Bill C-24 (Historical)

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

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

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

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[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.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to ask the minister three specific questions.

I think the House would be interested in hearing the minister on three specific questions.

First, I wonder if the minister could tell us exactly how much money is in fact left in the United States. We have seen $1 billion. We have seen more than $1 billion. I am wondering if the government has a dollar figure for the amount of Canadian money left in Washington as a result of this agreement.

In that same vein, we believe that some $500 million, half a billion dollars, will end up in the hands of the American Lumber Coalition, the American lumber producers who have caused such grief over the last number of years in terms of their harassment of Canadian companies. At a time when the Byrd amendment is in fact sunsetting and disappearing, I am wondering how the minister can explain that the government decided to leave that half billion dollars directly in the hands of American companies sort of as a reward, so to speak, for their harassment.

Finally, and again, the other half of the money being left in the United States is going for meritorious purposes, we are told. We would be curious to hear what precisely the minister and the government understand to be the kind of use this money will see. Some observers before a committee of this House have said that it in fact could be used for partisan purposes in the United States, a rather loose definition. I wonder if the minister could explain exactly where the meritorious portion of the money will be spent.

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a negotiated settlement. This is what we ultimately will have to do, or would have had to do, to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. The dispute will never be resolved through litigation. Litigation will always be based on U.S. law, there will always be new cases brought, and U.S. law can be changed if the U.S. feels we are winning and does not want us to win. So let us be clear: we must have a negotiated solution in softwood lumber. We hope for a day when that will not be the case. I believe this agreement gets us there.

The agreement clearly calls for basically $1 billion to stay in the U.S. and the rest to come back to Canada, which is about 81% of all the duties. There is $5.4 billion in total deposits, with $4.4 billion dollars U.S. or over $5 billion Canadian that comes back to Canadian companies and Canadian communities and will be put to work right here in Canada.

Of the $1 billion that stays in the U.S., as the hon. member said, half of that, or $450 million, will go to meritorious initiatives. We have been working with the United States and it was envisaged that if there were to be any kind of political involvement it would be bipartisan and it would be done through a charitable organization. I am informed that the latest thinking is that this charitable organization would have nothing whatever to do with politics in the United States.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to ask the minister how he could have agreed to negotiate and sign an agreement like this, particularly given the results at the tribunals.

The tribunals found for the Canadian policy and against the United States, and said that there had been no prejudice arising from subsidies or dumping. In addition, if the United States is agreeing to repay $4.4 billion to Canada, it is practically saying that it admits this money was taken dishonestly from Canadian companies. This action is an admission by the United States.

Now, on top of that, we are signing an agreement that provides that duties will have to be paid—not in all circumstances, but still in some—when we know for a fact that there were no subsidies or dumping by Canadian and Quebec companies.

I therefore have to ask what could have prompted the minister to sign an agreement like this. He was probably the only Conservative who agreed to it, since, as we will recall, the Conservatives’ election platform clearly said that they would take this all the way so that Canadians would get 100 per cent of their money.

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the allegations of subsidies by Canadian provinces on the softwood lumber have been going on for decades. Those allegations of subsidies stem fundamentally from the fact that Canadian timber is largely harvested off Crown land. They continue to make allegations that the fact it is harvested off Crown land, that the revenues go to government, the government is somehow not taking the full market value of the timber.

Those debates go on and on. We continue to win them, but the dispute never ends and it never will. Under U.S. law, which is what these disputes are adjudicated on when we use a NAFTA framework, they can continue to make allegations, to bring more suits, whether it is an allegation of subsidy. Absolutely for sure, if there were not this agreement and the federal or provincial governments attempted to assist the softwood lumber industry in any way, there would be more countervailing duty cases brought.

A new part of this dispute is the dumping side, which has just come in. The hon. member ought to know that even in Canada, we bring dumping cases. All it requires is that it can be demonstrated there is a loss, that the companies are losing money on shipments into a market. Particularly in bad markets, those cases will be sustained and it will be very damaging for Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about clearing the table. This agreement essentially gives the table away along with the whole rest of the house.

There have been a whole series of questions that have been asked by industry around this. A meeting last week in Vancouver was botched. Industry spokespeople came forward and asked important questions, but could not get answers because the government was not prepared. We certainly have seen that with this bill. We will have a chance to debate this throughout the course of this week: that the bill itself does not correspond to the actual agreement.

I could ask many questions of the minister, but I will restrict myself to one for the moment. Around the Export Development Canada administrative charges, people have asked what the charge is. They have been getting no answers. This is just one component of a very botched negotiation and a very bad agreement. Could the minister answer in the House what the EDC charge will be? What is the penalty the companies will pay?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I do not accept the allegation or the premise that somehow this agreement is not a very good agreement. This is the best softwood lumber agreement that we have seen in Canada in the last three decades.

With respect to administrative charges by Export Development Canada, there are none.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The amendment is in order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am astonished at the hon. member's statements. He belongs to a party that just about a year ago was willing to consider and accept a deal that was of far less value than the one that our minister and our government has negotiated.

He says that the principle of the bill is to abrogate responsibility. The principle of the bill is to provide stability and certainty for the softwood lumber industry. That is what the bill is all about. That is what our minister has done.

Why do the Liberals and the NDP want to continue to ensure uncertainty in the softwood lumber business in this country, uncertainty that would most assuredly bring continued litigation under U.S. law in courts, challenge after challenge amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars in increased legal fees, bring that kind of litigation upon our industry, and bring foreseeable mill closures and job losses to our forest workers in this country? Why would they want to do that?

Everyone knows, even the Liberals and the NDP can grasp this one, that bankers and investors like certainty in any type of commercial or industry sector.

Under their wishes the uncertainty would drive the bankers away, would drive the investors away, and would result in continued litigation, job losses, mill closures and hundreds of millions of dollars in additional legal fees. That is what they want for this country.

This minister and this government want to bring prosperity back to the softwood lumber industry and this agreement does it. The Liberals and the NDP should get behind it and support it.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cariboo—Prince George said that the previous Liberal government had not accepted a deal and he is right. We declined a deal that was considerably better than the one that the government has now imposed on the softwood lumber industry.

There were two main things that the previous Liberal government would not accept. We would not accept to reward the American lumber coalition with a half billion dollar Canadian tip for having harassed our lumber industry. That for the previous Liberal government was an unacceptable concession, one that this government quickly made.

The other thing which the previous Liberal government had refused to accept was a termination clause that would allow, contrary to what many have claimed, a quick exit from the agreement. As the Quebec industry spokespersons have said, it is an awfully high price to pay, a billion for effectively two years of managed trade.

Those are the things the previous Liberal government would never have accepted and that is why we declined a deal that in fact was better than this one.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the member for Beauséjour.

I am always surprised to see the great sensitivity currently being shown toward the softwood lumber industry when, personally, I am convinced that the proposed agreement is the result of inactivity by the Liberal and Conservative governments since the start of the softwood lumber dispute. It is the result of inactivity.

Today, the member for Beauséjour is saying that the government probably should have continued to take the legal route, because we were winning cases before the NAFTA tribunals, and that, in addition, the government likely should have given companies loan guarantees.

Yet when the Liberals were in power, the Bloc Québécois demanded for weeks, even years, that the government provide loan guarantees for companies to address the softwood lumber problem.

The industry needed legal support, which the Liberals did not provide. During the election campaign, the Conservatives promised Quebeckers loan guarantees. Once in power, though, they said that loan guarantees were out of the question and that they would negotiate an agreement and stick to it even though it meant losing a billion dollars.

My question is for the member for Beauséjour. Now that the Liberals are in opposition, why do they seem to be changing their minds all of a sudden?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for his question.

When it comes to changing points of view, I think the Bloc Québécois should explain its own about-face on this issue. We were pretty surprised to find that, when the government put pressure on the industry and the Bloc Québécois, the Bloc simply dropped the arguments it had been making last April. Now they support what we believe to be a bad deal.

The member referred to loan guarantees. I agree with him that when the Conservatives were in opposition, they insisted on loan guarantees. I agree with the Bloc member. As soon as the Conservatives came to power, they dropped the issue.

I would like to remind the House that it was the current member for Vancouver Kingsway who, as a minister in the Liberal government before his own about-face, announced a loan guarantee program.

This summer, I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Chevrette, the spokesperson for the Quebec industry. He talked about the Liberals' loan guarantee program, the very program that had been announced by the current minister of International Trade. He is not sure to what extent the Quebec industry supports the current agreement.

This means that if the Liberal program were still in effect, and if the Conservative government had not simply cancelled the program in an effort to threaten or pressure the industry, I think the Canadian industry would have been able to resist the pressure to sign on to a bad agreement.

We know that the money on its way back to Canada will not end up in the hands of companies to be invested in communities and new technology. In the end, the bankers will be laughing all the way to the bank. That is what the government will accomplish in the end.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the member for Beauséjour and typical Liberal revisionist history.

I will try to make this fairly succinct with a couple of quick questions. In the little history lesson on Atlantic Canada's exemption on softwood lumber, the hon. member forgot to say that the exemption was started under a Conservative government. It was largely ignored for 13 years under a Liberal government and it was only, which he did mention, through the good work of the Maritime Lumber Bureau that it stayed in place at all. This is an industry driven group which really works by itself to maintain Atlantic Canada's exemption.

The hon. member for Beauséjour mentioned that exemption. He did not mention that the Liberals, prior to the election, were so eager, so desperate, to sign a deal on softwood lumber that they put Atlantic Canada's exemption on the table. They were willing to give up Atlantic Canada's exemption, which was not mentioned by the hon. member.

He did mention that somehow the Liberal deal was a better deal than the one we are debating today. I am happy to have the debate, but I ask the hon. member, what were the points? He should put them on the table, on paper. I ask him, what about that deal is better than this deal? I would like to see the facts.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the last question posed by the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's: asks: What were the precise differences? If he were to look at Hansard in reference to my answer to his colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, he would see two very essential differences which I outlined a moment ago. I can answer that question by referring him to the Hansard of a few minutes ago.

My colleague from South Shore is a skilled parliamentarian. I did not realize he had an active fantasy life when he could claim, for example, that the Liberal Party had been prepared to trade away the historic exemption of Atlantic Canada. That is simply an invention that is not supported by any of the comments made by the Atlantic industry. It is simply an attempt to blur the facts and deal with the sellout proposed by his government.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I would like to point out that we are now debating the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Beauséjour.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the new Bloc Québécois international trade critic, and I congratulate him on his new caucus portfolio. My question is very straightforward.

This agreement is not good for the softwood lumber industry across the country. We know that it is not at all in the best interest of the Quebec industry.

There are two parts to this. First, the Quebec industry has been asking for loan guarantees for a long time, and Parliament should be giving this to the Quebec industry. Loan guarantees could enable the industry to survive these last few months before we can finally declare victory. Victory would already be ours had the Conservative government not stopped the legal process. In short, what we have here is not what the industry asked for.

Secondly, and more importantly, this agreement will mean that any change to Quebec's forestry policy will be subject to Washington's veto—to the Bush administration's veto. It makes no sense that the Bloc Québécois should support measures that force the provincial government to get Washington's approval for any change to Quebec's forestry policy brought about by Quebeckers' democratic decisions.

My question is therefore very simple. Given that this motion deprives the Province of Quebec of its right to make important policy changes affecting the forest industry, why is the Bloc Québécois supporting it? Far worse than encroaching on this right, this agreement removes it entirely.

Furthermore, in light of what we know now—that both the agreement and the bill are a huge mess—is the Bloc Québécois reconsidering its support so that the three opposition parties can work together to institute loan guarantees, which is what the Quebec industry really wants?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer that question, and at the same time, of course, I ask myself about the New Democratic Party.

We know that there are certain fundamental ways of looking at things that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois share, but we take respect for forestry workers farther, workers who, even if they have not lost their jobs, are having a lot of problems, and we go farther in our respect for forestry companies and their desire, both in Quebec and in Canada, to continue to develop.

At the present time, those companies are in a chokehold. So what should we really do for the industry, and for the workers? The Liberals and Conservatives drew the line when they did not want to create measures to help the forestry industry survive, while argument continued before the tribunals and victory was imminent.

Why, at that point, did the Conservative Party lay down its arms? Maybe because of where they got their Minister of International Trade, who had not yet joined the Conservatives when they were writing their election platform, the Conservatives who would have rejected that agreement and continued to go before the tribunals to have them confirm the legality of what they were doing and the illegality of what the United States of America was doing.

The decision made by the Bloc Québécois was indeed a difficult one, because the agreement is very far from perfect, but when it comes to an imperfect agreement I prefer a company that still has a chance to survive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc members for their support for this monumental softwood agreement. I encourage them not to be swayed by the NDP and its descriptions of a good softwood agreement and the use of the words “botched, flawed and misrepresented”. The federal government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of International Trade have the best interests of the softwood lumber industry and the workers in that industry at heart. That is why they signed this agreement.

The agreement will bring certainty to the industry. It lets the companies make long term plans. Its gives their investors some long term stability in order to make investments in the industry. It makes the banks more comfortable to know that long term business plans can be created. That is what we want for the industry. We want the workers in Quebec, Atlantic Canada and British Columbia to be working in the industry and to know that they have jobs for the next nine years.

That is contrary to the NDP that is willing to put at risk the mills and the workers' jobs all across the country. Under its option years of uncertainty and years of litigation would be guaranteed. I might point out that U.S. law is far different from what we would like to operate under here. Challenges could be changed; every time somebody wanted to speak it could be taken up in the courts and another few hundred million dollars in legal fees could be spent. That is what the NDP is offering.

I ask that the members of the Bloc not be swayed by the misrepresentations of the NDP and the misrepresentations and petty politics of the Liberals.

This is a good agreement. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry, the industry itself, the provinces and the mills in Quebec are all behind it. I encourage members to stand firm to get the softwood agreement through the House and give some certainty, peace of mind and stability to the industry and to the people who earn their livings and raise their families as a result of the softwood lumber industry in Canada.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member for Cariboo—Prince George not be quite so enthusiastic that we are going to vote for this bill. We are not agreeing to it with joy in our hearts. The member says that it will provide us with stability in the forestry industry. It may be rather naive to place one’s absolute trust in the United States when it comes to softwood lumber, among other things, particularly given that we are talking about a government that is increasingly tending toward protectionism.

We know very well that there is nothing less certain than long-term stability and we also know that the American government can terminate this agreement on six months’ notice, for a period of 18 months. So once 24 months are up, it will already be over.

When the United States of America finds that the situation is not profitable enough for it, it will end it and will do what it ordinarily does, in its very arbitrary way: it will impose tariffs that will choke the forestry industry in Quebec and Canada all over again.

Once again, the agreement is far from perfect. The failure of the Liberal and Conservative governments to create assistance programs for the forestry industry is why we are where we are at this point.

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

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke, first for his excellent presentation and next on his appointment as international trade critic for the Bloc. I agree with him completely when he says that this is not a good agreement. Moreover, I am concerned by the fact that an impression is being created that, good or bad, the agreement is the solution to all the problems in Quebec.

Does the member believe that this agreement will save jobs in Quebec and prevent the closing of lumber mills?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I am hoping for and what I wish for all the forestry companies that are still in business, as well as for the workers who still have a job in the industry. But, what must be remembered is that we have been swindled out of a billion dollars.

If the American government really believed that it was right to apply those countervailing duties at the border, why did it so quickly give up $4.4 billion while keeping the small commission of 19% for its work in collecting those duties?

I am convinced that if our government, the Liberals as well as the Conservatives, had really implemented a support program for the industry, we would not be in the mess we are in now and there would be many more jobs for people in Canada.

We have no great enthusiasm for supporting this bill. However, since the industry, the forestry workers and the governments have asked for our support, thanks to a healthy democracy in Quebec, we will support this bill.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to stand with my New Democratic Party colleagues to state that we will be voting against the bill, but voting for the amendment that has been offered, and I will be raising a subamendment at the end of my speech after question period.

I am raising the objections of the New Democratic Party, which has led the fight against the softwood sellout, because we believe that coercion is not consent and extortion is not gaining approval.

What we have seen over the last six weeks or so is an unprecedented use of bullying by the Conservative government, unprecedented use of the tax system and unprecedented use of government measures to force companies to accept a deal that they know is not in their interests.

The negotiations were badly botched. We saw at the end of April a framework agreement that was not respected in what the Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics on July 1 signed off on.

What we have seen since then are further concessions. For example, a deal that was going to last 23 months as of July 1 is now down to 18 months. What is particularly devastating is the continuing maintenance of the exit clause for the United States. It can, on an allegation of non-compliance by Canada, get out of this agreement at any time. In fact, it can take the $1 billion and run.

Given this situation, why would any responsible parliamentarian vote for what has been such badly botched negotiations, particularly when we look at the alternative?

I will be devoting much of my speech to the bill itself but I do want to mention the position we were in this summer. With the Tembec case results, which are subject to only one final appeal, and to the extraordinary challenge committee judgment that would have come out in August, without the government's botching of this file, we would have been in a position where we would be winning the last two non-appealable judgments.

That is not me speaking. That is Ambassador Wilson in his testimony on August 21 when he admitted that there were no appeals on the ECC judgment that would take off the punitive tariffs and that there is no appeal on the Tembec case after the circuit court of federal appeals rules.

We are in a situation where it is not a question of seven years of litigation, as the Prime Minister said so irresponsibly. We were in the final two hurdles, a few board feet short of winning those two non-appealable victories and the government has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, which is highly irresponsible.

The industry knows this, which is why all the bullying, the punitive special taxes and everything else have not even allowed the government to get the 95% industry support that it needs to put this agreement in action. This is premature. We are having a debate in Parliament when the industry has not even signed on in sufficient numbers that would make this agreement legally able to be put into force. Despite unprecedented bullying, the industry has said that this agreement is not a good one. We know the reasons for that but I will come back to that.

I would like to start by talking about Bill C-24. Later on in my presentation I will give two dozen reasons, although there are certainly more, why this House and why members of the Bloc Québécois should be voting against it.

However, I would like to speak for a moment about the botching of the bill itself. It is important for Conservative members, who obviously have not read the bill if they are supporting it, to understand the implications of what is actually being put forward by the Minister of International Trade. I will mention a few of the key clauses because it is also important for the industry to understand the actual agreement that was signed on July 1, which the industry rejected substantially and to which it has maintained its objection despite the bullying, that even in the bill those key aspects of the agreement of July 1 have not been respected.

I will begin with clause 10. If Conservative members vote for the bill, they will have to respond to their constituents for voting for a badly botched bill. It would impose a 15% export tax on October 1 that is a double taxation above and beyond the existing anti-dumping countervailing duties.

What the Conservatives would be voting for is a double tax on softwood companies that have been badly punished after four years of inaction and now the bungling of the government over the last four months. In clause 10 we are imposing a double taxation on these companies.

In clause 18, because of poor drafting in the bill, there is a special punitive tax that was designed to hit those companies that are standing up for Canadian rights and responsibilities under NAFTA, actually taking it to the end of the litigation progress, which is in Canada's interest and certainly in the interest of every other industry that could be targeted if the government succeeds in its sellout.

It put the special charge in but there is also the EDC charge, so companies will now be paying approximately 37%. In addition, in this badly botched bill, the companies have an obligation to pay those EDC charges immediately. We are asking softwood companies to pay up front, to pay a double penalty and to pay double taxation because the Conservative government botched the drafting of the bill.

Every Conservative member should be hanging their heads in shame that they failed to read the legislation and see what the implications were, but that is what has happened. Oops, they blew the drafting. Oops, there is a double taxation. Oops, now there is a double charge. Oops, they are having to pay immediately. Yes, the Conservatives failed to do their due diligence on this like they failed to do their due diligence on the actual negotiations themselves.

Let us talk about some other aspects of the bill that some Conservatives said that they would vote in favour of.

Clause 48 would require a six year burden of record-keeping, another administrative burden imposed on the softwood companies. They have been hit hard by government inaction and government bungling over the last few months and now we will be imposing additional administrative burdens on them. We have already spoken to the fact that the export tax, the penalties, are retroactive. In addition, now there are burdens that will be imposed on these companies.

I could take my entire 20 minutes just to talk about the botching of this bill but let us talk about the fact that half of the legislation is punitive measures. This shows just how bullying the government is. The Conservatives have refused litigation and have refused to have Canada win those two final hurdles. They have certainly refused the loan guarantees that they promised in the election campaign. I can say that constituents in British Columbia will make the Conservatives pay for breaking their promise on the loan guarantees that should have been submitted to the softwood industry.

Despite the government being in a bullying mood and trying to force these companies to stop their litigation and to send in approval letters, it did not get the industry support that it needed to bring the agreement into effect. Half the legislation now punishes the softwood companies, the mom and pop shops in places like Vancouver Island North, the B.C. interior.

Let us see what this botched bill provides for them and let us see if the Conservatives can support it.

Clause 77 states that they no longer need a warrant to enter softwood businesses. They can enter these places any time, no warrant needed, to enforce this draconian, Orwellian bill for this badly botched agreement. It is important for the industry to know about this kind of draconian enforcement with the unprecedented bullying that we have seen from the Conservative government.

Clause 89 gives a blank cheque to the minister to demand payment from companies. We have already raised concerns throughout these months, as the NDP has led the opposition to the softwood sellout, about the fact that companies have no appeal mechanism. If there is a bad calculation, if they disagree with the calculation of moneys that might come back, there is no appeal mechanism for them. They are left high and dry. Under clause 89, the minister gives himself a blank cheque to demand payment any time. It is the type of draconian, Orwellian process that should make every Conservative MP in this House hang their heads in shame.

What company will want to do business with a Canadian exporter when a minister can now go into its workplace at any time, demand payment at any time, with no appeal process, no way of righting the wrong? If the government screws up, softwood communities across the country have to pay, small companies that are trying to make ends meet after years of Liberal inaction and now after the Conservatives' botching of the agreement. If there is any disagreement by the government, the minister can demand that payment.

However, there is more.

In clause 95, directors are now individually responsible. If the government imposes its particular figures and since there is no appeal process, the directors are individually responsible. Conservative members should look at clause 95. They should read the bill so when they say that they will support something, they understand the implications of that support.

We in this corner of the House have always talked about corporate responsibility, but not in this way, not with bullying in a type of environment where we have rights and appeal mechanisms. That is how it is supposed to work. However, small softwood companies across the country, which have been living under the inaction and now the irresponsibility of successive governments, will find their directors individually responsible.

If we look at clause 96, the government can take property from one's family because of that individual responsibility. Let us say people set up education trust funds in 1990 for their kids. Under clause 96, the government can come in and take that for export charges, which it has decided, unilaterally, that they owed in 2006.

This was a badly botched bill, but I can give this much to the Conservatives. They have been consistent. They badly botched the negotiations. They announced they were ready to sell out at any price at the end of April. They even had a date set for the end of June. They wanted a photo op with George Bush in Washington, so they were willing to give anything away.

The Americans, who are shrew negotiators, realized that our Conservative government was not willing to stand up for Canada on anything. As one of the industry's spokespeople told me, the result is Canada has capitulated on everything, with the single notable exception, and I will give the Conservatives that, the maintenance of the maritime lumber exemption, which is a crumb. Aside from that, they conceded and capitulated on everything else. Because the companies would not sign on, they bullied them.

The bill is just the latest in a long bullying process, coercion rather than trying to get any sort of consent, and extortion rather than gaining approval from the companies.

I must also speak about the aspects of this bill that most affect Quebec in this matter. It is clear that no responsible parliamentarian would vote in favour of such measures. That is very clear.

I ask my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois to think of the interests of Quebec industry. That industry is unaware of the factors that I have just listed. It does not realize that it will be affected by theses draconian measures. The industry does not realize.

Now that the members of the Bloc Québécois know very clearly the consequences of a vote in favour of this bill, which has obviously been botched by this government, they should vote in the interest of the Quebec industry. They should clearly vote in the interests of Quebeckers.

Simply put, it is not in the interest of Quebec that Washington should have the right to veto any decision to change Quebec’s forestry policy. The Bloc Québécois should not vote for that. That is normal and it is clear. One cannot vote in favour of measures that infringe on jurisdictions belonging exclusively to Quebec.

I should also mention, regarding the situation in Quebec, a few of the comments we heard during the testimonies given this summer. We are fully aware that, unfortunately, this agreement has not changed at all, except for the vested interests of Canadians, which are going to diminish.

Carl Grenier said:

This is the most restrictive agreement that we have seen since this dispute began some 20 years ago....The mechanism itself is very binding. Clearly, as we move forward with such protectionist measures, it becomes more binding every time.

We are losing $1 billion. We know very well that $500 million will go to the American industry. We are fully aware that this money will eventually be used to target not only the softwood lumber industry, but any other industry in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. We know that this agreement can be cancelled at any time by the Bush administration. All it would have to do is allege that Canada had not respected its side of the agreement. There is no stability in any of this.

We know that the Bloc Québécois supported the motion in committee to indicate that loan guarantees are needed for the industry. We would prefer these immediate loan guarantees, not those aspects that undermine Quebec's jurisdiction in forestry. As Carl Grenier said, “Every victory obtained over the past three years under NAFTA has just been erased with the single stroke of a pen”.

This agreement is clearly not in the best interest of Quebec. We know very well what direction the Quebec industry would like to take: immediate loan guarantees and, of course, assistance to Quebec forest industry workers. However, the last two steps in the legal process must be completed first. If we do not do this, not only will the Quebec softwood lumber industry suffer the consequences, but so will all other Canadian industries.

That is really the point, the government's botched mishandling of this whole sordid affair. The latest examples I have given are on its botching of the actual drafting of the bill. What it does is it--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that the time is up, and he has three minutes remaining in his 20 minute speech.

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 Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When this bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster had the floor. There are three minutes in the time allotted remaining in his remarks.

[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 Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The debate is on the amendment to the amendment. Questions and comments.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members may recall the case of Spiro Agnew who when charged with tax evasion basically pleaded what was called nolo contendere. It was basically not to plead guilty or innocent, but rather to say “the legal fees are going to kill me on this, so I might as well just plead nolo contendere and at least I can get away without having to pay enormous legal fees”.

