create two classes within the forestry industry.

Quebec has agreed to option B. There is sometimes also a degree of latitude in the makeup of binational committees. I hope that Quebec will have its representatives on the binational committee. We will work for this to happen because Quebec is where the most business is done in lumber and forestry under option B.

Obviously, Quebec is going to have to defend its interests directly, given that it is the leading partner agreeing to option B. When I began to speak, I referred to the Conservative Party member. The Conservative Party today seems to be laying the blame for all the problems in the forestry industry at the doorstep of environmentalists, and directly targeting Richard Desjardins. But it is the Liberals and Conservatives who are responsible for the decline of the forestry industry.

If the Liberals had had the good fortune to be still in power after the last election, how far would they have gone in an agreement with the United States?

So it is obvious that we in Quebec were virtually unanimous in not wanting this agreement. The constraints manufactured out of thin air by both the Liberal and Conservative governments, one after the other, have strangled not only the industry but forestry workers as well.

Yesterday there was a vote, and one of the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois was adopted by this House, a measure relating to a support program for older workers.

Today we learn that the program will probably be selective and will give preference to softwood lumber workers, the forestry industry and the textile industry. Are these rumours? There is always a kernel of truth in rumours. This program gains something for the forestry industry and the textile industry. But a worker who is 50 or 55 years old is still unemployed, regardless of what industry the worker comes from.

As the leader of my party recently asked, how can we completely forget about someone who has worked in a particular field for 30 or 35 years, whether it be forestry or the textile industry? We are dismissing these people with a wave of the hand. As well, eligibility for the program will be based on region. This means that we will be creating several classes of older people who are unfortunately facing unemployment and who are unable to find new jobs.

Overall, no matter whether the government was Liberal or Conservative, we can see that both, one after the other, have completely dropped the ball when it comes to the forestry industry. As we have already said, we will be making a point of supporting this bill, because the survival of the forestry industry and of those workers, and, I hope, the revival of that industry, depend on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member for her courage because she is one of the few Conservative members who is actually willing to speak to this embarrassing, botched agreement, and Bill C-24 in the House of Commons.

We know the Conservative government is invoking closure and shutting down debate on this because it is so embarrassed by what has happened in the past week. However, this member has spoken up and I admire her courage. I know that 123 of her colleagues are going to refuse to speak to this because they are embarrassed, and they know that they have botched it and they dropped the ball.

What happened this week? Twofold. First, we have seen almost 3,000 jobs evaporate because of this agreement. In the first week of its implementation there are job losses in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. Right across the board it has been a complete disaster.

Second, last Friday the Court of International Trade ruled. We get every single penny back. That is its final judgment and the government was trying to stop that judgment from occurring.

So why are we giving away a billion dollars? Obviously, the member's notes were written before these two events, but I would like to ask this question. In light of the fact that we are now entitled officially, in the final decision of the Court of International Trade, to every single cent back and in light of the disastrous job losses in this past week, is the member willing now to revise her position? How does she justify to her constituents giving away a billion dollars when we do not have to?

The House resumed from October 16, 2006, 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.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The principles of basic honesty and integrity and of keeping one's word were drilled into me pretty early in life by my father. I recall vividly a pretty good paddling I received from my dad when I was probably no more than six or seven years old. What had happened was that I had broken my word; I had given my word to my brother with respect to who was going to go home after school and feed the dogs, take care of the pets, and things like that.

We had a bit of a system, as most households did. Both my parents were working at that time, and somebody had to be home at appointed hours to take care of basic household chores like feeding the pets and so on. We had a schedule established that we had all agreed to as a family. On one particular day it was my brother's turn to be home, but he couldn't because he had music practice. My brother is now a professional musician, by the way, so his early training actually paid off.

He approached me to see if I could take his place, and I agreed. My father was aware of this agreement. The appointed day came; I was supposed to go home, but there was a pickup football game after school, which I felt was far more important than keeping my word, and so I didn't go home on time and I paid the price. That was the first time I learned there would be consequences, perhaps sometimes painful, if one didn't honour one's word.

Of course, there's much more to it than just that. My dad, bless his heart, has been gone for a number of years, but after I had got over my petulance and my hurt that I was actually being punished for doing this, he took the time to explain to me. He took the time to explain to me why it meant something, why it would be important for every man--and woman, for that matter, but he phrased things in more of a gender-specific tone to me in those times--to keep his word and be honest. It was a sign of character, it was a sign of integrity, and more than anything else it was a sign that one could be trusted.

I've tried to adhere to that standard that my father set all of my life, particularly when I came into this place. I felt it would be absolutely paramount to observe those basic principles because I had been given the responsibility from my constituents to represent them in an above board and honest manner and with integrity. In 2004, in the first campaign I ran in, I had given many commitments to my constituents that if elected I would follow a certain code of conduct, in addition to attempting to honour all the commitments I made during the campaign.

I think I've been absolutely consistent in that fashion. I do not believe there's any commitment I've given either to one of my constituents or to any one of my colleagues in this place, both on the same side of the House and the opposite side of the House, that has caused me to look back and think that I broke my word. I don't think I've ever done that.

I want to give a couple of specific examples, because it speaks to the heart of this issue. I remember the very first time I encountered this type of situation. It was probably within six months of being elected here in the 2004 election. I was sitting on the ethics committee at that time, interestingly enough. I received a phone call from a colleague from the NDP. It was from the member for Winnipeg Centre, Mr. Martin, who was also a member of that committee. It was a minor issue, but he explained to me that he had an issue that he wanted my support on in that committee.

It seemed reasonable at the time. It was a phone conversation. He explained himself well. It was a cogent argument, if you want to call it that, and I gave him my commitment that I would support him in this fashion.

I found out later that this was not the official position that our party was going to be taking, yet I supported Mr. Martin's motion when it came to the floor in any event, against the wishes of my party. Why? I had given my word. I had given my word and I felt it was far more important to honour it than to take the position of my party.

I paid a bit of a price for that internally. Luckily it wasn't a major issue, but it was still in opposition to the directive given to me by our party. I did it because of the mere fact that I had given my word to a colleague.

I think we've all been in that situation. I mentioned in the last meeting that we're always cutting deals in committees. We're always looking for support from other members. Whether it's a legislative committee or a standing committee, there are times, given the makeup of this committee, when either opposition members or government members need to gain support. I've always found it to be a sign of the integrity of the vast majority of members--in fact, I haven't found one member who has broken his or her word yet--that when I've made an approach or someone has made an approach to me for support on a motion, if the answer is yes or no, that's the way it's going to be.

I think it's absolutely critical, as Mr. Hill said, to the functioning of this House. So the issue to me is not so much whether the adoption of these provisional Standing Orders into permanency is the point to be discussed. It's far beyond that. It's the fact that we had an agreement at the House leaders' meeting, which I attended as well. It was substantiated, it was supported, and it was agreed to unanimously on the following day in the House.

Now we're finding that Ms. Redman has determined that we need to deal with this expeditiously. Staff members were assigned the task of getting together and determining which of these provisional orders could be agreed upon by all parties to become permanent and which of them needed more time and discussion. Because that meeting of staff members has not yet taken place, Ms. Redman--if I interpret her remarks correctly--is saying that time is of the essence here, that November 21 is approaching rapidly, so let's just get this thing done now; let's approve them as a blanket set of orders and not examine them one by one. Well, that wasn't the agreement.

If Ms. Redman had approached me or Mr. Hill, or if, before introducing the motion, she had brought it forward at committee, giving the reasons for introducing the motion and asking for some discussion and support, it would have been a different story. All we heard, out of the blue at a meeting on October 5, was a motion that contravened an agreement we had in place with no consultation beforehand. It was literally laid upon our table without any discussion beforehand. That's just not the way we do business around here; at least, it's not the way I thought we did business around here.

There are always unanimous consent motions being delivered in the House. We know that. They could be on minor issues or on fairly major issues, but consistently those motions are dealt with by being walked around. We get agreement ahead of time, and then comes the standard “Mr. Speaker, I think you'll find there's unanimous consent for the following motion.” Then we introduce the motion. We do not do that unless we have discussions beforehand and an agreement beforehand.

In fact, today there was an example. Mr. Hill tried to rectify a situation that occurred in last night's vote by standing up and asking for unanimous consent in the House to recognize the fact that the NDP wished to have their vote recorded as being in support of a Liberal amendment to Bill C-24. Mr. Guimond, when asked for unanimous consent, declined. The rationale is that he was not consulted beforehand. Whether I agree or disagree with Mr. Guimond, that's the way we've always done business here. You consult with the opposition parties beforehand; if there is an agreement, you get unanimous consent and the agreement is honoured.

There was no pre-consultation on Ms. Redman's motion. I believe the only way members of this committee view this, and certainly the way I view it, is that they're going back on their word. That's very serious business to me.

I can assure Ms. Redman and all members opposite that there have been times when I have received, as we tend to from time to time, confidential notes or private notes from across the floor on issues. Sometimes they're just personal notes, sometimes they're notes asking for our support on something, or whatever. If I were to say yes, even though I could publicly go forward and change my opinion—and no one would know, because the note was in confidence—I would refuse to do that. I would absolutely refuse to do that.

There is a standard of conduct in this place that we need to observe and need to adhere to. Quite frankly, I would argue that the standard of conduct that we have amongst ourselves should be a lot higher than perhaps any among members of the general public.

Without trying to be overly dramatic, I find it absolutely distressing and troubling that this took place. It is not about whether all the provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent. In my view, that is not the issue here, Mr. Chair. The issue is that we had an agreement, and that agreement has been broken.

I again stress that had Ms. Redman, any member of this committee, or any member of the opposition come to me privately ahead of time and said they were going to introduce a motion asking for the permanent adoption of the Standing Orders because of these reasons, at least at that point in time I could have said that I agree or I disagree. I would at least have had the benefit of being consulted ahead of time. But to receive notice of this in the fashion we did is untenable to me. It just is not the way we should be operating in this place.

And I'm not trying to make this personal. I'm trying to keep this above that. But frankly, I feel in my heart that there are some motivating reasons for Ms. Redman to do this. I believe they emanate from the fact that we invoked Standing Order 56.1 a few weeks ago, when there was a debate on the softwood lumber bill, Bill C-24.

It appeared to us that the NDP at the time, within their procedural rights, started to introduce a number of amendments and subamendments, and kept putting on speakers to, in our opinion, at least, Mr. Chair, delay the debate. This was an important piece of legislation that we wanted to get through, yet it seemed they were using procedural tactics—again fully within their rights—to prolong the debate. So we introduced a procedural tactic of our own, which was within our rights. Because there were not 25 members in the House to stand up to oppose the motion that we had, the debate was effectively cut off within a number of hours and we got to vote on the bill.

Mr. Chair, I believe that was the genesis for the motion Ms. Redman brought forward; that in fact probably the opposition House leader, who also had some issues with some other events in this place, felt it was time for payback and this was a way to do it. I believe it was a little bit of payback. I don't believe it was done for the reason—and I'm being quite honest here—that Ms. Redman has identified, which is that she feels it would be necessary, in their opinion, to pass these provisional Standing Orders as a package and to do so now, rather than waiting for the staff to get together, discuss them individually, and deal with them on or before November 21. I believe there is another agenda at work here.

But that doesn't change the fact, Mr. Chair, that we had an agreement. An agreement, without consultation, is about to be broken if Ms. Redman has her way. In my view, Mr. Chair, that cannot and should not be tolerated by any member of this place.

By the very nature of politics, we are obviously in an adversarial situation every day that we come to work. That's to be expected. That's the way democracy works. That's the way this place works. That's the way politics works. But that doesn't change some very basic fundamentals of how we should conduct ourselves in this place.

I firmly believe, Mr. Chair, that we have to conduct ourselves at a standard far higher than we would expect perhaps of members who are not elected officials.

Mr. Chair, I think the original intent of the motion that was passed—to allow our staff members to consult and come back with a report so that we could deal with this issue before November 21—was taking shape. I know for a fact that our senior staff had received phone calls from NDP senior staff to make arrangements to try to get together and start the examination of the standing provisional orders. This was going to happen. It is not something we were trying to slow-walk. In fact, Ms. Redman is quite correct. When we were in opposition, we raised these provisional Standing Orders because we felt this was something we might want to live with. But an agreement is an agreement and it was moving forward.

This is inconceivable to me. And quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I still haven't gotten a good enough explanation from Ms. Redman of why they felt they needed to approach this issue in the fashion in which they have: by bringing a motion forward that basically contradicts an agreement we had, without prior consultation. That is the issue, in my view. Why was this done? She has still not answered that question. She's trying to justify exactly the adoption of the permanency “because, because, because”, but that doesn't answer the basic question. Why weren't we consulted ahead of time?

Why do you plan on breaking an agreement without at least trying to discuss the issue with members of the opposition? It is not the way we do business in this place.

For that very fundamental reason, Chair, I cannot support the motion Ms. Redman brought forward. But that is not to say it is a motion that I could not support under the circumstances.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I think there was a reasonable expectation that after staff members got together to go over the provisional Standing Orders individually, there would be a reasonable chance that the staff members would go back to their respective House leaders and whips and report that they had come to an agreement, that no one had a problem with any of the orders, and that they should be adopted and made permanent. Perhaps that would have happened, but because of Ms. Redman's motion, we don't have an opportunity to function as we agreed to.

This very well could be, Mr. Chair, the start of a very slippery slope. It's not to say that things always go smoothly in this place. There will be times when we will disagree vehemently with one another. It usually happens daily, but once we get into a habit of breaking deals, breaking one's word, I don't think this place can function.

I see Ms. Redman shaking her head, but, quite frankly, there's no dispute in this. We had an agreement, and Ms. Redman is now bringing forward a motion that would effectively break the all-party agreement we had. That's just not the way to work here.

Obviously, beyond any reasonable expectations here, I was hoping that today Ms. Redman would come and say that perhaps she had acted a little prematurely and that she would withdraw the motion until such a time when she had a chance to consult with her colleagues to see if we might come to some agreement, and then she could re-enter the motion at a future time if there was agreement. But, no, she just said she wants to repeat her motion, which effectively is breaking her word and the word of her party, and that's something I absolutely can't accept.

Mr. Chair, if members of the opposition are getting some sense that I'm going to speak this out so that we don't deal with this motion today, they're right. I'm not the biggest believer in filibusters, but I feel very strongly about this and I will refuse to cede my time until this meeting runs out. I'll give you that right up front, and I will keep my word on that because it is just too important an issue for me.

If you guys want to sit back, cross your legs, and prepare to sit for the next hour and a half, that's fine.

Thank you very much. I know Monsieur Guimond enjoys listening to me anyway, so this will be fine.

Vote on Amendment to Bill C-24

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Without having a continuation of the debate, let me put the question to the House. Does the proposal that the chief government whip has put forward, that the members of the New Democratic Party who voted on the previous motion be counted as having voted yea on the amendment moved by the Liberal Party to Bill C-24 at second reading last evening?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the proposition that the whip for the government presents on the floor this morning comes as a bit of a surprise because of the government's position last night, which was exactly the opposite.

The proposition that he is bringing forward appears, from a substantive point of view, to be a reasonable one in view of the fact that there was either confusion or an error in the course of the taking of the vote on the amendment to Bill C-24 that was entirely unintentional and inadvertent on the part of the New Democratic Party. I suspect there is a will in the House to see that it is corrected.

However, I need to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the first time this has occurred. We saw a similar incident in the spring in relation to a vote on a budget bill; I hasten to add, not on the budget itself, but in relation to the vote on the budget bill. At that time the House, specifically on the part of the government and perhaps the Bloc, but I do not want to characterize its position because I do not know for sure, did not have the will to accommodate the simple correction of what was an obvious inadvertent occurrence that, since that time, I must say, the government has been at some pains to exacerbate.

The point is that these incidents do, unfortunately, occur. It is obvious to all members of the House that they are inadvertent and there has, at least up until last spring, been the will in the House to immediately recognize the reality of the situation and to cooperate with each other to correct the error and ensure the record accurately reflects what the will of the House would be.

In this instance I think it is obvious what the NDP intended, even though that was not reflected in the detail of what happened last evening. From the opposition's point of view, we are certainly prepared to see that inadvertent situation put right and the accurate reflection of the NDP's position to show through in the proceedings of the House.

I simply make the point that the same goodwill, the same give and take and the same sense of fair play and accurate reflection should apply in all circumstances.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last night, I think quite inadvertently, a mistake was made during the deferred recorded division on the Liberal amendment to Bill C-24.

I am sure you will recall, Mr. Speaker, as you were in the chair at the time, that during the vote process the NDP rose to seek consent to have NDP members who were present for the previous vote recorded in support of the Liberal amendment to Bill C-24. Unfortunately, the reality is that when the NDP House leader rose for a second time to seek consent, that consent was denied by the House at that time.

As it was very evident to me, I rose on a point of order and stated that no points of order were to be entertained by the Chair during the vote process and, second, that I wanted to ensure the public viewing the vote process last night did not blame the clerks for the NDP members missing their opportunity to vote. Likewise, I believe that when a party, or an individual member for that matter, seeks to correct the record of a vote after the vote process is completed, it is normal tradition in the House that consent is granted by the members present in the House.

In conclusion, I believe that one mistake in the House should not be compounded by a second mistake. Therefore, in the interest of non-partisanship, common courtesy, traditional practice and in fairness to the New Democratic Party, in particular my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, I seek the unanimous consent of the House at this time to have the results of the deferred division taken last night on the Liberal amendment to Bill C-24 corrected to indicate that the NDP did intend to support the Liberal amendment.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Beauséjour at second reading of Bill C-24.

The question is on the amendment.

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, and of the amendment.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to look at this in terms of the forestry sector because it tends to be the dominant industry in smaller communities. It is totally dominant.

I have the same experience in my community, which is a reasonably large city by Canadian standards, in terms of the dominance of the auto industry. Currently, because of this trend, because of the willingness of the government, not for sound, practical business reasons, but for ideological reasons to enter into these kinds of agreements that have such devastating impacts, we are extremely worried, because of NAFTA and the effect it has had on our community, about the loss of jobs.

The province of Ontario alone lost 200,000 jobs in the last five years in manufacturing. In my city there was a big meeting last Sunday with about 2,500 people. It was about the announcement of some more job losses form the Ford Motor Company. The fear is that because of these kinds of trade arrangements, we would lose somewhere around 2,000 very high paying jobs in the manufacturing sector, and at least five to six additional jobs for every one of those in the auto parts supplier section and in the community generally. That is just with that one announcement. We know another announcement will be coming a little bit later next year, and other ones could be coming. By 2010 to 2012, we could see a reduction of over 5,000 jobs just from Ford in my community. Multiply that number by five or seven and the total number is up to 25,000 to 35,000 jobs that we could lose, not to mention all of the families that go with those jobs.

In the forestry sector, a small community of maybe several thousand or a small town of 10,000 is affected. In my community, the effect is multiplied by those proportions. We have a great deal of fear, just as we have a great deal of fear of what the government will do to the Wheat Board and what the farming community will suffer as a result. We know what the government is doing with regard to not protecting the steel industry. It ripples through the entire economy.

It is time for us to stand up and take a position. That position is not to vote in favour of Bill C-24

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak on the amendment to Bill C-24 which would have the effect, if the amendment were adopted by this House, to prevent the government from taking action to, in effect, sell out the softwood lumber industry in this country.

The length of time that Canada and the United States have been dealing with this issue almost boggles the mind. It heated up over the last four or five years, resulting in some very offensive tariffs by the United States against Canada and against this industry, tariffs and trade actions that have unanimously been shot down in every tribunal that the U.S. has gone to in order to justify their actions. The rulings have consistently been against the Americans and, I must say, to my own surprise as a lawyer, in their own courts.

It was always thought that Canada's position was absolutely solid before the WTO and under NAFTA, which the U.S. government and the U.S. forestry industry were not prepared to accept. However, there was almost a solid belief that if it ended up before the domestic courts of the United States that the Americans would prevail and that they would use those decisions or decision to justify their ongoing unfair trading practices with regard to softwood lumber between the two countries.

However, it came as a surprise when in June of this year the court in the United States ruled in Canada's favour and stated that Canada was not performing any improper practices in the softwood lumber sector and that the United States had no basis on which to levy these tariffs, none whatsoever.

It is also interesting, from the information that we have at this point from experts in the field, that the decision made can only be appealed once and that it is mandatory that the appeal be dealt with within 12 months.

Therefore, by June 2007 there will be nothing left for the Americans to contest. We will have closed every avenue in the courts, including their domestic courts, and Canada will have won in every one of the tribunals and courts.

In spite of that, we see, quite frankly, the unconscionable conduct by the Canadian government to negotiate a trade arrangement on softwood lumber that would see Canada faced with a reduction in the amount of money the Americans need to return to us, which is over a billion dollars, and a new protocol that would be to Canada's great disadvantage as there is no certainty in the arrangement. Our trade experts, who have studied the agreement and know the area well, have strong feelings that the agreement encompassed by Bill C-24 would not protect the industry on an ongoing basis.

The agreement would allow the parties to pull out. Because of the money that we will be leaving in the United States, over a billion dollars, it is expected that a good half of that will go to the U.S. softwood lumber sector and be used against us to mount additional challenges in the very near future.

The agreement buys us nothing in the way of certainty. It provides no sense of stability in the industry, to the companies or to the workers, and it leaves wide open the ability of the Americans to come after us again if we sign this agreement with them.

When we see the negotiations that have gone on by the Minister of International Trade, it begs the question of what it means for other sectors. I want to spend a minute or two on that because it has become very troubling for the auto sector, which is a major industry in my hometown, to see what has happened with the government, and that particular minister supported by the government, in negotiating the softwood lumber deal with the United States.

Will we be faced with the same kind of treatment, the same kind of wimpishness in the negotiations with South Korea that are going on right now, as we are faced with on softwood lumber with the Americans, and a willingness on the part of the government and the minister to trade off Canada's interests and, in effect, get nothing in return?

Our fears were enhanced when we saw the minister refuse to divulge information on the negotiations because a study was done by his department and he consistently refused to release it. Finally, another study, commissioned by the sector and by the CAW, the union in particular, showed what would happen to the auto sector in Canada if we were to enter into this trading agreement with South Korea. The effect would be quite devastating with regard to employment and to the traditional companies that have been producing cars in Canada. It would be very devastating to the auto parts sector with massive losses in all areas occurring in a very short period of time.

When that study became public, all of a sudden the minister released his department's study and was extolling the virtues of the agreement based on the study. Although the study was very favourable, obviously couched in that way, it also showed that the auto sector would suffer in Canada. It would not be advanced at all and would, in fact, decline if we went ahead with the negotiations. If we were to sign a treaty with South Korea and put it into place we would begin to suffer.

The minister has been asked a number of times in the House why he would even consider continuing on with the negotiations? We have had nothing but blandishments and clichés about wanting trade but nothing about the merits of the agreement.

The reason the auto sector's fear of the government and the minister is so high is that when we look at the softwood lumber deal and at the negotiations that the minister led and carried on, we then see the results that are so damaging to the softwood lumber sector right across the country. However, there seems to be a willingness, almost an obsession with going ahead with what is a very bad deal for the country.

The NDP will be very strong on voting against Bill C-24 and supporting the amendment that would have the effect of turning this around and getting us out from under this agreement.

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, and of the amendment.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the past, the opposition was unable to force the Liberal government to give the industry the help that it wanted—that we all wanted.

I remember that in 2003, my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques and I proposed an assistance program that they did not follow up on. It is the same with the Conservatives. Since then, companies have been closing. I would like to end by listing some of those companies in the riding of Joliette: Scierie Guy Baril & fils Inc. closed its doors or had to cut jobs; Les Bois Dumais Inc.; Les Bois Francs Benoît Inc.; I have already mentioned Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd.—Louisiana-Pacific waferboard; Simon Lussier also closed its factory; Adélard Goyette & Fils Ltd.; and Scierie Montauban Inc. We cannot wait any longer.

The Liberals are, in large part, responsible for the current situation. I have another full page of companies that have had to close their doors or cut jobs over the past few months.

Personally, I do not want to be responsible for further job losses. I am very aware that this battle is far from over and that Bill C-24 is just a token gesture of help given the magnitude of this crisis, which is affecting all regions of Quebec. I know that my colleagues are all working under the same constraints as I am. If a single person in Quebec had spoken up to say that we should vote against Bill C-24, things might have been different. However, nobody in Quebec spoke up to ask us. So, as proper defenders of Quebec's interests—

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I understand the logic behind the Bloc's position to support Bill C-24. I clearly do not agree with it but, as I understand the Bloc's logic, it is that if we do not support Bill C-24 and put this really distasteful deal into place, companies like Tembec, the corporate side of it, will suffer further casualties in the way of bankruptcies and closing plants, and, obviously, the workers in that industry will continue to be negatively impacted.

I want to put this question to him in all honesty. Given what has happened in the last month or so, where corporations across the country have made it clear that they will not drop their lawsuits, that they will continue to pursue those lawsuits in spite of that being a precondition of this agreement going into place, should the Bloc not be looking at the alternative of bringing in government action on this side of the border to support the industry, to support the workers to tide them through this period of time until we can finally enforce all the orders, the determinations and the decisions that have been made against the U.S. side on this? Is the strategy just not wrong?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, several companies are in trouble at present. Take Tembec, for example, where we are talking about several thousands of jobs.

We already know that the industry has lost a tremendous number of jobs. That is why the government was asked this week to advance a certain percentage of the duties illegally withheld by the Americans and to not wait for the agreement to be implemented.

We are talking about the postponement of the implementation from October 1 to November, but I have been told by many people that it could be postponed to December 1, 2006.

The government had promised to pay most of the duties illegally withheld by the American authorities before Christmas. I hope they will keep this promise, whether or not the agreement is implemented.

We know how much money was withheld by the Americans. Every company knows the amount. We may not know the details but the government could easily advance 50% of the duties withheld by means of a mechanism provided for in Bill C-24, the purchase of the rights to these duties by Export Development Canada in exchange for payment of refunds to companies.

I wish to thank my colleague once again, because his question allowed me to make this additional and, I believe, very important point. The Conservative government cannot just ignore the situation and wait for the implementation of the agreement to assume its responsibilities.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in a previous speech, I feel very bitter as I rise to take part in this debate.

The situation leaves the Bloc Québécois with no choice, because the entire Quebec forestry and lumber industry—particularly the softwood lumber industry—has asked the Bloc Québécois to support Bill C-24, which has come out of the Canada-US softwood lumber agreement. As I said, not only the industry, but the heads of the two main labour federations that represent workers in the softwood lumber industry have called on us to support the bill. Henri Massé and Claudette Carbonneau, as well as the president of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, Guy Chevrette, have expressly asked us to support Bill C-24.

I have also seen letters sent to Gilles Duceppe by large softwood lumber companies, asking us to support this bill.

The message these people have sent is that they are fed up and want Bill C-24 to be adopted so that they can recover a portion of the duties they paid. A billion dollars in duties levied illegally by the Americans will remain in the United States. The industry is fed up and must recover what it can immediately, or else it will be dead in a few weeks. However, no one told us that the agreement was perfect or even satisfactory.

There is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding this debate. Because the Bloc Québécois has always defended Quebeckers' interests and voiced their concerns, it will shoulder its responsibilities and vote in favour of Bill C-24. Needless to say, the Bloc Québécois will oppose the amendment introduced by the Liberals, an amendment that shows unbelievable hypocrisy on their part, because they are just as responsible as the Conservatives for the current softwood lumber situation and the agreement.

If the Liberals had not opted for what Mr. Pettigrew called at the time a “two-pronged strategy”—negotiation and legal action before the WTO and NAFTA—we would not be in this situation. The Americans have always understood that sooner or later, the Canadians and the industry would cave in and ask for a watered-down settlement. That is what happened.

The Liberals and the Conservatives should have gone through legal channels from the very beginning—especially since we were nearing the end of the process. The Liberals and the Conservatives should have supported the industry and communities affected by the crisis, but they refused to do so. They should have pursued the legal process to its conclusion, and then begun negotiations with the Americans from a position of strength regarding the legal process and with a view to reinstating free trade. But that is not what happened, and we cannot rewrite history.

I find it especially hypocritical that the Liberals' amendment says we should refuse to vote for Bill C-24 because the government failed “to provide necessary support to Canadian workers, employers and communities in the softwood sector”. Since 2003, we have been asking them to provide loan guarantees, to implement programs to help communities affected by the softwood lumber crisis and to implement a program to help older workers. During our opposition day yesterday, we asked them again.

The Liberals always refused to lift a finger unless it was almost election day. But something extraordinary has happened. They have suddenly discovered that loan guarantees were legal after all, even though for months and months, the industry minister at the time had been saying it could not be done. They suddenly found out that they could in fact advance $800 million in loan guarantees over five years because the illegal duties collected by the Americans were actually accounts receivable. They still are.

The Bloc will vote against this amendment and vote for Bill C-24 even though we realize it is not perfect and will cause problems. This is already becoming quite clear, now that the agreement will not come into effect until November 1, rather than October 1 as planned. The Conservative government must not think that Bill C-24 will resolve all of the problems with the forest and softwood lumber industries. This applies to Quebec and all other regions in Canada.

Take, for example, the community of north Lanaudière, in my riding.

I hope the Conservative government will carefully read the report we are currently preparing for all elected members from the region, calling for a support plan for north Lanaudière, which—like other regions—is going through a major crisis as a result of the trade dispute with the Americans. For a number of years now, more than $5 billion in duties have been frozen, which has blocked investment and has taken a significant toll on the liquid assets of the companies affected by the dispute. The higher Canadian dollar has made Canadian and Quebec wood less competitive on the U.S. market.

Energy costs, the price of oil in particular, have also increased significantly. Thus, the cost of transporting the wood from the forest to the plant, and then the final product to the U.S. market is much higher for the waferboard plant in the community of Saint-Michel-des-Saints. All these factors will not just vanish the day Bill C-24 is passed.

We hope the Conservative government has started to give some serious thought to the Bloc Québécois' proposals for supporting the industry, the communities and the workers affected by the forestry crisis. Last month two Louisiana Pacific plants closed in Saint-Michel-des-Saints in north Lanaudière. One is a waferboard plant and the other a sawmill. We hope the closures are temporary, but in the meantime they caused the loss of 322 jobs: 218 in the waferboard sector and 104 at the sawmill.

We have contacted the Louisiana Pacific subcontractors: the person who took care of the electrical system, the person who took care of maintaining the forest roads and the self-employed workers who collected the wood in the forest, are all affected. The loss of these 322 jobs resulted in even more job losses, namely the 229 people working for the Louisiana Pacific subcontractors.

For a community like Saint-Michel-des-Saints, the loss of 550 jobs has a significant impact. People who end up unemployed cut back their activities. They stop going to restaurants and hotels and they no longer buy things like new snowmobiles. Saint-Michel-des-Saints is a region where the snowmobile industry is quite significant. The entire economy has slowed down and that is why 87 jobs were lost last month. In total, 638 jobs have disappeared.

What does this mean for a community such as Saint-Michel-des-Saints, where 1,275 people work? This means that 50% of the people in Saint-Michel-des-Saints lost their job.

We must not be demagogues—as certain people in this House are—because the Saint-Zénon community, which is nearby and much larger, has 482 workers. It also contributes to these activities. Thus, in total 1,757 people are active in the workforce in Saint-Michel-des-Saints and Saint-Zénon, and 510 people lost their job. In total, 30% of the population in the region is unemployed today.

Yesterday in the House we debated a program to help older workers. When Louisiana Pacific reopens its factories—which we hope it does as soon as possible—it will reopen them with fewer workers.

It closed its factories because it was having problems with productivity and competition. I am therefore not expecting—and no one should expect—all 322 workers who lost their job to be re-hired. A support program for older workers, as well as measures to help north Lanaudière diversify economically, is therefore crucial. This is why we asked the government to allocate $50 million a year for the next three years in diversification funds for Quebec.

Businesses must also be supported so that they may continue their research and development projects. At present, tax credits are not refundable, and we know that certain companies have billions of dollars worth. We propose that tax credits for research and development be made refundable. Last year, Tembec invested $80 million in research and development, but also suffered losses.

Thus, the company could not benefit from these tax credits.

I therefore call upon the Conservative government to take very seriously the Bloc Québécois' proposals to help the industry, the workers and our communities, to support them through this crisis, which has been devastating for Quebec.

The House resumed from September 25 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, and of 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, today we will continue to debate an opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will complete debate on the amendment to Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement. Under a special order adopted Tuesday, there is an opportunity to sit into the weekend if needed to give members, particularly members of the New Democratic Party, the debating time they requested on such an important bill.

Next week, the House will be adjourned to allow members to return to their ridings.

When the House resumes on October 16, we will debate Bill C-23, the Criminal Code; Bill S-2, hazardous materials; and Bill C-6, aeronautics.

On Tuesday I will call Bill C-24 again. Thursday will be an allotted day.

We will introduce the motion that the hon. member requested in due course.

At the same time, I would like to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving weekend.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceeding to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the subamendment of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-24.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from October 3 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.

Softwood Lumber

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is urgent, but it took six months for the leader of the Bloc Québécois to take a position on this agreement.

It is essential to have this agreement adopted as quickly as possible. I ask the Bloc Québécois to work with us to pass Bill C-24, so that the companies can receive the funds provided by this government.

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.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain, which I represent in this House, has been particularly affected by the softwood lumber dispute that has been going on for many years. Indeed, forestry operations are the cornerstone of economic development for many municipalities in my riding.

I am talking about the whole area surrounding the town of La Tuque, including obviously Parent, Trois-Rives, Saint-Roch-de-Mékinac and Saint-Joseph-de-Mékinac, Saint-Tite, Sainte-Thècle, Notre-Dame-de-Montauban, Saint-Séverin and Saint-Adelphe—all towns and villages where companies working in the softwood lumber industry are located. I say this to emphasize the extent to which Bill C-24 will have an impact on the future of those communities, on tens of thousands of workers, and the thousands of families that depend on the decisions that we make in this House.

Considering the great importance of this issue for all the people whom I am pledged to properly represent, I decided to carry out my own consultations this past July and August among the various companies affected by the provisions of the softwood lumber agreement that was reached on July 1, 2006, by the international trade ministers of Canada and the United States. I consulted companies such as Abitibi-Consolidated, in particular La Tuque Forestry Products, Shermag, Commonwealth Plywood, Gérard Crête et fils, as well as the Groupe Rémabec. These consultations brought out several points.

First, the softwood lumber industry in general and its companies have been greatly harmed by the countervailing duties imposed by the United States since 2002. Second, the federal government has not provided sufficient support, neither the previous Liberal government nor the Conservative government. There have been no loan guarantees despite all the promises made in recent years, which has further weakened the companies in their dealings with the Americans. Third, many bankruptcies could have been avoided if those loan guarantees had been provided. Fourth, we have won most of the court challenges but the Americans took no account of the decisions in our favour and continued litigation at another level. We won there as well but in the final analysis it was an unending cycle.

For all of these reasons, the lawyers representing many of these companies would have advised their firms not to accept the agreement. However, at the same time—I was told very clearly—the bankers for those same companies told them that they would have to accept this settlement because they were in a precarious financial situation. They desperately needed to quickly recover the funds paid out in countervailing duties, even though they amounted to only 81% of the total paid.

For all these reasons, and even though all the companies I talked to say that this is not necessarily a good agreement—they know it, and I will come back to that—they are asking me to vote for the agreement, because they are barely getting by and any delay could lead to more bankruptcies and more job losses in the short term.

In light of all these factors, I will therefore vote for this bill. But I still want to point out once again that these companies might have made quite a different choice if the Conservative and Liberal governments had supported them properly when they needed support. That would have levelled the playing field and shown the Americans that Quebec and Canadian companies were not in the fight alone.

Now, looking at all of Quebec—not just La Mauricie, as I have just done—I can say beyond all doubt that the situation is the same everywhere. The industry in Quebec is accepting this agreement reluctantly, because it can no longer defend itself. The softwood lumber dispute has weakened the economies of many areas of Quebec. The lack of support from the Liberals and Conservatives has caused many companies to close their doors. Others have declared bankruptcy. Thousands of jobs have been lost. The human drama resulting from these unfortunate situations could have been prevented if only those who had promised loan guarantees had kept their promises.

I said earlier that companies are accepting this bad deal reluctantly. In fact, they feel forced to accept it because, in many cases, they cannot wait any longer.

They are not agreeing gladly to leave so much money—$1 billion—in the Bush administration's coffers. They are not happy to be accepting an agreement that does nothing to resolve many problems that have plagued the industry for years: lack of investment in research and development, lack of adequate market diversification programs and lack of support for new equipment purchases.

Since this agreement does not solve all the problems, the government will have to make a commitment to put in place a series of measures to mitigate the negative effects caused by this long-lasting dispute in Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois therefore proposes several such measures, including an income support program for older people; an economic diversification program for the communities that depend on forest resources; an increase in the funding for the Canadian model forest program run by Forestry Canada; a special tax status for the 128,000 private woodlot owners in Quebec; special tax treatment for the $4.3 billion in countervailing and antidumping duties to be refunded by the American authorities so as to take account of the financial damage suffered by these companies; an acceleration in equipment amortization; a program to stimulate innovation in the forest industry and improve its productivity; a market diversification and lumber marketing program; and financial compensation for maintenance of the forest network. It is important for these measures to be put in place as of this fall.

There is another important element to consider in connection with BillC-24, and that is the monitoring of the much too rigid export quotas currently proposed. In fact the companies will be very limited in their use of unused quotas since the agreement provides that transfers will be limited to just two consecutive months.

In view of the cyclical nature of supply and demand in softwood lumber, such a provision does not at all meet the need for flexibility on the part of both the industry and consumers. This very rigid aspect of the agreement will have to be relaxed at meetings of the binational council.

In this regard, on June 13, in this House, the Minister of International Trade said to my colleague, the member for Joliette, that the agreement would not contain a rigid cap on export quotas.

I also wish to point out that the duration of the agreement is something else that weakens it, since one clause provides that, after just 18 months, the agreement may be terminated on six months’ advance notice.

In short, the agreement will ensure trade peace for three years and will help the industry in the short and medium term, but only in the current context, in which it is on life-support. We note also that the government has given up in this regard since, last summer, it was talking about a firm seven-year agreement.

Furthermore, we have before us a theoretical agreement because it cannot come into effect until all the cases currently before the courts are withdrawn. But if the cases brought before the courts by companies under section 11 of NAFTA are not withdrawn, it means that the agreement is not valid, even if the bill is approved. If this were to happen, the government would very quickly have to put in place a guaranteed loan program, as it has already promised by the way.

In conclusion, I specify that I will vote in favour of bill C-24, not because it is about a sound trade agreement—because in numerous respects, it is quite the opposite—but because the workers of Saint-Maurice—Champlain and the companies who employ them cannot afford to wait any longer.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-24, the softwood lumber products export charge act, that implements the softwood lumber agreement between Canada and the United States. This agreement is very important to people in my constituency in Burnaby, B.C. and to people all over British Columbia and all over Canada, so I am very glad to stand today to discuss it.

The bottom line is that this is a bad deal. It is a bad deal for Burnaby. It is a bad deal for British Columbia and it is a bad deal for Canada.

We have heard from various corners of this House over the last few days the various rationalizations of this bad deal. From the corner over here where the Bloc sits, we have heard that it is an imperfect deal. When I heard some of the members from the Bloc speaking to this, I saw people who were bowed, who caved, and who did not feel comfortable about their own position. To say that it is imperfect is a huge understatement.

I heard from the government's corner, members from British Columbia who said that this was the best possible deal. That sure falls short of saying it was a good deal, but it also again belies this real discomfort with the kind of legislation that we are dealing with and it masks the fact that it is a bad deal. It is a bad deal, plain and simple, and it is a sellout of Canada.

This deal came at a time when Canada was on the verge of winning after a long legal process. We had won every single step of the way, holding the Americans to agreements they signed with Canada. What could be more important than to stand up for those agreements that had our signatures and their signatures on them?

The Tembec case, for instance, was subject to only one final appeal and the extraordinary challenges committee judgment would have come out in August. We were in a position to win both of them. There was no question about that. In fact, members do not have to believe me, they just need to listen to the testimony of the Canadian ambassador to Washington, Michael Wilson, who this summer pointed out before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade that there were no appeals on the extraordinary challenges committee judgment and there is no appeal on the Tembec case after the ruling was made.

Rather than a victory, we have this deal. I have heard it said in this corner of the House that this is the government snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. How does this represent Canada at all? We were winning every step of the way and now we have this bad deal, and such a deal it is.

A key feature of this deal is that Canada has to give up $1 billion in illegally collected levies to the United States. All the way through the legal process, it was shown that these duties and levies were illegally collected and now with this deal, we give that $1 billion to the United States. This $1 billion was collected from Canadian companies, causing them incredible hardship. It is money that was also taken from Canadian workers, Canadian families and Canadian communities, and B.C. communities have been extremely hard hit through all of this.

Why, when Canada was on the verge of victory, would the Conservatives sign off on the important principles at stake and give the Americans $1 billion to boot? We have lost the principle about the importance of our trade agreements with the United States. We have lost the principle about using the mechanisms that hold us to account on those agreements. We have lost the argument about protecting our softwood lumber industry, and we give the Americans $1 billion to boot.

We have to consider too, how is that money going to be used? We know for a fact that $500 million of it, half of it, is going directly to the US Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports. Who are they? They are the very people who initiated and pursued the attack on the Canadian softwood lumber industry. They initiated all of this in the first place and now we are giving them $500 million. We know they ran out of money and now, thanks to the Conservatives, we are refilling their war chest, funding their litigation and lobbying for years to come.

Do we really think they will not use it? The question is when, not if, they are going to use it. Will it take two years? Will it take nine years? There is no question that they are going to use that money again against our industry.

Given that tendency, which industry is next? Now that we have caved on softwood lumber, we know that other industries are in the sights of the Americans. What aspect of our trade policy will they attack next? What protectionist is planning an assault on another Canadian industry? Which of our natural resources will they seek to scoop up next?

I think some of us in this corner believe that the Wheat Board is the next thing that is in the sight of the Americans. We know and we have heard from farmers all across Canada about the importance of the Wheat Board and the fact that they feel that it is the next thing in the sights of protectionist Americans. We have to stand up and fight for the Wheat Board. It has brought stability and a stable income to Canadian farmers.

It is ironic that we sit here today discussing an agreement that would give U.S. lobbyists a half a billion dollar fund for legal challenges to our industries two days after the Conservative government announced that it was cutting the Canadian court challenges program. This is a modest $5.6 million program that allowed the most vulnerable and disenfranchised in our society along with disadvantaged Canadians and minority groups the ability to challenge decisions and policies of the Canadian government.

We have seen in the past the importance of this for language rights in Canada, for equality rights for the gay and lesbian community, for citizenship rights, and for other minority rights in Canada. Now the program is gone.

It seems that the Conservatives cannot help our own people ensure their place in Canadian society, but we can give 80 times the money that was in the court challenges program to the Americans who want to circumvent the trade agreements that they have signed with Canada and want to ruin Canadian industry.

The Conservatives cut Canada's human rights related court challenges program and they fund a new half a billion dollar court challenges program for Americans to use against Canada. It is a shame. It does not make sense. If for no other reason this bill should not be supported on that basis.

Let us look at the other half a billion dollars that the Conservatives are allowing the Americans to keep. Where does it go? It goes directly to the White House for the use of President Bush. The official agreement says that this money will be used for:

(a) educational and charitable causes in timber-reliant communities;

(b) low-income housing and disaster relief;

(c) educational and public-interest projects addressing:

(i) forest management issues--

That sounds great.

Let us hear what Frances Russell said about this $450 million in the Winnipeg Free Press. She said:

Fully $450 million of the $1.3 billion in illegal duties the Americans will get to keep will grease re-election wheels for protectionist Republicans facing tough fights in upcoming midterm congressional elections. Canada's timber industry will thus be forced to subsidize an ongoing, illicit, attack on itself. All with the explicit consent of the Canadian government.

Well, the Conservatives may consent to this, the Bloc may consent to this, but New Democrats will not.

American negotiators have taken care of American workers. Let us say that even if the $450 million was used in a completely altruistic fashion and went as the agreement indicates, where is the support for Canadian companies, Canadian workers, and Canadian communities devastated by this agreement? It is not to be found in this deal.

There is $4 billion coming back to Canada, but there is no requirement for reinvestment in Canadian communities, reinvestment in the Canadian industry, and there is a fear that much of that money will go to fund investment by those same companies in investment in the United States. That is not acceptable either.

Even the Bloc members, who are concerned about the displacement of workers because of this crisis, are left to raise over and over again, pleading with the Conservatives to announce something that will assist them because it just is not in the deal. I do not think anyone needs a second reason to vote against Bill C-24, but there it is.

Two days ago I was in the House to hear my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and our representative on the international trade committee, speak to this issue. He outlined many of the key problems with this deal. They include that the U.S. only has to allege non-compliance with Canada to get out of the deal.

In clause 10, the imposition of a 15% export tax as of October 1 amounts to double taxation above and beyond current anti-dumping and countervailing duties.

In clause 18 there is a new special punitive tax originally designed to hit those companies that are standing up for Canadian rights and responsibilities under NAFTA and who will choose to continue litigation, but now everyone faces that tax. When added to the export development charge, all companies will end up paying 37% and they will have to pay up front.

Clause 48 imposes a six year burden of record keeping on companies, increasing their administrative burden.

Clause 77 states that warrants are no longer needed to enter softwood businesses when issues of enforcement of the act are pursued. These are harsh measures against companies. I think they violate fundamental rights.

In clause 89, it is as blank cheque to the minister to demand payment from companies with no appeal mechanism. What happens in the event of a calculation problem? Too bad. There is no appeal.

In clause 95, directors of companies will now be individually responsible and there is no appeal process. It goes on and on.

Let me just finish by giving the final word for the Prime Minister. In the House on October 25, 2005, he said:

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.

At the time, we thought he meant the Americans had to comply with the court decisions. Unfortunately, it appears that he really meant that Canadians had to comply with the whims of the American industry and the whims of American protectionists.

It is just not acceptable. It is a bad deal. We must vote against the legislation.

The House resumed from September 26 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.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have very much looked forward to my time to enter this debate. For a lot of members of this House, but now fewer and fewer of them, the ability to speak on the experience of watching what mills in their ridings have gone through in the last five to ten years is difficult. It is an extrapolation of the idea. It is an imagination of what it is for communities when they are faced with such trying times.

The reason that there are now fewer members of Parliament who have had that experience is that there are fewer mills across this country. In my region alone, not 30 years ago, there were 280 independently operated sawmills. The consolidation has left us with three or maybe four significant mills after all that time.

It is important for Canadians to understand the context of this deal. Many Canadians, particularly those living in urban ridings, may not have come to appreciate the magnitude of the destruction to the basis of our rural economy over the last decade. Not only have these illegal and punitive duties been slapped on by our American counterparts, but there has been huge devastation to the industry in an amalgamation process that has left small and medium operators completely out of the picture.