It seems that this is the same kind of bullying that the government has laid on the lumber industry by telling it that if it does not take this now that it is on its own. I think this is the crux of the issue in this regard.

I wonder if the member can give some indication to the members and to Canadians about the financial dimensions here and about what is really being lost, not only in terms of the duties improperly collected, but also the interest for all these years.

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

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this is not a commercially viable deal. This is an absolutely ridiculous deal that the companies have rejected consistently throughout the summer, until the government started bullying them individually and saying there would be no alternative to this Conservative sellout. There would be no alternative, no loan guarantees and no support in any way.

In his testimony, Russ Cameron from the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association indicated in regard to the complexity and the lack of commercial viability of the deal:

Well, there are eight possible tax rates, depending upon the random length index and whether you're above or below the 110. Oh, and the quota can be applied regionally, so that the quota applies to the entire region. You add up all the shipments, and once that region exceeds the shipments, then the border closes and you can't put your product in, no matter how much you are willing to pay.

The cost of this sellout goes beyond all Canadian industries. It goes beyond the four years of litigation victories that this government is ready to throw away, rip up with a stroke of a pen. It goes beyond all of those aspects. It goes beyond the billion dollars. It goes beyond the precedent that is set for any other industrial sector.

It goes to the very heart of commercial viability of softwood communities and softwood companies, softwood companies that are now in a situation where they are dealing with punitive taxes. They are dealing with multiple administrative charges that are forced upon them by the government, consistent bullying, and the fact that there are multiple tax rates that are all set retroactively. When they sell their product, they do not know whether they are going to be able to make a profit or not and they do not know whether they are going to keep their doors open or not.

Testimony clearly indicated that we could be looking at, in certain parts of the country, up to 20% of the mills closing as a result of this badly botched negotiation and this badly flawed sellout. So, the member is very correct to raise this question. We pay and we pay, and we do not get a heck of a lot back.

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

Mr. Speaker, part of what that member just said is true; that is, if we do not sign this agreement we will pay and pay because of the uncertainty that will remain in the softwood lumber industry.

That member is living in a dream world if he believes that by not signing this the Americans are just going to roll over and play dead. We are going to see more challenges and more litigation, the likes of which that member cannot imagine, or rather will not admit. We are going to see tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of dollars more in litigation, accompanied by uncertainty in the industry, which is going to scare off investors. It is going to scare off expansions to the mills. It is going to cause foreseeable job losses and foreseeable mill closures.

For some reason, that is what the NDP members want for the forest workers and their families of this country. They want the uncertainty to continue. They want the litigation to continue. They want the hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees to continue. They want the investors to go running until this industry becomes stable. They want the bankers to be scared off by the uncertainty and start calling in loans on the small mom and pop operations, through to the medium and even the large-sized mills.

I just cannot imagine how they can face the workers in the forest industry who they claim support their position and tell them about the possible, probable, and most certain job losses that are going to occur if we do not sign this deal.

I live in the largest softwood lumber producing riding in all of Canada. I do not live in downturn Burnaby or New Westminster. I live where the lumber pioneers of this country have carved out an industry, right from small scragg mills to the super mills that are in the riding of Cariboo—Prince George.

We produce more softwood lumber in that one riding than that member could imagine. I can tell the member that the mills, the workers, the investors, the families, and the kids of this buoyant forest industry, not just in my riding but across British Columbia and all across Canada, supported by the provinces, the industry and the workers, they all support this because they know, contrary to the misrepresentations of that member there to the folks in the industry, this deal is good for the industry, it is good for Canada, and it is good for the province.

If that member there and his party want to do something right by the forest industry's workers and their families, they would quit trying to snow them with those misrepresentations about this thing and get behind it, support it, and let us get some certainty and let us get on to a buoyant and bountiful future in the softwood industry in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, how would the member know? He was chided in the Prince George Citizen because he had not even read the agreement. That is unbelievable. He was chided in the Prince George Citizen because NDP forestry critic Bob Simpson and I had actually read the agreement and he had not. That member has not been standing up for his constituents. He is absolutely right when he says he is part of softwood country, but he is absolutely wrong when he says he has been doing due diligence. He has failed the people of Prince George. He has failed the people of the north.

He has not read the agreement. He has not even read the badly botched bill that punishes companies twice with the double export tax, with the AD and the CVD. In addition, the bill imposes an EDC because the government botched the special charge. So here we have a badly botched bill, and instead of standing up for his constituents, instead of standing up for Prince George, that member abdicates his responsibility. It is appalling.

Let me read just one of the reactions from analysts who actually understand the industry, who actually have read the bill, and who actually have read the agreement. Stephen Atkinson said:

When you look at a situation like a Canfor that is going to run its lowest-cost wood, then clearly you're going to shut down those lumber mills in the southeast quadrant [of British Columbia]. What happens then is that it'll put some of the pulp mills in danger, whether it be the Kamloops mill, whether it be the Celgar mill, and then that supply comes into question.

Very quickly, on raw logs, what really happens is this. Let us say we are paying a duty. Let us pick a number again. Let us say it is 15% or whatever. If we can bring in the logs 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. There has been no Conservative from Kamloops, no Conservative from southeast British Columbia and no Conservative from northern British Columbia who has been standing up for an agreement that everyone knows is going to sell out those areas and that everyone knows is going to lead to lost jobs. Yet not a single Conservative MP from British Columbia has stood up against this and said, “This is bad for B.C., so we are not going to permit this”.

There is only going to be one answer from British Columbians and that is that in the next election there will not be a Conservative left west of the Rockies. That is because they have failed British Columbians.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Cape Breton--Canso will be mindful of the fact that there is less than a minute left for both the question and the answer.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it would have been good to keep the member going. I share his concerns. I did not catch the first part of my colleague's intervention, but I share his concerns about the loss of article 19, the dispute resolution mechanism that I think was held in high esteem by all free trading nations. It was seen as a premier mechanism.

Let us bring this down to the grassroots. In the value added sector in the riding of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, how does this equate to jobs lost, to jobs missed in that sector?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member will be mindful of the fact that he has less than 30 seconds for his answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could easily talk for 30 minutes, because this is a horrible sellout that is bad for Canada. I mentioned Stephen Atkinson's comments. What this does is essentially fuel American jobs through American mills by raw Canadian logs. That is the horrible aspect of---

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. Minister of Industry.

[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, the Minister of Industry neglected to mention that, during the recent election campaign, the Conservative government had promised to provide loan guarantees. Instead of keeping its promises, the government forced companies to accept what everyone knows is a very bad deal. It told them that they would never have any loan guarantees, that the government would never give them anything, unless they signed this flawed agreement. As a result of this deal, Canada is losing jobs, as well as any rights it had in the dispute resolution process.

How can the minister defend his position when he is turning his back on the industry, breaking his election promises and refusing to act in the interests of communities across the country that depend on softwood lumber? Can he confirm that he threatened all these companies, telling them that they would never receive loan guarantees and that all they could do was sign this bad deal. The deal is very important to the government from a policy standpoint, even though it will devastate the industry across the country. Can he confirm that—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Minister of Industry.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy with this agreement and especially with how it was negotiated. My hon. colleague, the Minister of International Trade, negotiated this agreement very skilfully.

To answer my colleague's question, it is important to note that the softwood lumber industry did not ask us for loan guarantees, but repayment guarantees. The industry wanted its money. Today, over 90% of the industry supports this agreement. Canada is a free country, and people in the industry were free to get on board and sign this agreement. That is what people asked us to do. They were so satisfied with the agreement that we have the support of over 90% of the industry. People want their money as soon as possible. And they will have it by the end of the session.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member said “can it”. Of course, the Conservatives gave away the can, as they also gave away the table and the rest of the House in this softwood sellout.

I did want to clarify something that the member said, which was completely and utterly false. It was on the issue of long term stability. Clause 34 says that the United States reserves the right to terminate the agreement without resort to dispute settlement or any other precondition for termination of this agreement. In other words, the U.S. can keep the billion dollars and run, and can terminate the agreement at any time on a simple allegation of non-compliance. There is no stability in this deal, even though we have gone from seven years to 23 months, now to 18 months, where the United States can make a formal announcement. The U.S. also has an opt-out clause at any time. All the Americans have to do is allege non-compliance. We have no recourse to dispute settlement. We have no appeal.

There is a series of questions I would love to ask the member. She made the statement that we eliminate the duties. Is she aware the duties would be higher as of October 1 under this deal than they are currently with the illegal punitive tariffs? Is she aware of that?

She mentioned the fact that the coalition would be taking on Canada if indeed this softwood sellout was not put into effect. We know darn well that the coalition is dry. It has no funds for further legal action, but this softwood sellout gives it half a billion dollars to take on our industry anytime it chooses. It alleges non-compliance and it can come right back at us, so the kick-me kids, the Conservative caucus that just could not get this right, is giving half a billion dollars away to a coalition that would not have been able to launch legal action against us otherwise.

The next question is around the export tax. The way the Conservatives botched this legal bill, the bill itself imposes the export tax on top of the current anti-dumping and countervailing duty imposition. What we have is a double tax. Is the member aware of that?

Finally, is the member aware that the United States kicked the kick-me kids, the Conservative caucus, last week and decided it is going to appeal the Byrd amendment ruling that Canada won last spring? In other words, the Americans take all of their cake away from the softwood sellout and they are coming back for other industries now, basically kicking the Conservatives for their naivety and their poor negotiations. Is the member aware of that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would the hon. member comment on that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like my colleague to know that the position I am presenting today is not the result of mulling things over in an office but is based on what I discovered out in the field.

As members know, I am from the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable, home to several sawmills. I know what I am talking about because I gathered the information from those in the industry. An overwhelming majority are in favour of this agreement. We have been told to sign the agreement and get on with it because they are all virtually dying out there.

You can say what you want, that it is not this nor that, as members of the opposition and of other parties do. However, we have arrived at a practical solution that the industry can live with. And that is what it asked us to do.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and I must admit that he is right. People in the industry are telling us that we have to support this agreement, not because it is good—only the government thinks it is a good deal—but because they cannot take any more, because they did not receive any assistance from the previous government. The Liberals refused to provide loan guarantees and to pay a portion of the over $400 million in legal fees. This has been the case also for the Conservative government.

Would it not have been more constructive to implement a support program for the industry and to take every possible legal action given that we were about six months away from having a final answer rather than doing what they did, that is selling out, and forcing us to accept the agreement because they refused to help the industry?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was there when the committees met this summer. Points were made at the first meeting. These points were respected by the Conservative government. We know the industry will be refunded by the government, who will be in charge of the process. It will also make sure it is reimbursed by the U.S. industry. Clearly, the loan guarantee mechanism becomes obsolete in that case.

The same is true for the famous stand still clause. Some 12 months are guaranteed and that is what the industry asked for.

My colleague will recall what Guy Chevrette said on behalf of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, that he was one of us once, that he had been involved in politics and that we could get into as much politics as we wanted as long as the agreement was approved.

That is what the government asks.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could clear the air a little bit and confirm some numbers. Will he tell us how much in duties was collected, how much in duties will be recovered by Canada, how much interest is involved, and where does that come out in the scheme of the finances of this deal?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources has 15 seconds to answer this question.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of questions to answer in 15 seconds.

One thing is certain, the Government of Canada will make sure the industry is reimbursed in the coming weeks. That is what we should remember. The industry is at the end of its rope and the government is here to give it the help it has been asking for.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. It contained much speculation and raised many points. He refers to post-agreement or post-application demands. This is commendable, but we are now at the stage of confirming the agreement.

As for speculation, the hon. member seems to be saying that the Bloc Québécois acted responsibly, while the government did not. As we know, this is an out of court settlement. We will never have an out of court settlement that can equal the best judicial decision. Furthermore, if we have a judicial decision, there is no guarantee that it will be easily enforced. This is so true that Pierre-Marc Johnson himself said that if the judicial process continued, it could last not only a few months, but could go on until 2008-09, and that everything could be lost, simply because of a procedural matter.

What is irresponsible about the government using the arguments advanced by a leading international authority such as Pierre-Marc Johnson?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know Pierre-Marc Johnson well. He is a good friend. He was mandated by the Government of Quebec, in the sense that once the agreement was reached, his job was to defend it, to explain it and to try to convince people. I can assure you, he did not convince me at all.

The hon. member just raised a very important point. I hope the U.S. authorities or a U.S. lobby did not hear what he just said. He just said that there will never be free trade in the softwood lumber industry. One day, sooner or later, we need to see the process through for a full legal victory. Then we could negotiate with the Americans to resume free trade in softwood lumber. There has never been free trade in softwood lumber. What the hon. member just said is totally irresponsible. Next time, the government needs to take the judicial route and follow through to the end, providing support for the industry in the meantime, and then negotiate. This would give us something to negotiate with.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get an opinion from my hon. colleague who has just given his speech about the direction the lumber industry would likely take with the completion of a deal such as this one.

We can talk about the deal in terms of what it stands for today, but of course, as the Conservatives have pointed out, it is a seven year to nine year agreement. We need to understand what the deal would entail for the Canadian worker, for the governments of the country, and for the provinces, where there may be requirements for industry support over the next number of years with this type of agreement in place. We need to understand what this deal is going to do to our value added sector in the forestry industry.

Would the hon. member give us a vision of what he sees for the forest industry in Quebec under this agreement?

[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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the member's speech he indicated that the industry in Quebec was experiencing some severe difficulties, that there were bankruptcies and financial duress.

The reality is that the bill actually creates an export tax at current price levels that are actually higher than the current U.S. duties. The ruling and the opinion of the NAFTA and the WTO panels was that our industry was not subsidized.

What we have basically done is we have capitulated. In fact, this will not only affect the current situation within the softwood lumber industry but it will also have some ramifications for the softwood industry in the future, as well as other industries, because we have simply abandoned the integrity of the dispute resolution mechanism.

Does the member not believe that what we would be doing in Bill C-24 is accepting short term gain for long term pain?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be right. I said so earlier, this breath of fresh air may not last long. If no structural measures are proposed and adopted by the Conservative government, I think that several thousand more jobs will be at stake.

Many companies in Quebec are on the verge of bankruptcy. If they do not recover the meagre return on the duties illegally collected by the Americans to which they are entitled, they will close in a few weeks or in a few months, because the Conservative government—like the hon. member’s government—refused to help them in recent years. We have to choose between watching them go bankrupt with no hope of seeing them reopen and recover their jobs, and breathing in the little fresh air they are sending our way, in the hope that the Conservative government will assume its responsibilities. I agree with the member, it is a long shot.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his presentation.

He knows full well that I was one of the fierce opponents of this agreement.

Since the majority of Quebeckers working in the industry were in favour of the agreement, the Bloc had no choice but to support it, partly to demonstrate its accountability to its constituents.

During his presentation, the parliamentary secretary said that all the people in his riding had accepted the agreement. The first question I would like to ask him is as follows: can he tell us what percentage of companies in Mégantic—L'Érable are affected by this agreement? And do all the companies really support this agreement?

My second question concerns the action by theMinister of Human Resources and Social Development, who is slow—not to say refusing—to take a position on the assistance she might give workers and the independent employment insurance fund. This might enable companies to decide for themselves, with the workers, on the employment insurance conditions that would apply to the groups of workers penalized by the lack of empathy shown by this government.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for his question. The parliamentary secretary indicated that in the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable several sawmills are excluded from the agreement because they buy their wood in Maine. The member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup have similar experiences. They have an objective reason for supporting the agreement since most of the sawmills are excluded from the tax penalties. In this regard, these ridings are not representative of Quebec and Canada as a whole.

The Prime Minister himself said that the agreement was supported by 90% of the industry. I believe him. However, the bar had been set at 95%. That means they were not even able to reach the objective that they themselves had set for support of the agreement. They must have been disappointed, but they carried on. There was a great deal of flexibility in this case. It could be 90% rather than 95%.

As I was saying, once again almost all sectors in Quebec—and elsewhere— expect the Conservative government to follow up. I have read statements from the communities, the FTQ and the CSN. After breathing a little life into the industry, we expect this Conservative government to propose, in the short term, a true recovery plan that will restructure the softwood lumber industry to ensure its viability. It must also explain, in the long term, how softwood lumber will be covered once again by the free trade agreement.

This does not seem to have been an overriding concern for the Conservatives, who are usually diehard proponents of free trade. In this matter, they should perhaps be a little more supportive of free trade than they are at the moment.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the very distinguished member for Edmonton—Leduc who will be speaking to the softwood lumber debate on behalf of his constituents.

I first want to thank the Minister of International Trade who has worked so closely with Atlantic Canadian industries and who has worked with us to try to resolve issues as they pop up all the way through this debate.

The softwood lumber agreement is critical to our area in Atlantic Canada. I was first elected in 1988 and the first thing on my table was the softwood lumber issue. It has been on our table ever since and with this agreement perhaps it will get off our table for a little while.

The Maritime Lumber Bureau represents the mills in Atlantic Canada and it has been totally focused on this for at least two decades. It has been very successful in negotiating exemptions from any countervailing or anti-dumping duties. It has negotiated with the United States governments and Canadian governments repeatedly and has been successful each time. It means that Atlantic Canada is not involved with this. We are totally exempt from the accusations of subsidies or interference with the marketplace.

The exemption was earned by Atlantic Canada. The Atlantic Canadian industry worked hard to get it and it earned it. It earned it by maintaining forestry practices that are exactly the same as they are in the U.S. It does not allow the United States to give complaint to our practices. Most of our woodlots in Atlantic Canada are privately owned, as they are in the U.S. Our lumber is sold at market value, as it is in the U.S. It removes the opportunity for anyone to accuse Atlantic Canada of having any subsidies or grants.

The industry in Atlantic Canada has consistently refused funding from a variety of programs offered by our federal and provincial governments because it does not want to be in a position where anybody can point a finger and say that Atlantic Canada received a subsidy, grant or benefit, a position that would allow the United States authorities to point a finger and accuse us of subsidies.

The last thing industry did to earn this exemption was quite amazing. After the industry earned the exemption, suggestions were made that some lumber was coming in from other provinces and funnelling through Atlantic Canada in order to get the exemption. The Maritime Lumber Bureau established its own tracking and certification system and now if a 2x4 pops up in Texas it can be traced back to an Atlantic mill and right back to the private woodlot from whence it came. There now can be no question that all softwood lumber from Atlantic Canada is coming from private woodlots.

There is no basis for any accusations of subsidies in Atlantic Canada, not now and not ever has there been a basis for an accusation of a subsidy, which has allowed the Maritime Lumber Bureau to negotiate these exemptions time after time, both with the American government and often with the Canadian government to convince it. Sometimes the Canadian government has seemed a little more difficult in the past than the American government but, in any case, the bureau has been successful in negotiating these exemptions.

The Maritime Lumber Bureau represents mills in the four provinces of Atlantic Canada. Its CEO and president is Diana Blenkhorn. I have to compliment her for her negotiating skills and her ability to understand the market, the challenges and the situation. She has negotiated with the Americans, with Canadians and with other provinces and she has been able to maintain, on behalf of the Maritime Lumber Bureau, this exemption. I believe she is the most knowledgeable person in Canada, probably anywhere, on this subject.

The softwood lumber agreement provides Atlantic Canadian mills stability. Atlantic Canadian mills do not want to spend their time in court. They do not want to spend their time with lawyers. They do not want to spend their time in tribunals. They want to spend their time making their mills the best and most efficient mills they can be and producing the best possible product they can produce.

From the beginning, when the softwood lumber agreement terms were finally ironed out, which took quite a while, the Maritime Lumber Bureau has supported the agreement wholeheartedly on behalf of all the mills in Atlantic Canada because again the agreement confirms the continuation of the exemption that has been so hard-fought and so justly earned in Atlantic Canada.

However, the bill actually does not provide the specific term exemption for Atlantic Canada. It does provide for zero rating, and some people may consider that the same thing, but for those of us in Atlantic Canada a zero rating is not the same thing.

At the end of this agreement, five, seven or 10 years down the road, we may be at this debate again. The Atlantic industry wants to maintain the exemption exactly the way it has been. We want the same words in the agreement that have always been there before, that is, that Atlantic Canada is exempt. It is essential that the bill we are dealing with now reflects the agreement and specifies that Atlantic Canada is exempt.

After discussions with the minister today, we have agreed that we are going to work together to come up with an amendment to clarify this issue and make sure the wording of the bill is the same as the wording in the agreement. Again, I thank the minister for his open-mindedness on this issue and his ability to react quickly and move forward. That is why we have the agreement we have today. It is because the minister has done that. He has worked with the industry from coast to coast. He has worked with governments in Canada and the United States. When there is an issue he deals with it, and we find a way to resolve it and we move on.

The Maritime Lumber Bureau has worked closely with the Department of International Trade throughout this negotiation. It has supported the agreement, but again, the bureau is very anxious to see the exemption clearly stated in the bill. I agree with the bureau. I think we can find a way to resolve this very quickly with the cooperation of the minister, who has agreed to take the steps to clarify it.

At the end of the day, this agreement will allow Atlantic Canadian mill owners and forestry workers to focus on what they do best, that is, working in the industry to try to improve the quality of their product and the efficiency of their businesses. This agreement will allow them to reinvest and to compete worldwide in the softwood lumber industry. That is all they want to do. With this agreement, they will be allowed to do that in Atlantic Canada.

Again I will say that we have had nothing but cooperation from the minister on this right from the get-go, right from the beginning. There were a lot of different things that had to be hammered out, ironed out and resolved, but they have been, so much so that not only has the Atlantic Canadian industry been quietly supportive, but it has been actively supportive of the softwood lumber agreement. It will have the same endorsement and same support for the bill if we can just get the specific wording changed so that it reflects the softwood agreement that was originally signed between the United States and Canada.

I again want to thank the minister and the department. This has been an issue for me for almost 20 years. It looks like there is light at the end of the tunnel. We might have a resolution to this. Although this agreement does have an end to it, perhaps if it works and everyone is happy it can be extended indefinitely and our industries can all go back to work and do what they do the best.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the first words that I heard were that they are very happy to get this off the table for Atlantic Canada. Coming from the north and looking at the provisions whereby the north is not given any particular tariff on any of our exports of lumber from places such as Nunavut, I would say that probably I should go along with this agreement as well, but in reality we live in Canada. The whole country's lumber industry is at stake with the bill. The fact that one region is better suited under the bill than the other does not take away from the fact that we live in a larger country than the particular region the hon. member is talking about.

Coming from the north and being satisfied with an agreement that exempts northern producers from a tariff, that means nothing to the rest of the country. I think the hon. member should recognize that as well. Perhaps he would like to comment on how he is supporting the lumber industry across Canada as a whole. Perhaps he would put his comments in that perspective.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member in that I think he should go along with the agreement, but he asked me to justify or explain why Atlantic Canada has this exemption. Again, Atlantic Canada earned this exemption. Those provinces worked hard at it. They have spent millions of dollars to get the exemption and to keep it. They have spent millions of dollars in legal fees. They have refused subsidies when other provinces have accepted them. They have established their own certification program, which cost millions of dollars to invent. They have their own private woodlots.

Many provinces have woodlots owned mostly by governments, but in Atlantic Canada we are different. We must have different terms for each province because each province has different forestry practices. We cannot say that everyone is the same. That is what we have been fighting for over the years: that Atlantic Canada has earned the exemption, is entitled to it and has had it all along. There has never been an accusation about a subsidy and there never will be as long as the Maritime Lumber Bureau is active.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley how, partisan rhetoric aside, he can possibly think the negotiators had excellent skills? It is pretty clear that the outcome of the negotiations was not very good. His own minister pushed the negotiators into a situation that, at the time, could only end in reductions, given that he had already said he would accept less.

Second, I would like to ask the member how he can talk about stability? Just because something has been signed for nine years does not mean there is stability. He even said it could go on beyond that time. I feel it is presumptuous to think so. We all know that in this kind of agreement, anything indefinite cannot last. Companies were wondering whether they should sign, and now they are already wondering when it will be challenged. How can anyone talk about stability?

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member probably does not understand that I was a car dealer for 20 years and I know a good deal when I see one. This is a good deal. I am amazed at how the government has negotiated this deal. There was no splitting the difference on this. On almost every single issue we had our way, not 100%, but awful close to it, so much so that the hon. Minister of International Trade would have a great future in the car business.

This deal will provide stability. It will allow our mill owners to stop worrying about tribunals. It will allow the Maritime Lumber Bureau to stop spending all its money and time on legal hassles and flying to Washington or Ottawa to negotiate with bureaucrats and politicians.

They can go back to what they do: producing the best quality lumber in the world. This deal will provide stability and all of this worrying will be over. I hope it is over forever, but at least it is over for a great many years.

[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.

[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, there are a few things I would say in reply to the member's question. The member should be completely forthright in identifying that there are in fact two options available. There is option A and option B.

Option A is in fact the export tax, when exports rise above a certain level. Option B is a self-imposed quota system plus a smaller tax.

An important difference there is that the funds stay in Canada. As I mentioned during my speech, and I did not hear any other member talk about it, so it is not a speech that has been passed around, when a situation arises in Alberta where we may have the pine beetle infestation, it in fact will allow the province of Alberta to deal with that, where there may be a surge in exports caused by increased harvesting caused by the pine beetle infestation. In fact, I think this agreement addresses that.

The member talks about a little money being returned now and having a greater cost later. I know that $4.4 billion is a fair amount of money. The fact that we have 80% of the duties returned is, quite frankly, a tremendous achievement. I would applaud the Minister of International Trade for doing that.

I would also point out to the member that the Minister of International Trade was a member of the Liberal caucus prior to the last election. He says very openly that this agreement is better than the agreement that the Liberal government was prepared to sign with the U.S. administration.

I think the member should be very aware of that. This agreement is better than what his own government was prepared to sign. This agreement is just for the families and workers across this country. This agreement deserves to be supported.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party member mentioned that this dispute has been going on for some time. All members of the House would agree with that. That is perhaps the only point on which the Conservative party and the rest of the House can agree.