As I was saying to a colleague earlier, there are so many aspects to the so-called deal we are looking at today that it is amazing a sellout takes this many pages to be written. I would think that the words “100% total capitulation” would have taken a page to a page and half at most, but I suppose that a lot of legal text and jargon was necessary to keep government lawyers funded.

For far too long, the communities I represent have been suffering under a burden of neglect by the previous Liberal government. Just when things were as bad as they could be, a pine beetle epidemic has swept across our region and now is heading over the Rockies. Unfortunately, the rest of Canada may come to appreciate what it is to watch entire forests devastated.

We have a provincial Liberal government in Victoria that is interested only in massive raw log exports, which does little. For people who are not familiar with the industry, let me say we truly know that the best and greatest advantage and benefit to chopping down a tree is what is done with it once it hits the ground. We simply must manufacture and add value. We have talked about this. Every politician across this country who is dealing with primary resources in any way, shape or form says that we need to transform our economy to add further value to the resources we are endowed with, to the endowment this country has.

Yet the government is forcing industry, the provinces and various players to sign on to a deal that works in a direction that is opposite to the investment needed to actually add value to that wood. In cahoots with the Liberal government in British Columbia, it continues to raise the number and the amount of raw log exports that leave our region. When those logs leave, so too do the jobs.

For small communities in the hinterlands of Canada, there is a struggle to understand why so little attention is paid to them. These communities understand that they might not have the great subway systems, huge art galleries, and the scatterings and smatterings of MPs around every street corner that Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal do, but they cannot understand why, after having contributed so much to the wealth of this nation, they are given so little due and so little attention.

Let us get to the deal itself, for while it is complex, the reading is fine and the conclusions are disturbing. Bill C-24 continues the unfortunate legacy of sell-offs and sellouts that Conservative governments have left Canada with.

The government initially went to the table for the FTA and then NAFTA. In that negotiation, the Americans wanted access to our energy. That was one of the clear negotiating pieces of the American interests. We know this because the negotiators who were at that table have since written books, essays and discourses on what it was like to be there.

I remember one chief American negotiator calling it not so much a negotiation as a capitulation and a dictation from the American side. The Americans were dictating to us. They wanted access to Canada's vast energy resources. Energy resources were clearly seen as something important for the growth of the U.S. economy, but Canada was reluctant, knowing how important these energy resources were for our own growth. The trade-off became that the Americans would offer us a dispute resolution panel because they understood that the two negotiating partners were not in balance, that one was clearly economically stronger than the other, with the Americans having a larger, more powerful and protected market.

A dispute resolution panel was established to allow us to settle our disputes and now we have a deal that takes that dispute resolution panel and tosses it out the window. It simply says that when we win, when we are right, in fact we lose and we are wrong. All it takes is a certain amount of political pressure and opportunism by a government for us to get the short end of the stick one more time.

Oftentimes the government will try to talk about certainty and that the industry is looking for certainty. The investments that the softwood industry has to make are large and expensive and can only be paid off over a certain amount of time. Certainty for their products is important and yet, having just cut a cheque for $450 million to put into the war chest of the lobbyists who first launched this agreement against us, leaving over $400 million in the coffers of the very same people who are fighting and illegally pushing the U.S. Congress and Senate to put tariffs on our own duties, we have ensured anything but certainty. We have ensured that this fight will continue another day, because what else is one going to do with $450 million, if one is a lobbyist for the U.S. softwood industry, other than go after the Canadian industry and ensure that a fair fight cannot be fought?

We have also left half a billion dollars for President Bush's electoral campaign in November. I am not sure if such a sizeable cheque has ever been written by a Canadian government to assist a Republican president, but certainly the Americans are thankful. This is money well needed by an administration in the United States that is on the verge of bankrupting its own nation. It is so-called conservative economics at play once again.

What about the money returning to Canada? I have spoken with some of the CEOs who have been advocating for this deal and I asked them what encouragement the Canadian government gave them to take the 80% of the money that will be returned and actually invest it in Canada. Their reply was that the government had given them no encouragement to invest a single dollar in Canada.

While the money is supposed to be returning, many of these companies involved in this negotiation, due to the consolidation that has happened in this industry for the last decade or more, work both sides of the border. They have plants and operations on both sides of the border. Canadians need to ask themselves, if a company has mills both in Washington state and in British Columbia, why would it process a stick of wood in B.C. if it can move it across the border as a raw log and avoid the punitive tariff that our own government is placing upon a processed piece of timber or product. Why would anyone invest a nickel in an operation where they eventually will be punished for processing that wood?

It has created a disincentive for Canadian and multinational firms that operate in Canada and actually invest in Canada and create the types of jobs that we all hope for, for all these communities that have been through so much over the last number of years.

As time runs down, it is important to talk about the producers who are actually affected. I am thinking of a sawmill in one of my communities, which is Terrace, that has been through much. It is struggling to get reasonable access to timber to provide 60 or 120 jobs. For a community of 10,000 people that has struggled so much with an absolutely disastrous housing market and little space and room for companies to invest, this was important. They are looking at this deal as a small producer and wondering where they are in this.

A second important piece of what we have capitulated here is a basic notion of sovereignty, about how it is that we manage the forestry sector. Every member of Parliament will know that it is now provincial jurisdiction. The provinces decide how and where to cut wood and under what stipulations. However, in Article XVIII of the agreement, neither party shall take action that circumvents or offsets the commitments set out in this agreement and specifically any change in a provincial timber pricing or forest management system as it existed on April 27, 2006.

It is black and white. Washington has the ability to dictate terms over the provincial government's own jurisdiction, which our own federal government does not have.

What is important is that the system and the sellout that has been signed determines the cap by region and once that cap is broken then the duties start to increase and the tariffs and penalties go up. When a company chooses to flood any particular region with wood, it will punish a company that chooses not to. This is collectivism gone wrong. It is insane. How can we punish a company down the road that is actually abiding by the law when it is a larger company, which is what it will be, that wishes to glut the market?

This is a bad deal for communities and a bad deal for Canada.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate with my colleagues in the debate on Bill C-24, a bill which has very steep consequences for many forest communities across the country.

In my large riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, the forest industry is located along highway 11, whether they are sawmills, pulp and paper mills or panel board plants in Hearst, Kapuskasing or Smooth Rock Falls or workers who live in the small villages in between. On highway 17, there is a pulp and paper plant in Espanola, a sawmill in Nairn or Thessalon, forestry workers and logging companies between Thessalon and Espanola, including Elliot Lake, Iron Bridge and Blind River.

These are communities like others across the country that are facing very difficult times, as some of my colleagues have talked about, with energy costs, exchange rates, even government regulation, and the competing demands for the forests and competition from other countries where forest fibres are very inexpensive. All these things and other factors combine to make it very difficult to operate, to be a worker, small business or contractor in the forestry sector. That is why it has been a real challenge for me to try to understand why the government came up with the deal that it did with the U.S.

The Liberals were in office until January for some 12 and a half years and were actually making considerable progress on that file. It is my understanding that in November, prior to the election being called with the help of the Bloc and NDP supporting the Conservatives, it was possible to have an agreement with the U.S. Whether it was better or worse I am not sure, but a deal was possible at that time and would not have been satisfactory to our communities and to the industry, so the government declined to proceed.

Instead, it took the advice of stakeholders. When people were asked if they wanted to settle with the U.S. industry, if they wanted to compromise the gains they had made, if they wanted to give away progress under the free trade agreements or, rather, pursue their legal rights in the courts, under the NAFTA trade panels or the WTO and negotiate, almost exclusively stakeholders, workers and companies said no. They did not want to negotiate, give away what they had gained in their efforts to find softwood trade peace with the U.S. They wanted a solution which was based in the law and due process.

We were getting there and in fact decisions, even since the government came to office, have proven the correctness of that position to follow due process and get what is right under the law and according to trade agreements. The government, sadly, has rushed to find something maybe to make the Americans happy.

I do not want to be too cynical, so I will not go beyond saying that much, but in a rush to find a solution, any solution it seemed, it was prepared to give away all the progress that was made. That is among the many difficulties in this agreement and one of the hardest things to take. Why give away so much progress?

Let me comment further by saying that I have talked to a lot of people in my riding. One person was Guy Bourgouin, president of the Steelworkers local 12995 in Kapuskasing, who wrote in a letter to me in late August:

However, despite this continuing success,--

The success I referred to:

--Canada appears to have capitulated to American demands. Under the proposed deal we are still faced with restrictions on our access to the US market in the form of a tax and/or quota, we are agreeing to allow American oversight of our provincial forest policies, and we are leaving a billion dollars of illegally collected tariffs south of the border. To top it all off, there is nothing in the agreement to ensure the stability of employment in the forest sector or the ongoing viability of forest dependent communities.

Guy Bourguoin in Kapuskasing, president of that local, has summarized it very well. As well, I have talked to René Fontaine, the former Liberal cabinet minister in Ontario, who is so passionate about our forestry sector needing a good deal with the Americans, not this bad deal.

When we consider this deal, if there is one thing among the many measures that we would put at the top of the list of things required, it is stability, at least stability. It is the idea that the deal is bad, but if businesses at least could count on the bad deal for seven to nine years, maybe they could survive. The fact is that this deal can be cancelled by either side, Canada or the U.S., after 23 months. That is not stability. That is not what the industry needs as a top priority.

Yes, we have heard about some U.S. assurances in a letter, assurances that the U.S. will not just casually cancel a deal after roughly two years. What does a commitment like that mean? Our friends to the south went to war in Iraq claiming weapons of mass destruction. They had no evidence for that. So how do we accept some assurance, based on the letter, that they will not cancel this deal after two years? I am sorry with respect to our neighbours to the south who are our friends and our allies, but as neighbours we do expect to be treated fairly. Sadly, we are not.

Let me pick out a few other points that Guy Bourgouin raised in his letter. Let us talk about the over $1 billion that has been left south of the border and which, as some of my colleagues have already pointed out, is being shared. Half of it will go to the industry.

We can be sure that at least some of it will find its way into a legal trust fund for some future challenge once this deal unravels. Those who challenge this deal will be well prepared when it comes to paying for lawyers, court fees, research and so on, whereas our industry has been told by the new government, so new that it is possibly too inexperienced to really understand when it has negotiated a bad deal, that our industry will not be prepared financially to fight back when the other side has a part or all of half a billion dollars to fight with.

The other half-billion is going to be administered through the White House, ostensibly delivering programs, maybe housing, and promoting the use of lumber.

How many among us would actually believe that any of that promotion is going to be of much use to the Canadian industry? I doubt very much that any of it will be of benefit. We are told that the Prime Minister's Office will be consulted on the programs. I will wait to learn if that is actually the case, but I doubt it very much.

There are mid-term elections coming up in the U.S. I suspect that the money will find its way into districts where the Republicans need some help. There is no interest on the side of the U.S. in using that money to help Canadian industry produce lumber here and sell it in the U.S.

I wonder if the stability of this deal depends upon one side or the other determining after two years whether it should abrogate the deal or not. Who is going to make the decision to abrogate the deal? It is not going to be this side. It is going to be the U.S. side. Our side wants stability. Our industry members are fair traders and they are not subsidized.

My colleague from Etobicoke North mentioned the natural advantage. Do we challenge the U.S. because it has more sunlight in a year due to the climate? No, that is its natural advantage.

We have a natural advantage that we are proud of. We have great workers in the industry and great communities, and we deserve a much better deal than we have been shown here.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I will speak about the softwood lumber agreement, an agreement signed by Ottawa and Washington.

The agreement reached by the Canadian and American governments is not the agreement of the century. I am certain that several MPs have had the opportunity in the past few months to meet members of the forestry industry who told them that an agreement had to be signed because they were on the brink of disaster. What must be understood is that the industry had no choice. The agreement concluded on July 1 was not a good agreement, but the forestry industry could not afford to wait any longer.

If the Bloc Québécois supports this agreement, it is because it is acting responsibly towards the thousands of sawmill workers. However, as a result of consultations in the past few months with the industry concerned, we have come to realize that the structural crisis of the softwood lumber industry cannot be remedied by the softwood lumber agreement alone.

Both the Liberal and the Conservative governments caused incredible harm by not supporting the softwood lumber industry in recent years. No company can emerge from a four-year trade crisis and hope that all will return to normal. It is even worse when an entire sector of the economy is in trouble.

Over the past four years, a number of companies working in the forest industry have closed their doors, and this deal does nothing to ensure the sustainability and survival of the industry. The industry is still in bad shape, so it is up to the government to implement a series of measures to help forestry companies that are facing serious difficulties.

During the dispute, that is, since 2002, 17,000 jobs were lost in Quebec. As you may know, in Quebec, forestry is the main employer in 260 communities. In 134 of them, 100% of jobs are in forestry. Consequently, it is important to ensure the viability of this industry.

Quebec is the second-largest exporter of softwood lumber to the United States. Fifty per cent of the province's lumber is exported south of the border. Now that important measures have been implemented with respect to softwood lumber, particularly with respect to quotas, a lot of companies have begun to rationalize their workforce in light of the agreement. I say “quotas” because it seems that Quebec will choose one of two options—either option A, a tax percentage, or option B, fixed quotas.

This is therefore a worrisome situation for thousands of workers. Given the growing supply of wood from China and new conditions in the industry, many companies will have to lay a lot of people off over the next few months.

Over the past few years, this crisis has had a dramatic impact on some communities in my riding, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. One of the largest forestry cooperatives in Quebec, located in Laterrière, went bankrupt in December 2004. The bankruptcy indirectly impacted on many sawmills in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Some shut down for a few weeks, while others closed their doors for good. That is what happened with the Produits forestiers Saguenay sawmill in La Baie. In March, it decided to close the mill a year earlier than planned for economic reasons.

In addition, since the softwood lumber agreement was reached July 1, several sawmills in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean have continued to have financial difficulties.

To cite only a few examples, in early September, the Bowater mill at Saint-Félicien was forced to lay off 140 employees for an indefinite period. As well, one million dollars are needed to get the Coopérative forestière de Girardville back on its feet. For its part, the PFS mill at Petit-Saguenay has just reopened its doors after being closed for a month, two weeks more than initially planned. In addition, because of current market difficulties, the mill has decided to do away with a second shift. These are just some examples. However, a great many mills, such as the PH Lemay mill and the Péribonka mill have been affected by the crisis during the past few months.

The softwood lumber crisis has caused the loss of 3,000 jobs—yes, I said 3,000 direct jobs—in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, and the situation is getting worse.

I would simply like to give one last example to illustrate the general situation. Three weeks ago, the sawmills at Saint-Félicien and Dolbeau-Mistassini shut down for an indefinite period in order to reduce financial losses. As a result, the company was forced to lay off some 350 employees of the two mills. One of the spokesmen for the mills made the following comment, which sums up the situation very well:

We are going through an unprecedented crisis and it is difficult to meet the conditions for profitability. Like all the other forestry companies, we have no choice but to reorganize our activities or mills in order to remain competitive.

That comment sums up the situation concerning the softwood lumber crisis.

The root cause of the problem is still there. The situation will continue to get worse if measures are not introduced quickly. The problem is aggravated in the regions outside the large centres and we cannot close our eyes to this problem.

There are many reasons why the socio-economic problems are worse in the regions. The main reason is that the forest industry plays such a major role in many communities. For workers in the regions, the forestry crisis, combined with cuts to employment insurance in recent years, has worsened the economic situation. Many employees affected by this dispute have been left without income and have been forced to leave the region.

Between 1994 and 2004, cuts to employment insurance resulted in a direct and indirect loss of $875 million for the entire Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. This was due to the numerous cuts in the employment insurance program.

When we look at data for my riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in particular, based on the cuts to employment insurance in the past few years, we can say that the population was directly denied some $221 million during those years.

We are proposing other measures to this government, namely the implementation of POWA, an income support program for workers who were part of massive layoffs.

In closing, I also want to point out that Bill C-24 does not resolve the structural problems of the market. In the coming months, measures will have to be implemented to prevent the forestry sector from collapsing. It is important that all stakeholders take action to maintain and consolidate the forest industry because many jobs in the resource regions depend on this sector of activity.

To that end, the Lac-Saint-Jean-Est RCM passed a resolution on September 19. I will close by urging the federal government to provide more support to the forest industry. I hope the government will implement measures that will help forestry workers and the industry.

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, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is unfortunate that I must interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for government orders has now expired. When we next return to the debate on Bill C-24 there will be four minutes left for the member.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in the House this afternoon to speak to Bill C-24. I know I only have a short time to address the bill. I want to speak about the myth that the status quo will suffice.

The status quo will not suffice. It is simply not enough that Canada is right. Canada wins the disputes and the tribunals find in our favour again and again. In practical terms, being right is an anti-victory if it does not bring resolution. What good is it if we win the battle but lose the war? Without this agreement we have no resolution.

The opposition is suggesting that the status quo will suffice. The status quo does not suffice for this government. Canada's new government has opted for moving forward. It has opted for an agreement that spells an end to the status quo, an agreement that returns over 80% of losses to be invested back into our industry, instead of the millions more that will leave Canada if the current situation prevails.

I applaud and accolade the Prime Minister, Minister of Industry, and the Minister of International Trade who have worked so hard to develop this agreement. I know the ministers have taken a lot of heat over this. I want to personally thank the minister on behalf of all Canadians. He has shown that his diligence, wisdom and expertise has shone brightly for all Canadians. We should all be proud of him.

The government has opted for an agreement and a future that will allow our lumber producers to get on with business free from non-stop litigation, which to many is an American pastime. If anyone has ever studied south of the 49th parallel, they will understand that Americans take their lawyers and litigation very seriously. I think it is just a road to nowhere to continue that path.

Members on the other side called the agreement a sellout. The real sellouts are those who opt to do nothing. The hard fact is that the future of our lumber industry is in trade and the stronger trade agreements we have the more stable our industry will be.

Business cannot survive on a diet of hope. Business relies on stability and certainty. Like it or not, wish for a perfect world, but this agreement will keep industries from shutting down. The agreement keeps people working, puts food on the tables and that is no myth.

As the member of Parliament for Kelowna—Lake Country in beautiful British Columbia, I am acutely aware of the importance of moving forward on softwood lumber. This agreement has been accepted by the province of British Columbia, by the minister of forests, by the lumber producers in my riding and, more importantly, my constituents have overwhelmingly supported this agreement. It is time to move forward. The opposition sits in the House and says it had no choice, that they were abandoned by the government. This is absolutely false.

As a matter of fact, I sat in a meeting this morning with Premier Campbell of British Columbia. I did not get the impression that he would say B.C. was forced to support this agreement nor that he had no choice. Premier Campbell was very happy. He got everything that he was looking for as far as a negotiated settlement. In a perfect world we like a perfect deal, but Premier Campbell being a realist knows this is great for British Columbia and all of Canada.

Premier Campbell worked actively to ensure that this agreement would serve B.C. lumber producers very effectively. I would like to thank Premier Campbell for his efforts as well. The fact is that B.C. is on side. B.C. is interested in strengthening freer trade and our softwood lumber industry. Unlike the opposition, B.C. wants to move forward.

It is time that Liberal and NDP members get behind B.C. Some 57% of Canada's lumber exports to the United States come from British Columbia. It is time these members got behind our communities and the lumber producers that employ them. In my riding alone there are over 1,000 people directly employed by the softwood lumber industry. Kelowna—Lake Country is in the heart of Canada's softwood industry. My riding is situated in southern British Columbia and the producers in my riding typically export between 70% to 80% of the product south of the border.

Kelowna falls under the Okanagan timber supply area which has an AAC or an allowable annual cut of almost 3 million cubic metres. This comprises 6.9% of British Columbia's total AAC.

Tolko Industries, which I would also like to congratulate on celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, produces 144 million board feet annually. Gorman Bros. Lumber, which is across the lake in Westbank, has an annual capacity of 96 million board feet. We also have a mill, Oyama Forest Products, and it has annual estimated capacity of about 4.8 million board feet.

These numbers are from 2001, but they at least demonstrate a capacity of over 249 million board feet being produced locally. When we compare this to the 21.5 billion board feet a year Canada exports to the United States, we find that the Kelowna--Lake Country area produces almost 1% of Canada's total softwood exports. This is to say nothing of the additional Tolko veneer and plywood plant, which has an annual capacity of some 280 million square feet.

Therefore, I can speak confidently about the effects of this agreement on my constituents, and the effects will be positive.

Canada has worked closely with provinces and industry stakeholders throughout the softwood lumber dispute to secure a durable agreement with the United States that promotes a stable bilateral trade agreement in which Canada's softwood lumber exporters and industry can profit and prosper. The agreement has that stability and certainty the industry is looking for. It will see a return of most of their duties collected on softwood lumber. As I said, that will be over 80%.

The agreement maximizes the benefits to the Canadian industry and the workers and communities that depend upon it. That is the bottom line: the people of our ridings across the country. The 308 of us here represent the workers, their families and the industry.

The agreement will be for a term of seven years with an option to renew for two additional years. The legal text specifies those lumber products that will be subject to any export measures.

The agreement includes the full and complete revocation of the U.S. countervailing and anti-dumping duties and the return of over $4 billion in duties collected by the United States since 2002 through a deposits mechanism that will ensure companies receive this money as quickly as possible. Once again, our new government is creating ways of trying to bring that money back into the industry's hands as soon as possible.

The agreement includes the safeguarding of the provinces' ability to manage their forest services and a choice for provinces of the border measure that best addresses their individual economic and commercial situations. The key word there is “choice”. Also included is the establishment of a range of initiatives to enhance binational cooperation and the development of a North American lumber industry.

The softwood lumber agreement is good for Canada and good for the softwood lumber industry. The agreement eliminates U.S. duties, returns more than $4.3 billion to producers, provides stability for industry, and brings an end to this long-running dispute and costly litigation between Canada and the United States. The return of more than $4 billion U.S. marks a significant infusion of capital for the industry and will benefit workers and communities.

Canada and the United States can now turn the page on this dispute and we can direct our full attention to building a stronger, more competitive North America. That is the key. We can move forward now. We can turn the page and continue to move forward rather than hashing out the dithering that went on in regard to this file for the last 13 years and specifically for the last five years.

In closing, I agree with Tolko president and chief executive officer Mr. Al Thorlakson, who said:

This Agreement is a long way from perfect, but the realities of the U.S. industry and the U.S. marketplace have to be considered.

Once again, he is a realist. We are living in a real world. We do not have a perfect world and we have to come to a compromise. It reminds me of Preston Manning, who sat in this House for many years, and of his perspective on Canadians and working on and negotiating deals. He once said, “Why did the Canadian cross the road? It was to get to the middle”.

I think this agreement is a great compromise for Canadians and North Americans in general. We can work in harmony together as we move forward.

Canadian companies can compete and outperform American producers. This is because of the quality and abundance of our timber resources as well as the ingenuity, efficiency and dedication of our rank and file workers. Our softwood lumber companies, because of the past five years, have been forced to be leaner and more efficient. With this agreement about to be implemented, I am fully confident in the upcoming prosperity for our forestry sector.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about the softwood lumber agreement and add my support to Bill C-24, which will bring it to life. I ask all members of the House to join me in supporting it.

As the Minister of International Trade indicated in his speech yesterday, the softwood agreement is good for industry, good for lumber communities and good for Canada. This is particularly true in my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, which relies heavily on the softwood lumber industry.

This agreement eliminates U.S. duties, ends costly litigation, takes our lumber producers out of the courts, provides stability for industry and returns more than $5 billion. 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 industry and the provinces. There are a number of good reasons for this support, but perhaps one of the more significant reasons is that this agreement respects the diversity of Canada's lumber industry.