The Conservative party is the only party that believes that this is a good agreement and, above all, that it will last. The hon. member mentioned that it is important for the people of Alberta because that province's forests have an infestation and they must sell off their wood. He said it is important that this agreement survive so they can get rid of their wood in the United States, no matter the price, as long as they can clear it out.

I would remind the House that the mad cow crisis also originated in Alberta. Quebec had to pay the tab. Today, the softwood lumber problem comes from the west, and Quebec is again paying for it.

Given all this effort and the $1.5 billion handed over to the Americans, would it not have been enough to pay the lawyers, in order to put an end to this endless process and, finally, reach a decision that could be enforced and facilitate negotiations with the Americans?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should not be surprised, but the agreement was not signed to address the situation that may occur in Alberta. I think his comments about Alberta are obviously inappropriate, so I will not even dignify those with a response.

The fact is that we had a choice between further litigation and even if we won all of the current legal cases before the courts at present, the United States could easily alter legislation and start another round of litigation. The fact is that the only way, if we pursued that route, to recoup any of the over $5 billion would be to go through the American court system and do that. Is that what the member is suggesting?

The member is suggesting that we litigate for years and years, and go through the American court system to try to get any of the over $5 billion. That is the solution he is presenting.

It is a little surprising that the Bloc members are sort of standing up and criticizing the agreement and yet they are going to stand in the House and vote for it because their own provincial government is in favour of it. The industry in Quebec is in favour of it because it realizes what perhaps the Bloc does not, that what workers across this country need is a resolution to the dispute and not a continuation of litigation which may result in no benefits whatsoever.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a lawyer. He understands, or ought to understand, what is going on in softwood lumber and some of the litigation surrounding it. I think the hon. member knows that we are winning most of the cases. We expect we would continue to win most of the cases, but we have to recognize that even with another final win at the court of international trade, it is an appealable case. Right there we are pushing a settlement out another year and half. Then we would have to look at a couple of years to recover the duties. We would not see any money in the pockets of Canadian companies for somewhere between two and four years.

The hon. member also should know that in this case the litigation is not just about countervailing duties and alleged subsidies. There is also an issue of anti-dumping and going into a weak cycle in the lumber market. It is much easier to demonstrate or at least make a plausible case against dumping and we would be in a situation immediately. I can assure the member that the U.S. industry is ready as we speak to launch more cases, both anti-dumping, new injury cases and new countervailing duty cases because the very programs of assistance the hon. member refers to would certainly be countervailed and attacked. There is absolutely no doubt about that. We would not even be finished the old litigation, but would be faced with new litigation and new interim duties. Last time the interim duties started out at 27% and it took us five years to get them down to just over 10%.

The idea that there are both a tax and a quota, there is a choice. Some regions can opt for a tax no greater than 5% and apply a quota. Some regions can opt, as would happen in British Columbia, for only a tax and no quota. Therefore, there is not both the tax and a quota unless a province were to opt for that option.

The hon. member is from B.C., and Premier Campbell of the government of British Columbia is in town. Has the hon. member talked to Premier Campbell and asked him if he felt bullied into this agreement, because Premier Campbell is supporting it, as is the industry in B.C.? The reason they are supporting it is because they put in place some new policy reforms, which this agreement protects. Those policy reforms would be attacked without the agreement.

The very tax that would be place in low markets will get capitalized, as the hon. member knows, in lower stumpage payments in a competitive bidding situation. The idea that it is a new tax is really not right. It is a displacement of stumpage by an export tax.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister is highly expert in this area and knows the complexity, as well as anyone in our country, of the industry in British Columbia and that it is not uniform. There are companies which have very different interests from the interior to the coast. There are value added forest product companies that are not in agreement with this.

The Premier of British Columbia is coming to town and I am sure many of us will meet with him tomorrow. I will be very interested to hear from Premier Campbell on two issues.

First, we are perhaps feeling a lot of pressure on our own sovereignty, provincial sovereignty in this case, in terms of pressure from outside the country on forest practices in British Columbia. All of us have denied from the beginning that there was any subsidy. The Minister of International Trade and myself have both said in the House very loudly that this is about protectionism not about subsidies. Yet British Columbia has been forced to adapt forest products in any event, and that is troubling looking into the future in terms of our sovereignty.

Also, I am worried about, and I will be interested in how we will work together with the government of British Columbia and now Alberta, how we will deal with this surge in production because of the mountain pine beetle infestation and how that will play into this agreement. We will be scrambling for international markets other than the United States to have some place to sell this wood that will be cut at a much higher rate, but we will be unable to sell it into the United States under this agreement. That should be of real concern to us.

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised the surge issue. Members should know that in British Columbia, under the surge provision in the agreement, there is a billion board feet of flexibility in terms of permitted surge before the surge mechanism cuts in. The surge mechanism is at 110% of the base year shipments. The surge mechanism is also not fixed in time. It moves as U.S. consumption moves over time and that will allow the surge to grow as the market grows.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting further clarification of it and I look forward to speaking with the minister, as well as with officials from British Columbia, as to how we will manage that effectively. There is certainly a huge challenge for the whole western area of Canada and Yukon with this infestation.

I go back to my comment. While this is an immensely important sector of Canadian industry, it does, as the member for Edmonton—Leduc has said, only represent 3% of our total trade with the United States. If we are giving in to what is really simply an industrial pressure sector in the United States on this part, what is to stop them or not encourage them from taking similar action in other sectors of the economy where they see fair competition outperforming the American economy in those other sectors?

Yes, I am a lawyer and one of the things one learns in law before anything else is the importance of precedent. By backing away from the precedence we have had in terms of the litigation we have pursued in favour of the dangerous precedent of caving in and admitting that we cannot rely on the dispute resolution mechanism of NAFTA or on the promise of free and fair trade, we end up with neither.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the public watching this are aware, by the comments made by the minister, of how important it is to avoid litigation unnecessarily and understand the implications with respect to the industry.

However, there must be another huge body of opinion that is concerned with the issues of precedence and rule of law and the notion that in a relationship with another country, a country with which we have 85% of our exports, we not find ourselves where there is no respect for that rule of law, sliding in that slippery slope on grease skids, and where there is retaliation in other sectors. I can see a large body of opinion looking at it this way, if there is not the kind of natural justice that comes along with the respect for the law.

We have gone through international tribunals. We finished with another international tribunal, the International Court of Appeal. It was my recollection that there was an attempt, without prejudice, to go through the American justice system, the courts of appeal, with respect to finding precedence whereby we could get a decision in the American courts.

Was that pursued? As we speak, is there any opportunity to pursue that? I think I have indicated how important it is to our public to be responsive and responsible to what precedent this might create in other sectors in the future?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the real concern I have is the Canadian industry interests that have pursued their interests at the U.S. Court of International Trade. If they continue to pursue that, then they cannot sign on to this agreement, and will be hit by this punitive 17% extra tax.

I put this back into the realm of the unpleasant word, bullying, to force the industry to come together whether they may think it is in their bests interests for themselves, their communities and their workers or not. That is part of the dark side of this and the reason why this debate is so important in the House this week.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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, to reiterate much of what I said in my recent remarks, yes, I absolutely agree that this deal is a sellout. It is a sellout on so many different levels that it is unconscionable anyone could present it in this House and then support it.

We are talking about $1 billion that should be reinvested in Canada. We are only going to see half of it. Where does that $1 billion go? What is it going to be used for? It is a sellout on that point.

It is also a sellout of jobs and a sellout of small communities. I feel the effect of this in my riding, where so many small resource-based communities depend on the forestry sector for their livelihood. They are disappearing. They are losing their tax base. They are losing workers at an alarming rate. It is unconscionable that anyone could support a deal that sells out workers on this scale.

This deal also sells out the industry at so many levels. Industry knows this is not a good deal. Small industry especially is going to get gobbled up by larger corporations that do business on both sides of the border. We are then going to see our future in the export of raw logs disappear, because it is going to be cheaper for corporations to take those logs to the U.S. to be milled instead of processing them here in Canada where they should be processed.

This deal is a sellout in so many ways. I thank the hon. member for his support.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, being a part of the new Government of Canada, I am very proud of this deal. This deal offers stability. It offers a stable, practical, immediate solution. The member says this is a sellout. This is not a sellout. This deal is actually supported by the major lumber producing provinces and a clear majority of the industry.

I come from Oshawa, where we are known for quality hard work and are proud of our communities. Because of the softwood lumber dispute, communities are failing. Mills are closing and thousands of jobs are being lost. Families are being challenged. Their finances are in jeopardy and mortgage payments are not being made.

This is a negotiated settlement as opposed to continued, prolonged litigation. The NDP fails to see the human cost of this continued litigation. The hon. member says her party wants loan guarantees. This deal gives producers back their own money, a far superior solution. By not supporting this deal, the NDP is guaranteeing more job losses and litigation.

What will that NDP member say to the thousands of workers and the thousands of families who are on the verge of losing their future right now if this deal does not go through?

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely feel the effects of the softwood lumber crisis in my communities but I do not think it will end with the signing of this deal. In fact, it will probably get worse, which is what small industry in my riding is telling me.

As far as stability goes, 18 months is not a very long time. Eighteen months is the amount of time that it will take for either party to possibly end this deal and it can be unilaterally ended at any time by the U.S if it feels that Canada is not complying. As I have said before, how can we trust the lumber lobby in the U.S. when it has taken us to task over and over again saying that we had illegal tariffs when we did not?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the premier of her province is asking her to vote in favour of this legislation, why is the member choosing to ignore that request? Why is she choosing to ignore that 90% of the industry is in support of the deal and wants the deal?

A lot of the comments she has made today about the state of the situation of our softwood lumber industry in Canada are a direct result of the past 13 years and the inability of the previous Liberal government to come to the industry's aid, to help it with the issues and to actually reach an agreement. It is this Conservative government that was able to negotiate a deal, which our Minister of International Trade, having been on the other side before, knows full well surpasses anything that the previous Liberal government had on the table.

I am curious to know why the hon. member is ignoring what her province is asking her to do in support of this agreement.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with anything that the hon. parliamentary secretary said.

Ninety per cent of the industry in British Columbia was bullied and did not support this deal and yet the Gordon Campbell government in British Columbia did support it in the early days. It was only after the industry was pressured that it came on board and supported it.

Again, it comes right down to the fact that the industry knows that this is not a good deal, that there is no stability and that it is a sellout. It is loath to support it but it feels that it has no other option because of the bullying tactics of the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her very well thought out presentation on the softwood sellout. She is part of an NDP caucus that is the only caucus actively opposing this sellout and all the negative repercussions to the softwood industry and the softwood communities across the country.

I would like to ask the member a question about what just transpired at the international trade committee, where the three other parties from the other sides of the House refused to hold hearings to actually get from the softwood communities that are impacted the kind of feedback about how this bill would impact them negatively and what alternatives the government should be looking at.

The Bloc just cancelled the sessions that were supposed to take place in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Saguenay is the area most affected by this bill, yet the Bloc just cancelled the sessions. The Bloc said it was not interested in consulting Quebeckers.

The Liberals just killed the hearings that were going to be held in northern Ontario, when we know that northern Ontario is most impacted by this, and the Conservatives wanted to kill the hearings in British Columbia. We understand why. It is obviously because they are scared that British Columbians might actually find out what is in the deal. The more British Columbians know, the less likely they are to vote Conservative.

Since the NDP is the only party standing up for the majority of Canadians who oppose this sellout, why does the NDP need to carry the ball for the entire country? Why are the other three other parties letting this country down?

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP seems to be the only party opposing so many things that are going on with the government because we are the real opposition in this minority Parliament.

Going back to the member's points on the hearings, it is amazing that this is going ahead without hearing from people in the industry, from communities and from workers across the country who are adversely affected by this deal. If the hearings keep getting cancelled, which is just wrong, we will never hear those voices. It would have been better, in a matter of process, to put off the vote on the deal until we had heard from Canadians across this country about the impacts, so they could have a broader understanding of what this holds for their future.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate for many reasons, aside from the fact that the deal is a bad deal. I will explain why I and the Liberal Party believe it is a bad deal.

There is an historical side to this. I cannot help but open with a comment because of the closing comment that was just made by the member from the NDP saying that it was the only party that stood for this. That is absolute rubbish. That is wrong and unfair, and I will explain why.

I had the honour, if I may say, to chair the subcommittee on international trade, trade disputes and investments for Canada under the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. We put together a report. The most in-depth issue we covered was that of the softwood lumber dispute. We heard witness after witness.

What is odd is that the New Democratic Party is trying to portray to the nation that nobody cared. Mr. Speaker, you know very well that we were close to making this deal work.

I will outline the witnesses who came before the committee. We had people from the Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance, the Free Trade Lumber Council, the Québec Forest Industry Council and the Department of International Trade. We heard from Mr. Grenier as an individual and people from Cassels Brocks & Blackwell as a firm specializing in international trade. We had people from the University of Ottawa. We heard from Mr. Donald McRae, Professor of Business and Trade Law, and from people with the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, Canfor Corporation, West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd., Weyerhaeuser, and the list goes on.

Those individuals, on behalf of their companies, said that they appreciated the support that the then Liberal government was providing but that they needed more financial support to see this through until the end. They knew they were right and that the ruling would be in their favour. In the committee report, which was brushed aside, was the recommendation that the government would provide the needed support that the industry was asking for.

What happened? The NDP forced a premature election and everything went down the drain. That is my comment on the NDP. My colleague from British Columbia knows very well that we worked together.

Why is this deal a bad deal? Recently I just happened to read an article that states:

“Non-profit bodies to manage softwood proceeds”, U.S. says.

It goes on to say that over half a billion Canadian dollars will go to various non-profit organizations for housing, et cetera.

I would not mind having that half a billion dollars here in Canada for people who need affordable housing, for seniors or for students to pay for post-secondary education. We do not know where the other half a billion dollars will go.

It says in this article that a couple of weeks ago several Washington trade lawyers told the Toronto Star that they were worried that the nature of the agreement would allow President Bush and his administration to direct the money to districts where republican politicians are in trouble in this fall's election. Where will the other half a billion dollars go? We do not know and that is Canadian money.

We know, through the dispute mechanism, that tariffs were lowered. When people say that this is a good deal and Canadians want it, that is hogwash. Canadians do not want it.

Not only is the government muzzling the industry, but it states here that--and I always tend to put my statements forward not because of what I say but because of what others say in bringing the facts forward--“Ottawa”, meaning the new Conservative government, “plans to tax holdouts”. In other words, if people do not agree with the government, this is what it will do to them. It says:

The federal government plans to levy a 19 per cent special tax on lumber companies that withhold their cooperation with the newly signed softwood lumber deal with the United States.

I am dumbfounded. I have never heard of this before. The government is saying that if a company does not agree it will be punished worse than it was being punished by the Americans. That does not make sense.

We are supposedly trying to resolve this issue for which we have been in the right ruling after ruling. This is the importance the Americans put on this issue. We have a picture here. Delegates at the signing of the softwood lumber deal in Ottawa yesterday included the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Industry. Canada sent two senior ministers. The Americans were kind enough to send their trade representative. What an honour. Why did Canada not send its trade representative? That is the importance the Americans put on this issue.

What is wrong with this deal? The deal sends a wrong signal. It sets a precedent. In putting together the report that I showed the House, we also put a report together on emerging markets. Part of the discussion within that report was how Canada could protect Canadian companies and investors that do business with the international community. We need to ensure that the mechanism is there so that when Canadians go abroad their investments and efforts are protected.

Surely we would think that a nation such as the United States of America living in the 21st century would adhere to rules and regulations. This is all we asked for, nothing more and nothing less.

Some people said that this half a billion dollars would go to support the unfortunate incident of the Katrina disaster. I remember the day, and I know you were there as well, Mr. Speaker, when we went out and in just over an hour and half during the noon hour we raised I believe about $120,000 that would go to the Red Cross relief for the Katrina disaster. Canadians know how to show our brotherly love and our support for our neighbours to the south. In times of need, no matter where it is around the world, we have been there and I am confident we will continue to be there.

Therefore, I do not buy the argument that the Americans fouled up with trailers sitting in parks somewhere in the United States. If that country blundered and wasted over $1.5 billion that it cannot allocate for, that is their problem.

What this softwood lumber deal is saying is that the Americans have stolen $5.4 billion from Canadians. The courts have now ruled in Canada's favour but the Americans will only give Canada $4 billion of that money back. I thought we lived in a civil society that was governed by rules and regulations. I thought the NAFTA deal was there to ensure it was a free, transparent and equal trade process. The deal we have before us, where Canadians in the industry have been muzzled, it is not a free, transparent and equal trade process.

I have another concern about the Minister of International Trade and the Department of International Trade. We know very well that in the last Parliament, when our party put forth a motion to create the Department of International Trade, the Conservatives voted against it. That party did not want a Department of International Trade to exist.

Nevertheless, after the deal was signed with the trade commissioner from the United States, the minister appeared on television with Mr. Newman in a segment called Politics. When Mr. Newman asked the trade minister how this would unravel, he had some very ambiguous responses. He could not really give him an answer. However, of all the answers he could give, and the one that stuck in my mind, was, “How are we in Canada going to get our money back?” He could answer that. He mumbled and jumbled about EDC, about borrowing from here and getting from money there.

On behalf of each and every Canadian, because these are Canadian dollars, I want to ensure, as soon as possible, that the $4 billion cheque is handed over because I am suspicious that money will not be there. The government will borrow through different government organizations, EDC, insurance, et cetera and Canadians will never know if that money was indeed returned. I challenge the new government, as it wishes to be called, to show Canadians that the cheque has arrived in Canada. I am willing to bet a dime for a dollar, and I am not a betting man, that the money will never arrive in Canada.

It is a sad day in terms of our trade partnership with the United States. What members have talked about in the report is the abuse that is to unfold. We get elected to this honourable House because we are supposedly forward looking people. We can be creative. We can bring ideas. We can look to the future. We all bring respective experience, applied in this chamber, so we can fine tune our system and create a better environment for our citizenry. That is why this deal sends the wrong signal for the future. If the government can do that today with the lumber industry, then who says to every Canadian that it will not do it tomorrow and anything else?

One of the members on the committee at that time was quite upset and rebutted in a way that she was, in essence, to some degree criticized. Today we can say that was unfortunate because she was right. All members on the committee said that we had to take a tough position. When our men and women are needed in the theatre in Afghanistan, we say that Canadians can do it. Of course we can do it, and we have showed our toughness there. We will continue to show our toughness. Why can we not show our toughness in this instance? We have a product that is in demand. We managed to invest in our mills and make them modern, effective and efficient and put out a product that is very competitive. Why should we then be paying the price for it? I do not think that is right.

I will review some of the comments in the report. Mr. Potter, who came before the committee, said:

What we now have is the U.S. administration saying that because you are a privileged NAFTA partner, you will be treated less well than if you were Korea. If you were Korea and did it under their domestic tribunals and won, you'd get your money back. But because you're a privileged NAFTA partner the U.S. is going to keep your money, and not only keep it but give it to your competitors, by the way. That hardly seems very principled

This is not coming from members of Parliament where people could say we are being biased and political and trying to rally the troops. This is from witnesses from the industry. We were simply hearing testimony. Another witness said:

If the U.S. parties succeed in obtaining even part of these deposits, the U.S. will have a great incentive to launch new litigation, because even if it loses a case, it will be rewarded twice—once by the investigation itself, which is a costly and time-consuming impediment to Canadian lumber exporters, and then by the illegal distribution of duty deposits, which actually belong to us, the competitors in Canada.

This is testimony. This is quoting the professionals in the industry.

I come from a community in the greater city of Toronto, Scarborough. It does not have a lumber industry, but does it affect me? Yes it does. It affects me in the businesses that run in my community, but it does not affect me as it affects other communities across our country, in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and in other provinces.

It affects me as an individual, as a Canadian, and I speak on behalf of my constituents and I believe I speak on behalf of all Canadians. My rights are impeded upon. We have an American partner and we have a deal. The Americans have decided, in the middle of the game, to change the rules to suit them. Yet again they come back and say that they know they are wrong, that all the rulings have been in our favour but that does not matter.

It typifies what has happened in the United States in the last several years. It is either “my way or the highway”. No wonder there seems to be such an anger on the international scene. They go to the United Nations and bring forward a resolution. They force the mechanism to seek compliance and enforcement of a resolution. They are right in doing so, but the question is, what has happened to so many other resolutions in years past on other issues?

There were other resolutions in years past, whether it be on the Cyprus issue, on the Palestinian issue, on so many issues. Why did we not ask for enforcement and compliance on those issues?

The question becomes this. Why are we not asking for enforcement and compliance of the rulings from the trade courts? The courts are there to govern us as a civil society. They are not courts or panels that favour Canadians or favour the Americans. They are independent. They are occupied by professionals who know the industry.

I am not expert on the lumber industry, but I have certainly heard enough testimony from the presentations of so many witnesses to try to understand the industry. One thing I understood over and over again was that we were right. Canadians did not subsidize. Canadians did not cheat. We did not have to cheat. We have a good product, we have a competitive product and we were doing our job as anyone else would.

My concerns are many. First and foremost, it is unfair that this industry has been muzzled. I know we have all followed it closely. We heard reports of backroom get togethers. We heard of muzzling, as I pointed out, and to tax the smaller players in the industry upwards to 19%, which is unheard of. We hear that the money will be spent not here in Canada but in the United States. Maybe the Americans have a problem because they are reaching record deficits and they are scrambling for money. I do not know. Our country over the past 12 to 13 years has put its house in order, has managed to provide surpluses and balanced budgets. Our trade increased, although most recently I was upset because I also heard that our trade surplus was unfortunately dropping. The record deficits in the United States to some degree will affect us as well at some point in time.

Therefore, what is the remedy? In my humble opinion, the remedy was, and should be, that we should have stood firm as a nation, as we have stood firm in many other situations, and said that we were right because the courts ruled in our favour.

The new government came here with a law and order attitude. This is a law and order attitude. It believes in the courts as do I. We all believe in the judiciary. The judiciary and the courts ruled. If the government believes in what it says, it should stand firm with the rulings of the courts and say that it wants all the money back.

My concern is this. I do not believe the Americans will cut a cheque for $4.7-something-billion to Canadians. It will go through different circles. Canadians will lose sight of it eventually. They will not even know what has happened. I heard that on Politics with Mr. Newman. I challenge the minister and ask him to give Canadians a clear accountability of where that money will come from.

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

Mr. Speaker, I point out that the Liberal Party seems to be all over the map on the softwood lumber deal.

We have some members voting for it, some who have the courage, and some who have been around long enough to know that this is a great deal for Canada, that it is time we put things behind us and work together with the United States to build a stronger softwood lumber industry.

The hon. member speaks of numerous witnesses who came before the trade committee when he was a participant. As a parliamentary secretary, I sit on the trade committee. We have had numerous witnesses come before us. Every witness has told us that they can no longer continue in the state they are in. They must have a deal, they must have stability and they need predictability. Many of them are on the verge of going bankrupt. Many of them have been gobbled up by the larger industry. This deal provides the stability for which they have been looking.

The hon. member also talked about litigation. I do not know if he has a crystal ball, but I do not. Perhaps we could win this final court case, but there is nothing to say that we will. The U.S. lumber coalition has told us clearly that there will be more litigation without this deal. Without coming to a final settlement, they are going to launch more lawsuits.

He commented on the duties. He said that with this agreement and the export tax that we would be introducing, they would be paying more with the new deal than they were now. That is not true. An administrative review is expected this fall and we will see that go up to possibly 14%. Without this deal, we will have continued litigation. We will also have new duties, which could be as high as 20%.

The hon. member is forgetting the simple fact of the matter. This has gone on for 24 years, and there is no end to litigation. There is only an end to litigation with this deal, which will give us stability for seven to nine years with a possibility of having it even longer with the binational council working together to build a stronger industry.

Could he comment on that, please?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Americans can keep fighting because they are fighting with the money of Canadians, and it is a never-ending story. Maybe what we should do is turn the tap off on the oil and electricity going south. We are showing weakness here. We were near the end of this arrangement.

The parliamentary secretary referred to the witnesses, and I see my good friend, who sat on the committee, laughing and I know why. We know what the witnesses told us. Today they are singing a different tune. Why? Because the government took them behind the doors and said, “Listen, shape up. It's my way or the highway”. That is why they are flexing their muscles with the small players in the industry. It is saying that they should cooperate or the government will levy a 19% tax.

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Instead of helping these guys, you are going to levy a higher tax if--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre has been around a while. He knows he is not supposed to use the second person.

I let him away with it once. He did it again. I let him away with it a second time. He did it again. Do not do it again.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I got carried away. I have nothing further to add.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this morning that the Conservatives and Liberals worked together to kill the trade hearings which would be held in British Columbia.

We certainly understand why the Conservatives are afraid of going into British Columbia on softwood in that we have a trade minister who has absolutely no credibility, who has betrayed his riding in Vancouver Kingsway, and who could not get elected dog catcher in Vancouver Kingsway if he tried. So he has no political future in B.C. though obviously the other Conservative MPs from British Columbia as well are running very scared. They do not want hearings in Vancouver because they know what British Columbians will be telling them.

What I do not understand is why the Liberals would kill the hearings in northern Ontario. It makes absolutely no sense. Northern Ontario along with British Columbia are in the epicentre of the impacts of this bad deal. We are looking at 20% job loss in northern Ontario and the only MPs who seem to be standing up for northern Ontario are ones such as the MP for Sault Ste. Marie and the MP for Timmins—James Bay. But the Liberals moved to kill hearings in Thunder Bay to hear back from northern Ontarians about this softwood sellout and the impact.

I will agree with the parliamentary secretary on one point, the Liberals are all over the map. They say they are opposed to the softwood sellout. They follow the NDP religiously, any time we raise opposition, two days later they will say the same thing, but they voted to kill hearings in northern Ontario.

Absolutely despicable that any party would say that most Canadians are opposed to the sellout, so we do not want them to come into northern Ontario or we do not want the trade committee to go to British Columbia because we do not want to hear from real Canadians.

The Bloc just cancelled the sessions that were supposed to take place in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, even though everyone knows that this area is the most affected by the bill.

My question is very simple. Why did the Liberals kill the hearings in northern Ontario? Why did they refuse to hear back from northern Ontarians on a sellout that is going to cost them hundreds if not thousands of jobs?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I chaired the committee, and he knows very well because the hon. member was a very active participant and brought some very good ideas and questions forward, I had encouraged and invited all to come before our committee and give testimony.

I cannot comment on today's committee and its activity, and its decision as I no longer sit on that committee, so I am in a weak position to respond to that. However, he knows very well that during the time I chaired the committee, we were more than receptive to do all that was needed to address this most important issue.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the new Canadian government's successful resolution to the 24-year-old softwood lumber dispute will have refund cheques sent out to forestry businesses before the end of this year. Given that any Canadian success in court challenges would have been appealed, when would the lumber companies see refund cheques under the member's course of uncertainty, that is if the companies were still in business at that time?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will provide an answer to the hon. member when she is able to track down for me where that money is coming from. I believe it is not coming from the Americans, it is coming from Canadian sources. So when she gives me that answer, I will give her the full answer to her question.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring up something that the hon. member brought forward where he was suggesting that we turn off the oil or electricity. I felt that was such an irresponsible comment. Is he suggesting that we get into a full trade war with the United States?

I want to stand today and say that I am proud of the trade minister because after 24 years he has come up with a negotiated settlement. The member says this is unfair, however he knows that the trade minister was on the other side and this deal is far superior to any deal that was put on the table by the former government.

I would like the hon. member to stand in the House and say what he is going to say to the families who right now, if they do not have a deal, are going to lose their mortgages and their kids are no longer going to be able to attend university. This settlement provides security and stability for this entire industry. What do we say to the families right now who are losing their whole future?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what I was saying in terms of turning off the tap or shutting down the grid. I merely used it as an example. We should not get into this type of agreement, but respect the law as it is there and respect the guidelines as they are presented to us. We signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, so let us respect that agreement. Our American neighbours are not respecting that agreement over and over again.

He asked me what I would say to those families. The answer to his question is really right in the report where the industry itself thanked the Liberal government for its support and guidance. We were near the final decision and again the ruling would have been in our favour. I will tell those families that a deal is not a deal when it could be cancelled overnight. That does not provide stability.

There are ambiguous responses that could change the rules overnight. The Americans could decide to walk away from it overnight. There is nothing concrete saying we have a deal. We had a NAFTA deal and the Americans reneged on it. Who is to say they are not going to renege on this one?

[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.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member say that this is a good deal for Atlantic Canada, for all of Canada. I want the member to explain to me how this is a good deal for my hometown of Hamilton.

Hamilton is a steel town. Hamilton has a very strong and vibrant steel industry. Can the member guarantee that the steel industry will not be next?

We just saw a government that threw out four and a half years of litigation. We saw a government that with one stroke of the pen eradicated the most important part of the free trade agreement which was basically a binding mechanism for arbitration. We have seen the government allow the American industries to come in and attack Canadian industries.

Can the government tell me with absolute certainty that the steel industry in my hometown of Hamilton is not going to be next? If that is going to be the case, how is the government going to protect my community?

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a good question. When we look at the relationship we have with the U.S. at this point in time, 95% of our trade with the U.S. is dispute free. I am expecting there will be no issue on that and that it will be covered.

Regarding this deal, this has been going on for over 20 years. This is the first time that our government took an opportunity to go face to face, toe to toe with the Americans to get this resolved. I can assure the member that a government that stands up for Canadian interests will stand up for steel.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac, who just spoke. The Bloc Québécois supports this agreement, but with great reluctance. Quebec industries decided to support this agreement after a long process that was not supported by the Conservative government or the Liberal government, in the sense that they did not consider the Bloc Québécois' request for loan guarantees.

Despite the agreement signed, we learned from Radio-Canada yesterday that Quebec businesses are facing another threat in the form of competition from China, which is exporting more and more wood chips to Quebec.

What can the Conservatives do to prevent a new structural crisis? For nearly a year and a half now, the Quebec industry has been denouncing the problems it has with the American industry in relation to softwood lumber, and now it must also deal with competition from Asia. Can the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac tell us if the Conservative government will also act in this area?

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, any time we get into these international trade things that is a great question.

An aspect I noted in the deal is protection on third party imports that come into the U.S. and for Canada. Also, we have to realize that we are living in a world of trade. The only way to create new wealth in our economy and new wealth in our country is to encourage the kind of trade we are talking about, but not at the risk of our industry.

I know the Minister of International Trade is worried about industry and will not enter into any agreement that puts our industry in jeopardy. We have to have the full win of Canada in creating the wealth for all our industries. That is what we want to try to do.

With this agreement we have done that. We have encouraged those moneys to come back. I encourage the member to look at the industry and mills and whatnot in Quebec for these dollars that will be coming back to invest in value added products. That is where the competition is going to be. We cannot compete just on sawn lumber any more. We have to do better. We have to do more value added.

[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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard that speech at least 10 times in this debate. Those members are passing it around.

Notwithstanding that, the member will know that this bill would create an export tax that at current price levels is actually higher than the U.S. duties. Let us think about that. This is short term gain for long term pain.

The issue here is the fact that the industry has been bullied. It was a sellout and the industry has been bullied. I want to give some examples to the House.

The government offered an ultimatum to the industry. The industry minister told the industry to either accept the deal or the government would abandon it. That is exactly what the minister said. He said the industry would be on its own if it did not accept this deal. He went on, saying that loan guarantees put in place before the last election were taken off the table. Now that is a real bone for businesses to chew on.

Actually, suddenly it was that if the government wanted to put the industry in jeopardy, it just needed to threaten the industry. It said it would take loan guarantees off the table. Then the government threatened to abandon the industry if it chose to pursue its legal rights. Whatever happened to the opportunity for businesses to express themselves? Some of those in the industry will continue to pursue their legal rights over accepting this deal.

The government has also demonstrated that it will punish companies in the industry that refuse to sign this deal. Now that sounds like good leadership from a government. This includes the imposition of a 19% levy on all refunded duty deposits on the holdout companies.

This is not a government that is representing the interests of the industry. This is a bully government. This is a government that has sold out. It is ignoring the NAFTA and WTO trade panel decisions. This is a very bad deal.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has brought up some very interesting words. Let me work a bit with the hon. member's words, if I may. The hon. member refers to the industry being bullied. I would prefer to refer to this government as bullish. We are bullish on softwood. We think it has a future. We know that it now has a future. Yes, this government is bullish. It is bullish on the Canadian economy and the softwood lumber industry is a fundamental piece of our economy.

The member talked about abandonment. That is what we heard from the industry in committee appearances. Businesses in the industry told the committee that the previous Liberal government had abandoned them. The Liberals allowed them to have to take this dispute to court. The former Liberal government was never there to provide the leadership to bring a settlement to this industry, so the industry had to litigate. One of the first things this new Conservative government did, even though we had not been in power very long, was to bring an end to this longstanding dispute that frankly was going nowhere under Liberal leadership.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have only one minute, I will be brief.

The Conservative member mentioned earlier that the agreement would run for nine years. What he forgot to say—and I would like him to elaborate on this—is that the final wording contains a clause that allows Washington to terminate the agreement at any time after 18 months. It seems to me that we do not often hear about that. It is all well and good to say that we have a nine-year agreement, that we will be able to do something and that industries in Quebec will be able to continue doing business with the United States, but after 18 months, Washington can terminate this agreement. What does the hon. member think of that?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that. Most people understand that in international agreements the standard length of an agreement, the standard opportunity length of time for any agreement to be opted out of, if I may term it that way, is six months.

I think we did exceptionally well to get this length of agreement so that this industry has some strength and something on which to base its future monetary investments. It is a seven to nine year agreement. That is better than most industries have to base their forward decisions on and to base their investments on. I think this is an excellent negotiation on behalf of this new Conservative government.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good work that the member does as we sit together on the international trade committee. I know that he, like our Conservative government, has been very focused on small families, the communities, the industry, and those who have been devastated by this dispute. I do want to thank him for the good work that he does do at committee on behalf of his constituents and on behalf of those in the softwood lumber industry.

The member did pass some comments though, suggesting that perhaps we as a Conservative government did not keep our promise. We did keep our promise. We made a commitment to be there for the softwood lumber industry during the election and that is exactly what we did. We delivered this deal. We delivered the return of $5 billion in Canadian dollars back into the industry. The industry has told the government that it can no longer continue, that it has been devastated by the lack of support from the previous Liberal government over 13 years. Now we see a return of money coming into the industry.

In the past we have also heard this member advocate for loan guarantees. I want to comment on loan guarantees for a moment. We are giving back to the industry its own money. It is by far better than just saying “here is some more debt for the industry. Let us give the softwood industry another loan to keep its head above water”.

I was a small business person and I was raised in a small business family of over 40 years, I can say right now I would rather have my own money back. The industry would rather have its own money back, so it can reinvest and go forward.

Would the hon. member comment and actually see a benefit in returning the industry's own money, rather than continuing to give it further debt?

I would also like to speak a little bit about next steps at committee and next steps for our government. The hon. member has rightfully talked about that we do need to look to the future. Our Minister of International Trade and our Prime Minister have made a commitment to do that.

Within this agreement there is a binational council where there will be representatives from both Canada and the United States who will work together over the next seven to nine years to build and go beyond the next seven to nine years, but to even talk about how we can fine tune the agreement.

I am hoping that at committee we will be able to sit down and work very closely together on how this council will play out and what its role will be. Some of the things that the council's initiatives could include are expanding the market for wood products and the non-residential construction market, developing new methods and markets for the use of wood, and defending wood use in existing residential markets.

The council would talk about where the softwood lumber industry will go into the future jointly, build trust between the two countries, build a strong industry, so that when other countries try to come in and bring in their exports that we are looking out for Canada's industry, as well as the North American industry as a whole. If the hon. would care to comment and perhaps let me know if he is willing to work together at committee to see if we can go forward, I would appreciate that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Conservative member for Simcoe—Grey who sits with me on the committee, even though we are do not always have the same points of view.

I would nevertheless like to clarify some of the member's comments. She talks about money being returned to the industry as though this money were a gift. It is not a gift; the industry paid this money in countervailing duties.

Court decisions were all in favour of Quebec and Canadian companies. The Americans were not able to demonstrate that our softwood lumber was actually subsidized and that we were dumping our goods. It is understandable that we support this agreement. It is as if workers who have been on strike for several months return to work after losing ground in the areas of working conditions and benefits.

The industry is not satisfied with this agreement but it does not have a choice and that is why the Quebec industry took a stand. It has been bled to death, it has lost thousands of jobs and mills are closing.

Therefore the Bloc Québécois is asking members to support this agreement. The government refers to it as a seven-to-nine-year agreement. We will keep our fingers crossed because we know it could be a $1 billion loss, for an agreement that lasts only 18 to 24 months. That would be a catastrophe for the forestry industry.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. It has been quoted that 90% of the industry is in favour of this agreement. The last time I read the agreement there were 32 litigations against the American government. Those companies would have to sign off before the agreement takes effect. If we look at only 32, 90% of 32 is about 27 or 28. That leaves about three or four litigants outside the panel.

I would like to ask the member what he would think of the current new government looking after 90% of Canadians as opposed to 100% of Canadians. Is it the government's responsibility to look after everyone or only 90% of the Canadian population?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. As he pointed out, we are talking about 90%. I think the Prime Minister said in the House that the industry, by and large, supported the agreement but that 10% had not yet decided. Undecided parties will be subject to a punitive tax for failing to sign on to the agreement. In answer to your question, I think it should be 100%.

The first thing we need to do is listen to the industries. With all due respect for the member who asked the question, what the Conservative minority government has not done—and what the Liberals failed to do for years—is listen to the needs of all industries involved. This is why it has come down to this agreement, which is unsatisfactory for 100% of the industries.

Here in Ottawa, we are accumulating billions of dollars in surpluses, while the provinces are being bled to death. We have the means to support the industry because there is plenty of money here in Ottawa. Yet we refuse to help. Loan guarantees would hardly have cost a fortune. We could have enabled the industries to turn things around and helped them in their legal proceedings. We did not. In the end, we are signing an agreement that will hurt the entire softwood lumber industry. Yes, 90% of the industry supports the agreement, but it does so against its will because it had no other choice.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, those of us on the NDP benches cannot understand how the members of the Bloc can vote for this bill. There is any number of good reasons, which I do not have time to go through, but there is one reason I am not sure that even my colleagues are aware of.

I know that my colleagues from the Bloc are very concerned about issues of jurisdiction and even sovereignty. In actual fact, when this deal is ratified there would be an unprecedented clause which would require provinces to first clear any changes to forestry policy with Washington, not with the Government of Canada but with Washington. The Province of Quebec, if it were interested in changing its own forestry policy, would have to ask permission from the United States government first.

Does the member not think that is an affront to Canadian sovereignty and an affront to the sovereignty of the Province of Quebec to have its jurisdiction trampled upon? Should that alone not be reason enough for my colleagues to get angry and vote against this softwood lumber sellout?

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP member does not understand why the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of this agreement, despite its convictions. The NDP does not understand why it has never managed to have a member elected in Quebec. That is because their party does not listen to the Quebec industries and the people of Quebec. That is why the member does not understand—and I can see he does not understand—and that is why the NDP has no seats in Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois consulted Quebec businesses. We participated in the debate. We know that the anti-circumvention clause could be harmful to our industry.

The president of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, Guy Chevrette, is very structured in his thinking. He has analyzed every angle of this agreement. We know how a sovereignist government could get trapped in the management of our forests but, of course, we would be very careful. This is why the binational committee would play a role. If, at any time, the Americans were to invest more in our forest policy, Quebec could, at that time, terminate its part of the contract.

I would point out to the NDP member that this is another reason for our desire for sovereignty. To be master of our own international agreements that are not now in Quebec's best interest would be another reason.

We saw how Ottawa managed the softwood lumber crisis. The government has billions of surplus dollars that we Quebeckers have sent to Ottawa, and that will not come back to us. When we need our money to support our industries, we do not have it.

I would tell the NDP member that this is why the Bloc Québécois, while awaiting Quebec sovereignty, must make concessions and must listen to its industries.

He can rest assured that we will make certain, within the binational committee, that this agreement harms Quebec industries as little as possible by continuing to listen to them.

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding that has over 50% of the product of softwood lumber within the confines of my riding. Therefore, I trust I am qualified to make some of the remarks that I am planning to make today.

I have phrased my remarks around what I call a tale of two cities. More precisely, I think this is a story of two small, single industry towns in northern Ontario, Schreiber and Terrace Bay, about 10 miles apart. They are on the Trans-Canada Highway and border the north shore of Lake Superior.

Although I use those two communities as examples, I think that I am also talking about 350 other communities right across this country that are dependent on the forestry industry and are single industry towns. When I talk of Schreiber and Terrace Bay, it is not exclusive.

Both are majestic little communities in a wonderful setting with all of the natural beauty of any community located in this scenic area. Schreiber had its genesis about 100 years ago as a railway town and has serviced the CPR since that time. Even today the CPR passes through Schreiber, but with a greatly reduced labour force. Some years ago, Schreiber relied on several mining companies, which were successful for a short time, but when the mines were depleted they closed and the miners and their families left the community, leaving only one major industry, that being Kimberly-Clark, a producer of kraft paper.

The reason for Terrace Bay's existence was the Kimberly-Clark organization in the United States. Its most famous product, as we well know, is Kleenex. The raw material, known as kraft, was produced in Terrace Bay. Kimberly-Clark decided to build this plant on the north shore of Lake Superior right after the second world war, mainly because there was an abundance of natural resources, with plenty of trees and a lot of water, which were so necessary.

Terrace Bay became the showplace on the north shore, an almost perfect single industry mill town employing almost 1,000 men and women from Schreiber and Terrace Bay. Terrace Bay developed because of this a great school system, a small well-run hospital, beautiful parks, a hockey rink, which we know is so important to every small town, a curling rink and a community hall. It developed a devoted and dedicated town council to run its affairs. There was everything a small community needed. Terrace Bay became home to many families. After working there throughout their careers, as in Schreiber, the people decided to retire there to stay in Terrace Bay and they left their assets within the community.

Kimberly-Clark, over the 50 years it operated, was an enlightened and empathetic employer and kept investing in the progress of the mill over those 50 years. As it is in all businesses, the forestry industry was going through some change. There was a marketing change. Costs were increasing. There was an ownership change. There was more offshore competition. About five years ago, Kimberly-Clark decided to sell its Terrace Bay operation to Neenah Paper. Neenah Paper was a company with its head office in Atlanta, Georgia.

Neenah ran the Kimberly-Clark operation for about five years. Then its board of directors decided to sell the Terrace Bay operation. It was not a good time to sell the forestry business. Markets were being devastated with high costs, offshore competition, the high cost of fibre and the high cost of energy. The value of the Canadian dollar was going up, making our product less competitive.

Although there was interest shown by the softwood producers, they were having their own problems of liquidity and were fighting for survival because of the ongoing softwood lumber dispute with the United States. Most of the softwood industry in Canada was simply out of money and had exhausted all lines of credit with the banks.

About a year ago, Neenah Paper announced, because it could not find a buyer, that it would permanently close the Kimberly-Clark paper mill in Terrace Bay and issued layoff notices to its employees in both Terrace Bay and Schreiber.

Devastation and despair settled into those communities. Men and women who had worked for years were out of a job. They had absolutely no prospects of any future jobs in those particular areas. Some left the communities for prosperity in Alberta and some returned.

The town councils, led by able, competent mayors, Mike King in Terrace Bay and Donald McArthur in Schreiber, did everything within their power to keep these communities together. We owe both mayors a tremendous vote of appreciation and gratitude. Can anyone imagine trying to run a small community where the largest property owners are vacating? How do they continue to provide the services, education, health care, policing, maintenance and public utilities without a proper tax base?

The residents of those communities, from firsthand knowledge, were devastated. Their life savings, mostly in the homes they had bought over the years, were now worth a small fraction of their original cost. Unfortunately, even if they wanted to sell their homes, there were no buyers within these communities. Everything they had worked for all their lives was lost. It was a disaster.

About six months ago there was a glimmer of hope. The government announced a break in the longstanding softwood lumber dispute with the United States and began negotiating a settlement with our friends in the United States. It stopped the lengthy, expensive litigation process and decided to negotiate a deal, a return to the softwood lumber producers in Canada of almost 80% of the $5.2 billion paid by the Canadian producers to the Americans.

On the announcement of that, private negotiations were resumed between Neenah Paper and a company called Buchanan Forest Products, which owns several mills, the largest softwood producer in Ontario as a matter of fact and the largest private employer of men and women in northern Ontario. The rest is history.

Last Thursday the Buchanan group of companies officially took ownership of Neenah Paper in Terrace Bay. Last Saturday, for the first time in six months, the first shipment of Kraft left Terrace Bay and was shipped to the United States. Orders are starting to come in on a daily basis.

The first shipment left after six months. It was a sight to behold, with the Ontario minister of natural resources present, the family owners, Kenny and Ken Buchanan, and their board of directors, made up of local people with a local interest, Russell York , Yves Fricot, Wolf Garrick and Hartley Multimacki all on board. All the inside workers at this mill were present at the opening of this mill.

There were tears of joy. I have never seen this in my life. There were tears of joy at the opening of the new mill in this single industry town. This would not have happened without the agreement with the United States on softwood lumber. That is why, along with some other reasons, I supported, voted for, still approve of and will continue to vote in favour of the softwood lumber agreement with the United States.

I am very proud to have represented the overwhelming desire of the constituents I represent in Schreiber, Terrace Bay and, indeed, throughout northern Ontario.

My only hope is that some of that same good fortune that we have experienced in Schreiber and Terrace Bay, because of the industriousness of these folks and the willingness to negotiate, will happen in the other 350 communities across the country that depend on the forestry industry for support and for existence.

That is the end of my story on the Tale of Two Cities.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, his comments are reflected in the sentiments shared by our party and by the Government of Canada.

I thank him for his courage in standing up in support of this softwood lumber agreement against some considerable opposition, not only from other opposition parties but from within his own party as well. Members of his community can be proud of him. He is actually doing what MPs should be doing, which is standing up for the interests of their residents and their working families.

I trust that the prospect of recovering from the devastation of the lumber dispute will carry over into many other communities across Canada that depend on the softwood lumber industry for their survival.

It has been suggested by many that somehow Canada simply has to win a couple of more appeals and court battles and the United States will cave in and gladly return the outstanding duties, which are well over $5 billion U.S. It has also been suggested that this softwood lumber agreement is unnecessary because we would receive immediate compliance from the United States and that it would cooperate with us. I take a different view.

If the softwood lumber agreement did not carry in this House, would my colleague expect our neighbours to the south to quickly return the outstanding duties if the next couple of court decisions go Canada's way?

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked on the softwood lumber file for the last 10 years. At one time I was as optimistic as everyone in the House that we would eventually win at the World Trade Organization under section 19 of the NAFTA. As it turns out, we were not going to win. We could not continue to negotiate because our companies could no longer exist because they were out of money and had no more bank credit. The government had to make this deal. It is unfortunate, because I would have liked to have seen a better resolution, but we were faced with making this decision now.

The member asked a very important question. I think we should broaden our horizons, having gone through this softwood lumber dispute, and take a closer look at the NAFTA, especially the dispute resolution mechanism under section 19 which favours the Americans. Decisions are made under American law. After this debate is over, we should be applying our minds to correcting that situation.

To answer the question by an NDP member a short while ago about what will happen the next time if it is a steel dispute or something else we do not know about, let us really put our minds to getting this section straightened out so that NAFTA will be operative as it should have been when it was first signed.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to commend the hon. member. Many times in the House he has voted on principle and he has obviously voted on principle by supporting the softwood lumber agreement. The member, obviously, has great experience on this file.

Now that this softwood lumber dispute will be resolved in the coming months, what suggestions and ideas could my colleague provide with respect to best helping the forestry sector move forward to ensure that we see a revitalization of the industry and improve its competitiveness in today's market?

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one would almost think I wrote the question for the minister because I have the answer for him, but he did not.

In my judgment, which goes to the heart of every community, especially in the forestry industry or the single industry communities, when we come from a smaller community, other people are making decisions on our behalf.

After the experience in the softwood lumber industry, which has affected all of Canada, I would like to see each community taking over more of its own decision-making. It is important for a single industry community to have some direct control over the cost of energy and the cost of fibre. When communities realize that they do have some say in energy, in fibre and in other costs, we will begin to see the forestry business in Canada get back on a solid footing, whether it is softwood, kraft or newsprint. We would then get local representation at the table bargaining, rather than some steel company in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, dictating what the forestry industry in northern Ontario or northern British Columbia should be doing. When we get those three components in place we will start to see a rebirth of the forestry industry.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, because what I heard from him is compassion for the families in his constituency.

In northern Ontario, as well as many communities in Canada, there are single industry communities. What happened after the mine closed in my father's community in Kirkland Lake? Families were hurt irreparably. The real estate dropped in price. People who worked in the same place for their entire lives lost their retirement savings, their self-esteem after the job losses and had social problems with unemployment. From his speech, I can tell that the hon. member is really listening to his constituents.

If this deal does not go through, which is what the NDP is pushing for, what is the hon. member hearing from the families in his riding? What would be the outcome for them if this did not go through?

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hypothetical question. If the deal did not go through, I am glad we do not have to face what we would have to do. However, I have to be very frank that we were at the edge of the cliff and I did not like looking down and I did not want to go back to those families. Cascades closed down in the last six months. Red Rock closed down about three or four months ago and we are trying to revive it. It is really very difficult on the families.

I hope the government passes the older worker adjustment program very soon. It is difficult for people who have worked in a mill for 25 or 30 years. They are at an age where they cannot be retrained because by the time they are retrained they are close to retirement. They need a bridge from what they are getting now through their pension plan and so on to carry them over to their retirement.

We developed the older worker adjustment program some 12 or 13 years ago with the present government members. The sooner the government implements that the better off these people will be because there still has to be a soft landing for some of these people in the forestry industry in Canada to help them over the hurdle.

[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.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Conservative member’s speech and I am perplexed by what he had to say.

I find it hard to understand why he says today that this is the best possible agreement. It may be a good agreement, in the circumstances we find ourselves in. However, I do not understand why, last October, the same party was calling on the party in power to give loan guarantees. But as soon as it is in power, it is no longer talking about giving loan guarantees.

I do not know where it got its mandate to negotiate on behalf of the industry. I cannot understand why an industry would have given this government a mandate to negotiate and then leave a billion dollars on the table. And $500 million will be paid directly to the White House. The Americans will have 18 months in which they can go back on the agreement, and we are told that it may work for a year or two and we will start the process over again of going back to hearings to win the case. I think we should have been able to see the case through. The dispute is not over and will not be over, because in 18 months it may start all over again. If we had been able to see the case through, we could have put an end to it once and for all. As well, all of the tribunals say that there was no such thing in this agreement and that softwood lumber was not subsidized by Canada. I think that much is clear.

I do not understand why we did not see the case through. That is my question. Where did these people get their mandate to negotiate on behalf of the industry? I understand that the industry in Quebec is asking that this agreement be signed, now that they find themselves up against the wall, with no money left and no people left.

I think that the government could have supported the industry, here in Quebec, and the Canadian softwood lumber industry. It did not do that and has allowed the Americans to control our forests.

For any government that represents its country’s industries, it is unacceptable to allow another country to dictate how things will be done in an agreement, in addition to leaving a billion dollars on the table, money that belongs not to the government, but rather to the industry. I think that the government has exceeded its mandate and that it would have been just, reasonable and fair to the Canadian softwood industry to give it the loan guarantees and to continue the battle so that one day it would be over.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that much of the member's question was answered in my presentation and in presentations made by other members.

I want to point out that it is not $1 billion that is left on the table. Certainly part of that $1 billion has been allocated to what we believe are noble purposes. Canada quite happily supported some of those. Let us make that clear.