As the House knows, the lumber industry across the country is varied and different regions have unique challenges and opportunities. Today I would like to highlight some of the regional benefits of the agreement and explain how it responds to a wide variety of needs across the country.

First, the 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 U.S. $355 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, an export charge with the charge varying with price; or option B, an export charge plus volume restraint, where both the rate and volume restraint vary with the price.

This innovative mechanism will allow provinces to choose the export charge that is right for their individual economic and commercial situation. I should point out that funds collected under either option will stay in Canada.

Provinces and industry also asked for flexibility in export quota rules to be able to meet their U.S. customers' requirements. In response, the government negotiated provisions allowing companies to carry forward or carry back up to 12% of their monthly export quota 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. Under the agreement, they will know and can take full advantage of a stable, predictable business environment.

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 provinces within 18 months of the agreement entering into force.

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

It protects provincial jurisdiction in undertaking forest management policy 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. It also ensures that independent lumber remanufacturers, which do not hold tenure and are independent from tenure holders, do not have to pay an export charge on the value-added component of their products. This represents a significant improvement in treatment compared to previous agreements.

In addition to these benefits and the flexibility built in for provinces, the agreement also addresses region specific concerns that were raised by different provinces and stakeholders throughout the negotiation process.

For example, the agreement provides a limit on the export charge imposed on high value lumber products such as western red cedar lumber, which is primarily produced on the B.C. coast.

Through the agreement's anti-circumvention provisions, it also recognizes the importance of B.C.'s forest policy. B.C.'s market pricing system and any updates or modifications to the system have been given a full exemption under this agreement.

In response to Canadian industry concerns regarding the exemption of coastal logs and lumber and running rules that govern the administration of export measures, the U.S. has also confirmed that it is prepared to engage in early discussions to ensure the agreement operates in a commercially viable manner.

The agreement also directly responds to concerns expressed by Quebec, Atlantic Canada and the territories.

For instance, the border measures will not apply to the export of lumber products manufactured at Quebec border mills, a key position supported by the government of Quebec and its industry. In fact, the government achieved exclusions from border measures for a total of 32 companies in Quebec and Ontario, including the Quebec border mills.

The agreement ensures that lumber produced from logs harvested in the Atlantic provinces which are certified by the Maritime Lumber Bureau will not be subject to border measures. It ensures that lumber produced in the Atlantic provinces from logs harvested in the state of Maine is exempt from the border measures, a key component of bilateral trade in that region.

Also, it exempts from border measures lumber produced in the territories.

These elements of the agreement respond directly to the concerns raised by the provinces and industry throughout the negotiation period. They have helped garner a broad, substantial base of approval for this agreement in regions across Canada.

I am proud to lend my support to this hard-won agreement and to Bill C-24, which will bring it into force. Today I ask my fellow parliamentarians to do the same.

In conclusion, let me echo the words of Premier Gordon Campbell from my home province of British Columbia:

It's time for the costly litigation and instability experienced over the last decade to end and for a new chapter in British Columbia's ongoing forestry revitalization to begin.

I could not agree more.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

We have now debated on Bill C-24 actually for 20 minutes in excess of five hours, so from this moment henceforth all further interventions will be for 10 minutes plus five minutes for questions.

I now recognize the hon. member for Richmond.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-24 which will implement Canada's obligations under the recently signed softwood lumber agreement.

Two weeks ago, the hon. Minister of International Trade joined with his American counterpart to sign the softwood lumber agreement. I have been in the House for almost 13 years and for all the time I have been here this softwood lumber issue has been a real serious bone of contention between the United States and Canada. It has been a serious irritant between our two countries and it has affected not only the lumber industry but trade generally in a very negative fashion between our two countries.

I am delighted to see this agreement finally reached. For those who have been following this dispute, I am sure many of us really thought it would be something we would never see in our time in politics, certainly in my case, or in our lifetime. There simply had not been any progress made on this issue until the past few months when our trade minister and the Prime Minister, and our Canadian Ambassador to the United States took this issue and paid special attention to it and finally made things happen.

Is everyone in the industry happy with this agreement? Absolutely not. There could never be an agreement quite frankly which would satisfy everyone in the industry, but does the industry recognize that this deal is a good deal? Yes, it does. It realizes that it is simply better than anything that has been talked about in the past seriously and certainly anything that has been agreed to in the past.

This agreement has left Canada's lumber industry, which has been in an extremely unstable position for a long time, finally with an agreement that it can count on for the next several years. I am delighted to be here speaking to the implementation of the bill which would actually implement this agreement.

Working with our American counterparts, Canada's new government was able to accomplish something that governments have not been able to accomplish in the past and this agreement is one which is highly favourable to Canada and to Canadian industry. Some others in the House have talked about the specifics of that. Some others have certainly talked about the importance of the money which will flow to the industry at a time when the industry is having serious problems. Lumber prices have dropped quite dramatically and the industry is in trouble. We recognize this. A lot of jobs depend on this industry.

This is an issue which is not just talking about the financial situation or finances, it is talking about jobs in the softwood lumber industry. There are tens of thousands of jobs in this industry and this agreement will allow most of those jobs to be kept where otherwise they would not, they would be lost. This is an agreement which is clearly good for the softwood lumber industry. It is good for the lumber communities, for workers in those communities, and it is good for our country. The softwood lumber industry is a huge industry in this country. The importance of this industry is not to be understated.

This agreement ends costly litigation which has been going on for the 13 years I have been in the House. It ends that costly litigation. It takes our lumber producers out of the courts and provides stability for the industry and it returns $4.4 billion roughly to Canadian businesses, to companies involved in the softwood lumber industry.

As I said, it is such a vital time for the industry, a time when the industry is in a serious state of decline with prices declining, many companies on the brink. I would suggest that this money will keep many of those companies from going out of business and those jobs being lost.

Clearly, this is a good agreement for Canada. Bill C-24 will allow Canada to fully implement its commitments under the softwood lumber agreement. That is what Bill C-24 is all about. As anyone watching would know, it is not about rewriting a deal. That is not on the table. The deal has been signed. The deal has been finalized. This is simply about implementation. Both governments have agreed to this deal. It is an agreement between Canada and the United States. This is about the implementation of the deal.

Bill C-24 will permit the government to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and on refunds of duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize payments to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other acts as a consequence of this deal. That is what this agreement is all about, to make it clear.

When listening to some others in the House and their presentations, we would never know that. Members would think that this bill was somehow about the agreement itself, about renegotiating the deal. Of course, that is not at all what it is about. That is not on the table. That is not going to happen. It is a good deal. I think we should be delighted that that is not going to happen.

As parliamentarians consider the merits of this bill, I would ask that they also consider the alternative to this agreement. This is something that I think is worth every one of us considering. The fact is we do not have to look too far into the past to see what life would be like without this agreement.

Our lumber producers have spent the better part of the last two decades engaged in a number of drawn out legal battles with the United States. We have had some that have said that we are going to win these and we should go ahead. I will talk a little bit about that in just a minute.

These members have missed firsthand the deep influence of the protectionist voices in the United States. They know the toll, both human and financial, that this dispute has taken. These long drawn out battles have had an extremely negative impact on the industry. Despite the clear cost of letting this agreement slide, some will continue to say that Canada was on the verge of a complete legal victory and should continue down the path of litigation.

Let me be clear on this point, even if, and it is a big if, even if Canada were to be ultimately successful when it comes to litigation, the United States industry could file a petition and request the imposition of new duty orders immediately thereafter. If we were successful in this round, the Americans would refile and would continue with the litigation.

I might add that this possibility was raised by the U.S. trade representative Susan Schwab herself when she was in Ottawa to sign this agreement. It has been raised by many others in the past. We have seen from the history of what has happened over the past two decades that the Americans would do that. That is exactly what could happen.

Any members of the House who are suggesting that we should just carry it through and finish with this agreement, and we will win and we will get all the money back, the $4.4 billion plus almost another billion dollars, they are not being realistic. I would ask parliamentarians to consider those people working in lumber communities right across this country, to consider what taking this risk and what taking this course of action would do to them, and what they would prefer, a continuation of this dispute, all the time, effort and money that this path requires, or the practical and immediate solution offered by this hard won agreement.

I would ask the members of this House to carefully consider these two alternatives. Those are the only alternatives. They are the only real alternatives that are before this House, to either take this deal, which is a deal many in the industry have said is not exactly what we want. It is not a perfect deal and we know that, but it is a good deal. It is good for the industry, good for companies involved, good for workers and good for the country. So do we take that deal, or do we take our chances on litigation? I would suggest that continuing litigation is really good for lawyers, but it is good for no one else.

I would say that the odds are extremely high that the litigation would continue for some time down the road, new challenges would be brought forth, and in the end we would have an industry in turmoil. I would suggest that a lot of companies would go out of business over the next year or two under that scenario, and this agreement will prevent that for many of them. Because of that, this deal will save a lot of jobs for people in the softwood lumber industry.

After careful consideration of the facts, I am confident that parliamentarians will come to the same conclusion that the provinces and the industry have come to, and that certainly I and members of my party have come to, that this agreement is in fact the best option for our country.

Today I ask all members of the House to support Bill C-24. This bill will help us to write the final chapter in this dispute. It will put it behind us and get us back to the business of making a more competitive North America and a more competitive and prosperous Canada for generations to come. That is what this deal will do.

For members who are talking like they will not be supporting the deal, I am confident that after they have talked to people in the industry in their areas and considered the consequences of this not going through, we will get enough support in the House. I am confident that this implementation legislation will pass and we will move on to some other critical issues facing our country right now, issues that we should be dealing with on an urgent basis.

I am looking forward to any questions that members opposite may have.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-24, Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006.

The purpose of the bill is to give effect to the softwood lumber agreement that the Conservative minority government and the Bush administration reached on July 1. The bill sets terms and conditions for the repayment of countervailing and anti-dumping duties to companies. It also sets terms and conditions for the return to Washington of the billion dollars that Quebec and Canadian companies have to leave on the table.

Lastly, this legislation sets trade barriers that will govern the softwood lumber trade between Canada and the United States, including the export tax and export permits, and authorizes the payment of export tax revenue to the provinces.

As some of my colleagues have already stated, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-24, but without enthusiasm.

It is important to remember that the industry stated nearly unanimously that this agreement was not satisfactory. However, given the catastrophic situation in which the Quebec and Canadian forestry industry finds itself, the industry concluded that it was better to accept this bad deal than to continue fighting in the courts.

The unreasonable attitude of the Conservative minority government, in its refusal to listen and support the interests of our industry, certainly contributed to weakening the industry and forcing it to accept this agreement.

Unlike the Conservatives, we consulted the industries and the workers in Quebec's forestry sector. We came to the conclusion that we had no choice but to accept this agreement because this industry had its back to the wall and could not keep up the fight. With no support from this government and a number of its businesses in serious financial difficulty, the industry and representatives of the forestry workers reluctantly chose to accept this agreement and thereby recoup some of the countervailing duties and anti-dumping charges it paid to Washington.

Let us not forget that it was our industries' money that was paid out and is being given back. They asked us to support this agreement and we will do so. To do otherwise would have been irresponsible of the Bloc Québécois and disrespectful to our industries' requests.

When we look at how the negotiations have unfolded since it was announced on July 1 that a deal had been reached, we can understand how the Conservative government's attitude toward the forestry industry and workers leaves a bad taste.

On July 1, 2006, when the international trade ministers from Canada and the United States initialled the text of the agreement to indicate that their governments approved it, something absolutely unbelievable happened. The Conservative government had not even consulted the industry before initialling the text of the final agreement. The industry ended up with an agreement signed by a government that had not even checked whether the industry was happy with it.

We quickly noticed, when the Standing Committee on International Trade met this summer, to what extent a number of Quebec's and Canada's forestry industries and unions were unhappy with the softwood lumber agreement reached between the Conservative government and the Bush administration. It is not surprising that several of them considered this agreement incomplete and asked for improvements to it.

Unfortunately, this government did not see the importance of the demands and needs being expressed, and decided not to provide them with help or support.

Instead of giving the industry ultimatums, and stubbornly imposing a botched agreement, the Conservative government should have endorsed the industry's requests for improvement and thrown all its weight into efforts to obtain those improvements.

Instead, this government decided to back the industry into a corner and force it to accept this agreement with the Bush administration, the Conservative Party's new best friend. It is obvious, I think, that the government was much more sensitive to other interests and more anxious to please them than to serve the interests of our industries and workers. Yet the improvements requested by our forest industries and unions were perfectly legitimate and deserved to be considered.

I would like to talk briefly about some of the improvements requested in particular by the Quebec Forest Industry Council. One of the council’s concerns had to do with making the export charges and quotas more flexible, that is to say, Option B. The industry in Quebec was quite rightly concerned that the agreement provided for monthly quotas—one-twelfth of the annual quota. In case of major shipments, the restrictions on exceeding their monthly quotas were so tight that companies might not be able to honour their contract or even reach their full annual quota.

It is important to remember that the construction industry is cyclical and lumber deliveries can easily vary considerably from month to month. Unfortunately, this issue was not resolved and the government has not made any particular commitments. At best, the binational council that is supposed to oversee the agreement will deal with this. The Bloc Québécois hopes that the government will attempt to make the monthly export ceilings more flexible through the binational council.

The Forest Industry Council raised other concerns about the termination clause. The agreement is theoretically for seven years and can be extended for another two years if both countries agree. At least that is what the agreement in principle said. To the surprise of many, however, the final text says that Washington can end the agreement at any time after it has been in effect for 18 months by providing six months' notice, as the hon. member for Shefford pointed out in his last question.

If the agreement is cancelled, the U.S. government cannot institute procedures to impose antidumping and countervailing duties for a period of one year. This means that the industry is assured of only three years of trade peace. We are far from the lasting trade peace claimed by the minority Conservative government. It is easy to see why the industry was so concerned about this provision in view of the fact that it is leaving a billion dollars on the table in order to obtain lasting peace. But the final agreement does not guarantee it.

It is very apparent, therefore, that the concerns raised by the Quebec Forest Industry Council in particular were perfectly legitimate and deserved to be taken seriously by the government.

This morning, the Quebec Forest Industry Council also raised the problem of Asian competition that is going to challenge our softwood lumber industry and hurt our companies.

I have spoken about the fact that the attitude of the Conservative government had left a bitter taste with many people. I listened with interest to the hon. members from the Liberal Party and I must confess that their remarks also left me puzzled. From the start of this dispute in 2002, the Bloc Québécois called for the introduction of a support program that provided loan guarantees to enable companies to avoid bankruptcy. For more than four years, the Liberal government, like the Conservatives now, refused to do so. During the last election campaign however the Conservatives made a promise to issue loan guarantees for companies.

I imagine that the Liberals, now that they are in opposition, have begun to see all the damage they caused because of their lack of political will, while the Conservatives have probably forgotten the promises they made during the election campaign.

For those of us in the Bloc Québécois, only sovereignty will enable us to be masters of our own economy.

In addition, our plan also proposed measures for greater flexibility of employment insurance to facilitate access and extend the benefit period to ensure income for workers affected by this crisis. Our plan offered support for transition programs to encourage new directions in the Quebec forest industry.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois called for Ottawa to assume the legal costs of the companies who were victims of this legal harassment by the United States. Those costs to date have exceeded $350 million. It has never been proven that our softwood lumber was subsidized or that we engaged in dumping.

We are convinced that these measures would have enabled those workers and industries to survive this dispute. If the Bloc Québécois supports the agreement, it is not because we believe it is a good one. It is only because the industry no longer has any choice and has asked us to support this agreement.

The government—as we saw this morning in the media—has a surplus of $13 billion, which will be applied against the debt. Not one cent will be spent to support our industries, either in textiles, furniture or softwood lumber. The government is too far removed from the needs of the people.

Between 2002 and 2005, more than 10,000 Quebec workers were affected, sometimes permanently. Recently, the situation has again deteriorated.

According to data from the Quebec Forest Industry Council, no fewer than 7,000 jobs have been lost in the forestry and furniture industries since April 2005, while another 5,000 jobs continue to be threatened. Business failures have multiplied and those companies that have survived are in serious financial difficulty.

Considering these figures and the attitude of the federal government, we understand why the industry had no other choice and has decided to stop fighting in the courts and to accept this agreement.

Contrary to what the Conservatives say, the Bloc Québécois is convinced that even though the bill must be adopted, the government cannot claim to have solved the problems that the industry is facing.

The industry is having structural problems and the softwood lumber agreement does not solve them. Moreover, the president of the FTQ, Henri Massé, has clearly indicated that, in view of this agreement, the Conservatives now have an obligation to take real action to help the industry get through the major crisis it has been going through for many years.

This is why the Bloc Québécois wants the federal government—this fall—to present a series of measures to help the forest industry, which is facing serious difficulties at the very time it is emerging from a lengthy trade dispute in a weakened state. The measures would also support the furniture industry before it gets caught up in a catastrophe it cannot get out of—like the textile industry.

In particular, these measures include an income support program for older workers. Such a program would be designed for workers aged 55 who are unable to re-enter the work force and were victims of mass layoffs. It will bridge the period between employment insurance and pension for numerous people who have been victims of the softwood lumber crisis.

Also, the measures we are putting forward contain proposals directed towards the communities.

We are proposing an increase in the community economic adjustment initiative for forest-dependent communities. We believe, however, that such funds should be transferred to the Government of Quebec to avoid overlapping and so that the program is better adapted to Quebec’s needs and so that it is, of course, closer to these needs. We have seen how removed Ottawa is from the industries’ needs.

This program should be accompanied by an increase in the funding for Canada's Model Forest Program run by the Canadian Forest Service and special tax status for the 128,000 owners of private woodlots in Quebec.

Finally, we are proposing a series of measures to help businesses. These measures include a special tax treatment for the $4.3 billion in countervailing and anti-dumping duties that will be refunded by the American authorities to take into account the damage suffered by the companies; a program to stimulate innovation within the forest industry and improve its productivity; and policies designed to support diversification of the markets and marketing of wood.

Some of these measures will become pointless if they are not presented this year and if they are not supported by the minority Conservative government and by all representatives in this House.

As everyone knows, this year is a decisive one for the forest industry. Let us hope that this time the government will pay attention and will take advantage of its economic and fiscal update to announce these measures.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about Bill C-24, which will implement Canada's obligations under the softwood lumber agreement. I ask all members of the House to recognize and support this bill.

Clearly, this softwood lumber agreement is good for industry, good for lumber communities and good for Canada. The previous member spoke about examples within his riding that speak volumes to how good a deal this is and how it will support local industry. It eliminates punitive U.S. duties. It ends costly litigation which has gone on for far too long.

I have listened to many members in the House during this debate talk about how close we were to an agreement, that with one more judge's ruling we would have it beat. My argument to that is that I have met lawyers whose entire careers have been based on negotiating softwood lumber.

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, growing their enterprises and contributing to Canada's economy.

It provides stability for an industry hit hard by years of trade action and drawn out litigation. 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 the flexibility to choose the border measures most beneficial to their economic situation. I should add that all export charge revenues collected by the Government of Canada through these border measures will stay in Canada, in direct contrast to what these lumber companies have been facing up until now.

The agreement returns more than $4.4 billion U.S., a significant infusion of capital for the lumber industry and the workers and communities that rely on it. We have even developed a unique deposits mechanism to ensure that lumber companies receive their money as quickly as possible, within four to eight weeks of filling out and returning the necessary legal and administrative documents after the agreement enters into force.

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. Moreover, it directly responds to the specific issues and concerns raised by industry and the provinces. For instance, it recognizes provincial market based reforms and preserves provincial authority 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 export 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.

I am pleased to say that the agreement has the support of two national governments and all the key lumber producing provinces, as well as an overwhelming majority of industry players. The next step belongs to parliamentarians.

Bill C-24 will implement Canada's commitments under this agreement. In particular, it provides authority to impose export charges when lumber prices are below $355 per thousand board feet and it gives provinces the flexibility they need to choose the right border option for their economic situation.

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 short order, what no other government could: put an end to this dispute and start directing our full attention to building a stronger, more competitive North America. I would ask all members of the House to join me in supporting this bill and putting this dispute behind us.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak in support of Bill C-24. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Macleod.

My riding has a significant component of forestry operations, actually running along the entire east section of my riding all the way from the Grand Falls area all the way over to almost Boistown in the middle of New Brunswick.

It has to be understood that forestry is an important aspect of the New Brunswick economy as well as my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac. I have some statistics from the New Brunswick Forest Products Association. In New Brunswick, forestry accounts for 23,400 direct and indirect jobs with $1.1 billion in wages and salaries. It is significant that 40 rural communities depend on some aspect of the industry for their existence. In Tobique—Mactaquac communities like Juniper, Plaster Rock, Bristol, Napadogan and Hainesville are all impacted.

When we think of the impact, what do these revenues get us? Forestry revenues cover 200 hospital beds, 20 schools and 400 teachers. That is the kind of thing that forestry contributes to the economy in New Brunswick.

For example, this past Saturday, I was in Plaster Rock for the 100th anniversary of operations of the Fraser Company. At the ceremony a Fraser executive stood to state how appreciative the company was of the government's stance to get this deal done. It wanted the lumber deal to go through and for it to happen now.

Make no mistake about it, the industry in Atlantic Canada wants this deal. It was appreciative of what we have done and felt that this was a chance to pave the way for its next 100 years of operations, the certainty that this deal will give it for the next seven to nine years.

I have heard many statements about winning the next legal challenge, that this would be over, let us wait it out, and see what is going to happen. I can say that the industry people in my riding are under no illusion that this would be over with any next legal challenge. The only certainty that they see with the continued battle in the courts is that more money is going to be spent on lawyers, not on the industry, not the communities and most of all, not on the people in these communities who need the support.

The Atlantic provinces have been fortunate to have the support of the Maritime Lumber Bureau under the leadership of Diana Blenkhorn in this whole escapade over the last 20 years. The bureau has presented a united front for maritime lumber in protecting our industry as a non-subsidized industry. During the past summer, Ms. Blenkhorn provided testimony to the Standing Committee on International Trade where she talked at length about the maritime exemption, how hard the Atlantic provinces have worked for the exemption, the tracking of lumber and the certificate of origin processes. All of those have exempted our Atlantic industry from issues and problems.

At the same committee, the industry critic for the Liberals, and the member Beauséjour, praised the agreement for protecting Atlantic Canada's interests. As an Atlantic Canadian, I am certainly pleased that the agreement protects the rights we have fought hard to ensure are protected.

I am not sure how industry can reconcile the comments made by the hon. member for Beauséjour in July to his lack of commitment to the industry that he demonstrates by opposing this deal and going on at length yesterday in his speech in this place.

I asked a representative from Fraser, why would Atlantic Liberal and NDP MPs not back this deal? I do not understand. In fact, there are reams of paper in letters sent to every Atlantic MP asking us to support this deal, that it is a good deal for Atlantic Canada. They come from all over the riding. They asked us to support this and get behind it. The representative had no idea. He could not understand it, but he did assure me of one thing, that he would hear about it from his industry representatives coming forward.

As my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley stated in the debate yesterday, the industry in Atlantic Canada has worked hard to gain efficiencies in its operations. The industry has striven to identify value added opportunities and the kinds of value and investment it needs to do that. People in the industry have worked hard to keep our rural communities alive. They want resolution. They want the certainty that this deal provides. They want to move forward. They have gotten their exemption.

I point to a relatively small sawmill in the Hainesville area of my riding. The owner wants to explore new business opportunities. He knows that in this down market he needs to be able to do things and create value added opportunities. An accelerated rebate is a key for him. Like other mill owners in my riding, he has no false illusions that the next court case or continued legal action will produce the results that he is expecting or will get him his money any faster. That accelerated rebate is a key.

This deal will deliver financial results mere weeks after going into effect. That is what these people are looking for. In fact someone from a sawmill called me yesterday saying, “We are going to need the money. I have deferred my investments. I want to put in a new saw operation. As well, I might be looking at a new pellet mill in my operation”. All these kinds of things are important investments that folks in my riding want to make to create value, not only for their sawn lumber but also for their low grade fibre.

I also want to applaud our Atlantic members who, with the Maritime Lumber Bureau, discovered the need for a minor wording change to ensure that Bill C-24 guarantees the exemption for Atlantic Canada. As my colleague pointed out yesterday, it is an important recognition by the Minister of International Trade to ensure that we say exemption and not zero rated. It may be minor but it is a very important and key thing for Atlantic Canada.

I want to conclude with a few comments and examples of support that I can point to over the last little while. The provincial governments in Atlantic Canada support the agreement. Many questions have been asked in this House over the past couple of days of whether people have checked with their premiers to see if they were taken out behind the woodshed and browbeaten to support this deal. I have not heard an answer to any of those yet.

The industry in Atlantic Canada supports this agreement. How could Atlantic Liberal and NDP MPs vote against it? The Maritime Lumber Bureau is a strong supporter of the agreement. How could Atlantic Liberal and NDP MPs vote against it? The new Liberal premier of New Brunswick is on record as supporting this agreement. How could Atlantic Canadian and New Brunswick MPs vote against this?

In contrast, not so long ago the Liberals were prepared to accept much less of a deal. As the minister has pointed out, he cannot believe how much of a better deal we have. The Conservative government ensured the Atlantic Canada's lumber industry was protected and its exemption maintained. The Liberal trade minister at the time admitted that the Liberals had been ready to trade away Atlantic Canada's interests as a bargaining chip. I guess Liberal MPs have to toe the party line. They do not have to vote for what is good for Atlantic Canada.

This is a good deal for Atlantic Canada. It is a good deal for Canadians. Two governments support it. The Government of Canada supports it. The industry strongly supports it. I urge members of this House to throw the partisanship aside and get behind this deal.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that both the NAFTA and WTO panels have ruled continually that our softwood industry has not been subsidized. In fact, the current provisions of Bill C-24 are going to create an export tax that at current price levels will actually be higher than current U.S. duties. It also would create a problem down the road, obviously, with regard to future deals.

Does the member have the same view we do that this is a sellout and that the industry has been bullied into switching its position from being opposed initially and then suddenly miraculously and out of the blue turning around and deciding to go for this sellout?

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity today to talk about my concerns and the concerns of so many others in my riding that have been expressed to me about how this softwood lumber deal is bad for Canada.

I think everyone wants a softwood lumber deal, but the tariffs and the court challenges that have been plaguing the softwood industry for many years now have had a negative effect on forest dependent communities in my riding and across this country, and they were court challenges that the Canadian industry won over and over again.

The Conservatives campaigned on getting tough with the Americans, on standing up for Canada and Canadian interests, but instead they got tough with Canadian lumber companies. With the signing of this deal, they have negotiated away all of Canada's wins at the NAFTA tribunal and have put workers and communities in jeopardy.

Canadians should be very worried about this deal and what it means, not just for the softwood industry, but for all industry. When the U.S. can take Canada to court and it is proved that Canada is innocent at every level of appeal and tribunal, that Canada does not subsidize the softwood industry, and still the Government of Canada signs off on a deal that gives away the very thing we won, full compensation, the precedent this sets must have implications for every industry in this country that does business south of the border.

How can anyone agree to a precedent such as this? It sells out our ability and our credibility in the international courts, not to mention world public opinion.

This deal leaves more than $1 billion on the table. That is a lot of money. That money should be coming back to Canadian softwood lumber companies to invest here in impacted forest communities. Because of the length of time during which the softwood crisis has dragged on and because of inaction by the previous government, forest communities have suffered. There has been a serious under-investment in mills in this country because it is cheaper to send raw logs across the border than to pay the tariffs on processed lumber.

In my riding on Vancouver Island North, where I have heard very little support for this deal, workers, community leaders and small lumber companies are telling me that this deal will spell the end of their existence. Without the prospect of seeing a 100% return of the illegally taken tariffs, no hope of loan guarantees and, if a company does not sign on to this deal, a 19% levy, they are feeling pressure to support this softwood sellout.

The NDP called on the government for loan guarantees for affected companies to get them through the litigation process that they were on the verge of winning. Loan guarantees would have allowed cash-strapped companies to continue operating to possibly upgrade their mills instead of downsizing and maybe shutting down, but the government refused to assist those companies. In so doing, it refused to assist the workers and the communities in which they live.

When it becomes cheaper for the industry to export raw logs to the U.S. than to process them into lumber in our small communities, it effectively closes those mills, mills that provided good paying, family supporting jobs in coastal communities. There is nothing in the softwood deal which will ensure that mills will once again flourish, and communities along with them.

Not only are the lumber mills disappearing, but pulp mills are having a hard time getting fibre to make their product. Fibre in the form of wood chips from sawmills used to be plentiful and easily accessible, but with the closure of those mills not any more. Pulp and paper operations have to seek out fibre supplies from outside the province and the country, in fact sometimes buying the very wood chips of logs milled in the U.S. that grew in the same area as the pulp mill. It makes no sense.

The value added sector in this country is quickly disappearing and the government is doing nothing to stop the export of raw logs and processing jobs.

How do I tell those workers and those communities affected by this deal that it is in their best interest when we all know it is not?

The fact that over a billion dollars is not coming back to Canada is one thing, but let us take a look at where it is going and what it could be used for. Of the billion dollars Canada's softwood industry workers and communities will never see, $500 million will go to subsidize the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports.

Canada is giving away $500 million to the very aggressor of this trade war, which purported unfairly that our industry was subsidized, to use against us in the future. If ever there were a schoolyard bully in this situation, and there seem to be two, the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports is one of them.

As for the other $450 million, that is going directly to the George Bush administration to use at its discretion without congress approval or accountability. How can anyone justify it, no matter what it might be used for?

The other bully in this situation is the Conservative government, which is giving away Canadian dollars to the U.S. even though the Canadian softwood lumber industry won every NAFTA dispute and was awarded full compensation. It is like taking lunch money from little kids and giving it to the bullies who beat them up at recess so the bullies can buy bigger sticks to whack them in the future. How can this possibly be good for Canada? How is this fair?

The government may say that it has the support of industry and the provinces, but much of that support was conditional and the provinces were pressured to sign on. We know that less than 95% of the companies signed on by the government's due date. Much of that support was on the condition that the government in fact met its 95% threshold.

That did not stop the government from implementing punitive taxes of 19% on those who refused to sign up, another bullying tactic. It says that if they do not sign up and give 20% of company returns away, the government will take it away when they win 100% at litigation. How is that showing support for industry? That 19% just might be the straw that breaks the camel's back for some in the industry, yet the government will not support them with a process that they have every right to engage in and were about to win.

Then there is the issue of stability and certainty for the softwood lumber industry. The government has said that this deal will give seven to nine years of certainty in the industry, but if we look closely at this deal we see that it can be unilaterally cancelled at any time after just 18 months. Therefore, it does not provide predictability or stability to the softwood lumber industry.

The U.S. can also terminate the agreement immediately if it feels that Canada has not complied with the terms. Given its track record of imposing illegal tariffs in the first place, how can we be sure that the U.S. will not unilaterally decide to end the deal, regardless of a side letter that says it will not casually terminate it? There is no guarantee. Unfortunately, because of the events of the last several years, it will be difficult to trust the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports once it has that $500 million of our money.

Supporting Bill C-24 means we would be voting confidence in the government. We are not prepared to do that, since we are not convinced that this deal is the best deal we can get. If the government had let the extraordinary challenge committee review panel do its job, instead of cancelling it, Canada would have won once and for all a 100% return of the illegally taken tariffs and all that money would now be flowing back to Canadian industry, communities and workers, not into the pockets of U.S. lobbyists and George Bush.

By undercutting our legal victories, the government has set a dangerous precedent that Canada will capitulate to American industry despite having a winning case. This precedent is as troubling for the lumber sector as it is for any other industrial sector. This deal is a betrayal of resource communities in British Columbia and across Canada.

In fact, just yesterday the government added to its list of betrayals of resource communities by cutting over $11 million from the pine beetle initiative. Ironically, on the same day, the government produced a press release saying the beetle knows no bounds and is threatening the boreal forest.

Also, $20 million has been cut from the DFO, money that could have been used for enhancement, enforcement and upgrading infrastructure.

The government has also cut money from western diversification, money that has not yet been allocated. The government is calling it unused program funding, but it is hard to allocate funding when everything is frozen.

It is an ongoing list. These betrayals of rural communities are becoming a shameful pattern in this minority Parliament. The sooner it ends, the better off Canada will be.

I have said it before and I will say it again: this is the same bad deal that was introduced months ago. It is the same bad deal that workers refused to support because they know their jobs are at stake. It is the same bad deal that industry refused to support until it was bullied by the government into signing on. It is the same bad deal that the NDP did not support in the beginning and will not support in the end.

It is our job as members of Parliament to defend Canadian interests, to defend Canadian jobs, and to defend Canadian communities, not sell them out.

The House resumed from September 25 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.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would argue that we are talking about two completely different discussions here. The motion that was put forward and carried at the previous meeting was discussing the potential softwood lumber agreement.

If we decided to travel now it would be to have discussions on Bill C-24. We would need a completely different motion from this committee...two totally different discussions.

[The Clerk]

What you have is a motion requesting or ordering the chair to present a budget proposal to the liaison committee. That's the first point. It is not to make the arrangements, as you pointed out, Mr. Julian, which is a fair comment; it's really to seek permission to travel.

The second step, if the liaison committee approves, is for the House leaders to give permission to travel. A prerequisite for any motion to travel is dates. If you don't have dates, it's difficult to determine when you'll travel.

If you want to travel on the softwood lumber legislation, Bill C-24, it is in front of the House at the moment. As you pointed out, if it comes to committee.... I know there's an amendment and a subamendment in the House at the moment, so it is difficult to do a budget and a proposal for travel, because there are no dates.

I don't want to prejudge the liaison committee, but from my experience I would be surprised that they would approve a budget based on hypothetical travel, because you don't have the dates. It's a bit of a conundrum.

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

Mr. Chair, this committee has adopted a motion. That is what was adopted by the committee. The direction we've given to you as chair, and to the clerk, is to arrange those hearings.

We have a bill that will be coming forward, presumably, if it passes second reading, and it will involve hearings in any event. So we're not talking about past business, we're talking about current business. We need to know what the impact is in the Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay region, in northern Quebec, which is Pierre Paquette's motion. We need to know what the impact is in northwestern Ontario, which was Mr. Boshcoff's motion. We need to know what the impact is in British Columbia.

It's very pertinent, it's very relevant, and I think the residents of those areas have already expressed real interest in these hearings. If this committee adopts a motion that cancels those hearings, I think folks in those regions would like to hear about it. We have a motion—it was adopted—that directs the chair and the clerk to structure those hearings. We also have work that would be coming forward that meshes very well with the hearings.

So I would suggest that we just continue, given that we have the motion and given that we have adopted this attempt to go to those three regions, and we proceed to mesh the hearings on the second reading of Bill C-24, at the committee stage--assuming it passes second reading--with hearings in the region. Rather than having folks, the few wealthy, come to Ottawa to express their points of view, we go to the regions. That's what we should be doing as parliamentarians to hear firsthand what the impact of Bill C-24 will be in those regions.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-24 which will implement Canada's obligations under the softwood lumber agreement. Let me say right off the top that I urge all members of the House to support this bill.

The main point I would like to make is a simple one, that the softwood lumber agreement is good for industry, it is good for lumber communities and it is good for Canada. It is an agreement that, as we have been saying here, enjoys a broad base of support. It is an agreement that brings many benefits to our lumber industry. It is an agreement that will help us take the next steps in building a stronger economic future for Canadians and Americans alike.

Let me start by saying that the agreement did not come about by itself. It is the result of a strong Canadian position, one forged with the active involvement of industry and provinces.

In fact, in direct response to industry concerns, the agreement contains two important clarifications. One is a 12 month standstill period upon expiry of the agreement, under which the U.S. cannot bring new trade action against Canadian softwood producers. There is also a requirement for a six month notice period if either party wants to terminate the agreement--of course, we do not expect that to happen--also with a 12 month standstill period if the U.S. should terminate the agreement early.

In response to Canadian industry concerns regarding the exemption of coastal logs and lumber, the U.S. has also confirmed that it is prepared to engage in early bilateral discussions to ensure the agreement operates in a commercially viable manner.

The agreement also stems from the dedication of countless officials across government and on both sides of the border.

Ambassador Wilson and Ambassador Wilkins and their staff here in Ottawa and Washington deserve our thanks for their hard work and steadfast commitment. We owe a great debt to the member for Vancouver Kingsway, our Minister of International Trade, for finally bringing this agreement to completion.

The provinces along with our softwood lumber industry were instrumental in shaping Canada's negotiating position. The premiers of British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario in particular deserve our appreciation for their ability to see beyond partisan concerns and add their support to our efforts to put an end to this dispute.

Most significantly the agreement is the result of a new tone at the top. When our Prime Minister met with President Bush in Cancun earlier this year, they decided to give solving this issue the momentum it deserved. Thanks to their efforts and leadership we are now able to turn the page on this dispute.

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.

Frankly, I am having a hard time understanding why all B.C. MPs are not supporting this agreement. The Liberal government of British Columbia supports the agreement. In fact, B.C. forestry minister Rich Coleman asked the opposition to support the agreement. How could B.C. Liberal and NDP MPs vote against it?

The majority of the industry in B.C. supports the agreement. How could B.C. MPs not support this agreement?

The Liberals were negotiating a bad deal for Canada, especially for British Columbia. They were ready to sign a deal and only backed off so that they could run an anti-American election campaign, a campaign that did not work.

Moreover, the agreement directly responds to specific issues and concerns raised by industry and provinces. For instance, it recognizes provincial market based reforms and preserves provincial authority to manage their forest resources as they see fit.

It contains an anti-circumvention clause, a clause intended to prevent either government from taking action to circumvent or offset commitments made in the agreement. For example, grants or other benefits to producers or exporters of softwood lumber products are not allowed because they would offset border measures. But a number of measures are explicitly cited as not constituting circumvention.

For example, provincial timber pricing or forest management systems as they existed as of July 1, 2006, including any modifications or updates that maintain or improve the extent to which stumpage charges reflect market conditions, including pricing and costs are excluded.

Fluctuations in stumpage charges that result from such modifications or updates resulting from changes in market conditions or other factors that affect the value of the province's timber, such as transportation costs, exchange rates and timber quality and natural harvesting conditions do not constitute circumvention.

Actions or programs for the purpose of forest or environmental management, protection or conservation, including actions or programs to reduce wildfire risk, protect watersheds, protect, restore and enhance forest ecosystems do not constitute circumvention.

Payments or other compensation to first nations for the purposes of addressing or settling claims also are not subject to circumvention.

Note that with respect to British Columbia, the market pricing system will be considered a provincial timber or forest management system that existed as of July 1, 2006. The protection of the management system in B.C. has always been B.C.'s most important issue. At the insistence of Canada, these protections were included in the agreement.

I am happy to say that the agreement enjoys the support not only of our two national governments but also the clear majority of lumber companies and lumber producing provinces. In short, it will put an end to this long-standing dispute and begin building a brighter future for Canada's lumber industry and the 300 mill communities and 300,000 forestry workers and their families who rely on it.

The next step belongs to parliamentarians. I encourage them all to support it. As parliamentarians consider the merits of this bill, I would also ask that they consider the alternative to this agreement. It would not be a bright future. They have been there before. They have seen the toll, both human and financial, that this dispute has taken and we need to bring an end to this.

After careful consideration of the facts, I am confident that parliamentarians will come to the same conclusion that the provinces and industry have, that this agreement is the best option for Canada. I ask all members of the House to support this bill.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand today to address this issue.

Bill C-24 is, obviously, of immense importance to the people of British Columbia, a province that supports about half of the logging industry in the country. It is also of great importance to all of us.

We have heard variations from across the country of the impact in different regions and certainly in British Columbia itself there is a variety of impact on different aspects of the forest industry.

Value added manufacturers have a different interest than interior logging and mill operations. Coastal logging operations have a different interest than the interior ones. We have valuable coastal cedar being logged and being unfairly coupled with other types of timber being sent to the Untied States and it should have had a varied approach.

We have also heard the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley talk about the private land logging in the Atlantic provinces which were never caught by the subsidies here.

We have companies in northern Ontario and Quebec that are hurting desperately. To answer the question of the Bloc Québécois as to why they would support it, I fear the softwood lumber companies are facing a situation where they simply cannot afford not to take back only 80% of what they have paid under illegal dumping and countervail charges and neither can their communities and the workers.

In the other cases, we have interior forest companies in British Columbia that are highly efficient, have rationalized, are some of the most efficient mills in the world and have been making profits, notwithstanding the illegal countervail and dumping penalties, and they of course cannot afford to take only 80% back.

We have a range across the country and it is incumbent upon the Government of Canada to ensure that it embraces all those interests, which, obviously, is a complicated thing to do.

Let us look at what has happened in softwood lumber over the years. The Minister of International Trade and I have seen various aspects of this over the last 20 years. We have watched the trade in softwood lumber with the United States and various disputes that have come about over it.

We hear often from the government that it has never been managed trade in softwood lumber with the United States. That was certainly true before the free trade agreement but after the free trade agreement it was supposed to be free trade, not managed trade, and yet in various iterations and agreements where governments have given in to the pressure from the American industry, we have had quotas and we have had export duties. Now we have quotas and export duties. I fail to see how that can be a victory in terms of the softwood lumber industry.

Let us say clearly and out front that this is not about subsidies for the Canadian industry. I hope we all know that. The World Trade Organization and NAFTA panels have said it over and over that it is not about subsidies to Canadian softwood. It is about protectionism in the United States. That is what it is, that is what it will always be and I think we had better call it as it is, put it right in front of us and remember that as we see what happens going forward in the future.

We have pressures from the United States that simply will not let up. My great fear is that with all the immediate, perhaps, benefits to some aspects of the industry, some communities and their workers, that this agreement might provide in the short term, this does not provide the stability that is being suggested.

Let us think about where we were a year ago. Yes, the former Liberal government had pursued this for over four years on a number of tracks. Litigation was certainly one of them and, my goodness, it was certainly expensive and continued to be expensive. However, going through the WTO panels and the NAFTA panels where we were in the minority against the Americans, where they had two members and we had one, we continually kept winning and we have finally came close to the end. After four to five years of expensive litigation, we have come before the U.S. court of international trade, which is an American domestic court.

The one thing the American administration, quite apart from Congress and the individual sectoral lumber industry in the U.S., has always said is that at the end of the day it will change its rules because it does not want to be subject to super national arbitrations or decision making dispute resolution systems.

We got through those and then into the U.S. courts and won at one level. Yes, that could be appealed, but it was getting so close.

Yes, it is fine to talk about and it is important to appreciate the cost of continuing litigation, but it is extremely important not to throw away all of the work that has been done by litigation with the agreement of lumber councils across the country, the softwood industry, individually and collectively, the producing provinces and the federal government. We went forward and finally got to the point where it could be won and it is being thrown away. Let us not forget what we are throwing away when we measure the value of the so-called stability of this agreement.

We fool ourselves if we think we can sit here and rely on the United States in all its complexity, whether it is the administration, the Congress or sectors of their industry, when it has shown in this case its persistence in flouting the rule of law and going forward with arguments that are not being accepted by the various courts and panels.

Will we get stability with this? We know it may go for seven years, it may go for nine years or it may go for three years. I would not put a lot of trust at this stage in the system. However much the administration may intend at this time to see it go for many years and provide stability, it is not entirely in control of this issue. I think the evidence of the past suggests exactly the opposite, that we should not count on stability into the future. The fact is there will be no stability without the rule of law, which is what we are talking about here. Can we depend on agreements, on international trade obligations, on rulings of dispute resolution panels and, eventually, which we were close to, U.S. domestic courts themselves?

Yes, litigation is expensive, but to throw it away now in the name of perhaps a false stability when we are so close to a good outcome in the American courts is a great risk.

We then look at the Byrd amendment. We keep hearing from the government, depending on how it wants to scale and emphasize the amounts, whether it is U.S. dollars or Canadians dollars, that we are giving back over $1 billion American to the United States, to be used by both the the administration and Congress for projects that may be of assistance in their re-election campaigns at various times and to help various sectors of different industries in different parts of the country. Half of that $1 billion will also go to the industry itself which has been using every opportunity to encourage its government and its Congress to flout the law and avoid its responsibilities. How can we put trust in that?

The reason only half of the money will be going to the industry is because the Byrd amendment, which would otherwise allow all of it to go to the industry, over $1 billion American, was found to be against the WTO rules. Now we find, even after this agreement was signed with Canada, the American administration is appealing that WTO ruling. How can we put trust in stability in the future and in the good faith of this agreement when no sooner have we signed it than there is an attempt to get double the amount to go to the softwood industry in the U.S. to be used against Canadian industry and Canadian interest? That is not much of a deal.

We heard the member for Edmonton—Leduc say, quite appropriately, that the softwood industry, as important as it is, and it is immensely important to the province of British Columbia, is only 3% of our trade with the United States. He asked why we would worry that we do not have perfect free trade in this area when it represents such a small percentage of our overall trade with the United States.

I will tell members why we should worry. We should worry because it is a bad precedent. Ninety-seven per cent of our trade with the U.S. could be exposed to the tactics that have proven successful through the government's agreement in the softwood lumber industry. What kind of a precedent do we want to set? What kind of a risk do we want to take with this type of agreement? I suggest it is a short-sighted agreement and it does not bring stability. There is nothing in this agreement that should convince us, from past behaviour, that this will provide stability into the future.

We are not just leaving $1.4 billion or $1.5 billion in the United States as the member for Edmonton--Leduc has mentioned, which may ultimately all go to a competing industry there. We have not talked about the other $1.4 billion that was presented by the former Liberal government a year ago to go toward a number of initiatives to assist the industry in this country, the communities, and the workers. This must be added to the other $1.4 billion. Now we are getting into really large sums.

Those adjustment projects were meant to go to a whole range of things. We have heard of loan guarantees, litigation support and coordination for further negotiation. We have heard of taking the argument directly to the American consumers, one of the parties, in addition to Canadians, who are being hurt over all these years by this illegal U.S. action against Canada. The homebuilding industry and the homebuyers with aspirations to afford a home are being hurt by this U.S. action.

Where has Canada been putting its initiatives in supporting communities, workers and the industry? I will just focus on something that has not been talked about a lot and that is some of the community economic adjustment initiatives of the former government that actually bore fruit, helped stabilize communities, helped get people back to work and helped to provide some strength and support to the individual firms that were threatened.

Let us take the British Columbia part of that softwood adjustment initiative as an example because it is the province I come from. Over the last three years in the last government, $50 million went through community economic adjustment to hard hit resource communities around British Columbia. It went to diversify the economy in those communities in a number of stabilizing, helpful and growth stimulating ways.

When we look at diversification, an industry, which is a commodity industry, or part of it is, that is boom or bust vulnerable given the fluctuations in international commodity prices, that makes us extremely vulnerable. We need to add value. We need to diversify the product by adding value to widen the profit margin so that if there is a fluctuation in commodity prices we can withstand those fluctuations within broader profit margins.