It is interesting that the main argument the member made against signing this deal is that the Americans may cancel it down the road. There is a contradiction in what he is saying. He is saying it is not a good deal, but he is concerned about having it cancelled. That contradiction is just so blatant and so odd. If it is a bad deal, why would he be concerned about cancelling it?

The member knows extremely well, as do the companies in his constituency, that this is a good deal. It is a good deal for the softwood lumber industry. It is certainly a good deal for the workers, who will be able to keep their jobs. It is a good deal for the country. That is why he is concerned about cancellation.

The cancellation issue is a good question and I am glad the member brought it up. It is not going to happen. The only time there was a cancellation in the past was the cancellation by the Canadian government. That is what happened to the last softwood lumber deal.

This deal is a much better deal. It is a longer term deal. I believe that before the end of this deal we will have a solution that will carry on indefinitely, because we have set up the mechanism for making adjustments to the deal along the way. I chair the trade committee. I am sure the parliamentary secretary, the trade minister and the committee will work on making the bilateral council work. The bilateral council can make changes to the deal. We will make it work. We will make it a deal that will be better at the end than it is right now, and it is a good deal right now.

The member's concern about cancellation is a legitimate one, but it simply is not going to happen.

This is a deal between two governments. This deal cannot be cancelled by industry in the United States. If that were the case, then the member's concern would be legitimate. But it is not. It is a deal that can only be cancelled, on the appropriate notice, by one government or the other. That notice is adequate for the industry to deal with it. It simply is not going to happen. The member can rest assured that this deal will be in place for seven years, maybe nine. I believe probably changes will be made to allow it to go well beyond that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I read recently that a beaver bites off its own testicles when it is threatened. If this is true, then I suppose the beaver is a fitting symbol if not for Canada, then for recent governments of Canada which, when faced with serious bullying and threatened and backed into a corner, have carved off pieces of Canada and voluntarily and unilaterally dismantled aspects of Canada that we value. I will give my colleague an example and ask for his views on it.

Is he and other members aware that under the current deal the supposedly sovereign nation Canada signed on to an unprecedented clause in the agreement that would require provinces to vet any changes in forest policy with Washington? I do not know if people are clear on this. We have surrendered the right to make our own internal domestic changes to foreign policy to Washington. We have to ask for Washington's permission. Maybe that is not biting off one's own testicles, but it is certainly hiving off an aspect of Canadian sovereignty.

Is the member aware that this is the second time a Conservative government has done this? In 1986 under the GATT, Canada was on the verge of winning a ruling from GATT on unfair duties assigned by the U.S. The prime minister of the day, Brian Mulroney, was so eager to make the case that we had to have a free trade agreement he aborted the appeal to GATT even though we were winning, even though this was something we won, and buried the results until after the free trade agreement was announced. This is the second time a Conservative government has yielded to this kind of bullying.

I would ask for my colleague's comments.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not be commenting on the actions of any particular beaver or anything like that. I do not know about that. I will have to take the member's word for it.

What I will say is that the member's suggestion that we could ever end the litigation within my lifetime is simply naïve. It would not happen. It is not a real option, nor is a completely free trade agreement in softwood lumber with the United States. It is not on the table and is not going to happen. It is a naïve position to take. I would love that to happen. I would love it to happen in agriculture. It would solve most of the problems that farmers have. It would solve a lot of the problems that the softwood lumber industry has, but it is naïve, it is not realistic and it is not going to happen. Let us just put that issue aside and deal with reality.

The member suggested that by signing this deal Canada is giving up sovereignty. That is simply not the case. The reality is that if there are some major changes, for example if there are problems in the industry that require a high level of harvesting, and we have seen that with the pine beetle, it allows the flexibility to deal with that. It is as good as we could possible have it. The deal shows its flexibility. I think the member has defeated his own argument in that area.

[The Acting Speaker, 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.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is set to ratify a softwood lumber agreement that is simply bad for Canada.

After removing all the support from the lumber industry by eliminating the loan guarantee, the Conservative government is trying to force companies to accept this flawed deal.

I cannot in good conscience support a deal that relinquishes $1 billion to the American government and the American lumber industry, one that gives Canada's lumber companies an ultimatum to comply or be heavily taxed, one that sets a dangerous precedent that seriously undermines our rules based trading relationship with the United States. This agreement is simply not good enough for the Canadian lumber industry or Canadians.

The softwood lumber agreement is a prime example of the government's willingness to accept mediocre deals from the U.S. rather than stand up for Canadians. Since when did giving up $1 billion to the United States equate to a good deal for Canada? Since when did bullying Canadian companies to take this deal or face a 19% penalty tax equate to standing up for Canadians?

The fact is this deal leaves $500 million in the hands of the American lumber industry which it can use to attack the Canadian industry by undercutting our prices or by launching future lawsuits. This deal gives the American government roughly $450 million of the illegally imposed duties. This deal creates an export tax that is actually higher than the current U.S. duty. This deal has anti-surge provisions which will deprive the Canadian industry of the flexibility to deal with unexpected situations like the pine beetle infestations. This deal abandons each of our legal victories under the rules of international trade in exchange for only 24 months of peace.

The fact is this deal is a bad deal for the Canadian lumber industry as it sells out Canadian interests for political expediency and the Conservative election checklist.

I want the House, the lumber industry and all other industries in Canada to take a look at the larger picture that is at stake here. This Conservative softwood lumber agreement sets a dangerous legal precedent.

By ratifying this agreement the Conservative government sacrifices Canada's credibility and the credibility of the dispute resolution provisions of NAFTA.

By ratifying this agreement the Conservative government is encouraging other U.S. sectors to ignore trade rules and instead seek political decisions that will act in their favour.

By ratifying this agreement the Conservative government will create more trade uncertainty which seriously undermines Canada's international position in the export market and inhibits investment in our forestry sector.

By ratifying this agreement the Conservative government is saying that it is okay to force a 19% penalty tax on companies that are unwilling to sign on to this agreement.

By ratifying this agreement the Conservative government is saying to Canadian industries that they must accept this deal or the government will abandon them.

This deal carries with it the potential to establish Canada's long term trading relationship with the United States. Do we want that relationship to be based on selling out Canadian companies and accepting less than 100% refunds or should the Canadian government establish a relationship that sends out a clear message, a message that says the Canadian government will fight for the rights of our companies.

Sadly this deal says to Canadians that losing $1 billion to the American government and the lumber industry is okay. That is not good enough for me. I stand here to fight for a better deal for Canada's lumber industry, a deal that does not bully companies into a flawed agreement.

Canadian companies have the legal right to the full repayment of the illegally imposed import duties and the right to opt out of the Conservative softwood lumber agreement.

Forestry companies should be able to pursue their legal rights, both under NAFTA and in our domestic courts. The government should be there to support these companies, not dictate to them.

The government should immediately make loan guarantees available to these companies so as to provide them with the credit worthiness that they will need to enable them to reclaim the money owed to them. From the onset, Conservative the softwood lumber agreement has been more about politics than what is best for Canada and our producers.

The government owes it to Canadians to achieve nothing less than what it promised: free trade and 100% refund. The Liberal Party has long been a staunch supporter of the lumber industry. We are steadfast in our commitment to a resolution of the softwood dispute that is based on the rule of law in international trade and one that seeks full compensation of the $5 billion in illegal lumber duties.

We call for the American government to fulfill its NAFTA commitments so as to lawfully resolve this dispute and set a clear precedent that Canada stands behind our industries.

The Liberal Party believes in a long term solution to the softwood lumber dispute. This is why we have developed and proposed a supplementary aid package that better meets the needs of the industry. This package is modelled on the very same package that was introduced by the former Liberal industry minister, David Emerson. This industry--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member is experienced in the House and knows that he cannot identify other members by their given names, but by their constituencies or their office.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this industry needs a better deal and investment in the long term forestry strategy that helps build a profitable and sustainable industry. This is why I cannot support this agreement. I want a better deal for Canadians.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments from my colleague from Richmond. He is a good friend of mine. I notice he did his part for the softwood lumber industry by having every sentence on a separate sheet paper.

My question is a B.C. focused question with regard to this deal. He used very strong language in his presentation. I know the member from West Vancouver has also used very strong language with this deal in terms of what it means to British Columbia and what it means to our future.

B.C. Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell is in Ottawa right now. He arrived yesterday and gave a great speech yesterday to the Canadian Club of Ottawa. He is still in town today, meeting with our government and with members of all parties on the softwood lumber deal.

Gordon Campbell supports the softwood lumber deal. Finance Minister Carole Taylor, a federal Liberal out of B.C., supports the deal. Rich Coleman, the minister of forests, supports this deal. The Liberal MLA from the member's Richmond riding, Linda Reid, and others support this deal. They believe it is in the best interests of his constituents and in the province of British Columbia.

Is Gordon Campbell abandoning British Columbia? Does Gordon Campbell not know what is in the best interests of B.C.? Does Gordon Campbell not know what is in the best interests of the softwood industry? If he is going to vote against this deal, if he is going to continue with the language he has been using, he must believe that Gordon Campbell does not know what is in the best interests of B.C.

I look forward to hearing his answer and whether he believes that Gordon Campbell knows less than he does about what is in the best interests of B.C.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the provincial government has no choice. The Government of Canada, under the Conservative leadership, has abandoned the industry. It has withdrawn all the support, the loan guarantees that are so important in this battle with the Americans on this issue. The government denied its support to the industry and in effect, if it does not support this deal, it will be hung out to dry. The industry has no other methods of staying in the battle.

A few weeks ago, Premier Gordon Campbell issued a statement to support the deal. He outlined all the difficulties with the agreement and asked the federal government to renegotiate. The government turned him down. It turned down every request from the provincial government and the industry.

I have talked to people in the industry in my riding. They are telling me that, with the price going down as it is, with this agreement, they will be facing a tax duty that is higher than what it is today. The court has ruled that the Americans cannot charge more than 10.8% on our exports, but this deal would allow the Americans to set a 15% tax duty on our exports. With the price going down, companies have no means to survive. They have no choice but to be bullied into accepting the deal.

It is amazing that the federal government, the Conservative Party, is now blaming the provincial government for this deal. The provincial government is not at the negotiating table. The federal government has negotiated this deal and it is forcing and bullying the provincial governments and the industries to accept the deal, and that is the sad part of that government.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate with quite a bit of interest. I wonder if my hon. friend, the member for Richmond, listened to the remarks from one of his colleagues in the Liberal caucus, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, about how this would impact his riding and how the Conservative government's agreement with the United States has impacted it.

Does he understand just how many individual jobs are being saved in ridings such as his colleague's from the Liberal Party?

Another question is this. It is not between $4 billion and $5 billion. It is between $4 billion and zero. With this agreement, the Conservative government got the industry $4 billion--

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

Five billion dollars Canadian.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

--that is $5 billion Canadian. Does the hon. member not agree that this is better than zero? With the promised litigation, even after we win a couple more rounds, this would have continued on and on.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is we were winning in the court and producing results. This is why the tax rates have been reduced. The court forced it to be reduced down to 10.8%.

The problem is we are not saving jobs. I bet with the member opposite that there will be layoffs. Industries already have to restructure because of the possibility of this agreement being passed. Many jobs will be lost, and I will bet that this will be true.

[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.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I listened to the Liberal member asking for loan guarantees and saying that the Conservatives should have given them. I must point out that the Liberals had the opportunity to do the same thing, that is to provide loan guarantees, and they never did. That the Conservatives have not done so either is another story. I do not understand why they wanted to negotiate— I spoke about that previously.

When we talk about leaving a billion dollars on the table, it must be remembered that $500 million of that amount will be paid to the American softwood lumber industry. Personally, if someone were negotiating on my behalf with a third party over my money, and if that money were paid to the other party, the one who started the dispute, I would not be happy. It would be as though I were robbed in my own home, as though, like everyone else, I knew who the robber was and as though a Conservative member negotiated with the robber and told him he could keep the television set and the cutlery. They did the same thing. The Conservatives were elected and they stuck their nose in this issue. There remains $500 million for the softwood lumber industry and $500 million handed over to the White House, which can do whatever it wants with that money. Everything is fine; and they say that it is a good agreement. Really. Where are we headed? If we agree to a loss every time the Conservatives negotiate on behalf of Canadian companies, we will be in the hole in no time at all.

As far as the agreement is concerned, I admit that in fact the Quebec industry has agreed to sign the agreement, but the dispute results from the inaction of the Liberals and the Conservatives, who failed to provide loan guarantees to firms in the industry. Now, the Conservatives are giving them back their own money and in addition they are leaving a billion dollars of industry money with the Americans. I do not know where they are heading, but if that is the way they want to negotiate, we will not be negotiating for long.

Can the Conservative member think of any other solutions, such as POWA? When I mention POWA, I am not thinking only of softwood lumber but of all Quebec and Canadian industries. Because of the Conservative government's inertia, there is no such program for the industry.They want to allow free enterprise. Considering the 90¢ dollar and the 94.3% increase in the cost of gasoline, electricity and propane gas, we have a small problem with free enterprise. If they leave industry to fend for itself, we will soon be without industry in Quebec and Ontario. Moreover, with respect to negotiators like those opposite, we can do without them.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy any remarks from passionate members of the House of Commons. The member who just spoke is obviously one of those very passionate members.

I do not remember hearing an exact question, but I do remember thinking to myself that he sounded an awful lot like a lawyer for a moment, because only the lawyers are going to benefit from this going on and on.

In the meantime, there are going to be communities, families and whole areas of the country that will be totally devastated. The longer this goes on, the longer the opportunity is there for big companies to do what I call the Pac-Man game. They come along and gobble up all the little companies and pretty soon those little companies that used to be the mainstay of small communities and were considered players in the industry suddenly have disappeared.

I am not certain if the member opposite has ever had any experience in negotiations, but I have. In negotiations, there is give and take. The rule of thumb is that one side asks for the moon and the other side offers the dirt on the floor. Somewhere in between an acceptable agreement is found, one that actually benefits both sides, and everyone walks away, saves face for another day, and we go on to do what we are supposed to be doing.

In the case of this lumber agreement, there are a couple of things that the member opposite is mistaken about. We are not leaving money in the hands of the United States. There is actually going to be a group of people from both Canada and the U.S. who will use part of that money to which the member referred.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Fifty million, that is it.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to hold his passion. I am trying to answer him as best I can. When we negotiate a deal, as we did in this case, and we get more than 83% of what we asked for, that is really good negotiation.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable frustration that I join this debate concerning the bill on the softwood lumber agreement with the Americans.

Let us recall the free trade crusade initiated by the former Liberal government. It said: “We are going to win the legal battle and in the end we are going to impose free trade for softwood lumber”.

However, the Liberal government and the Conservatives, who later took their place, forgot one important thing, namely helping and supporting the forest industry and the forest sector workers, for example, with guaranteed loan programs, which we asked for for nearly 36 months before the agreement.

We listened to the entire softwood lumber industry, which told us that this sort of assistance was what was required for us to come out winners in the end and have free trade, because we were going to win the legal battle.

The governments stubbornly did not grant this assistance and today we have before us an agreement with the Americans that is very frustrating. The outcome is nothing to celebrate. There is no glory to be had from it.

Obviously the Americans won with their strategy designed to drag out the dispute as long as possible. Today we are faced with an agreement that the Quebec's industry and unions are asking us to support, because they lack the financial resources to weather the crisis, because the federal government did not do its work when it was time.

Now the agreement is before us. It will not settle the crisis once and for all, but it makes it possible to recover a significant share of the amounts paid by the Canadians to the Americans. In this regard, the Bloc Québécois has a very responsible attitude. We must not forget that, without its support for the agreement, we would be looking at an election right now. There would not be an agreement and the entire forest industry would be left to its own devices, as would the workers.

God knows we need security in this sector nowadays. We saw it again yesterday in the news on Radio-Canada: the forest industry is in a crisis throughout Canada.

The softwood lumber agreement with the Americans is only a small part of the solution to this issue. It buys us some time for a while, but other forms of action are also required.

The Bloc Québécois decided, as a responsible party, to support the agreement because we absolutely have to have some help so that our companies can keep their heads above water, continue to operate and keep job losses to a minimum. At the same time, though, an assistance plan is needed to help the industry. In this regard, the Conservative government has proved itself so far to be flagrantly irresponsible. They went to negotiate with the Americans and came back with an agreement that is not very good but which we have no other choice than to accept. On the other hand, though, they close their ears and turn a blind eye to the problems of the forest industry, which has appealed repeatedly to the governments in both Quebec City and Ottawa to do something and hopefully institute an action plan that could help it.

In my riding, whether in Saint-Pamphile or Saint-Just-de-Bretenières, we cut American wood. This agreement will ensure that these people are not affected by the imposition of duties. From their perspective, therefore, there is a significant gain. It is the same in L'Isle-Verte. Les Produits Forestiers Dubé cuts wood in a private forest and will be exempted from duties. So there is a benefit here too.

More broadly in my region, a company like Groupe G.D.S., which is a solid firm that been around for a number of years, unfortunately has severe financial problems, largely because the softwood lumber crisis was allowed to drag on for too long and there was no well structured assistance plan to help the industry.

I remember four years ago when the debate was at its height. We received requests for loan guarantees from executives at G.D.S. But the government never provided them. The result is that the company is now under the protection of the Bankruptcy Act because of this situation.

So we have to sign this agreement, and I challenge NDP and Liberal candidates everywhere in Quebec to go around the forest towns during the next election campaign claiming that we should not have signed the agreement. Actually, I would tell these candidates not to go to these towns because they may have a problem getting out in one piece.

These parties have acted irresponsibly, as has the Conservative Party if there is no assistance plan. If they confine themselves just to signing the agreement, we will not have what we need and the companies will close all the same.

The Liberals and the New Democrats will say that the agreement should not have been signed because, ultimately, the result is the same. To remedy the situation, to get back on track, we need an assistance plan, like the plan proposed by the Bloc Québécois. It contains some fifteen proposals. Let us quickly review a few of them. First, it proposes an income support program for older workers employed in the softwood lumber industry, and in all manufacturing industries, as well. In Quebec industry as a whole, people 55, 56 or 57 years old are being laid off today. They have no chance of finding other jobs and we are still waiting for the program that is going to allow them to bridge the gap until they retire.

As members of Parliament, we have pension funds. When we leave our job after a certain number of years, this provides a reasonable way to bridge the gap. We must not imagine that everyone is in that situation. People who have worked in a plant for 25 or 30 or 35 years find themselves, at the end of the line, with a maximum of 45 weeks of employment insurance, and then it is over. And yet those people have paid in for 25 or 30 or 35 years and have never claimed employment insurance benefits. We need an assistance program for older workers.

We are asking for an economic diversification program for forestry-dependent communities. The Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec has just announced an $80 million program. If we dig a bit deeper, we see that there is not one cent of new money in that figure. They have brushed off the suit and turned the jacket inside out, and handed it back to us. There is nothing new, nothing in addition. This is not what we need. We need real action with additional money to allow for economic diversification in our regions.

In this plan, we are also asking for special tax status for the 128,000 owners of private woodlots in Quebec. That is the only way to consolidate our forestry industry. We are also asking for accelerated depreciation on equipment. That is important, because the companies are going to be getting $4 billion that the Americans will be giving back to them. They will have to pay their debts and lines of credit with that money, but with the rest they must be able to buy the equipment they need to get back in the race and be able to compete with the Americans. We believe that improving the tax treatment in terms of depreciation is the kind of help they need. I think this is a useful, constructive and dynamic proposal, and the Conservative government should include it in its program.

We are also talking about financial compensation for maintaining the forest access roads. In the United States, forest access roads are maintained by the army on the pretext that this is a matter of security, so that tanks can get through. We could have a plan that would allow us to help our industry get re-established by doing this too.

We are also proposing a program to stimulate innovation and improve productivity in the forestry industry.

This is a set of measures that we need. The softwood lumber agreement signed with the Americans is going to provide for reimbursement of $4 billion. But that will have to be supported by other measures. These measures are not superfluous, they are essential so that the forestry industry can get through the crisis it is currently experiencing.

This is obvious to the people who represent rural ridings. It can be seen in industrial villages today. Yesterday, we saw reports about some villages in Abitibi. The same thing could have happened in my riding. If there is no assistance plan to help these industries get through the current forestry crisis, then in six months or a year or two years we are going to continue seeing villages close down.

I know this is diametrically opposed to the approach of the current Minister of Industry. He believes that only the marketplace counts and that the state should not intervene. The cuts announced yesterday to the Technology Partnerships Canada program bear witness to this. However, I urge all his colleagues to make the minister understand that fundamental ideological principles have no place in this issue. We must find appropriate solutions to the problems that arise. In terms of developing the forestry industry, we expect the federal government to provide an action plan that will enable our communities to rebuild, to make it through the current difficulties and to continue to contribute to the Quebec and Canadian economies as they did in the past.

It is true that the natural resources sector and the forestry sector have been impacted by the new economy and the energy sector. However, we should never forget that this basic resource makes it possible for people to live in these areas and represents the lifeblood of communities. It also provides employment to those who are not necessarily very educated but who are vital to any economy, whether that of Quebec, Canada or North America.

Given the situation, yes, the Bloc Québécois will act responsibly and vote in favour of the agreement. However, it expects the Conservative government to have the same sense of responsibility and to come up with an assistance plan for the forestry industry, a plan necessary for the recovery of the forestry industry.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for his speech on softwood lumber. I think he was quite thorough. The Conservative member said earlier that 83% of Canada's forestry industry's money is coming back to it and the other 17% is going to the Americans. If that is how the Conservative member used to negotiate, I am glad she did not have a hand in this negotiation.

After making the Canadian and Quebec industries lose money, does the government intend to implement new strategies? We see that the Bloc Québécois has proposed alternative measures to support the industry. It is not just a matter of negotiating and pulling out. There also needs to be a new plan.

I would like the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup to say a few words about other ways that could help the Quebec and Canadian industries get new machinery and develop new procedures.

I recently read that an older worker support program would be implemented but that it would not apply to the softwood lumber sector. In my opinion, this should go further.

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup spoke earlier of the Minister of Industry's inertia, which did not help the industries and allowed free enterprise to rule. Can the hon. member tell us what concrete measures the Conservative government should apply in order to support the softwood lumber industry?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very wise comments.

First the Conservative government needs to acknowledge that this agreement is not perfect and that it has flaws. In my opinion, no Canadian would voluntarily give $1 billion to the Americans, $500 million of which will be allocated to the U.S. softwood lumber industry so that it can compete with us. This is one of the flaws of the agreement. That does not mean it should not be signed. It means there is a major flaw in the agreement.

However, it is in response to these flaws that an assistance plan comes into play. With such flaws, there needs to be compensation that allows our industry to face increased, somewhat undue, competition, which was financed with our very own money.

Our assistance plan suggests offering preferential tax treatment for the $4.3 billion of countervailing duties and anti-dumping charges that will be reimbursed by the U.S. authorities, in order to take into account the loss the companies have suffered.

This money will be refunded to companies early in December and will be considered revenue. It is being repaid at a time when the Canadian dollar is worth 90¢ American, whereas the payment to the Americans was made when the Canadian dollar was worth 65¢ American, which means that the companies are losing out.

Yesterday, we saw that the Conservative government can announce sudden cuts at the same time as it announces last year's $12 billion surplus. When making economic statements, the Conservative government could decide to give our industries a break by allowing them to declare the revenue for the year in which they paid out the amounts to the Americans. These companies must not suffer an additional loss with the repayment in 2006, when they paid these amounts in 2003, 2004 and 2005.

This is the sort of practical measure we would like to see for the industry. For the sake of older workers, we also hope that the Conservative government will realize that the agreement it signed will continue to have a highly detrimental impact on the economy, the forestry industry and the rest of the manufacturing sector.

It would therefore be appropriate to table a plan to help older workers who lose their jobs. Such a plan would cost $75 million annually, but Canada had a $12 billion surplus last year. This is disproportionate when we consider the individuals who are suffering the consequences of the softwood lumber crisis. The worker in St-Pamphile did not cause the crisis, the federal government did, in the way it negotiated with the Americans.

In the end, the government is forcing us to signed a flawed agreement. But plant workers and their families will suffer the consequences of that agreement every day. That is why our repeated calls for an older worker assistance program are appropriate and justified. It is time for the Conservative government to put older workers front and centre in an assistance plan for the entire forestry industry, in order to deal with this crisis.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important issue, the softwood lumber agreement, or should I say disagreement.

I had the opportunity to listen to the Minister of International Trade start off the debate in the House yesterday. I heard, as all Canadians did, how the agreement in his opinion would provide for years of stability and again in his opinion we would have eight or nine years of harmony and stability in our industry. To me that is a joke. I do not know if the minister was guessing, praying or just dreaming.

Thankfully, the next speaker was the member for Beauséjour and he put some facts on the table, facts like how the government left over $1 billion of Canadian companies' money in the hands of those who started and perpetuated the lumber trade dispute. What a sellout. Even worse than a sellout, we have to pay for being right. We are financing the very groups that caused all the problems. What a sad day for Canadian companies to have to pay those groups that do not want free trade in the lumber market.

All Canadian companies wanted was fair and open access to the markets of our largest and closest trading partner, our friends in the United States. To be sold out and then threatened by our own government shows just how desperate the government is to ram through this project.

Before I continue, I would like to make it clear that I believe that industry especially in my riding needs some of this money. There are people in my riding who feel we should take this deal. They are scared for their immediate future in an industry that is evermore precarious.

People in Kenora riding also recognize that this is a bad deal. I am voicing their frustration that the government was unable to deliver a better deal for their families. I am against supporting this deal because I have to stand up for the people who have been forced to take it.

Canada has repeatedly won favourable rulings at WTO and NAFTA. We are members of these international trade tribunals to ensure that trading practices are executed in a fair manner. We have a responsibility to accept the decisions that tribunals make, as does any other member, including the United States. By accepting a deal that is contrary to the rulings that have been made, our credibility and standing will be seriously undermined in any future trade disputes.

The forestry industry is the most important industry for the people of Kenora riding. Our communities are dependent upon these jobs. Just as they are dependent, our communities are devastated when the industry is in decline.