In British Columbia, 145 programs were funded by the federal government in the amount of $50 million. A further $95 million was leveraged which went into 140 communities. One of the important objectives of that was the diversification by adding value added industries and providing support for them. Otherwise, we look for diversification in resource dependent communities to diversify markets. That is where a lot of this investment went and it is where part of the $1.4 billion that had been planned by the previous government would have gone.

I know that 11 ministers in the last Liberal government visited China. Of interest to all of us when we were there was how to diversify our markets away from a dependence on the United States into that huge China market. Forest products, home building and forest product-related sales and markets were a major focus of our initiatives, and those can never be forgotten.

The third part of diversification that we have to look to as an industrial strategy to move ahead and ensure that our resource-dependent communities are not subject to boom and bust or to illegal trade action by countries such as the United States, our biggest trading partner and therefore the one that can have the greatest negative impact on us, is to diversify into other sectors of the economy.

These adjustment funds, highly leveraged through private investment, also went into tourism, into economic infrastructure of various types and into the value added part of the forest products industry. About 30% of the projects, 140 or 145 projects, that were supported went to first nations to help them in their economic adjustment and over dependence on commodity-based forest products.

This is the way we need to go forward, along with litigation and negotiation and along with considering loan guarantees or whatever might be put forward. It shows an understanding of the economy, the vulnerability in our communities and the need to take a broader approach.

I am extremely concerned that we have traded away an agreement in which there is no guarantee whatsoever that there will be stability going long into the future. If the behaviour of the past is any guide, it should suggest to us the opposite.

We have a quota. We have duties. These export duties, and let us not shy away from it, are nothing more than an additional tax, and that is a tax that is going to be on our industry. Where will that money go? We have not heard about that. We can be sure that it cannot go back into the forest products industry or we will have a cancellation of this agreement with countervail action by the United States as fast as we can blink an eye.

Canadian business is being taxed this extra amount. As we have heard a number of people say, if we think through this situation, before the ink is even dry, before the ink was even applied on the agreement, the export duty, for which our industry is vulnerable, already exceeds what the illegal countervailing and dumping duties were. This really goes beyond imagination. It may give some short term relief, and any relief is good, but this is not something that we should not count on or cheer about.

I am very curious that, with the much vaunted new relationship of the new government with the George Bush administration, all we get out of that tremendous new arrangement and relationship is a bad deal. If this is all we can extract from that new relationship, then I am not sure it is particularly helpful to Canadians, and that will be seen in the end.

There is another aspect to this that is somewhat troubling, and I think it should be, to all of us. I do not for the moment suggest that the Minister of International Trade or the government has intended this, but there is an aspect of bullying that has been going on, which sits there underneath the surface in a very troubling way. It is about taking advantage of an industry that is on its knees and the communities and workers who are dependent upon that industry.

It is an uncomfortable feeling that we have to be very cautious of as we try to craft trade and industrial policy in the country, which is so diverse. We do not want to extract, through undue or unfair pressure, from vulnerable areas of our country or aspects of our industry anything that is not in the long term best interests of the industry, its workers or the communities.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard this speech several times today. I guess they are just passing it around.

I think a basic point is worth repeating. Many members have argued that the current industry requires some relief, that some are facing financial duress. The fact remains that the deal under Bill C-24 creates an export tax that at current price levels is actually higher than the current U.S. duties.

It also means that there is an awful lot of money that has been left on the table, over a billion dollars. Half of that is going to the U.S. softwood lumber industry. We will likely have some future difficulties with regard to other matters as they arise in this matter.

The member knows that the trade panels, NAFTA and the WTO, both concur that our industry was not subsidized. Both trade panels, NAFTA and the WTO, said that our industry was not subsidized. Now we have a problem where potentially this is an abandonment of the dispute resolution mechanism. It puts it in jeopardy for not only the softwood industry but for other industries where there are trade issues.

How does the member square taking a bad deal for a little money today at the risk of costing substantially more to not only the softwood industry but other industries down the road?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill C-24, which outlines the government's resolution of the longstanding softwood lumber dispute.

It was interesting to listen to the member who spoke previously. He says it is a dispute that he has been following since he was elected in 1988. I have not been here for quite as long as the previous member or as long as the Speaker himself, but this has certainly been a dispute that has attracted the attention of Parliament and the country since I was elected in the year 2000.

It certainly affected our trade. It was the biggest trade irritant between us and our greatest trade partner south of us, the United States. It was certainly impeding what I would consider a very successful trade agreement, NAFTA. It was certainly having an impact on that.

It is perhaps helpful to remind ourselves just how successful that agreement has been in the sense that I believe softwood lumber consists of about 3% of the trade between Canada and the United States, while 95% of the trade between the two countries goes through irritant free. That shows exactly why it was so important to address the softwood lumber issue. That 3% in fact was very much affecting other trade areas.

I want to compliment the Minister of International Trade for tackling this head-on. I know he certainly did as much as he could in the former government, but certainly since this Parliament started he has been very active on this file.

I think it is important for us to remember exactly what we were facing as a government and as a country. We were facing two choices. The first choice was to continue the route of litigation, to continue to try to win disputes through NAFTA and the World Trade Organization to force the United States to recognize that we were not subsidizing our lumber industry, our forestry products industry, and to try to force the Americans to reduce the countervailing duties and repay the upwards of $5 billion they had collected to that point. That was the choice. The choice was more litigation.

Looking at that, I think we have to be honest with ourselves. The fact was that this was not a resolution. The fact was that we would be spending more in legal fees to go down that route. The fact was that we would probably be discussing some form of loan guarantee program and putting taxpayers' money at risk in order to support our industry.

The fact is that there was no real end in sight, because if we won another NAFTA dispute, another resolution, the United States could simply change its own legislation, start another series in litigation along this route and we would be no closer to a settlement than we were two, three or 20 years ago. So we had a choice. We had a choice between more litigation or this resolution.

In fact, I know that a lot of members of the House have been very critical of this agreement, but I will say quite honestly that this agreement is better than I thought we as a government could get in the first place. I thought the Americans would never sign an agreement of this type. In fact, I want to review some things that are in the agreement and some of the benefits that accrue to Canada.

The agreement eliminates the punitive U.S. duties and returns more than $4.4 billion to producers to provide stability for the industry. It spells an end to the long-running dispute. It obviously addresses the massive trade irritant between ourselves and the United States. U.S. countervailing and anti-dumping duty orders will be fully and completely revoked. The absence of U.S. trade remedy action under the agreement will offer a period of stability for the industry, which will allow Canadian companies to make the investments necessary to ensure that their competitiveness goes forward.

There is also an issue that some members are raising now in portraying what kind of export tax would have to be paid if certain provinces go over a prescribed limit. In fact, as members know, there are two choices. Option A is the export tax if our exports rise above a certain level, but there is also option B, which is the quota and a small tax. What this does is keep these moneys in Canada, in the provinces, thereby allowing the provinces to not only direct their own forestry practices but obviously address situations that may arise.

One of those situations is in my own province of Alberta. Members will know, and certainly members from British Columbia will know, of the seriousness of the pine beetle devastation in that area of the country. Two summers ago, I had the opportunity to survey from a helicopter how much had actually been affected by the pine beetle. It was incredible. One had to see it to believe it.

The concern from the Alberta industries is that the pine beetle will make its way into Alberta very shortly. It would cause some of the producers to want to harvest more quickly, as they did in British Columbia, and therefore the amount of exports would go up.

The agreement allows the Canadian government and the provincial government of Alberta to deal with that situation by having the resources come back to the province and then the province can deal with that situation. Rather than have the United States collect those duties, it allows the provinces to deal with it in a much better way. There is an option between litigating it with possibly no resolution, probably no resolution in sight. In my view, this is the best possible agreement that could have been negotiated.

As I mentioned, it makes a $4.4 billion immediate cash infusion into our communities across the country. It is one thing to talk to the industry itself, and the Minister of International Trade has identified that over 90% of the industry supports this agreement, but let us talk to the communities that are most affected.

Hon. members should talk to the people in those communities, mainly in the rural regions of our country. We should ask them if they want a situation where they will be paying duties, there is no resolution, and they do not know whether they will have a job in a year or two because this situation could carry on, or do they want to have the situation resolved? Do they want to have some stability? The companies in various provinces would then know what kind of situation they are dealing with and have some cash infusion to make their company more competitive.

It is incumbent upon members who are critical of this agreement to put on the table exactly what they are criticizing, to say what specific measures they would want to see in place that the agreement does not address. They should be realistic in the sense that there are two sides to a trade dispute, two sides that have to come to the table and two sides that have to come to an agreement.

In my view, the agreement is the best possible agreement that Canada could have signed. As I mentioned before, it is a better agreement than I thought we would have been able to get. I would like to encourage all members of the House to support the agreement. The Bloc Québécois is supporting it.

I am very surprised that the Atlantic Canadian members of the Liberal Party are not supporting the agreement. It is a very good agreement for Atlantic Canada. Responding to a previous question, a very good question from the NDP to my colleague from Atlantic Canada, I would agree with him. As a westerner, as someone from Alberta, I would say Atlantic Canada, by its forestry practices, deserves this exemption. I, as a Canadian from western Canada, support that.

I want to finish up by saying that I did have the opportunity, and companies across this country have been very open to all parliamentarians, to see firsthand what the industries do and what their workers do. I have seen all aspects of the forestry industry in this country and have been amazingly impressed.

We hear the expression “hewers of wood and drawers of water”. If anyone has been to a softwood lumber facility, and they should go to the one near Prince George, they would see the computer system that measures every single log and the IT system that follows that. If they went to the mill just outside Calgary in Palliser, they would see the way that all the employees, aside from just working in the plant, are also upgrading their skills, learning how to move up the system, and taking logs that other companies may not utilize and turning them into a wood product that they can then export. It is a fantastic industry and one that all Canadians should be very proud of, but it deserves some stability. It obviously deserves our government's support.

We have signed, in my view, the best agreement possible. It is obviously supported by the large lumber producing provinces and it should be supported by all members of Parliament. I encourage all members of Parliament to take a serious look at the agreement, to support it, and to support our lumber industry across this country, but most important, to support the families in the communities who really need a resolution to this issue.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, because it gives me an opportunity to bring up something I forgot to mention in my presentation.

Our position is based on the reality in Quebec, on what the industry, the unions, the municipalities and communities have told us. The situation is not the same all across Canada. The softwood lumber crisis, the forest industry crisis, is much more serious in Quebec than elsewhere.

In part, this is because stumpage fees are much higher. Quebec's stumpage fees are the highest in North America. For example, stumpage fees are approximately $3 per cubic metre for birch and $5 or $6 per cubic metre for poplar. When we compare these fees to those in British Columbia, which are currently 50¢ per cubic metre, obviously it is hard to be competitive.

This is a unique situation. The pine beetle is attacking forests in British Columbia and Alberta, and wood has to be cut to avoid infestation. In Quebec at present, we have a series of regulations that were put in place properly but have resulted in higher stumpage fees. At the same time, we have all the problems I referred to earlier: a strong Canadian dollar, substantially higher energy costs and reduced cutting volume, which means that even companies have lumber supply problems.

The federal government has to step up to the plate so that we can weather this crisis, strengthen the industry in Quebec and turn it into a viable industry with a future. For the time being, we are getting by. Adopting Bill C-24 will breathe new life into the industry. But we need something more, otherwise the plant closures and layoffs will start again in a few months. The pressure on this government will be unbearable.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel very bitter as I rise to participate in this debate.

Everything we see today, the whole mess, is the fault of the Liberals and Conservatives. Things could have turned out very differently if Canada—as it behaves at the WTO and in all the international trade forums—had not acted like a peewee, if not an atom, in the negotiations, starting with theMinister of Industry and his far-fetched statements last spring that opened the way to this cut-rate agreement.

I rise as well to be very responsible. When the agreement with the Americans was signed, we went around to the industries, unions and communities in Quebec. They told us, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary claimed, that the agreement was not perfect and needed to be clarified, but they were exhausted. They said that the Conservative government had smothered them and they were on the verge of bankruptcy. They asked us, therefore, to vote in favour of the bill based on this agreement but to go on saying that the agreement was cut-rate and far from the original objective. That objective, back in 2001, was for free trade in the softwood lumber industry.

This responsible approach led us to go and listen to what the industry, the unions and the communities had to say. This approach also means that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-24.

I rise today not only to be responsible but also to be constructive. Everyone said throughout Quebec that this agreement was not enough to resolve the structural crisis that the forest industry is going through, especially in Quebec. It is probably the same everywhere in Canada, and the parliamentary secretary must have heard about it. We will need much stronger action to help the softwood lumber industry and our workers to survive this crisis.

If the Conservative government just sits on this bad agreement, thinking that people will forget the rest, it is sadly mistaken. I reach out to the Conservatives so that they proceed with the post-agreement phase and institute a real plan in support of the forest industry. It is true of Quebec, and I am sure it is true of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. If the Conservatives are happy just to pass Bill C-24 and think that that solves the problem, they will pay a heavy price in the next elections, which, I can assure the House, will not be long in coming. Our responsible, constructive approach should not lead the House to forget that we have not achieved the objectives that Parliament set for itself in 2001.

I myself introduced a motion, which passed unanimously, asking the Canadian government to do all it could to ensure that the softwood lumber industry was finally included in free trade. Unfortunately, as I said, the attitude, policies, approaches and directions of the previous government and the one that followed have led to this dead end. The industry needs a little oxygen.

Remember that Guy Chevrette said the industry needs some breathing room. He also said that if there were loan guarantees, he would refer the issue to his association for a vote, and that he thought people would be ready to fight to the end. The Conservative and Liberal governments refused to help the industry. They forced it to its knees and then suggested it accept the agreement, without which it would surely face ruin.

We refuse to let it be ruined. Saving it from ruin means more than just adopting Bill C-24; it also means instituting a whole series of measures to help the industry survive the structural crisis that, in Quebec, resulted from the Coulombe report, as the parliamentary secretary should know. Cut volumes will gradually be reduced by 20%. Energy costs have risen, the dollar has reached great heights, and there are a number of other problems Quebec alone faces. I will come back to this later.

I would like to review the order of events briefly. On March 31, 2001, the previous agreement fell. It, too, was a trade agreement administered with the United States. At the time, companies belonging to the American protectionist coalition submitted a petition. The Department of Commerce responded by imposing a 28% duty.

What was the Liberal government's strategy? That is the root of the problem. That government adopted a two-pronged strategy: negotiation with the Americans and legal proceedings.

Once the Canadian government sat down at the negotiation table, the Americans—both the American authorities and the protectionist coalition—expected to reach an agreement like the one before us now, which led to Bill C-24. The responsible thing to do would have been for the minister in charge at the time, Mr. Pettigrew, to say that we intended to pursue all legal avenues to resolve the issue once and for all. Indeed, sooner or later, we will have to find out who is in the right: the Americans, or Canadians and Quebeckers.

As you know, all of the courts, both the WTO and NAFTA, ruled in our favour. Our lumber is not subsidized and is not harming American producers. As such, the duties are illegal. However, we did not pursue this course to its end.

And a few months later, as I mentioned, the industry itself asked us to vote in favour of Bill C-24. Why? Because the Liberals not only pursued both paths, which sent a bad message to American authorities and the American industry, suggesting that we were going to bend sooner or later, but the government also refused to implement an aid program for the industry, although the Bloc Québécois has been requesting this since May 2002. I proposed this plan along with my colleague, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. I would remind the House that if we had achieved those elements, our situation would be different today. But, no, the Liberal government refused, just like the Conservative government.

First, to allow businesses to avoid bankruptcy, we demanded an aid program with loan guarantees on the basis that illegal duties levied by the Americans constituted accounts receivable. We were told that that was impossible, that international trade legislation did not allow for loan guarantees. Two weeks before the election, the Liberals, sensing they were in hot water, agreed to offer $800 million in loan guarantees for the next five years.

Even worse than that, in the agreement and in the legislation, the federal government is going to operate precisely through loan guarantees. It will buy back the illegal duties levied by the Americans because they are accounts receivable. We could have been doing this since 2002.

Second, we also asked for a relaxation of employment insurance requirements. We are still asking for this and still have not obtained it, not from the Liberal nor the Conservative government. Third, we also asked for support for processing activities in order to offer more job opportunities in Quebec forestry. We never obtained that support. True, the Liberals established a program to diversify economic activity in those areas suffering from the softwood crisis. However, not one business affected by this crisis received a single cent in aid from the government, apart from $20 million for legal fees, if memory serves. This was, moreover, the fourth point in our action plan, namely, that Ottawa would pay the legal fees of any businesses that fell victim to American legal aggression. At that time, legal fees totaled $350 million. As we know, that figure is now much higher.

So if this plan had been put in place, on the basis of our legal victories—we were not far from the end—we could have got through the legal proceedings. When all options had been explored, there would have been a legal victory. It is clear that a legal victory, and the Minister of Industry said so to us—and he is right on this—does not guarantee that the Americans were going to act on these legal victories. Still, they would have put us in a much better negotiating situation than what happened to us when, in early April or late March, theMinister of Industry went and said that, actually, we did not expect to receive all the duties collected illegally by the Americans. What a great message! That creates some negotiating power!

I have been a negotiator for a long time. When we say to our opponent, to the party across the table, that we know that ultimately we will not get everything we are asking for, even though it is our own money, there is a problem. Obviously, the Americans leapt at the agreement and, oddly, a few weeks later, on April 27, we had an agreement that was slightly improved—it must be admitted—on July 1, and that led us to Bill C-24.

As I said, if the Conservatives had continued on the path I have indicated, that is, right to the bottom of the legal issue, with an assistance plan for the industry, we might have been talking about a few months. We would have been able now to have negotiations with the Americans that would have enabled us eventually to go back to free trade. Unfortunately the agreement may be terminated in three, seven or nine years. We do not know. Let us hope that it will last as long as possible. I am not one of those who wish the worst for our industry, on the contrary. I want what is best so that we can have stable and flourishing communities, businesses and jobs.

As I mentioned, when it ends in three, seven or nine years, we will have to do it all over again. Do you think that the American coalition will stand around idly with this $500 million we have just given it? No, certainly not, it is going to start building its case. We can be sure that in maybe three, seven or nine years a fifth dispute concerning lumber will start again.

What are we going to do then? Is it better to give in immediately and say that we Canadians—not Quebeckers—are prepared to accept everything the American coalition wants, because we are not prepared to fight to the finish?

We have some lessons to learn from this episode, and the first one is never to open negotiations before exploring all the legal options. But the only way to explore all the legal options in this issue is to provide solid support for our lumber industry.

Unfortunately, in three, seven or nine years, I will no longer be here since Quebec will be a sovereign country. However, I want to leave Canada's parliamentarians with a constructive lesson that I am taking from this softwood lumber saga; during negotiations, never extend the hand of friendship to the American authorities and softwood lumber industry until the legal process is over. From day one there has to be an assistance plan with teeth, as the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and I suggested in 2002.

I was saying that we had a responsible attitude in this case, that we toured the regions and the industries. The leader of the Bloc Québécois and I phoned big businesses, talked with people from the associations, presidents of the major unions, and representatives of the municipalities affected by this crisis. As I was saying, no one spoke publicly to encourage the Bloc Québécois to vote against the bill resulting from the agreement—the future legislation—or to say they were out of money, out of breath and in the process of suffocating.

Although the agreement is far from perfect, it is in this context that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-24. As I said, the crisis is huge. In Quebec there have been 7,000 layoffs since 2005. In my riding, there were 400 layoffs just a few weeks ago. Louisiana-Pacific closed its sawmill and waferboard plant. In my opinion, there is not one region in Quebec where this industry operates that is not suffering right now or worrying. The Louisiana-Pacific closure is indefinite. Let us hope it reopens as soon as possible. But for that to happen there needs to be an assistance plan.

The FTQ and the CSN have issued press releases. We know that Mr. Chevrette also issued a press release immediately after the Bloc Québécois decision to support the bill resulting from the agreement, saying that the Bloc met the industry's expectations.

Nonetheless, I will read some excerpts from the FTQ and CSN press releases to show to what extent the Bloc Québécois is in tune with the stakeholders in Quebec, by taking concrete action on the ground. If the Conservatives want to do the same, they will need to use more than words. They need to take action. I will close later with what we propose they do to get through this structural crisis.

I will read the FTQ press release:

The Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ) salutes the Bloc Québécois decision, announced yesterday, to support the softwood lumber agreement.

Given the catastrophic situation of the forestry industry, the FTQ believes that this agreement, although far from perfect, represents the only possible outcome that will save the industry. “This agreement will now force the Conservatives to take concrete action to help the industry survive the major crisis that it has been living through for several years,” stated Henri Massé.

For many years, the FTQ has been calling for concrete measures to help the forestry industry and workers, as well as an assistance program for older workers.

“It is vital that the government listen carefully to the Bloc Québécois demands regarding assistance for the industry and for the workers,” Henri Massé pointed out.

This is the FTQ press release. As we can see, that is not the end of the matter. Once Bill C-24 is passed, I hope that the Conservatives will not sit on their laurels. There is work to be done and we will suggest avenues to be pursued.

I would now like to quote from the Confédération des syndicats nationaux press release:

The CSN gives its support to the demands of the Bloc Québécois, announced yesterday, which seek to support the workers, companies and communities that have been hit hard by the softwood lumber dispute.

The CSN press release goes on:

Referring to the dramatic situation many communities in Quebec are in because of massive job losses in recent months, CSN president Claudette Charbonneau said that the federal government must act quickly to put in place a structured assistance plan. “Older workers and companies in difficulty must have financial support. The hemorrhaging has to stop”, she said.

The release continues:

The CSN stated that the softwood lumber deal is far from perfect.

So two out of two. That seems fairly clear. The release goes on:

However, it is unrealistic to hope to re-open the agreement with a view to improving it in time to help workers.

A quote from the CSN president follows:

The federal government, which negotiated this bad deal, has a responsibility to make up for these deficiencies using effective support measures that will give new life to an industry that is on its last legs. The survival of whole communities in many parts of Quebec is at stake.

The CSN adds:

The federal government should have taken steps long ago to help the workers and companies. Now, it has a golden opportunity to demonstrate its good faith.

As hon. members can see, support for the deal is far more qualified than the Conservatives let on. As well, I have a hard time understanding how the Liberals from Quebec can oppose Bill C-24, which has arisen out of the agreement, just when the players themselves, while stating as we have that the deal is not perfect, are acknowledging that it exists and was negotiated with the Americans.

Given the series of mistakes that have been made since 2001 by the Liberal and Conservative governments, it is hard to go back. Back to the Future is a movie; it is not reality. We have to recognize this.

I will conclude by talking about the support measures that we have proposed to the Conservative government and that are mentioned in the CSN and FTQ press releases: first, an income support program for older workers.

We discussed it during question period. We want a program like the one that was abolished by the Liberals in 1998: a plan for workers 55 years of age or more all over Quebec in sectors hit by mass layoffs. We will not agree to an income support program for older workers aimed at a particular sector or region to the exclusion of others. There is a group of workers who need help making the transition from their lost job to their pension. We need this program back, which as I said, used to exist until 1998.

Insofar as communities as concerned, we suggest real economic diversification programs for communities dependent on forestry. I will mention them. The Liberals established one, but it did not help the industry, it just helped communities. We need not only that program back now but also programs for businesses. For businesses, we want the $4.4 billion in countervailing and antidumping duties that will be paid back by the American authorities to be subject to a tax treatment that will take into account the damages suffered by these companies.

Indeed the dollars in which the companies paid these duties three or four years ago are not worth the same nowadays. Companies will therefore be paid back in Canadian dollars that are worth much more. They will therefore get less back in Canadian dollars than they paid three or four years ago. The government should take this into account. According to the companies’ assessments, they will lose between $400 and $500 million because of the changes in the exchange rate.