The industry has been faced with many obstacles. Very high energy costs, transportation costs because of the huge distances we have to travel, and the lack of ability to invest in research and development are just some of the examples. With those obstacles came job loss. In December last year the Abitibi mill in Kenora was shut down causing a loss of over 450 jobs. Days later, hundreds of jobs were lost in my home community of Dryden. These are jobs lost in a community where there is only one industry. It is totally devastating to the community.

Our way of life is in jeopardy in northern Ontario. We need the federal government to step up and stand up for us, not sell us out at any cost to get a photo op with the American president.

One of the biggest challenges our industry has faced is the softwood lumber dispute. As I have said before in the House, the forestry industry in my part of the world is an integrated industry. Every type of mill, be it a sawmill, pulp and paper mill, or value added, depends on the others for success. When the sawmill operations were forced to pay the illegal tariff, the financial repercussions rippled throughout the industry and throughout the communities.

We have been negotiating this deal for years. In that time the effects of the tariff have devastated every sector of the industry. The money that the industry receives from this deal will only go so far. The federal government must recognize the industry needs more support, more assistance simply than the money that is being returned to them. Many of our mills have not had equipment upgrades in years and they are unable to look beyond the current markets they access for new ones. They have been financially choked to the point where they are desperate. What does our government offer them? A bad deal, “take it or we will impose a 19% export tax and crush the rest of your company”.

We must look beyond the optics of the negotiation of the deal and look at the industry in its entirety. That is what the former Liberal government did. It recognized the softwood lumber dispute was only part of the problem and it set out an aggressive plan to help the industry overcome some of the other obstacles caused directly and indirectly by the dispute.

We must help the industry enhance its competitiveness. Funding research and development initiatives is key. Considering the growing bioeconomy, this is the opportunity for the Canadian industry to be a world leader with support from its federal government.

We must support companies that are willing to expand their operations. The Kenora Forest Products sawmill for example has been working hard to create more jobs in its plant in order to assist the community impacted by other mill closures. The Prendivilles are community leaders and they want to help Kenora. They are ready to accept this so-called deal because it is this or nothing. What kind of choice is that for a government to force on a hard hit community?

We must also support economic diversification projects for communities with a dependence on this industry considering the tough times they are having. The mayor and city councillors in Kenora along with other stakeholders have worked tirelessly to develop an action plan to help Kenora's economy. The city has enormous potential in other economic endeavours but requires the full support of the federal government to achieve its goals.

The industry is already at a disadvantage and now the government will force the deal on Canadian lumber producers that again will see $500 million left in the hands of the American lumber industry; those very people who lobbied and were successful against ours. That is not to mention that if a company decides not to support this deal, it will in fact face a 19% levy on all refunded duty deposits.

Without the return of 100% of money taken by the American government and the commitment by the Conservative government to assist the entire industry long term, more jobs will be lost. This take it or leave it attitude will hurt confidence in the sector. What other industry in Canada has had to put up with the heavy hand of the government that says it is this way or no way? Whose side is the government on, the Canadian industry or the American lumber lobby?

Northern Ontario is a very beautiful, wild and abundant place. We work hard, we play hard, and we want the best for our families, for our communities and for our country. Give us the support and the tools to build our industries. Give us the confidence that our government will defend our rights to manage our forests for our future, not sell us out to lobby groups funded by our own money.

In northern Ontario we want a softwood lumber agreement that protects us, our future and our forests. In this agreement we have nothing, nothing but more problems in the future, less control of our forests and our industry, and clearly a government that will sell us out.

I cannot support this deal knowing that more jobs will be lost. I cannot support this deal knowing that we are selling out to the American lumber lobby. I cannot support this deal knowing that hundreds of millions of dollars will be left in the United States in the very hands of the people who did this to us. I will not support this deal because I need to stand up for the workers in the communities of Kenora riding.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments.

Perfect deals exist in dreams. There is an old Japanese proverb that says “vision without action equals daydreams”. I think the member opposite and perhaps his party have been daydreaming since the time that they were prepared to accept a deal that was much less beneficial to the industry than the deal that we have negotiated.

Even if Canada were ultimately successful in this round of litigation, which is far from a certainty, without a negotiated agreement, does the hon. member not realize that the very next day that U.S. interests could very easily launch another set of suits that would delay this again? We would be facing an interminable list of these kinds of actions without a negotiated agreement, which we have today and which is better than the one that the Liberals were prepared to accept not that long ago.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of the challenge in politics is to make sure one does not believe one's own press releases. That is clearly happening on the other side of the House because this deal is not better than what we had before.

We have been successful in winning many times at the tribunals. The courts believed in what we were doing.

I want to explain for a minute that the softwood lumber dispute was not the majority of trade in Canada. The vast majority of trade in Canada is very successful. However, when two good friends and family, like Canada and the United States, have a disagreement they have to go somewhere to get it solved. We had to go to the courts.

We were rapidly nearing the end of the first test case. Once we had a decision on it, on which we had been successful every bit of the way and once we had a decision on that, we were going to fare far better in any future cases. However, when friends cannot get along, we had to get someone to help us and that was the courts.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, mindful of the fact that there is another questioner. We have three minutes for two questions and two answers.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief.

I first want to thank my colleague, the member for Kenora, for the courageous position that he has taken. I know the impact that softwood lumber squabbles have had on the riding of Kenora. I know the Prendiville family. I know the industry in that area that neighbours so closely my own province of Manitoba. I also know that my colleague, the member for Kenora, is a trapper.

Earlier, I used the analogy that I read somewhere that a beaver when cornered or when trapped chews off its own testicles. I use the analogy that while the beaver is certainly an apt symbol for Canada in that way because successive Tory governments when backed into a corner and bullied by the Americans have bit off big chunks of Canadian sovereignty as they have with the deal signed today.

I ask my colleague, as a trapper, does he know for a fact if this is true, that a beaver will bite off its own testicles? And, does he think the analogy is appropriate and accurate that the Conservatives are biting off big chunks of their ability to defend themselves when they signed this softwood lumber deal?

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious place and I try to remain serious at all times, so I will be careful as to how I answer this question.

We talk about desperation and this was a government that was desperate to get a deal. Many years ago when the free trade agreement was negotiated, we saw a prime minister intervene directly and was not able to get the deal we needed in softwood lumber. Again at this point we see a Conservative Prime Minister that is desperate to have a deal done. He has an agreement and made a deal that is going to hurt us in the future. It is not going to protect our sovereignty or our ability to decide the future of our forests with sustainability in mind.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague, the hon. member for Kenora, takes the discussions and debates here seriously and I know he cares deeply about his constituency as well. What are the people in his riding saying? What are the employees and employers in the softwood lumber industry in his riding telling him to do with this deal?

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I meet people on the street, they are not upset with the Americans in any way. In my part of the country there is a lot of tourism traffic and business for the Americans. People do not blame the Americans for this deal. They blame the Conservative government for not standing up for us and not protecting us.

One of the most basic values was getting the money back. This money was collected illegally, these billions of dollars. The government should not brag about getting 83% back. That is not a good deal. We needed 100%. We needed to ensure we brought this money back to Canada to provide jobs in the future, to allow companies to grow and expand, and use technology to enhance what we do in northern Ontario.

It is not a good deal. The people on the street are mad, but they are mad at the Conservative government.

[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.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with enthusiasm. I wanted to make sure that I caught as much as I could of the words from my colleague across the floor.

Canadians across the country have said that the new Conservative Party is a principled party, a party of law and order. Maybe the member could tell us where he sees the law and order in this, in giving up so much money. Also, where is the principle and how is it upheld when so many tribunals and trade panels have ruled in our favour?

How are the Conservatives defending that when they are looking at being so principled and a law and order party?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from the hon. member opposite. I also congratulate him on his appointment as vice-chair of our international trade committee, where we have been able to discuss this for many hours and listen to witnesses from across the country.

The fact is that Canada's new government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, has indicated that we will move toward freer and fairer trade. That is exactly what this agreement does, with over 81% coming back into the pockets of the industry, providing certainty and stability. It provides what is needed by the industry.

We have the support from the major industry producer provinces across the country. We have the industry onside. We have the constituents onside. I do not understand why the member opposite would not be onside.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, seeing as my colleague from the Conservatives who was speaking is from B.C., I wonder if he is aware of a Vancouver Sun article published earlier this year. It leaked the details of a leaked letter from the Bush administration to the U.S. lumber lobby. In it, the American administration confirmed that its objective was to hobble the Canadian industry for seven years. That was a letter from the Bush administration to the U.S. lumber lobby, printed in the Vancouver Sun, which admits that the American administration confirmed that its objective was to hobble the Canadian industry for seven years.

I am wondering how a representative from an area that relies on lumber can simply be cooperating with this agreement when the best interests of Canada are not at stake here. The best interests of the Americans are being served.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to answer that question. First of all, we have a very reliable research and development department. We do not rely on the media for the information. I spent over a decade working in the media. We cannot always believe everything we hear on TV or read in the paper.

Here are the facts. We have over 81% of the money going back into the industry. We have the industry onside, as well as the governments of B.C., Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. We have over 90% of the industry onside. We are providing that certainty and stability for the industry. That is how I can support this deal.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a suggestion that the industry was bullied into accepting this deal after initially rejecting it. The industry minister himself warned the softwood lumber companies that they should either take the deal or the government would walk away from them. In fact, the government said that loan guarantees put in place before the last election would be taken off the table. The government demonstrated that it would punish companies that refused to sign on to the agreement. It also includes a 19% levy on all refunded duty deposits.

There seem to be some indications that there was some bullying on this sellout. Could the member confirm that in fact those conditions were presented to the softwood lumber industry?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Kelowna--Lake Country has less than half a minute.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, we had industry consultation from across this country. We heard anybody who wanted to come to the committee. We heard from every witness on both sides of the issue. I have met with individuals, groups and organizations. There was no indication at any time that they did not have any consultation.

All I can say is that this deal, with 81% going back to the industry, is far better than the agreement the member opposite in the previous government--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brant.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, 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.

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 Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When the debate was interrupted, the hon. member for Brant had the floor. I understand there are four minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks. I therefore call on the hon. member for Brant.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to various components of the Liberal Party supplementary aid package for the industry, and I listed three of those components.

Fourth, we propose the provision of $200 million over two years to fight the spread of the pine needle in forests in British Columbia.

Fifth, we propose the provision of an additional $30 million, again over two years, to develop new markets for our wood products.

Last, we propose the provision of $30 million over two years to improve the competitiveness of the workforce, to promote the upgrading of workplace skills and to provide assistance to older workers who have been impacted by forestry industry layoffs.

With respect, the Prime Minister is incorrect when he asserts that we will get full and free access to the U.S. lumber market. In reality, under the terms of this negotiated deal, our market share is capped at 34%. Other countries, to which we have already lost market share since the imposition of duties and tariffs in May 2002, can export lumber to the United States completely duty free.

As have others, I wonder about the haste with which this deal was negotiated. Obviously one hopes that our so-called new government is not playing politics with the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians who expect to have positions in the industry here in Canada for many years to come, not just two years to come.

The deal has been trumpeted by the Prime Minister and members opposite as an achievement which eluded the previous government. Some achievement, a capitulation to the bullying tactics of the U.S. industry and the U.S. government.

The large question remains. Over $5.2 billion was taken illegally from our producers by the U.S. government and the deal which our government wishes to accept would put $4 billion back into the pockets of our producers, $5 billion taken over the last few years and that amount with interest remains owing. How is it at all logical that we would accept $4 billion only?

The government wants us to believe that the only logical, rational outcome is to give away $1.2 billion of Canadians' hard earned money. Members opposite are sniping at the Senate for not passing, quickly enough in their view, the much vaunted accountability act. I am suggesting that the government should focus on its accountability, the accountability to the taxpayer to ensure that $1.2 billion does not go missing from the pockets of our Canadian producers.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the member opposite said. There are a couple of things I would like to clarify for him, since he seems to be a bit confused. There is actually $1 billion allocated to pine beetle and $200 million of it will go out within the next two years. The $1 billion itself will go out over a 10 year time period.

He suggests someone is playing politics. I suggest he look in the mirror. The politics that are being played in this room today are being played at the expense of the lives and the livelihoods of communities and industry workers. This is beyond contempt to do this sort of thing. The Liberals had a long time when they were government to implement something that would be helpful, and they failed to do it.

Is it true that the member opposite does not understand that this is a seven year minimum deal, that there is $1 billion on the table and that $5 billion Canadian will come back? The statements he just made are very contrary to the facts.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as others have said, and it is beyond dispute, my understanding is correct. According to every tribunal which has ruled on it, $5.2 billion has been imposed improperly by the United States government. As I understand it, we are getting back some $4 billion. Therefore, $1.2 billion is not being returned. In my judgment, that is the essential unfairness of the deal.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the comments on the sell-out that we have been watching.

I heard the Conservative member from British Columbia talk about how great this was for communities. If she had visited the communities in my region in the northwest, she would clearly have seen that the last 10 years have been one devastation after another. There have been huge consolidations and massive layoffs of the workforce. What certainty she has talked about is certainty that can be torn up in a moment by one party alone. In particular, the Americans can simply claim that some unfair and unjust practice has taken place in Canada and walk away from the deal.

Bullying tactics may have worked. I know the hon. member works hard on community support. However, I have a question about all those years when massive consolidations were going on across the industry. Small operators, in particular, were crying out for loan guarantees so they could improve their operations while we were being hammered by tariff after tariff. Those cries for those types of guarantees, which the Liberals had the capacity, the knowledge and the wherewithal to do when they were in power, fell upon deaf ears.

It is extremely difficult to suggest that the Liberals have any significant and strong support for those communities when all those loan guarantee requests, and lo and behold they even came from the Conservatives, were simply not answered.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very aware of the member's concern for environmental issues in particular and how well he advances those issues.

The Liberal Party wishes to move forward. We are not wanting to spend a lot of time revisiting the past 12 years or 13 years.

I will repeat for the benefit of the member opposite and others that our proposal would inject loan guarantees into the equation for our lumber producers. That is what is relevant and that is what we are endeavouring to focus on.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is miraculous how the hon. member and his colleagues suddenly have this epiphany when they all of a sudden end up on the opposition benches. They had 13 years, by his own admission of a few seconds ago, which he does not care to revisit. There is no doubt he does not want to revisit it. That 13 year tenure was disastrous. It was a disaster in Canadian history.

Earlier in response to one of my colleague's questions, the Liberal member stated that he was unaware about the split in the money that would be kept in the United States under this deal and what would be returned to Canada.

Is he telling me he is unaware that his party, the Liberal Party, the 13 year history of the party that he does not want to revisit, was about to sign a deal that was vastly inferior to the deal we are debating today? How do we know that? Because the Minister of International Trade for the new Conservative government, who negotiated this deal, was at the table. He knows what the Liberals were about to sign, and it was vastly inferior to this.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the terminology used by the hon. member is subjective in the extreme, extremely inferior and vastly inferior. He may refer to it as he wishes. We, on this side, feel that the details of the deal on the table are, indeed, vastly inferior to what we were prepared to negotiate as a government and what we now wish to see move forward.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to enter into the debate on the softwood lumber deal.

Speaking on behalf of the people whom I represent, I want to say that we believe firmly in our hearts that this deal is bad for Canada. It was poorly negotiated. It undermines our interests. It serves only to protect American interests. Therefore, we have to speak profoundly against it.

It is part of a worrisome trend. I can quote the Vancouver Sun, which published the details of a leaked letter from the Bush administration to the U.S. lumber lobby. In that letter in the Vancouver Sun article, the American administration confirmed that the objective was to, in the administration's words, hobble the Canadian industry.

Nor does this sellout end there. Of the $1.2 billion in illegal duties they left on the table, $450 million will go to the Americans to grease the re-election wheels of the protectionist American government that is facing tough fights in the upcoming mid-term congressional elections. So Canada's timber industry will be subsidizing the ongoing illicit attack on itself. We are going to subsidize and pay for their renewed ability to keep attacking us. We know they are protectionist and that is what they will continue to do.

There is more. When the industry balked, the Conservative government began its bullying tactics, which now have become familiar tactics. The Globe and Mail quoted a senior government official warning that opponents to this deal “should prepare themselves for the consequences of rejecting it and they might want to start contemplating a world where Ottawa is no longer in the business of subsidizing softwood [trade] disputes”.

It makes us wonder whose side the Conservatives are on. On whose behalf were they negotiating? I have negotiated a lot of collective agreements in my former life as a union leader, and I can say that this could not have been hard bargaining. Our negotiating stance was flawed from the premise. Our negotiating stance was on our knees. It was saying, “Please, please, U.S., leave us with some of our dignity and our respect and allow us to maintain our industry”. When we go in with a bargaining stance on our knees, we are going to come out with a bad package.

They have put together here a softwood deal that will be managed of the people, by the people and for the people, but it is the American people. In fact, this is one of the most shocking things about this deal, which I have come to learn recently. As a fiercely proud Canadian nationalist and if for no other reason, this is a good enough excuse to vote against this deal.

It turns out that as an aspect of this deal there is an unprecedented clause that requires provinces to first vet any changes in forestry policy with Washington. In other words, if the Province of British Columbia wanted to substantially change perhaps its rate of harvest because of a pine beetle infestation or some such thing, it will be duty bound to consult Washington first--in other words, get permission--or else it will be in breach of this deal. The Americans then can unilaterally state that the deal is broken and they can carry on with their illegal tariffs.

I keep coming across good reasons why any patriotic Canadian would not participate in what I call economic treason of this sellout in the softwood industry.

A lot of people may not remember this, but this is the second time a Conservative government has snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory on this lumber file. In 1986, the GATT, the World Trade Organization predecessor, issued a preliminary finding on the legality of U.S. lumber duties against Canada. Brian Mulroney's government at the time, hell-bent on negotiating a free trade agreement with the U.S., aborted the challenge.

We were about to win it and the Mulroney government aborted the challenge just before it came down in Canada's favour. The Conservatives wanted to make the argument that they needed the free trade agreement because the current regime was not working. These findings were not published until after the free trade agreement came into effect.

It seems like a pattern is developing here. The Conservatives are willing to undermine the best interests of Canadians to make some ideological victory in their own minds or to pander to the demands of the Americans.

The same is true of the assault on the grain industry with the government's overt attack on the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact, there are real parallels between the sellout on the softwood deal and the assault on the Canadian Wheat Board. Both are in the interests of and at the service of the Americans.

We know that the Americans began gunning for the Canadian Wheat Board before the ink was even dry on their initial signature on the free trade agreement in 1989. We know that. Since then, the Wheat Board has been subjected to 11 separate U.S. trade attacks. In the same pattern as the lumber duties and tariffs, the U.S. is claiming unfair subsidies.

The U.S. does not just want to eliminate one of its competitors in the world wheat market for its multinational agribusiness, but it wants its agribusiness to capture the price advantage enjoyed by superior Canadian wheat. It really comes down to that. The Americans' opposition to the Wheat Board is not even ideological, although they do allege that it is socialism, realized by the fact that we act collectively in getting the best price for our farmers through single desk selling. Really, it is the price advantage that we enjoy and earn because our wheat is superior. Our product is superior.

This is another issue in this worrisome pattern that has become the defining characteristic of the new Conservative government, a pattern which seems to be to integrate Canada's security, defence and foreign policies with the U.S. and shred our competitive advantage against the U.S. in the matter of lumber and wheat. It is a worrisome motif that we sense in many of the things the Conservative government is doing. Free trade is one thing, but this is not free trade.

While I am on the subject of the Wheat Board in relation to the softwood lumber deal, let me tell the House what Terry Pugh, spokesman for the National Farmers' Union, said about this. He said that a dual market kills the CWB because its monopoly seller position is precisely what earns farmers premium prices in global markets. The empirical evidence is established to prove that.

We are acting in the best interests of someone else if we are advocating the dismantling of the Wheat Board. Let me tell members the effect this would have locally for my area of Manitoba. The Canadian Wheat Board's demise would affect not just farmers but would also have a ripple effect across the Canadian economy, closing the Port of Churchill in my home province of Manitoba and probably seriously impacting Thunder Bay and even the Ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert, we can predict.

Do we know why? Because Canadian grain would go south and be mixed with American grain and shipped through American ports. Canadian wheat as a distinct commodity would disappear even though it is valued around the world as the best in the world. For pasta and other products, it is the highest calibre. It is the standard that other people use to measure their wheat.

John Morriss, editor and publisher of the Farmers' Independent Weekly, says that a dual market is a chimera, a word I had to look up. He asks farmers to recall the voluntary Central Selling Agency run by the pools in the 1920s and the voluntary Canadian Wheat Board which began in 1935. Both had spectacular bankruptcies, likely the two biggest business failures in Canadian history.

The voluntary Canadian Wheat Board, a model of which is being advocated now by our current Minister of Agriculture, lost $62 million in 1938-39. We can imagine what that would be in dollars today. That model failed. That model was built for failure. That model cannot succeed.

The reason a dual market will not work is that if the open market is higher than the initial payment, the board gets few deliveries, and if the initial payment is higher than the market, it gets the deliveries but has to sell at a loss. If members cannot understand that, they have no business advocating the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board, because that sums it up in a nutshell. Still, there is this zeal, this unreasonable ideological passion, for dismantling the Wheat Board.

I used an analogy earlier. It is commonly said that a beaver bites off its testicles when it is threatened. If that is true, the beaver is certainly an appropriate symbol, if not for Canada then for two successive Conservative governments, because when faced with ceaseless bullying and browbeating by the Americans, the Conservatives react by carving off pieces of Canada as a nation.

They carve off significant pieces and important pieces such as our sovereignty in regard to being able to unilaterally set our own independent forest policy without having to consult with Washington, D.C. and getting permission, and pieces such as having our own Canadian Wheat Board establish single desk selling for the best interests of Canadian farmers. The Conservatives either do not understand this or they understand it and are serving some master other than the best interests of the Canadian people.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed many of the member's remarks, but I was interested in his comments on the Canadian Wheat Board. This is similar to what has happened under the softwood lumber agreement, where we have won all the legal challenges but the government has decided that even though we have won it wants to go to a negotiated settlement. The Americans are basically operating in a way where they are saying they know we have won by the rules, but now they do not like the rules and so they want to change them. And the Government of Canada caves in.

The same situation is really true for the Canadian Wheat Board. We have won 11 challenges, I believe, from the United States as they relate to the Canadian Wheat Board, but what the government is proposing to do by doing away with single desk selling is basically to sell out to American interests that have, since time eternal, tried to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board through the legal process. They have never been successful in doing so.

Could the hon. member explain to us whether he sees that there would be advantages to the Americans as a result of the government proposal to take away single desk selling? What would be the loss to Canadian farmers as a result?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with the bit of time I have left after that question, I can say I agree that Canada tossed away a significant victory, a victory not before some useless North American Free Trade Agreement panel but before the U.S. court of international trade.

On April 7, the court ruled that U.S. duties on Canadian softwood were illegal. That is just about the time our high priced negotiators were down selling out Canada in Washington. We were winning significant rulings and we were poised to win two more. We were that far away. The government snatched defeat right out of the jaws of victory and now claims it is saving money by not having to spend the legal fees to win the case we were going to win. It is unbelievable.

My colleague's question is connected. Directly related is the Wheat Board issue. The polls show that 73% of western wheat farmers support the board. The Conservative government, just as it is in lumber, is preparing to do the Americans' dirty work. The Americans do not like the Canadian Wheat Board.

The Canadian Wheat Board gives good service to Canadian farmers, to prairie farmers. It gets them the best prices. It makes us a real competitor against the American multinational agricultural business. The Americans want it dismantled and the Conservatives are willing to do their dirty work.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the softwood lumber agreement as negotiated by the new Conservative government and the Minister of International Trade.

I am not quite sure how the NDP member who just spoke and the question from the Liberal benches got on to the topic of the Wheat Board in discussion of the softwood lumber agreement. The member from the NDP said that the Wheat Board enabled farmers to get the highest price possible. I am certainly not the expert on the Wheat Board, but my understanding is that producers cannot sell their wheat outside of the Wheat Board. Therefore, they do not have the option of going for the highest price possible. As a matter of fact, they may have to sell their wheat for less money than they could have received if they had sold it independently.

This debate should stick to the facts. If we stick to the facts this is a clear debate and I think there would be unanimity from all parties. There would be nothing but massive support for the bill and for the positive change it will bring to the lumber industry in Canada.

There are a number of issues that I want to talk about. I want to deal directly with a number of statements made by my Atlantic Canadian colleagues in the Liberal Party and in the NDP who have criticized this agreement. This is a good agreement for Atlantic Canada. To spread false arguments based on no criteria except rhetoric, based on no facts, only rhetoric, and the belief that if they say something enough times people will believe them, is not credible. It diminishes the work we do in this chamber.

To begin my debate I would like to read a quote from the Minister of International Trade who spoke in the House yesterday. His opening statement was very cognizant of the issue. It spoke directly to the issue and it is worth repeating:

Softwood lumber for Canadian softwood lumber producers has been an industry that has been plagued by trade disputes--

I do not think anyone would disagree with that:

--border measures and various types of trade harassment for basically a quarter of a century.

After 24 years of nothing but harassment from our American neighbours on the softwood lumber file, we have finally put it to rest. We are talking about organized trade, about clear rules, about definite boundaries. We do not have a quota system in place. We have trade that flows north and south across the long border between us and the United States.

The minister went on to say:

The agreement will provide stability and a dispute-free market access to the United States market. It will provide stability for a period of at least eight to nine years...it will provide a trajectory for the evolution of the softwood lumber industry to a world of complete free trade.

Obviously, complete free trade is what everyone would prefer to have, but we cannot diminish the agreement that we have before us and somehow try to discredit it by telling falsehoods about it.

The member for Beauséjour spoke against this agreement. He has sawmills in his own riding. I asked him about the hypothetical agreement the former Liberal government supposedly was desperate to have signed prior to Christmas and prior to the election. What was it about that agreement that was supposedly better than this agreement? Put it on the table; table it. I did not get an answer to that question.

I would be very interested in comparing the two. As an Atlantic Canadian, the member for Beauséjour would know that the difference in the agreements is that the Liberals were willing, as unbelievable as this may sound, to give up Atlantic Canada's free trade with the United States. We were countervail free prior to this last trade action. We were anti-dumping free. We had free trade with the United States. The Liberals were willing to give that up in order to get a trade agreement with the United States. It is unbelievable.

There are a number of issues that we know are factual. The Americans are protectionists. Is that a big surprise? Nothing has changed. The Byrd amendment makes it almost impossible for our exporters to work on an equal footing. The idea that somehow the next court case would have changed it is absolutely fictitious. The next court case would not have changed it. As long as the Byrd amendment is in place in the United States and the American industry feels it is being treated unfairly, feels there is a subsidy in the Canadian marketplace, the American industry can bring that action to the American trade board and can claim countervail or anti-dumping duties. There is no next legal action that is going to prevent that. If the Byrd amendment, which should not be there, was not there, then the avenue of going to the courts to have it settled once and for all would be open.

This softwood lumber agreement is supported by Atlantic Canadian mills. I have had letters from the majority of mills in Atlantic Canada, from the Maritime Lumber Bureau.

I would like to take a moment to recognize the work that the Maritime Lumber Bureau has done on this file. When the previous government was not looking out for the interests of Atlantic Canada, Atlantic Canada looked out for its own interests. We saw over a period of time a shift from east-west trade in lumber that used to go to Europe to north-south trade with the United States. Some of that was market driven; some of that was driven by the American dollar which was extremely high, but it was driven by circumstance.

We in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, P.E.I. and New Brunswick, with the primary lumber producers being Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, got shut out of the European market. That billion dollars in trade, $900 million in softwood lumber trade that Nova Scotia used to do with Europe suddenly became trade with the United States. There was a dramatic shift. There was a dramatic shift in Europe because of non-tariff trade sanctions by the Europeans. The non-tariff trade barrier that the Europeans put in place was the pinewood nematode. They came up with an excuse that insects would somehow infest the pine forests of Europe.

Of course, after 500 years of trade with Europe and no insect infestations from pinewood nematode, we thought we had a scientific argument to actually prove that would not happen. However, we could not have that argument heard clearly by the Europeans and much of that market was lost, unless the lumber was pressure treated or kiln dried.

I want to continue for a while longer on my Atlantic Canadian colleagues' non-acceptance of this treaty. This is a good agreement with the United States. It is a great agreement for Atlantic Canada. More important, the members opposite yesterday were saying that we need to read the agreement. Unfortunately, they had not because the one small change that needed to be made to this agreement to ensure Atlantic Canada's continued exemption from countervail and anti-dumping duties actually was the fact that we have been exempt. That exemption had unfortunately been neglected in the bill and all of the Liberals who were stating that they had read it so closely obviously had not. The member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley actually picked up on it, spoke directly to the minister and was able to have that exemption guaranteed.

It is a matter of dealing with the facts, not falsehoods, not fiction, not fantasy, but only the facts.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the words of the hon. member across the way and I have three questions for him based on what he just said.

First, I want to ask the member if he is aware that on October 1, if this deal goes through, the Conservative export tax of 15% is going to be greatly higher than the current U.S. duties of 10.8% that are imposed right now.

Second, I would like to ask the hon. member if he is aware that the 19% penalty tax will now come into effect and that any softwood lumber company that does not sign on to this agreement will now have a 19% penalty tax imposed on its exports.

Third, I would like to ask the hon. member if he is aware of the dangerous precedent that this deal is setting and that the Americans are in the process of appealing Canada's recent win on the Byrd amendment which will open up the door for other U.S. industries to attack Canada.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to answer the member's three questions.

The first thing that hon. members should realize is this brings a minimum of eight to nine years of stability to this industry. This industry has struggled over the years. It has had its high points; it has had its low points.

The 15% export tax is at the bottom of the cycle. The member would know that at least 50% of the time, Canada's exports to the United States are at the top end of the cycle. When we are at the top end of the cycle, there is zero tax. What happens at the bottom end of the cycle is people feel they have to produce more in order to make the same amount of profit they were making. They will produce more and that will flood the United States market. Protectionism will rear its ugly head at the bottom of the cycle. We put the export tax in at the bottom of the cycle and when it comes up to where there is some real profit in the lumber industry, there is no export tax and there is free trade.

As to the 19% for not signing, the people who are not in agreement with this, why should they benefit? Why should they not have to pay their fair share and benefit from the agreement when all of the rest of the mills are willing to pay? The mills are willing to pay. There is no discussion among them. They want this behind them. They want stability in the marketplace. We need that eight to nine years of stability in the marketplace.

The idea that the Byrd amendment is going to be changed by going to court in the United States I do not think is correct. The Byrd amendment will only be changed by the American congressmen and senators. I believe it is only Congress that can change it. It is not going to be changed by us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his presentation.

The member praises the agreement that Ottawa and Washington have just signed. He certainly does not mention offsetting measures, assistance for the forestry industry and workers. The Bloc Québécois is proposing an action plan, a POWA and improvements to employment insurance.

I would ask the member to briefly comment on the serious repercussions of not having measures to help the forestry industry, and of the absence of a plan to help softwood lumber sawmills and workers. Can he explain what he believes are the repercussions of all this on communities, workers and the industry?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a rural riding with a big forestry base. The consequences for the communities and workers will be very positive. First, there will be stability in the marketplace. Second, there will be the ability to export into our largest marketplace, which is the United States of America. Third, this is a very good agreement, in particular for Quebec. There will be 32 border mills in Quebec that will be completely exempt from any border measures under this agreement.

There is also built in flexibility in this agreement. At the bottom of the cycle Quebec mills can choose to pay a 5% export tax if they control their exports. There is flexibility for B.C. There is flexibility for all the provinces if they want it. We do not have a homogeneous lumber market in Canada. It is different on the east coast from on the west coast. It is different in Quebec from in Ontario. This agreement reflects the differences.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I stand to debate and discuss a unique event in Canadian history.

Never before have we as a nation snatched defeat from the jaws of victory as we have with this Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute. Never before have we fought a trade dispute in the courts, won case after case, and then dismissed these victories. Never before have we thrown the rule of law out the window.

Never before have we given up our leverage in negotiating before the agreement. Never before have we caved in to meet an artificial timeline of our own making and never before have we bullied our own industries to please the United States.

Never before have we had a government that has gone to bat for political expediency instead of going to bat for hardworking Canadians.

Simply put, this softwood lumber deal, this complete capitulation, is wrong.

On the eve of his re-election, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway said that he would be the Prime Minister's worst nightmare. By the way the member has botched this deal, I would say that his wish has definitely come true.

This agreement that the minority government has rammed down Canadian throats makes a mockery of free trade and seeds our domestic sovereignty. It creates a sliding scale export tax that, at current price levels, is actually higher than current U.S. duties. It abandons all our legal victories and gives up $1 billion to secure peace for only two short years.

It cedes our decision over domestic resource management to the United States. It caps our share of the American softwood market. It contains anti-surge provisions that cripple the ability of our forest industry to deal with unexpected circumstances, such as the rise of the pine beetle infestation in British Columbia, a problem, I might add, that is being further exacerbated by the complete lack of environmental policy by the minority Conservative government. However, that is an issue I will save for another time.

This deal exposes Canadian firms to needless uncertainty by agreeing to a monthly measurement for surge protection when U.S. demand is highly variable on a monthly basis. It encourages other sectors and other U.S. companies to seek political decisions to gain protection from Canadian industries, all but guaranteeing more disputes in the future.

Even American lawyers think Canada got suckered. Canada's so-called new government took the terms of our surrender and now Canadians will have to pay the price.

How did we get to this point? In May 2002, the Government of the United States imposed a countervailing and anti-dumping duty of 27% on Canadian softwood imports. Canada's Liberal government challenged this swiftly and comprehensively. It brought forward cases under the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization and the United States' own court of international trade.

The NAFTA panel struck down the United States' injury determination in September 2003, again in April 2004 and then again in August 2004. These legal victories brought the duties down from 27% to 20% on December 20, 2004, and then from 20% down to 11% on December 12, 2005, steadily relieving pressure on our lumber industry and its workers.

We proved that our lumber industries are not subsidized, do not cause injury, do not threaten injury and do not dump their products in the U.S. markets.

This past March, a NAFTA binational panel decided definitively that Canadian softwood lumber is not subsidized. That panel's decision was to take effect on April 28. The United States had to either comply with this ruling and drop its duty to 2% or file an extraordinary challenge on April 27. The United States used its last legal trick. It in fact did file an extraordinary challenge, allowing it to continue to force Canadians to pay $40 million a month in illegal duties.

However, far from being just another legal stalling tactic, this would have been its last tactic. NAFTA's strict timelines for challenges required a decision no later than August 10, and not even the Americans thought it would go in their own favour. Once that decision had been made, it would not be appealable. Five years of litigation were about to pay off. No more tricks were left in the book, except one. In January, the Conservative Party came to power and determined to end the softwood lumber dispute no matter what it would cost the industry.

In April, the minority Conservative government, eager to get any type of deal together no matter how bad it would be for Canada, hastily agreed to a two page deal with Washington, signing it before the provinces or the industry had time to analyze its effect.

What happened next was a naked betrayal of Canadian lumber producers. The Prime Minister, eager to please his new buddy, George W. Bush, agreed to a U.S. request to suspend our challenge, wiping away years of legal victory. The Prime Minister gave up our biggest bargaining chip for absolutely nothing. Compounding this error, the minority Conservative government then announced that it wanted a final text by June 15 so it could get legislation through the House before the summer break.

If we want to get concessions in negotiation, we do not give away our bargaining chip and we do not announce our own artificial deadline. Industry representatives call these blunders amateur hour at the negotiating table and amateur hour it was. To meet its self-imposed deadline, the minority Conservative government gave up a lot and got nothing in return. It gave up $1 billion in illegal duties. It agreed to a convoluted set of export taxes and quotas. It agreed to end litigation, litigation that we were winning. It lost control of our very own forest industry and it got no concessions in return.

The deal was botched by the member for Vancouver Kingsway and it was botched badly. Now our forestry industry and our forestry workers in Canadian communities from coast to coast to coast will have to pay the price of the minister's blunders.

Over 360,000 Canadians are employed in the softwood industry. Canada has a well-earned international reputation for the quality of our products. It is not, however, been an easy time for our forestry industry. It is already facing pressures from our higher Canadian dollar, higher energy prices, lower housing starts in the United States and shrinking demand for global newsprint. This botched deal will only worsen their plight.

Industry associates warned us months ago that this deal was not commercially viable. The Ontario Forest Industry Association estimates that it could cause as much as a 10% industry job loss. The Bank of Montreal expects shutdowns of both lumber and pulp and paper facilities. The Free Trade Lumber Council warns that sawmills dependent on exports are particularly vulnerable. The Independent Lumber Remanufacturing Association warns that this deal would all but destroy their sectors.

The minority Conservative government continues to bully our industries into submission. The Prime Minister has backed softwood industry representatives into a corner and left them with no choice but to concede to this flawed deal. It has gone so far as to promise to slap a new 19% penalty tax on duty refunds going to Canadian producers who refuse to sign on to the deal and then to delay those payments for two years. These bullying tactics may work inside the Conservative caucus but they will not fly in the forestry sector.

The minority Conservative government has abandoned our lumber industry by refusing to provide loan guarantees for the duties that are rightfully ours. The government has tried to divide Canadians, pretending that there is no other solution.

However, there is a better way. Canada can say no to this botched deal and do what we should have done from the start, which is to see our NAFTA challenges through to the end. We should immediately implement an aid package that, first, will invest in improving industry's competitiveness; two, will invest in the skills of our workforce; and three, will work to develop new overseas markets for our wood products.

We all must remember that it is not just Canadian producers, but American consumers who lose from these illegal duties as well, because they are the ones who will have to pay higher prices for their homes. We should continue our effort to build political alliances of lumber consumers in the U.S. against these illegal duties.

Indeed, before the minority Conservative government caved in we had already secured the support of 150 congressmen and congresswomen to oppose the restrictions on softwood imports.

The Liberal Party cannot support this deal in good conscience, not when there is a better way. It is our duty as the official opposition to stand up for the interests of Canadian lumber producers and the interests of 360,000 hardworking men and women who are employed in this sector of our economy.

The Liberal Party of Canada stands opposed to the minority Conservative government's humiliating surrender and it opposes this botched softwood lumber deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where to begin with all this misinformation that is coming from the hon. member but I will do my best.

First, let us remind him that we have two national governments, both Canada and the United States, that are both supporting this deal. All of our major softwood lumber producing provinces, including the province of British Columbia where the hon. member comes from, are supporting this deal. The premier of B.C. is supporting this deal. I have a letter from one of the hon. member's constituents who says, “As one of the larger independent sawmills in your constituency, we urge you to support the upcoming bill on the softwood lumber agreement”.

I also have to point out that today the BC Lumber Trade Council underlined the importance of its ongoing work with the Government of Canada to implement the terms and conditions of the agreement. It said:

We are pleased with the progress made to date and the responsive efforts of [the Minister of International Trade] and his officials in making this important agreement a reality.

The hon. member has chosen to ignore the industry. Ninety per cent of the industry in Canada is supporting this deal.

He made the comment that there would be a 19% charge for those who choose not to support the deal. I would remind members that it is 90% of the industry that is supporting this deal. I also must tell the hon. member that it was the industry that asked for that 19%. They wanted a level playing field. All the industry in Canada will have 81% of their money returned and 100% of the industry will benefit from seven to nine years of stability and predictability within the industry, which is what they have asked for.

Would the hon. member please tell us why he has chosen to ignore the premier, his constituents, the industry and even B.C.'s forest minister, Rich Coleman, who is urging all federal members to put aside their politics and support this deal?

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has some of the facts wrong so I will correct her and then raise another question.

When we take a look at this deal, why is Canada caving in at the negotiating table at this point in time? Every case that we have taken before the Americans we have won.

I have received letters from a lot of businessmen and businesswomen in my community who say that in business if they have a dispute and they are winning in the courts they will not go to the negotiating table and cave in and leave $1 billion on the table.

It would not be so bad if it were just $1 billion on the table that was going somewhere, but the way it breaks down, $500 million will be used by the U.S. lumber lobby group against Canadian industries. Why would we be bankrolling our competition? To make matters worse, $450 million of the $1 billion will go directly to George W. Bush to decide on which way he wants to use the money for other republican means.

If we take a look at just that one point alone we cannot agree with this deal, let alone the fact of the surge mechanisms and the increase in Canadian taxes that will be put on. It does not take an accountant to know the difference between a 15% tax and a 10.8% duty. The 15% tax will cripple our industry.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has described the history of how the government has betrayed the softwood lumber industry and how it has sold out Canadian communities. We have heard in great detail in many debates in this House about its sorry record. We know about all the money that was levied illegally against Canadian firms and now some of that money is coming back to these firms.

Does the hon. member have a view on why the federal government did not stipulate that this money should have gone back, not to the corporations but to the communities that were so hard hit by the U.S. tariffs that were imposed on them, the communities that lost jobs when saw mills closed and that have paid the price by this lack of support from the federal government?

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are two points here that we have to take into consideration. One is the speed at which this deal was rammed through Canada.

The softwood agreement was a two page framework agreement when it first came forward. In that initial two page framework agreement, the $1 billion that was being left on the table, half of that money was supposedly going to be put into a fund that was going to be overseen jointly by the Americans and by Canada as to where that money was going to go to help our industry on both sides of the border.

Then when we got the rushed final version of the deal, we find that that completely disappears and the $500 million goes right into the Americans' pockets. I think it points to the fact of how rushed this deal was.

The other issue that the member raises as well is the support for our industry. It is the support in our lumber industry with respect to the pine beetle infestation in British Columbia. We learned yesterday that this new minority Conservative government has just cut $11.7 million for pine beetle research in British Columbia out of the 2002 funds. If this Conservative government cared so much about British Columbia, why is it cutting $11.7 million that we could use?

[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.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. Today a good number of Bloc Québécois members have talked about the tensions and grief caused by these negotiations, and the fact that this is a bad agreement causing many problems. My colleague comes from a region similar to mine, a place where people work very hard in the forests.

I will ask my colleague a question about sovereignty in these negotiations between Canada and the United States. I am going to speak in English since the copy I have of the agreement is only in English.

Article XVII, the anti-circumvention section, is very important. For the people who listening and watching understand, under the statutes, the federal government cannot impose any type of administration or delegation of duties to the provinces on how they manage their forestry industry. Yet in article XVII paragraph 1 it says that neither party shall take action that circumvents or offsets the commitments set out in this agreement. Paragraph 2 is very interesting. It states that any change in a provincial timber pricing or forest management system, as it existed on April 27, 2006.

Suddenly we have a clause built into the agreement that even the federal Government of Canada does not have, which is to look at the practices of a province and if they are in disagreement with that practice, it can demand the province to change it. If it does not change it, then suddenly we are on the wrong side of the deal.

So we can easily break the agreement. This is a matter involving the sovereignty of Quebec, of Ontario and of the other provinces, the sovereignty that enables the provinces to manage forest activities on their territory as they see fit.

I would have thought that the Bloc Québécois would want to protect this sovereignty, but it is taking the opposite direction to sovereignty in their province and the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The softwood lumber agreement between Washington and Ottawa is obviously a bad agreement and may be regarded as a sellout. But we have to realize that the industry has run out of steam. Many representatives and workers from the industry came to meet with me in my riding since my region is very much involved in the lumber and sawmill industry. It was recommended that I—and my party—support this agreement that we considered to be a sellout. We would have liked to recover all the money the softwood lumber industry paid in antidumping duties.

We must also recognize that the Government of Quebec gave its consent. That being said, the Bloc Québécois thinks that this sellout agreement should be accompanied by compensatory measures: improved employment insurance; a support program for older workers; assistance for the industry; an economic diversification program for communities that are dependent on the forest; a special tax status for the 128,000 owners of woodlots in Quebec; the improvement of funding for Canada’s Model Forest Program, run by Forestry Canada; special tax treatment for the $4.3 billion in countervailing duties; the acceleration of equipment amortization; and a program to stimulate innovation within the forest industry and improvement of productivity.

This is what we would like, and I hope that the Conservative government will get our message. It is true that we support this sellout agreement but the government should put forward some measures: a support program for older workers, a guaranteed income support program for workers affected by mass layoffs after the closing of a plant in the softwood lumber industry—because we know there were layoffs and there will be others; the improvement of employment insurance; and help for the industry. These are measures that should be promoted.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the softwood lumber deal.

I feel for those members who have sawmills in their ridings and the companies tell them it is a rotten deal, but they have on to sign it. The reality is the industry has been coerced and pressured into supporting this deal. They have been coerced because the Conservative government has said that it would cut off support to the lumber industry. What kind of a deal is that? What kind of support is that for the lumber industry?

There are two issues here. First, why would we cut a deal? Second, if we have cut a deal, is this a good deal? I will deal with the first question.

When the Conservative Party was in opposition, how many times did we hear it ask why we would cut a deal when we had been winning all the objective panels under the NAFTA. Now the Conservatives are saying that we have to cut a deal because it is in our best interests.

First, it is contrary to the NAFTA. NAFTA is meant to provide free and fair trade. Does it do that? Of course it does not. Also, the most important thing is that it perpetuates a lie. This point was made very clearly and very well by the Free Trade Lumber Council. The lie is that we subsidize softwood lumber in Canada. That has been shown time and time again by lumber one, two, three and four. Every objective panel, panels which have Americans sitting on them, have said that we are not subsidizing lumber in Canada.

Also, we have prevailed in every NAFTA panel, an objective review, and these panels have concluded consistently that we do not subsidize our lumber in Canada. Canada has followed the dispute settlement mechanisms that are laid out between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

The other thing that is terrible about this deal is that it sets a horrible precedent. That is where we as parliamentarians, notwithstanding what the industry or communities might say, are charged to deal with the national interests of Canada. If the U.S. can win this dispute, where we have consistently shown there is no subsidy, what does that mean for other products, for other sectors? The Americans will look upon this and say that if they can cut a deal on softwood lumber, they can cut a deal on plastics or on steel because with lumber the Canadians were well ahead. They have proved the case time and time again.

This is a horrible precedent. This is a sad day for Canada. It is another way in which the Conservative government has capitulated to the U.S. interests and to their love affair with the Republicans south of the border.

If we cut a deal, which it looks like the government has and it is the wrong approach to take, how good is it or how bad is it? First, how often did we hear the Conservative Party, when in opposition, ask us why would we not fight for $5.3 billion in the tariffs to be recovered by the Canadian producers. Conservatives would argue that we should not leave anything on the table. Now they are leaving $1 billion on the table.

I do not know how the Conservative members can now argue that the industry minister at the time knew the deal and conclude that this is a better deal. The minister then would have been sworn to cabinet confidentiality, so I am not sure they would know the details of the deal. Even if it is a slightly better deal, who knows, it is still a bad deal because there was no deal concluded by our Liberal government. There were discussions, but the Conservative government is proceeding with this.

The deal is of short duration. Within two years, the deal can be abrogated by the U.S. producers and by the U.S. government. They can say that they do not like it and that it is not working very well. In the meantime Canadian producers will have backed away from their lawsuits. How do we get that back? We cannot restart those lawsuits. It works very well for the U.S. producers and the U.S. government.

Another point is that the export tax increases as lumber prices decline. Does that really work to the best interests of Canadian producers? I do not think so. It might work for the best interests of the U.S. producers, but the prices have tanked already, from about $450 U.S. per thousand board feet to around $270 U.S. per thousand board feet today and the export taxes are going up. We have the compounded problem of low lumber prices and increased export taxes. Is this in the best interests of Canadian producers? I hardly see that. When lumber prices are low that is when Canadian producers need all the help they can get.

The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley alluded to another reason why this is a bad deal and that is the anti-circumvention article. In a nutshell, this clause robs Canadians, within their federal government and their provinces, of sovereignty when it comes to forest policy. The U.S. is basically saying that if Canada does not do things the way it does things, then clearly Canada is subsidizing. I know for a fact that the auctioning of timber in the United States is not exactly a perfect market. Companies have bid on federal forestry timber and have been let off the hook later when pricing did not quite work to their advantage.

I have worked in the forest products industry. If a forest company wants to set up a lumber mill, an OSB bill, an MDF mill, or a pulp mill in Tennessee or Mississippi, the American government will put all sorts of incentives into its hands, whether they be sales tax abatements, property tax abatements, subsidized cogeneration energy, tax holidays of various descriptions, a whole range of things. Under our process, we cannot look at U.S. subsidies. We can only respond to the process in place, and that is fair enough because we agreed to that. However, the Americans should at least respect the process that is in place.

Is it too much to concede or believe that Canada might have a comparative advantage in softwood lumber? Our U.S. friends and neighbours to the south cannot seem to get a grip on this. I am prepared to say to the United States that perhaps it has a comparative advantage in IT or in other industries. However, Canada has a comparative advantage in softwood lumber.

A study done a few years ago showed that, in terms of total factor productivity, Canada's forest industry was 40% more productive than the U.S. forest industry. The problem the United States has is with the little sawmill in Portland or in Montana. What does it do with the workers if they are getting over blown by a very competitive industry in Canada. That is a U.S. problem and it has to deal with that.

There are other examples such as in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which was a big commodity steel player. Steel companies could not compete with commodity steel because of the Asian producers. They became niche players and higher value-added players. Then Pittsburgh became a huge IT economy.

This is not our problem and it should not be laid at our feet. There are sawmills in the United States which cannot compete with our highly efficient mills. I have been to many mills in Canada and many mills in the United States. We should pride ourselves on the fact that we have some of the best sawmills in the world. The United States is now telling us that we are going to pay for this because of the softwood lumber deal.

We should never have cut a deal. This is a bad deal, and we should reject it on behalf of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party, the Liberal Party, have to admit, and I have said this many times before, that they were content with 100% of nothing for the softwood lumber industry.

For 13 years they did nothing. They had calls for loan guarantees. They did not bother with them. In fact, just before the last election, they were prepared to sign a deal that was nowhere near as good as what the Prime Minister and our Minister of International Trade has achieved for Canada. We know this because our Minister of International Trade used to be theirs and now he is on this side. He had the leadership of this Prime Minister to go forward and accomplish this deal. Therefore, I give my appreciation to the Minister of International Trade.

This member has talked about litigation as though he thinks that if we win this one last court case that all of a sudden the Americans are just going to want to have a great working relationship with us, that we are going to get all of our money back and all will be solved.

I think the member is dreaming in Technicolor. This has been going on for 24 years. In fact, the last litigation has been going on for five years alone. The U.S. lumber coalition has told us that if we do not have this deal there is going to be continued litigation.

I do not know why the hon. member fails to listen to this and understand it because that is a fact. He talked about the Americans having deep pockets. He is darn right, they do, and they will continue to file lawsuits.

The member talked about this agreement suggesting that under the agreement that perhaps industry will be paying more in an export tax. That is not true. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there is an administrative review that is scheduled for this fall, so that without this deal what producers are paying in duties will go up to almost 15%. With this deal, it will not go past the 15%. They will have some stability. They will know what is coming as the year goes on.

If we do not have this deal, the hon. member needs to also recognize that with continued litigation, that there would be of course new duties and they could be as high as 20%. If the hon. member could please explain to us why, first of all, his party did absolutely nothing for the past 13 years and why he is choosing to ignore 90% of the industry in Canada that is supporting this agreement? Why is he choosing to ignore that our three major softwood lumber producing provinces are supporting this agreement?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Simcoe—Grey is right about one thing. We did not capitulate during the 13 years. We tried to take the process through to completion.

I find it interesting that she talks about the administrative review. This is where the Prime Minister went down to Washington or Cancun and at that point in time President Bush had the opportunity to waive the administrative review; in other words to use his special powers to overturn the appeal request. So he was down there, they were all buddy buddies, “Steve” and George Bush. What did the government get? It gets this contrived agreement which sells out the industry and sells out Canada's sovereignty and foreign policy. What does the government get? It gets assurances about military cooperation and so on. President Bush looked pretty good.