Since the tax formula that the government is going to adopt takes changes in interest rates into account, we expect that changes in the exchange rate will also be taken into account. We have a request from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters that could be applied to the forest industry on an experimental basis, namely accelerated depreciation on machinery. Obviously, if the depreciation can be deducted faster, the taxes on earned income are reduced.

We also recommend setting up a program to stimulate innovation in the forest industry and improve its productivity, programs to diversify lumber markets, and financial compensation for maintaining the road network. Our last suggestion relates to the tax credit for research and development. In the case of the forest industry, this is not worth much because the industry does not pay much tax—in fact, it does not pay any. I have been told that several companies have accumulated enough tax credits for the next 10 or 20 years. We therefore ask that this tax credit be refundable—on a trial basis, no doubt—to the forest industry.

For example, Tembec invests $80 million a year in research and development, but cannot benefit from tax credits for these expenses. Refunding the tax credit could stimulate research and development in a sector that really needs it.

I would like to end by saying that the Canada-U.S. agreement provides for a bilateral committee to administer it. The industry has identified a number of problems. We hope the bilateral committee will be able to correct these problems. I would like to see the creation of a sub-committee of Canadian, Quebec and American elected officials to work alongside the bilateral committee.

In conclusion, one of the problems we are facing is complete insensitivity on the part of American elected officials to the realities of the forest industry in Canada and Quebec. They are under the thumb—let us be frank—of an industry lobby that buys elections and probably even buys some elected officials. It might be time to correct this situation by having more frequent and regular contact with them.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement, which I respectfully ask all members of the House to join me in supporting.

The softwood lumber agreement is good for our industry, good for the lumber communities and good for Canada. I remind all hon. members that we have two national governments that support this deal. All of our major softwood lumber producing provinces support the deal, including those of the members who introduced an amendment and subamendment today. We also have 90% of the industry supporting the agreement and the deal in the legislation. One has to ask why the hon. members are not listening to their provinces and why they are not listening to the industry.

This deal eliminates the punitive U.S. duties. It ends costly litigation, takes our lumber producers out of the courts, provides stability for industry and returns more than $5 billion Canadian. It is a practical and flexible agreement that ends the dispute on terms that are highly favourable to Canada.

Let us remember that this disagreement has been going on for 24 years, this last legal agreement five years alone.

I am proud to be part of a government that has provided a solution that will put our two nations back on track for making North America more competitive for the future. I also want to give my appreciation to our Prime Minister and to our Minister of International Trade for their exceptional work on securing this deal on behalf of our softwood lumber industry.

Today I would like to outline some of the key features of the agreement. Let us begin with the return of the duties.

Clearly, one of the agreement's most important features is the return of $5 billion Canadian. This is a significant infusion of capital for the industry and will directly benefit the workers and communities across Canada that rely on softwood lumber for their livelihood. Without question, this dispute has been extremely difficult for Canada's lumber industry. That is why it is imperative that companies receive this money as quickly as possible so that they can continue to invest in their operations and their people, and to increase their productivity and their competitiveness.

An innovative deposit refund mechanism has been developed that will ensure that Canadian companies receive their share of duty deposits within four to eight weeks after the agreement comes into force. It is designed to help Canadian companies begin reinvesting in their enterprises and bring a measure of stability to an industry that has been hit hard for over 20 years of repeated trade action.

I also want to comment that we have seen the U.S. lumber trade coalition tell us that if this deal did not proceed, if we did not have this agreement, that it can guarantee Canada that there will be continued litigation regardless of the outcome of any lawsuits.

A second key feature is the revocation of the U.S. duty orders and the end to related litigation.

Let us talk about the flexible export measures. The deal also provides a strong measure of flexibility for our provinces. 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 allows provinces to choose the option that best suits their particular economic situation.

Option A involves an export charge that increases in steps from 5% when the price of lumber is $336 to $355 per thousand board feet to 10% when the price is $316 to $335, and then 15% as the price of lumber falls below $315 per thousand board feet. Option B combines at the same price levels lower export charges of 2.5%, 3% and 5% with quotas.

I should point out that funds collected under either option will now stay in Canada. The Government of Canada will distribute to the provinces revenues from the export charge minus the administrative and perhaps legal costs that are associated with the agreement.

This is a significant improvement over the current environment. Currently the duties imposed by the U.S. are reassessed annually. In other words, the industry never knows from one year to the next what duty rate may apply. Under this agreement the industry will know and can take full advantage of a stable predictable business environment.

The agreement also contains a provision allowing provinces to seek an exit from border measures based on a process to be developed by Canada and the U.S. in consultation with the provinces.

I urge the members who sit on the trade committee with me to work with us in committee, rather than try to hijack it this session. Let us work together toward a better future for our softwood lumber industry. Let us work on this agreement.

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

Importantly, this agreement has a dispute settlement process for issues related to the implementation of the agreement. The process will be neutral, transparent and efficient.

Often we hear opposition members talk about chapter 19. What they are neglecting or actually choosing to ignore is the testimony that we heard in committee that clearly told us that never was softwood lumber to be included in NAFTA. In fact, there was a memorandum of understanding that was pulled out of the agreement so that it would not be there. We have been trying to apply this dispute to NAFTA when no one agreed that it should be there in the beginning.

This new dispute mechanism will no longer be U.S. trial law. It will be international trade law. There are many who suggest that signing on for this new dispute mechanism is reason alone for signing on to the agreement.

The agreement of course will provide a stable business environment. But perhaps the feature of this agreement that has garnered the most attention and continues to be the subject of myth and misinformation from those who do not understand it is the termination clause. Let me be clear. This agreement will last for seven to nine years, providing a stable market environment for our softwood lumber industry. During this time, the U.S. will be prohibited from initiating further trade action.

I should also point out that the U.S. has agreed to a 12 month standstill on trade action in the event that it may decide to terminate the agreement. This provides yet another measure of stability, one which I might add was added at the industry's request following an August 9 meeting with CEOs.

While the termination clause in this agreement is a standard feature of international trade agreements, I can tell the House that termination by either country is highly unlikely. This is a hard-won agreement and both sides have a clear interest in maintaining the rights and privileges under it.

Within Bill C-24 these features are key elements of the agreement. Bill C-24 will bring these elements into play and implement Canada's commitments under the agreement. In particular, the bill provides authority to impose an export charge in a manner consistent with the agreement. It also seeks to amend the Export and Import Permits Act to bring the export measures component of the agreement into action.

Today I ask all parliamentarians to join me in supporting this bill, putting an end to this long-standing dispute and building a brighter future for Canada's softwood lumber industry, for the workers, families and communities that rely on it.

I want to comment a little further on the proposed amendments. I find it very interesting that the member for Beauséjour tabled such an amendment, considering that the industry in his own province is unequivocally supporting this deal. The industry had written asking him to support this deal. In fact, it does not quite understand why he would not want to support the deal. I have the names of companies, such as the Maritime Lumber Bureau, J.D. Irving Limited, M.L. Wilkins & Son Ltd., Pro Lumber Incorporated, North American Forest Products Ltd., and the list goes on and on.

I am not quite sure where the member is coming from because this deal would provide market access by providing the stability and certainty that the industry has told us it clearly must have. This is exactly what the focus of the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade has been all along, to find a stable and predictable market for our industry.

The U.S. is not interested in escaping its obligations on this deal. It has no interest in backing out whatsoever. I remind everyone that it is only the Canadian government or the United States government that can terminate the deal.

We also know, as I alluded to earlier, that the softwood lumber industry was not included in NAFTA and that is why any attempts to try to govern it under NAFTA rules have not worked. The new dispute settlement will work. Canadian workers have always had the support of this government. It is the workers who will finally gain their job security who will benefit most from this deal. Over $5 billion will be returned to the industry ensuring that it can prosper and secure its workers jobs in the future.

In conclusion, I ask all members to can the rhetoric and to support this deal. Let us move forward for a stronger North American softwood lumber industry that will benefit all of Canada.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I am going to share my time with the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.

It is my pleasure to rise today in the House on Bill C-24. I want to ask all the hon. members in the House to join me in supporting this bill. Why? As most of my colleagues have pointed out here in the House today, the softwood lumber agreement benefits the industry, consumers and Canada as a whole. It is a practical, flexible agreement that puts an end to the trade disputes that have been going on for years and provides the softwood lumber industry with access to the U.S. market on very favourable terms.

The agreement eliminates the punitive American duties, puts an end to costly legal proceedings, and gets our softwood lumber producers out of the courts. Since 2002, this dispute has cost more than $35 million in fees that the Government of Canada has paid to help the softwood lumber industry fight this battle.

Now we have an agreement that will bring stability and recover more than $5 billion in duties that have been levied. I am proud to be part of a government that has found a solution that will give Canada and the United States a future opportunity to make North America more competitive in this sector.

I would like to explain briefly today how the concerns that the industry expressed during our consultations in the summer have been met in the agreement. We had the good fortune of being able to build on a strong Canadian position developed with the cooperation and contributions of the provinces and the industry. Ultimately, an agreement was reached of which all Canadians can be proud.

How were the concerns of the industry and the provinces taken into account? From the outset, they wanted the government to negotiate an agreement that would ensure repayment of the duties that had been collected. The industry asked the government and me personally, from the moment the new government came to power, to negotiate a real agreement with the Americans.

This objective has been achieved. Under the agreement, more than $5 billion Canadian will be returned to the industry by the end of this session. They asked that their deposits be returned quickly. They will be. Why? Because we developed a unique mechanism through Export Development Canada that will ensure that the money is repaid to our exporters in the weeks after the agreement comes into effect, that is to say, in the first few weeks after next October 1. This process will be much faster than the usual process, which was the American process under which people could have waited as long as two and a half years to get their money back if we had not included a quick repayment process in the agreement.

The government also managed to get an exemption from the border measures for the Atlantic provinces and the territories, as well as 32 companies including sawmills in Quebec, sawmills close to the border, that the U.S. Commerce Department did not consider subsidized. Among these sawmills are several in my own riding of Beauce.

The provinces and the industry have also called for flexibility in the regulations related to export quotas in order to respond to the needs of their American customers. As a result, our new government negotiated provisions that allow companies to carry forward up to 12% of the volume of their export quota from the previous month to the following month.

The provinces and the industry also asked for an agreement that ensures stability and predictability. I am pleased to tell you that this objective has been achieved. The agreement covers a period of seven years or up to nine years, if the parties wish to extend the agreement by an additional two years. During this time, the United States cannot intervene in the courts and it cannot apply other trade remedies. This will provide Canadian companies with a significant period of stability in which to invest in their businesses and to become more competitive. They asked for an agreement that gave the provinces the latitude necessary to manage their forest. We achieved that objective. We have negotiated anti-circumvention provisions that fully protect provincial forestry management policies, including complete exemption for the new market-based pricing plan in British Columbia.

This is an initiative that promotes management of the environment. It provides for payments to respond to the claims of First Nations and measures that are specific to the forest industry.

Following a meeting on August 9 with CEOs of the forest industry, additional clarification has been made to the agreement. Specifically, maintenance of the status quo in terms of American trade remedies for a period of 12 months at the end of the agreement. The cancellation notice period has also been adjusted to provide for a 12-month status quo period in the event that the United States requests a quick cancellation of the agreement.

We are pleased to announce that the United States has provided a parallel letter to this agreement, and these clarifications respond to the concerns of the government and the industry. This letter confirms that the Canadian industry will be well protected and that the duration of the agreement will be a minimum of seven years. All of these elements of the agreement respond directly to the concerns raised by the provinces and the industry during the negotiations.

As a consequence, I am pleased to say that the agreement enjoys broad support, both in Quebec and all across Canada. More than 90% of the industry is in favour of the agreement and, in Quebec, a major union, the FTQ, supports the agreement.

Given that level of approval, I am proud to lend my support to this agreement and to C-24, which will make the legislative amendments necessary to bring the agreement into force. I ask all honourable members to join with me in supporting this bill and to join us in our mission of making Canada a more competitive and more prosperous country.

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

Mr. Speaker, three minutes is not a lot of time. I have reviewed the botched legislation, Bill C-24, and the mistakes that the government has made on that bill.

I would like to come back to the principle of the softwood sellout itself. Then, before I sit down, I will be offering an amendment to the amendment offered by the member for Beauséjour.

The following issues are issues that are addressed in the softwood selloff. First, and this is one of the dozens of reasons why members of this House should be voting against it, it is based on the falsehood that Canadian softwood lumber is subsidized. We are erasing four and a half years of legal victories. If we enact this legislation, any industry, not only our softwood industry, will have to start over to re-establish that jurisprudence.

The Americans are able through this mechanism to erase all of our legal victories when we are two legal hurdles short of winning a final and complete victory that establishes the jurisprudence. The sellout gives away $500 million to the American coalition. It has already indicated it is going to use that legally to attack us again. It was dry. It had no money left. It could not continue litigation, despite the government's incredibly absurd protestations to the contrary. Now we are giving them half a billion bucks to come at us again. We might as well have a “kick me” sign on the back of every single Conservative MP who votes for this. It is absolutely absurd.

Through this sellout, we are giving $450 million to the Bush administration. Through testimony this summer we found out this is unprecedented since the Richard Nixon committee to re-elect the president that the White House has had $450 million to dispense to grease the political wheels of the Republican Party. Obviously, that does not concern Conservative MPs. It does concern Canadians. This sellout can be cancelled at any time. The Americans can keep the billion dollars and run.

As we have pointed out consistently throughout the summer, clause 34 allows the Americans simply to allege non-compliance by Canada and cancel at any time. I could go on and on.

The principle is not only are we selling out our softwood industry but we are selling out any other Canadian industry that wants to use dispute settlement. The Americans clearly, two weeks ago, signalled that they are coming at us. They see that big “kick me” sign on the back of Conservative MPs and they have said they are going to appeal the notorious Byrd amendment. They are going to appeal it because this government has shown such incredible weakness.

I will move the subamendment. I move:

And that the amendment be amended by adding immediately after the end of the amendment:

specifically because it fails to immediately provide loan guarantees to softwood companies, because it fails to unsuspend outstanding litigation which is almost concluded and which Canada stands to win, and because it punishes companies by imposing questionable double taxation, a provision which was not in the agreement signed by the Minister of International Trade.

We will continue to fight this because this is bad for Canada, and this is bad for softwood and any other industry.

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, and of the amendment.

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, and of the amendment.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I was not expecting a debate on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Beauséjour. I do not have the French version of that amendment. Nevertheless, what I would like to say applies to this debate.

As we know, on April 27, 2006, Canada and the United States announced that a framework agreement had been reached to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. The official text of the agreement, which had been initialed by the two countries on July 1, 2006, and signed on September 12, 2006, gave rise to Bill C-24. I will spare Parliament the official title of the bill, since it lists practically every aspect of the bill. I will proceed in a simpler fashion. It is known as the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006.

I would like to briefly remind the House that we have been selling softwood lumber to the United States for a very long time. Except for a very short period during the 1929 crisis, our wood has always entered the United States duty free. Since the early 1980s, the lumber trade has been a steady source of conflict, the U.S. lumber lobby becoming increasingly protectionist and uncompromising.

On May 22, 2002, after an investigation using methods invalidated by international tribunals, the United States accused Canadian producers of being subsidized and Canadian exporters of dumping on the U.S. market and thereby damaging the American industry.

Before the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, the industry had to go before American courts, which often played favourites. The Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement contained bilateral dispute resolution mechanisms—more impartial courts and disputes had to be resolved within 10 months.

The softwood lumber dispute has been going on now for 40 months. It is the longest trade dispute that has arisen between Canada and the United States since the Free Trade Agreement was concluded almost 18 years ago.

The NAFTA panel clearly decided that Canadian lumber was not subsidized, contrary to the American allegations. After using all possible stall tactics, Washington decided for the first time since the Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1988 not to bow to a final NAFTA panel decision. The Canadian industry had to turn to the American courts in order to force the United States to abide by its own laws. This leap 20 years backward in time raises the question of whether the agreement is worth anything at all.

During all that time after May 2002, the Bloc Québécois demanded an assistance plan for the softwood lumber industry—something that the federal government, whether Liberal or Conservative, always opposed.

The Liberals said over and over that they would never yield to the American demands, while turning a blind eye all that time to the dire straits in which the industry found itself and refusing to set up an assistance plan. They have opened the door, now, to the request for loan guarantees that the Bloc Québécois has been making, even though they said that they opposed them so long as they were in power.

The Conservatives, for their part, promised in their 2006 election platform—which was not so long ago—never to submit to the American demands because the United States should “abide by the NAFTA ruling”. More importantly yet, they promised to “provide real help for Canadian and Quebec workers and businesses coping with illegal American trade actions” —a promise that they certainly failed to keep.

The attitude of the federal government, whether Liberal or Conservative, leaves a bitter taste. In failing to support the industry, the federal government has greatly weakened it and forced it to accept this agreement under heavy threat.

In Quebec, more than 7,000 jobs have been lost in the forest industry since April 2005 and 5,000 others are in danger, according to the Quebec Forest Industry Council. The forest is the main employer in 260 towns and villages in Quebec, and in 134 of them, it accounts for 100% of the jobs.

Bill C-24 contains legislation implementing the July 1 softwood lumber agreement between the Canadian and American governments. Its provisions will all come into effect on October 1, 2006. If the bill has not passed by that time, its provisions will be retroactive to October 1, 2006.

The bill would introduce a system of controls on exports in the softwood lumber industry. What is surprising, these controls would take the form of amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act, an act that is generally used to control trade in weapons and dangerous substances and to restrict trade with countries that are subject to economic and military sanctions. In this case, it is Canadians and Quebeckers who are subject to the restrictions provided in this bill.

In the case of Quebec, which has chosen a lower export tax and capped exports, it is necessary to obtain a licence or export permit. The basis for allocating export quotas is not set out in the bill; it will be determined by regulation. Quebec has proposed that 94% of quotas should be allocated to companies on the basis of past exports, and that the remaining six per cent be allocated on the basis of first come, first served.

Quotas allocated on a monthly basis create a great deal of uncertainty in the industry. This issue has not been resolved. Of course, there is a group representing both countries and the Bloc Québécois hopes that the government will try to relax the monthly export ceilings by means of the regulations.

How can you ask a company to plan its procurements or its sales on an annual basis? Should it simply be a blind division by 12, regardless of the season or regardless of conditions in the construction industry?

The bill also proposes a tax of up to five per cent when there are export limits, but it could be as much as three times higher for exports from provinces where there is no export ceiling.

The rate of the tax would vary depending on the price of lumber. The lower the price, the higher the tax. The amount of the export tax that would be refunded to the provinces represents another important factor. The bill also provides that with the removal of the countervailing and anti-dumping duty orders, the government will proceed with reimbursement of $5.4 billion illegally withheld by the United States.

Canadian companies will be entitled to 81% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties currently held by Washington. In reality, that represents about 65% of the amount that these companies have paid, taking into account variations in the exchange rate over the past four years. What would have been 63¢ in the beginning now equals 90¢. Previously, one American dollar was worth $1.59 Canadian; today it is $1.11 Canadian for one U.S. dollar.

The excess duties paid should be refunded within six months of the coming into effect of the agreement. In the Office of the Minister of International Trade, it is expected that more time will be needed.

The companies that have signed the agreement will receive their refunds through Export Development Canada (EDC). They will first receive 90%, and then the rest once the calculations have been completed.

The companies that opt out of the agreement have not assigned their rights to the federal government. They will be refunded directly by Washington. The agreement provides that refunds will be taxed at about 19%. Of course this has been strongly criticized. Who would have imagined that these companies might end up with a bonus for not signing an agreement?

Because of the irremediable damage caused to the industry, an entire clause of the bill is dedicated to provisions respecting companies that did not survive the conflict because the federal government did not implement a loan guarantee program.

The game is not over. Actually this agreement is still theoretical because it cannot come into effect until all the complaints currently before the courts—both international and American—have been withdrawn, and this is not yet so.

Furthermore, Washington can terminate the agreement as of the 18th month after it comes into effect, on six months’ advance notice. We are a long way from a lasting agreement.

Washington provided for the possibilityof excluding a province from the application of export restrictions if its forest policies change.

So the industry is experiencing quite a lot of insecurity. I have made a list of some elements, and they will be studied in depth in committee so that we have some certainty and not just a few elements on which we cannot rely.

In the end, who really comes out the winner in this agreement? Of the $5.4 billion held in Washington, the Canadian companies will receive about $4.4 billion. The American companies that instigated the conflict, however, will get $500 million. A fund of $50 million will go to initiatives aimed to promote the use of wood in both residential and commercial sectors. This fund will be managed by Canadian and American companies. Left to the discretion of the American government will be $450 million, an unexpected windfall for the Republican Party, just in time for the mid-term elections.

For Quebec this means the imposition of quotas, for which the terms and conditions of assignment are not set by law, but by regulation. This is another a grey area. Of the 34% of the American market that will be accessible to the Canadian market, 7% will go to Quebec, or 20%, instead of 27% of the average Canadian exports in the past 20 years. At present, these are at 17% because of the competition of the Canadian and Quebec markets.

With the quota method, Quebec companies will be able to export one twelfth of the annual quota per month and have only some leeway based on the quota for the previous or the next month. Only those amounts will be transferable. This inflexible approach is not advantageous given the cyclical nature of the industry.

For all intents and purposes there are two big winners: the Americans—both government and corporations—and the Prime Minister, who has made a friend of G. W. Bush.

As for what the main stakeholders have to say, the Bloc Québécois consulted the forestry industry and workers over the summer. We heard the same thing everywhere: their backs are to the wall. Although this agreement is objectionable, the industry does not have the luxury of time. The industry is almost unanimous in stating that this agreement is unsatisfactory but it is at the end of its rope.

It is interesting to note that the Conservative government did not consult the industry prior to signing the text of the agreement, even though this agreement governs the distribution of money that really belongs to the industry.

Thus, the Bloc Québécois accepts Bill C-24 with little enthusiasm. The reality is quite simple: the free trade agreement no longer applies to softwood lumber.

We know that there have been a number of requests for assistance from the forestry industry, which is experiencing serious difficulties just as it is emerging, in a weakened position, from a long trade dispute. Several of these requests date back to 2002 and could have guaranteed the survival of some companies that have now closed their doors.

A multitude of actions could have been brought forward, brought into play to support workers, for example, income support programs for older workers. The amount disbursed—about $75 million to help older workers who lose their jobs—would have been minimal in comparison to the $1 billion paid to the United States.

Communities dependent on the forestry industry need programs to diversify their economies, a special tax status for 128,000 private woodlot owners in Quebec, and increased funding for the Canadian Forest Service's Model Forest Program.

Companies need the following measures: special tax treatment for the $4.3 billion in countervailing and anti-dumping duties that the American authorities will pay back, to make up for the losses companies have suffered; faster amortization on equipment; a program to promote innovation in the forest industry and improve productivity; a market diversification and wood marketing program; and financial compensation for maintaining the forest road network.

We know that large forestry companies have to maintain, at their own expense, major road networks that are also used by the public. The government should also provide support for this. There are many other possible measures, such as research and development credits.

Speed is of the essence, because some of these measures will become irrelevant if they are not introduced this year, which is a pivotal year for the industry. Many companies are still on the verge of closing, even though they will receive a portion of the money they invested. In some cases, it really is too late.

If the assistance plan the Bloc Québécois has been calling for since 2002 had been put in place, many workers in Quebec would still have a job in the forestry sector today.

This time, does the Conservative government plan to keep its 2006 election promise to “provide real help for Canadian workers and businesses coping with illegal American trade actions”, or is it waiting for this industry to die while it waits for the Americans to deign to pay companies what they have coming to them: a mere 65% of what they paid out, which the NAFTA tribunal deemed 100% illegal?

To sum up, I think—and nearly everyone agrees—that this agreement does not live up to the forest industry's expectations. In all probability, no one would have accepted this agreement if people had been in a positive financial situation. But neither the Liberal nor Conservative governments were willing to keep companies financially afloat during the dispute with the United States. The Liberal and Conservative federal governments are to blame for this situation.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some disappointment that I rise today to speak to 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.

In the last election campaign, there was very little discussion of softwood lumber. We thought, and a cursory look at the platforms would indicate, that there was very little difference in the positions of the Liberal and Conservative Parties in the last election.

Liberals campaigned on the following platform:

The recent string of NAFTA decisions in Canada’s favour continue 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 US 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.

Page 19 of the Conservative platform says:

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.

Today we not only have the Conservative government breaking that very election promise, but it is going so far as to legislate its betrayal of the lumber industry, of local communities and workers, not to mention the Canadian electorate.

Despite the strength of our legal position, supported by numerous decisions of international trade tribunals and domestic courts both in Canada and the United States, the government rushed negotiations with an artificial timeline set to maximize the cynical political advantage for the Conservative Party. The Conservative agenda was put ahead of the interests of an industry, which is a significant element of the industrial strength of every region of Canada.

When the Prime Minister stood in the House last spring and outlined the parameters of the agreement with the Americans, he provided very little detail to the House. As we know and as our leader said at the time, the devil is in the details. What little we did know then was enough to convince us that this was a bad deal for Canada and a good deal for the American government and lumber industry.

It was clear on April 27 that the Prime Minister was abandoning Canada's position, pursued by successive Canadian governments and upheld by trade panels at both NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, that our softwood industry was not subsidized. This decision destroys the credibility of the dispute resolution provisions of NAFTA.

The repercussions of this capitulation will be felt not just in the future disputes surrounding the softwood lumber industry, but by many other industries that may face similar allegations from American competitors. It could also encourage other U.S. sectors to ignore trade rules and seek, instead, political decisions in their favour, resulting in increased trade uncertainty, seriously inhibiting investment in key Canadian export industries.

Do not just take our word for it. The Prime Minister has betrayed what he said when he told the Canadian people:

If the rules are simply ignored, then the very basis of a rule-based system is threatened and the future of all Canada-U.S. trading relations could be profoundly affected.

We also predicted in April that we would see draconian measures in the agreement that would punish our industry the minute market conditions in the United States deteriorated. Today, in Bill C-24, we see the creation of an export tax that, at current price levels, is actually higher than the U.S. duties currently being collected. Along with this export tax comes an unfair and unprecedented tax regime that will place a huge administrative burden on Canadian producers. At a time when they are having difficulty meeting their own payroll, the government is forcing them to hire more accountants and auditors.

When the Prime Minister stood in the House in April, we knew that he had left more than $1 billion on the negotiating table, that $1 billion belonging to Canadian companies. We anticipated that this money would end up in the pockets of American lumber barons, who have been constantly harassing the Canadian industry.

Once again we were right, only this time the Prime Minister threw in a wrinkle. The agreement gives $500 million to the American lumber industry to use to fund legal and political attacks against the Canadian industry. Apparently that was not good enough. Instead, another $500 million was left with the White House, in a time when we are heading into the run up for very difficult fall elections, all of this for 24 months of managed trade.

The government has acted in a high handed way with the Canadian industry, giving it an ultimatum, “Accept this deal or the government will abandon you”. The Prime Minister has given it a choice between a bad deal and the back of his hand. Loan guarantees put in place before the last election were taken off the table and the Conservatives threatened to abandon the industry if it chose pursuing its legal rights over accepting a bad deal.

The Conservative government has demonstrated that it will in fact punish the companies that have refused to sign on to this agreement. This includes the imposition of a 19% levy on all refunded duty deposits on the holdout companies. The Liberals believe the government should immediately cease this harassment and treat these companies with the fairness and respect that they are owed.

The Liberal Party has always been committed to supporting our softwood lumber industry. That is why we have proposed a supplementary aid package, modeled on the package put forward by the former Liberal industry minister, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, which includes: $200 million over two years to enhance the forest industry's competitive position, improve its environmental performance and take advantage of growing bio-economies; $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 forest industry layoffs; and $100 million over two years to support economic diversification and capacity building in communities affected by job losses in the forestry industry.

It is enormously important to support the communities that will be affected not only by this agreement, but by the forestry industry in general.

Communities in Atlantic Canada, in Quebec, in rural regions everywhere—often on the coasts—are affected by this industry to a disturbing extent.

The price of gas, the value of the Canadian dollar, and ultimately the price of softwood lumber on the American market are major factors and they are all behind the rather major crisis that industry is experiencing at present.

That is why we consider it to be so important that the government support not only those industries, but also the workers and communities. They are the ones who will ultimately pay the price for a bad agreement and for a global situation that will certainly lead to layoffs and serious trouble for some companies.

We had also proposed $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 British Columbia and Alberta forests.

Some forestry industry companies may opt not to sign on to the softwood lumber agreement and will continue to pursue their legal rights both under NAFTA and under domestic courts. The government should immediately make loan guarantees available to them to provide them with the creditworthiness so they will be able to fight to maintain their legal rights before the process simply runs over them, as dictated by the government.

The Canadian forestry industry is facing many difficult years ahead. It will be a difficult winter in this sector. As I said a minute ago, the high value of the dollar, the high cost of energy, the declining price for softwood lumber are among real dangers on the horizon for this industry. That is why we believe the government needs to stand by the industry and not simply bulldoze them into an agreement that many of them have said they would not sign otherwise.

As I said earlier, workers and communities are in urgent need of this government’s support. The industry is already under enormous pressure and needs our government’s basic support.

The minister correctly noted in his comments that the Atlantic provinces benefit from an exemption under this agreement. This was an essential part of the softwood lumber agreements negotiated over the last quarter century because the exemption in Atlantic Canada is based on a different forestry management regime where the vast majority of the land on which lumber is cut, on which logs are harvested, is owned by private landowners.

As the minister noted in his comments correctly, this distinguishes the Atlantic provinces from other provinces where unfair allegations have been made surrounding Crown land, leases, and the cost of stumpage.

The exemption that Atlantic Canada has historically enjoyed is not thanks to the actions of any government but because the American coalition did not petition the U.S. commerce department with allegations of subsidy against the four Atlantic provinces. This is why, in my view, the Maritime Lumber Bureau has done a wonderful job over the last number of years in maintaining this exemption in front of the American courts, in front of the American lumber coalition, and the American government.

Companies in my own riding like Delco Forest Products, for example, or Westwood Industries, or Goguen Lumber are small family businesses that employ hundreds of people in my riding. JD Irving has sawmills in my riding. Hundreds of people are employed in this important industry, and the exemption that Atlantic Canada has always enjoyed is the result of a much different system of land ownership.

That is why, if we are going to be sincere, we have to admit that the exemption that the government has claimed for Atlantic Canada has existed for a quarter of a century and not because of any political intervention from a previous Conservative government when Mr. Mulroney was prime minister or previous Liberal governments. It has existed because, in fact, the land ownership system differentiates to a great extent the four Atlantic provinces from other Canadian provinces.

As I also said earlier, we find this debate difficult because we believe that the government should have supported the industry, should have offered loan guarantees for companies that asked for assistance, and should have continued to pursue the legal route, which, we sincerely believe, would have led to a final decision to settle this question once and for all.

In conclusion, I would like to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and by substituting the following:

This House declines to proceed with 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, because it opposes the principle of the bill, which is to abrogate the North American Free Trade Agreement, to condone illegal conduct by Americans, to encourage further violations of the North American Free Trade Agreement and to undermine the Canadian softwood sector by leaving at least $1 billion in illegally collected duties in American hands, by failing to provide open market access for Canadian producers, by permitting the United States to escape its obligations within three years, by failing to provide necessary support to Canadian workers, employers and communities in the softwood sector and by imposing coercive and punitive taxation in order to crush dissent with this policy.

[David Emerson, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour today to speak to the legislation to enable the Government of Canada to implement the softwood lumber agreement reached this past summer with the United States. Softwood lumber for Canadian softwood lumber producers has been an industry that has been plagued by trade disputes, border measures and various types of trade harassment for basically a quarter of a century.

The agreement will provide stability and dispute-free market access to the United States market. It will provide stability for a period of at least eight to nine years. I also believe it will provide a trajectory for the evolution of the softwood lumber industry to a world of complete free trade. This is not unlike what happened in the automotive industry in the 1960s and 1970s where a sector, which was once subject to significant protection, gradually, through a sector specific agreement, evolved into a successful sector that is subject to almost complete free trade today.

I would ask hon. members to consider the softwood lumber agreement, not in the context of whether this is better than or as good as complete free trade. We know the answer to that. What we also know is that complete free trade is not the option that we have before us. It has not been the option for the last 24 years and it is not the option today. We are not one legal victory away from free trade.

In fact, when we look at the softwood lumber industry, it is a highly cyclical industry. We have just been through a very positive part of the cycle. We are now going into a negative part of the cycle where lumber prices will be lower than their normal trend price. During the low part of the cycle, trade actions not only proliferate, they become more robust. In this softwood lumber dispute, we are dealing with not just countervailing duties based on allegations of subsidies of Canadian softwood lumber producers, we are also dealing with anti-dumping duties.

When we get into a weak market, the ability of American protectionists to launch new cases or to raise the duty rates on existing cases, it becomes much more severe, much more difficult and much more problematic. Without this agreement we would be looking at a difficult period of trade litigation over the months and years ahead.

Let us talk about the agreement for a moment and some of the highlights of the agreement. The agreement is long term in nature. It provides for eight to nine years of dispute free trade with the United States. During good lumber markets, which, based on the history of the last 10 years, would be about 50% of the time or maybe a little bit more, we would have complete free trade. There would be no border measures, no quotas and no export taxes.

We are also looking at an agreement that puts much needed cash into the hands of companies, businesses and communities. Under this agreement, 81% of the duties on deposit with the United States would come back to Canadian companies. That is more than 5 billion Canadian dollars coming back into companies at a time when they badly need the cash and badly need to invest in their businesses.

In addition, as a Canadian initiative and as part of the agreement, we have included an accelerated deposit recovery mechanism. Through the Export Development Corporation of Canada, producers will be able to obtain their cash deposit within four to eight weeks of them filing their documents with Export Development Canada. That is compared to a normal time period that could take in excess of six months, possibly more than two years, to recover deposits through the U.S. customs.

The agreement has major exemptions in it. The entire Atlantic Canadian industry would be exempt from any border measures under the agreement which includes dumping duties. As hon. members will know, unlike previous trade disputes, Atlantic Canadian companies, while they have not been subject to countervailing duties, have been subject to dumping duties. Dumping duties are pernicious in weak markets. Dumping duties grow. An administrative review indicates that dumping duties will grow this fall. Even if we continue to win current litigation, that litigation will be appealed. Dumping duties will continue to be applied and Canadian companies, including those in Atlantic Canada, would be subject to continuing trade harassment. The territories, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, are also exempt from the provisions of the agreement, with no border measures there.

A very important part of the agreement is the unprecedented protection of provincial forest policies as a result of the agreement. In the past, what is called anti-circumvention language in past agreements had basically prevented provincial governments from implementing changes in forest policies and, indeed, any measure that a province would take under past agreements that had the effect of reducing timber stumpage, would have been subject to countervail and would have been a circumvention of the last softwood lumber agreement.

In the agreement, those policies are protected. We can in fact have a market based timber pricing system, as has been implemented in British Columbia, that now will be protected. Timber prices can go up when markets are good and timber prices can go down when markets are bad. Timber prices can also reflect conditions such as an export tax, an exchange rate change, hydro rates or any other kind of economic circumstance that changes the value of timber. The agreement protects those policies that allow timber pricing mechanisms to play their role as shock absorbers as we go through the vagaries of the lumber market and those factors which affect it.

The agreement also provides flexibility. In that part of the market when prices are low, the agreement provides provinces with significant flexibility as to how they wish to implement the agreement. In some parts of the country there will be a desire to restrict volume because they are actually reducing their allowable cut for other reasons. In provinces like Quebec, in a weak market they can pay duties no higher than 5% and complement that by reductions in volume shipped into the U.S. market.

In other regions, such as British Columbia, we have the option of not reducing our volume but paying a higher export tax, which is what the province of British Columbia and certain other provinces wanted. They wanted that flexibility built into the agreement and it is built into the agreement. We now have the ability, in different parts of the country where the industry is subject to different factors, to respond quite differently to the circumstances of a weak lumber market.

To the degree that there are export taxes collected, those revenues are not going to go into the U.S. treasury. Those revenues are going to stay here in Canada. They are to go back to the provinces where the lumber originated. Again, this will continue to protect Canadian companies, Canadian governments and Canadian economic interests.

Let us talk about dispute resolution. Many members of the House have spoken about chapter 19 of NAFTA, often critically and with some valid issues to be dealt with over time in regard to chapter 19, but this agreement provides a separate dispute resolution mechanism. That dispute resolution mechanism will deal quickly and in a binding way with issues that come up in the context of this softwood lumber agreement. So again, we have improved our position in terms of dispute resolution.

On termination, we have heard people speak about the need for a termination clause. Some have said we should not have a termination clause. Some have said we should have a long termination clause. We have negotiated in this agreement the best and most secure termination language in any trade agreement that Canada or the United States has.

In fact, one cannot terminate this agreement for 18 months. After 18 months, there must be six months' notice. After the six months' notice there is a 12-month standstill during which no trade action can be brought against Canadian companies. This six months' notice and 12-month standstill will continue through the agreement. At the end of the seventh year, if the United States were not to renew this agreement for the full nine years, the 12-month standstill would continue to apply. In effect, at a minimum, we get eight years of dispute-free trade.

This agreement will evolve. It is not going to be a static agreement.

There are mechanisms built into this agreement that will allow government-to-government committees to work on critical policy issues to improve the agreement, to look at issues like the British Columbia coastal industry and the issue with respect to exports of lumber from logs harvested off private lands. It will deal with issues of running rules to ensure that the agreement operates in a commercially viable manner. And it will give a very clear and immediate focus to what we call off-ramps.

Government-to-government discussions will look at the policy changes that provincial governments can put in place to find relief from the measures included in this softwood lumber agreement. That is a very important part of this agreement, because it will allow the agreement to be improved and to migrate gradually to full free trade over time.

There is also a binational mechanism at the industry level so industry can work together to determine how better to improve the competitiveness and the market position of the North American softwood lumber industry. Again, the analogy to autos or the steel sector, where the sector gradually evolves to full free trade, is readily apparent.

This is an agreement that is good for Atlantic Canada. It will give the provinces of Atlantic Canada full exemption. It will get them away from the threat of dumping duties that are sure to grow and become much more burdensome going forward without this agreement.

This agreement will be good for Quebec. It meets Quebec's needs in terms of the option and the kind of agreement Quebec was seeking to best support its industry. And let us remember that 32 border mills in Quebec will be completely exempt from border measures under this agreement.

Again, Ontario is supportive. There is an option that meets Ontario's needs.

It is the same thing for the Prairies.

British Columbia is very well positioned under this agreement. It is well positioned because the number one issue that British Columbia had was to protect its new regulatory measures for timber pricing and forest management in British Columbia. Those policies have been fully protected under this agreement.

British Columbia is now able to have a market-based timber pricing system. Timber prices will go up and down to reflect the true economics of doing business in the U.S. market. That is something we have never had before.

Remanners will be better off. They will not be charged any duties on the value added portion of their production.

High value producers will be better off because there will be a $500 limit over which duties will not be increased beyond that which would apply to a $500 per 1,000 board foot product.

This is a good deal and it has broad support from both industry and provinces. Over 90% of the industry, when polled in August, said it supported this agreement. Companies are now coming in and working with us. They are very happy with the work we are doing toward implementation of this agreement. They are working with us, not against us. They believe this is an agreement that will enable them to get back to managing their businesses, building their companies, and supporting the communities and the jobs in those communities.

It also clears the table for Canada to get back to doing business in North America, to get back to rectifying some of the issues that need to be addressed in Canada's best interest as we strengthen and improve the workings of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

I would remiss if I did not pay tribute to the people who have worked so hard and have been so dedicated in bringing this agreement about.

Without the Prime Minister's intervention at the very highest levels to set a new tone to make sure that Canada was able to do business in a way that would benefit Canadians, without that new tone, this agreement could not have happened.

It could not have happened without Ambassador Wilson and the good work that he and Claude Carrière in the embassy in Washington did in the negotiation of this agreement.

Ambassador Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, has been very supportive, very helpful and a very constructive participant.

My colleague, the Minister of Industry, has been a very strong contributor to the work that has gone into this agreement.

As for my own staff, my deputy minister, Marie-Lucie Morin, has been a stellar contributor to this agreement. Andrea Lyon in my department has been tireless. She spent her whole spring and her whole summer, right into the fall, doing nothing but this.

The Export Development Corporation of Canada has been stellar in cooperating and providing for an accelerated mechanism for refund of deposits.

I call on members to support this agreement, to support the stability and the ability to grow and develop the softwood lumber industry. Let us get back to business. Let us get back to protecting and creating jobs and getting investment back into the forest industry and all those communities that depend on it.

Emergency Management Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-12. This is a moment I have been eagerly awaiting, for I am well aware that in the world in which we now live, the issue of emergencies certainly demands the attention of legislators.

Just earlier, I was pondering the fact that, even in the 1800s, people were trying to regulate emergencies with the Quarantine Act. Why did they attempt to use this act in part to regulate emergencies? Because disease was surely the greatest threat to human communities, to the human condition about which Malraux spoke to us with such talent. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you are an enthusiast of Malraux. I know your erudition, and even your epicurean side. Of course, if we are talking about the 16th, 17th or 18th centuries, the spread of disease could not possibly be compared with the SARS crisis that we experienced, for example. And for once, the federal government was in a field of jurisdiction that belonged to it alone, under a class of subject enumerated in the Constitution.

When we speak of emergencies, the word “emergency” is in itself open to many meanings. What does it mean when we speak of emergencies? Are we talking about disease, the unleashed forces of nature, public transit, natural catastrophes, the overflowing of the Red River, the pollution in the big cities, terrorist attacks? Terrorism is a real fact of our collective life.

If I may digress, for a parliament and a parliamentarian, the end can never justify the means. One can never say, on account of some context one considers extraordinary, that one is going to take certain actions prejudicial to personal freedoms. In any case, you know how the Bloc Québécois is. If there is one party in this House that could hold a set of scales in its hands, with a centre of gravity that can balance human rights with necessary protection of the community, that party is surely the Bloc Québécois. How could we not be disturbed by Bill C-24, and its successor Bill C-36 on anti-terrorist measures. The government was trying to plagiarize the previous government, and it plagiarized certain provisions of the Patriot Act, tabled by the Bush administration. Incidentally, it will be with great interest that we shall read the judgment to be rendered shortly on the security certificates.

I know that some of my caucus colleagues, and in particular our immigration and public safety critics, have a lot of reasons to be worried. I would ask you the question, Mr. Speaker. Is it acceptable, in a country that adheres to the rule of law, for a person to be subject to arrest without warrant, arbitrarily detained, and not have access to the complete evidence in his or her court file? Do we not learn in our law schools that it is important to have a just and fair trial? Are we not in the post-Stinchcombe era? The Supreme Court has given judgment on this point. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is aware of that. Stinchcombe requires that all evidence be disclosed. That is surprising, because Stinchcombe involved a tax fraud matter, if I recall correctly.

In any case emergencies cover a range of situations: SARS, overflowing rivers, terrorism, or mass transit.

We know that in some democracies, the evil hand of certain groups has used mass transit to spread toxic substances. Plainly it is a concern of governments, I would even say their duty, to have evacuation and emergency plans.

Let us ask the question: is this primarily the responsibility of the federal government? That question arises in the case before us. This is not a case involving quarantine, an epidemic or virology.

The bill says:

This enactment provides for a national emergency management system that strengthens Canada’s capacity to protect Canadians.

Obviously, when we read the bill, we can say that it is reasonable for the federal government, in the departments for which that government is responsible, to have an emergency plan. We therefore understand that it is reasonable for there to be a plan for public safety, health, national defence, or any other example that my colleagues may bring to my attention.

Closer to home, I know that on Parliament Hill, the Board of Internal Economy, of which the various party whips are members, thinks about how to ensure that the Hill is safer. There have been very few unfortunate incidents, but still, there have been a few.

In fact, there is a new Sergeant-at-Arms in the House. I would like to wish him success in the responsibilities of his position. He is the person who is responsible for the safety of parliamentarians.

In the British parliamentary tradition, the distance between the opposition and the government is two and a half sword lengths. Why? Because when Parliament was first created, when the institution of Parliament was created in the United Kingdom, the monarch stood in fear of members of Parliament. That is the source of the tradition, when the Speaker is elected, of dragging him or her by the arm while being met with resistance. That is because some of the speakers, in some of the Parliaments of Great Britain, who were called burgesses, were beheaded when the king did not agree with them.

So as not to wander too far afield, let us come back to the Sergeant-at-Arms. He is responsible for parliamentarians’ safety, and in emergencies he must arrange for the Hill to be evacuated.

I would like to give you an example of a traumatic event that I experienced personally. Every member of this House is familiar with my sturdiness, physical strength and self-discipline. Then there is the President of the United States, who thinks he is the master of any house he happens to be in. When President Bush visited the Hill, some parliamentarians, including me, were not allowed access to the Hill. My colleague from Saint-Lambert was also denied access to the Hill. Why? Not because the constables prevented us from entering. After all, their kindness is known to us all. They were not the ones who denied us entry. It was security personnel outside Parliament who stopped us; they went about it quite rudely, I might add. Such events prompt us to think about how we might react in an emergency that forced us to evacuate the building rapidly.

I know that Board of Internal Economy members, including the whips, have discussed this issue.

So, yes, we have to have emergency measures in place in our large communities, especially in big cities. Emergencies can be caused by natural disasters, terrorist attacks on public transportation or, of course, disease. Obviously, we do not deal with disease as we did in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, but imagine the impact of a virus spreading through our communities. Even in our modern society, we have come to realize that hospitals are not always a safe haven. We do not think that going to the hospital can make us sick. I feel comfortable talking about this before the member for Québec because I know she is as healthy as a horse, but people sure do not expect to get sick when they go to the hospital.

We recently learned that some hospitals in Canada were vectors of contamination. This is one of the emergencies for which we must plan.

Although the Bloc Québécois agrees with this bill in principle, we have some concerns. First is the issue of respecting provincial responsibilities. A national emergency should never mean there is just one government. We are long past the time of the Rowell-Sirois commission. We are not in an apprehended war situation. As elected members of the Bloc Québécois, as representatives of the people of Quebec, we must never act as though there were just one government.

The National Assembly, whose first speaker was Mr. Panet—if I recall correctly—is one of the oldest Parliaments in North America. A number of years ago, it passed its own public safety plan. And who was the author of this important plan that respects decentralization, a plan whose goal was to have the regional county municipalities, the municipalities and the health care system work together? When we think of emergencies, these are the players we want to see promote a common vision.

The National Assembly was the first francophone Parliament in North America. It was led by Speaker Panet and founded under the Constitutional Act, 1791, with ministerial responsibility introduced in 1848. It used to be referred to as the Salon de la race, but that expression is no longer used. It passed its public safety plan. We are most privileged to have among us the author of the plan, none other than the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who was the public safety minister at the time and who served the Government of Quebec well.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[David Emerson, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)