The problem is that this government said it would not support the industry. The reality is that if we leave $1 billion on the table, and contrary to the challenge of the Byrd amendment which says we cannot take that money and send it back to the U.S. producers, and again the U.S. has totally ignored that, that money goes back to the U.S. producers. Yet, the Canadian producers are sitting there trying to fight the softwood lumber deal. The Canadian government said I think they were bluffing because they could not have actually lived through that because the industry would have had to have support from the government to fight the softwood lumber deal. Therefore, this was a contrived deal and the industry was coerced into agreeing to it.

I have just a final point. I know it is hard to imagine that we could outlast the U.S. on this, but the reality is that some of the big producers like Georgia-Pacific and International Paper were actually bailing out of this coalition in the United States. They were the people with the big bank roll. They were financing the coalition to challenge this agreement.

If the government had stuck to its guns the way it had said it was going to do when it was in opposition and said $5.3 billion, no money to the U.S., then we may have found that the U.S. coalition might have started to tire of this.

I know it is hard to conceive that we would tire them out, but they are just as tired of this as we are and we are winning in every single way. I think the government should have done its intelligence and its strategic thinking a little better and I think there was an option there to say that we were going to outlast them. I think the deal is a bad one and should be rejected by the government.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Don Valley West, the Environment; the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the Environment.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will be corrected by the Chair if I am wrong, but the previous lineup had me following my namesake from across the floor. If that is not correct, we can adjust it. Perhaps you can seek some advice from the list.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I have recognized the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. Resuming debate.

[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.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a small question that remains unanswered. I put it to one of the hon. member's colleagues previously. Quite a few years led up to this flawed deal. There were also the previous negotiations by the hon. member's government, only to arrive at an equally flawed deal, one that was maybe even worse according to the government today.

They can decide what cabinet confidences were broken in the delivery of that news, but in all those years leading up to that, there was one thing about small and medium-sized producers in particular. Oftentimes the small and medium-sized mills are family based, with an extremely high ratio of investment dollars per job. This is an important ratio for people to understand, because as the consolidation of this industry has been going on over the last 10 years, it essentially has meant fewer and fewer players in the market, fewer and fewer manufacturers of wood, while provinces, and in particular the Gordon Campbell government in B.C., have increased dramatically the raw log exports going to southern mills and mills in other countries.

Anyone looking at the profile of the softwood industry knows that the greatest good is gathered at the processing level, not at the extraction level. While there are a few jobs out in the bush for taking wood out to the manufacturing level, there are relatively few in comparison to that. With increased technology, there are fewer still.

Through all of this consolidation, this larger format for companies, we have petitioned the hon. member's former government and the current government on loan guarantees, the ability of some of these medium and mid-size manufacturers to acquire the loan guarantees to allow them to compete with some of the bigger players in the market. Those requests fell on deaf ears in the previous Liberal government as well as in the current Conservative government. We simply cannot get anywhere with this. It is something that industry has called for consistently and New Democrats have joined them in that call.

Can the hon. member square this circle somehow and explain to me now how the Liberal Party is actually suddenly interested in those companies and those communities that have suffered for so long?

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to clear the record. In fact, it was in the days before the NDP and the Bloc helped the Conservatives cause an election that the former Liberal government put on the table a substantial package including loan guarantees to provide funds to companies against dollars held illegally by the U.S. government. That program, that opportunity, was lost with the election, so I hope the hon. member understands that his party is partly to blame for the predicament facing the forestry sector in this country right now.

I will also say that it is now our position as the Liberal opposition that there be loan guarantees right now to help the industry through a very, very difficult patch. There have always been supports in one form or another to help with the implementation of new technologies, whether it was TPC or other Industry Canada programs like FedNor the case of northern Ontario, to help with the modernization of mills.To use an example, a pulp and paper mill in my riding got some assistance with technology improvement some years ago.

I do not want to speak for the hon. member, but I suggest that this is not really the issue he should be focusing on. In the forestry sector, the government says, some 90% of the people have signed on, but they have been forced to sign on. There are some major players who have not signed on. They will be penalized greatly if they do not sign on. They will have to come up with 19% of the money that is going to stay in the U.S. They will have to come up with their share of 19%.

The record of the former Liberal government when it comes to forestry is clear. We cannot do the provincial government's job when it comes to the forestry sector. The provinces have the principal role in managing the forests, but the federal government has always been there. This is the first time in a long, long time, I believe, maybe going back to the previous Conservative government prior to 1993, that so little has been made available except “take it or leave it”, as we are seeing right now.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member why the NDP members never pushed for anything for the softwood lumber industry when they made their backroom budget deal with Paul Martin. They had an opportunity to pretty much ask for anything they wanted at that time but they never really cared.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but she is an experienced member and she knows that we do not name by name other members of the House.

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

My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the hon. member could please let us know why the NDP did not care about the softwood lumber industry at that time or care about Canadians and the forestry industry then. I would like an explanation.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the call out around the House that it was a fantastic deal.

Let me talk about the NDP budget for a moment because it was a remarkable moment in parliamentary history. For those of us in the House who have studied the history of this place in any fashion whatsoever, we know that never before has an opposition party rewritten a budget, and what a budget it was.

We had $4.5 billion in an unannounced tax cut for the largest and most successful corporations in Canada that had not even asked for. It was not even mentioned in the pre-consultation arrangements by the government. The previous Liberal government suddenly popped up and said that the money was an early Christmas present. The NDP stood up on principle and said “absolutely not”. This was the first time in Canadian history that something like this happened. It was remarkable to watch the Liberal Party of Canada follow through on a commitment that it had made in an election. Thank goodness it took the New Democrats to actually make that happen. We saw $4.5 billion being invested into what Canadians actually wanted, such as post-secondary education, environmental initiatives and in overseas funding of international programs, which were things we all talked about and wished for.

I remember when the leader of the New Democratic Party stood in the House and asked the then prime minister if he would consider changing his budget. Lo and behold, the prime minister said that we should make him an offer and did we ever. We made an offer that worked for Canadians. It is just one of the most remarkable things to still talk about.

I thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to once again talk about what was one of the most remarkable moments in our history as a House of Commons.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would comment on the issue of raw log exports. I know this is a big deal in his part of the world.

I had the great pleasure to do some work up in Stewart, British Columbia on the issue of raw log exports. It is an important and sensitive issue. Why should we be exporting raw logs when we can process them here in Canada where there are very strict rules about how that operates?

It was in the third countervailing duty battle that the U.S. imputed a figure of something like 6.8% or 6.9% of a total countervailing duty claim of around 15%. The U.S. argued that restricting the export of raw logs was an effective subsidy because it had an effect on domestic log prices and deflated them, et cetera. If that were adopted, we could not really set our own forest policy in Canada and say that we want more value added In Canada.

More recently, a Chapter 11 lawsuit has been filed by a big U.S. company that has some private land in British Columbia. It wants to export its raw logs into its sawmills in the United States. That has been denied so it is suing under Chapter 11.

Could the member comment on raw log exports in the context of this deal, particularly the anti-circumvention clause that might allow the Americans to say that we now need to export raw logs to the U.S., raw logs in British Columbia that are feeding U.S. sawmills in Washington state and Oregon state? I am not talking about a few logs. I am talking about maybe enough logs to feed three or four sawmills in Washington state and in Oregon.

What does the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley feel about this deal in that particular context?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the NDP budget a little bit more.

The important thing to consider, when we look at raw log exports, is to understand the vastness of the economic damage done when we take what is Crown property and simply chop it, chuck into the ocean and ship it down in massive booms to the United States, and sometimes to other countries by putting it on container ships, only to have the Americans process the wood and sell it back to us. This is a large amount of revenue that is lost to federal, provincial and municipal coffers when processing jobs are moved out of the country and put somewhere else.

I actually do not share my hon. colleague's concern about the Americans wanting to pull out of this deal in the next 18 months because it is such a good deal for them. When they can use many different elements to hammer away at us and destroy the very basis of the manufacturing base in British Columbia and other provinces, it would be insane for them to pull out of this agreement. Our government could have arranged a better deal, and it knows it, but the previous government did not even try.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in opposition to this flawed bill.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, forestry has been a long and proud tradition. We have a long history in forestry, the sawmills, the pulp and paper mills and the men and women who have worked in the forestry but we are seeing dislocation in my community that is impacting not only the workers and their families, but also their suppliers. It is impacting on municipal councils and cities to make long range plans and decisions that will support the vitality in our communities.

I want to remind the House why this is such a bad deal for Canadians and for British Columbians. Many of my colleagues, including the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, have spoken quite eloquently around the impacts, but I think some of these points deserve repeating.

Part of the reason that this is such a flawed agreement is that it is based on some falsehoods. Let us just call it what it is. It is based on the falsehood that the Canadian softwood lumber industries are subsidized. This falsehood has been exposed and rejected time after time by both the NAFTA and the U.S. commercial court rulings that have ruled in favour of the Canadian softwood lumber industry.

This agreement gives away $500 million in funds that are owed to the Canadian softwood industry. This is just a massive giveaway to the U.S. industry and to the U.S. government.

We often talk about accountability in this House and when we talk about accountability we expect good value for our dollar. I would question the fact that we are giving $450 million in funds to the Bush administration, funds that can be used at the discretion of Congress with no accountability attached to them. It seems to me to be a very strange way to talk about accountability.

I heard an echo in the background here talking about subsidy, and it does seem like a subsidy to activities that are detrimental to our industry here in Canada.

The other thing we talked about is the fact that this agreement can be cancelled unilaterally at any time. With that kind of uncertainty, how does that provide any stability to our softwood industry? We have seen this lack of stability played out over the last number of years as companies have been unable to invest in upgrading their equipment, as we have failed to invest in training and education for workers, as we have failed to provide that stability to our small communities.

This agreement also kills the credibility of the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism. I have already mentioned the fact that we have had these rulings in our favour. This agreement goes outside of the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism and goes ahead and talks about the fact that part of these illegally obtained $5.3 billion in duties are being sent back to the U.S. to fund further activity against Canadian softwood. It also does nothing for the thousands of workers who have lost their livelihood over the past five years. There is nothing in the softwood lumber agreement to deal with the major disruption that the U.S. abusive trade rules have caused to working families and their communities.

I talked earlier about my own riding. Whether we can directly attribute this to the softwood lumber industry or whether it is a secondary spinoff, we have seen mills close. The Youbou mill in my riding closed four years ago but I continue to hear from people who talk about the impact this has had on their livelihood and on their families. Some of those workers are still not employed on a regular basis four years later.

A little later I will talk about some other spinoffs that have happened that have put the continuing squeeze on this industry, and some of this is about actual deaths in the woods.

While the softwood lumber agreement supplies $450 million of Canadian money to the U.S. to help U.S. communities and workers, there is not one cent in this agreement for the transition for our own workers in our own communities. Many of the workers in our communities have already been displaced. Where is the funding for training and education that helps with the transition that is taking place daily in this industry? Where is the recognition of the value of the workers in our own communities who deserve to have some assistance with training and education as the industry changes? Some of these training and education dollars should go directly toward helping people gain the skills as the industry itself changes but some of these funds also need to be applied to help workers who need to transition out of the industry.

One of the other things, which is hopefully is an unanticipated consequence of the agreement, is that many people feel that this will discourage value added production and stimulate raw log exports. The deal fails to close a loophole that gives raw logs from private lands a competitive edge over logs processed here.

On Vancouver Island, in my riding, a significant proportion of the land is private land. The softwood lumber agreement fails to secure that those logs would be processed in British Columbia. People talked about a made in Canada solution. We do need a made in B.C. and made in Canada solution that considers our industry, our workers and our communities.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has consistently called for hearings that to take place from coast to coast to coast so communities, labour and industry have some input into crafting the agreement. I would strongly urge the House to support the fact that we want to see these hearings in communities across the country.

There is also a voice that has been absent in this agreement. I believe first nations were only mentioned once or twice in this entire lengthy document. First nations must be at the table and must be considered in the consultations around softwood. In British Columbia, in particular, we are engaged in treaty process, land claims and the management of resources. First nations must be at the table as equal partners in any discussions that go forward.

I want to talk a bit about statistics, and I know many in the House are thrilled with statistics. There is a need for an industrial strategy in Canada. According to the B.C. government, since 1999, British Columbia has lost 20% of our workforce alone. The workforce around direct forestry activity has declined from 31,000 to 21,000. This kind of massive dislocation in an industry calls for a national strategy. We as a country must determine whether we will commit to us being a processor, a hewer of logs, and we must have an industrial strategy that talks about the kind of reinvestment that keeps us competitive, both domestically and internationally.

According to the United Steelworkers, and it uses the government's own statistics on this, we can talk about the value that is lost both in our province and in our country. In 2001 logging produced revenues of $5.2 billion while solid lumber and pulp and paper mills produced revenues of $11.2 billion and $6.5 billion respectively. It is clear that the real value in our wood is when it is milled, not when it is shipped as raw logs. For every $1 million that forest companies invest, they create 3.9 direct jobs in their industry and 5.9 indirect jobs. In 2005, 3,300 direct jobs were forgone due to exports, which means $250 million in lost earnings.

If we just want to talk about economy, we need to talk about the fact that the more we do closer to home, the more it results in not only direct jobs in our community, but indirect jobs in terms of suppliers, transporters and all those other industries that support our forestry industry.

We talk about economics and industry, but let us talk about real life, on the ground, what happens to people in their families and their lives. Overall it feels like there has been increasing pressure on industry over this last several years and there has been little relief for them. The NDP has called for loan guarantees to help the industry over this tough time. We have called for an additional investment in training and education. The sad reality is there is increasing pressure on the industry. This agreement contributes to that overall pressure.

I talked about this being not just about dollars. I want to talk about last week's inquest into the death of Ted Gramlich in my hometown of Duncan. As a result of this inquiry, a number of health and safety issue have been exposed about the new regulations in the B.C. woods.

Responsibility for health and safety has been downloaded to individuals and contractors instead of the companies that buy the wood, creating huge gaps in the safety net. Last year 43 loggers lost their lives on the job. The Vancouver Island Loggers Safety Group continues to work to raise awareness among politicians and the private side as a whole.

My time is up, but I make a plea to the House to consider the impact, not only on the industry, but on communities and individual lives. This agreement will have a long ranging impact. I would urge us to think very carefully before members of the House support such a deeply flawed bill.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for expressing her passion for this issue and the experience she brings to it. Many members of the government seem lost on what it is to process a stick of wood and what it is to add some value and create the type of wealth for communities like hers and for many of the communities that I represent. This deal is an excellent sell-out. It is quite remarkable in its consistency page after page and in its depth of advocating the interest of exporting more jobs to other countries and then buying the products back.

The member quoted the statistics from British Columbia, 10,000 jobs out of a sector. If there are other sectors maybe a little more politically salient for the new government and for the previous government, we would have had a deal that would have actually met the requirements of our country and our interests.

Could the member comment on what the effects are in the community of Nanaimo and those surrounding it when even a single job or a set of jobs from a particular mill are lost and moved across the border or overseas?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will talk specifically about British Columbia in this context because it is one of the largest softwood lumber producers in the country. Ninety-five per cent of the land in British Columbia is provincial crown land.

I talked earlier about an industrial strategy. It seems to me that between the federal government and the provincial government we need to reinstate that social contract that says that when we have crown land where we are producing logs, there needs be some direct benefit to Canadians.

We see forestry workers cutting logs. We have seen transportation benefit from shipping the logs south. However, I know the Steelworkers, local 180 in my riding, is clearly calling for an industrial strategy that says that these forests must benefit all of British Columbia. We must reinstate the social contract that says not only do we cut the logs, but we process them close to home and that we ensure our communities remain viable and sustainable and our communities benefit directly, which keeps our province health and vital. We should not just be hewers of logs who ship them somewhere else to be processed.

It is absolutely critical that we examine the softwood lumber agreement in that light and that we call for those reinvestments in industry and in our communities.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the House about this agreement, which I feel is inadequate and does not represent the best interests of Canadians everywhere.

When we entered into a free trade agreement with the United States, we did so with certain reservations. Indeed, we were negotiating with a country whose economy is so much larger than ours, a country that is much more powerful and that tends to be very protectionist within its borders.

There are certain advantages, however. We have the advantage of access to enormous markets. We are producers and exporters, and our primary markets are in the United States. We therefore entered into the agreement.

We now see that, rather than defend that agreement, defend ourselves and our producers, we are being forced to sell out to American interests.

We are upholding our responsibilities in the agreement. We must still sell them oil and other products on which a dependence has developed. We must live with that agreement on our side, but the advantages are suddenly disappearing. It begins with losing these advantages concerning forestry and we fear just how far it can go.

What other industry must we sacrifice in an agreement so that the Prime Minister might one day be invited to the presidential ranch in Crawford? What other sector of our economy are we going to abandon?

The government boasts about the number of entrepreneurs, mills and producers who have signed on to this agreement. The inquisition boasted that all the witches they burned at the stake had also signed some declarations of guilt, but they were forced to do that.

We see that in this case. Industries and provinces have told us that they have been coerced into signing an agreement that does not advantage them. They say that it is not a good deal and that they do not like it. In April they started a process that they could buy into, where there was a framework agreement and they could have discussions. All of a sudden, producers were left out of those discussions.

A few had discussions. The minister ensured that a few large ones were taken care of, the ones he has an interest in and has had an interest in the past, like Canfor. If organizations represented mills or producers in more than one province, they were not part of those discussions. Most of the producers were left out.

We have entered into an agreement where we maintain our responsibilities and give the U.S. $1 billion for partial access to its market. It is our money, money that tribunals at the WTO and NAFTA have agreed belongs to Canadian producers. We give it to the Americans and while we can continue to sell in their market, it is under their terms. There will be quotas, there will be taxes and it will cost us.

How do these taxes work? When the price goes down and producers are squeezed, they have to start paying an export duty at a time when they can least afford it. Everyone understands, as I do, that accelerates the risk of bankruptcies, closures and foreclosures.

If for some reason the Americans do not like it, they can step away from the deal, but they keep our money. That is about the equivalent of a kidnapping. We catch the kidnappers with the victims, we bring them to court, go through a preliminary hearing and trial and all the evidence is in our favour. However, right before the jury comes into the room, we strike a deal and say that they will not be found guilty and they can keep the ransom money. If at any time they are not happy, they can come back, get the victims and ransom them again. This is the deal that has been struck, and we are proud of that.

We have seen once again that there are giants in the forestry sector. Canfor is a giant, and the minister of Canfor understands that, and there are smaller ones. There are shrubs, little bushes. There are people like the Prime Minister, a shrub who will do anything to have an agreement with the U.S. President. He will profit. I have no doubt he will get to the ranch and he will be happy, but where will we be left?

How have these mills been coerced into signing? They are in debt. They have been through a long battle at NAFTA and WTO. They have had restricted access and have had to pay ransom money to the Americans. They are in trouble and the banks have been backing them. If the mills sign on, the banks will get their money back. Therefore, the bankers are putting the squeeze on these mills and they are signing on. The bankers are going to get their money and the mills are going to be okay for a little while.

We see the downturn in the U.S. economy. Eventually we are going to hit those magic numbers, and I think it will be immediate, where they have to start paying ransom or where there is limited access. Do members think the banks will be supportive and allow the mills to go into debt again? The banks will realize there is no more money they can get back from the Americans and support from the federal government will not be there. Therefore, we will have an accelerated round of closures in our Canadian softwood industry.

Again, that plays into the hands of the gentleman and his friends from Crawford. The Americans will have $1 billion of our money. We will have a lot of softwood capacity, the best in the world, that will be on the market, some of the medium sized and smaller ones, which I am sure they will be very happy to buy at discount prices. We are abandoning that industry.

Mr. Speaker, you might ask as an astute observer why a member from Atlantic Canada would not support this deal. Atlantic Canada is not included in the agreement. From the very beginning, there was an understanding on the U.S. side that because Atlantic Canadian forests are largely owned by the private sector and individuals, and the cost of cutting the wood is higher, that there is no level of subsidization. No argument was made. The Americans said we would be exempted from any restrictions.

The Americans might do that because they think we are fine little people who cut their trees without making noise and saw them ecologically, and get them to the market in a very nice way, or the Americans could be trying to divide our industry. The Americans could be trying to put a wedge in the industry, where they have one part of the country working against the other, where it makes it difficult to have a national forward looking policy, approach or lobby of all the producers in this country.

Immediately, we have a disagreement because there is a slight advantage for Atlantic Canada because we continue to have access and we have some stability in the market. Our producers know where they are going. They know they are not paying duties and they know they will not be paying duties to have access to the U.S. market and so that is quite good.

However, what will happen when we start having all the closures and downsizing in other parts of the country? What will happen when the access is restricted or they cannot financially export to the other parts of the country and we start having increased competition in the niche markets that we have in Atlantic Canada? Will this be good for Atlantic Canada? I do not think so.

I think Atlantic Canada is the most important part of the country of course, but it is a part of this country. Atlantic Canada does well when the country does well. We depend on trade with the U.S. in many areas, from high technology, repair in the military of the IMP in Halifax, to fisheries products in my riding, tires in the three large Michelin manufacturing plants that we have, oil and gas exports, oil and gas manufacturing, ship manufacturing, and ship repairs. We depend on exports and we depend on our markets in the U.S.

If we start looking at NAFTA and start tearing it apart, start taking away the Canadian advantages and only keeping the Canadian responsibilities, our region is no longer advantaged. All of sudden we will see that we cannot ship into that market. We will see our oil and gas and our primary resources going into that U.S. market. We would be forced by this agreement to send it there without advantage.

I believe for Atlantic Canadians, like for all Canadians, that it is important that we study this deal very seriously, that we look at it, that we see what it means, and that we not support this agreement.

Futhermore, however I see that I am running out of time, so I will return tomorrow for questions and comments.

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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

At the time the debate adjourned last night, there was a five minute question and comment period left after the 10 minute speech given by the hon. member for West Nova.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, we found out yesterday that the Liberals on the international trade committee moved to kill softwood hearings that were scheduled in northern Quebec, in the Saguenay, and in Thunder Bay in northern Ontario, which is the epicentre of what will befall this industry if the Conservatives succeed in pushing through this bungled legislation.

Also, in British Columbia they did the same. In British Columbia in particular we know that half of that $1 billion giveaway is from British Columbians. British Columbia communities are being forced by the Conservative government to give up half a billion dollars in illegally taken tariffs. That is B.C.'s money.

The Conservatives, under the direction of the international trade minister, who has no opportunity of being elected even as a dog catcher in his riding of Vancouver Kingsway because he is so detested for his betrayal of his constituents, have abandoned British Columbia. Other Conservatives from British Columbia are simply following along. It is pretty clear that no Conservatives will be elected west of the Rockies in the next election.

What I cannot understand is why the Liberals would move to kill hearings in northern Ontario when there are supposedly Liberal members who supposedly represent northern Ontario. Twenty per cent of the mills will close and 20% of jobs will be lost in northern Ontario as a result of this deal. This information comes from testimony we heard at committee this summer, yet the Liberals have moved to kill the hearings. This is absolutely despicable.

My question is quite simple. Why did the Liberals kill hearings that would have allowed people in northern Ontario, British Columbia and the Saguenay in Quebec the opportunity to voice their concerns about this sellout, this bad deal?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not sit on the committee. I am not a member of the committee. Members decide their own fate and their own agenda. I know that we have had excellent work done by the member for Beauséjour, the member for Sydney—Victoria, and other members from our party. They sat through most of the summer recess. They heard from many witnesses on the question and voted against the resolution and are voting against the bill because we understand that this is not good for Canada.

We understand, and I believe, that forestry workers, whether they be harvesters, working in the sawmills, the added-value market, the transportation market or are associated with the industry in one way or another in the spin-off industries, will understand what the people of Vancouver Kingsway know. They will understand that the minister will sell them out at a moment's notice for very little interest to himself. For the value of a car and driver he crossed the floor. For his links with one company in particular, I believe that is why he went ahead with this deal.

He had presented to forestry workers and the industry a framework agreement in the spring that was worthy of discussion, that did have interest in all sectors. However, rather than going through consultations, rather than discussing with the industry and ensuring that we had an agreement that had advantage for Canadians, with one quick trip by our little bush, by the shrub, by the little bush of a Prime Minister, who had to meet with his patron saint in Washington and came back with an agreement that was a sellout of our Canadian industry.

We understand that strongly and that is why this side is not supporting the bill before Parliament at the present time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member from the Liberal Party that the Minister of International Trade and our Prime Minister's focus has been on the communities, families and industry that have been devastated by this dispute, which has gone on for 24 years. This last legal battle has been five years alone.

We were focused on returning the duties back to the industry. Some 81% of the duties that have been paid will be returned to the entire industry across Canada. I also remind the hon. member that over 90% of the industry supports the deal. All of our major softwood lumber producing provinces support the deal.

He talked about the member for Beauséjour, who sits on the trade committee. All of the industries in his riding have asked him to support the deal, yet he has chosen to ignore it. I suggest it is just because the Liberals are bitter because our government achieved something that they were not able to achieve after 13 years.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is preposterous. Hearing after hearing and tribunal after tribunal at the World Trade Organization and at NAFTA found that 100% of the duties belong to Canadian producers and we are settling for 81% and leaving the interest there.

As to the claims of 90% support, there has been force bordering on extortion, forcing these people to sign on saying that if they did not they would not get their money back. The bankers have billions of dollars in loan guarantees, loan extensions or lines of credit for these people. They are forcing them to sign on because they know they do not have the support of the Conservative government.

The industry and the communities know that they do not have the support. If they were supportive they would have followed the truth. They would have assisted the communities. They would have given loan guarantees. They would have assisted in the challenges at the international level in the American courts, so that we would ensure that we protect our North American Free Trade Agreement for the benefit of all Canadians and for future sectors.

In a very few months, we will see a round of bankruptcies like we could never have predicted because of the actions that the government has taken. It is inaction and it is a sellout to the American sector. It is a sellout of Canadian jobs.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas say that it was his understanding that certain members of the Bloc Québécois felt uncomfortable about supporting the bill as it stood. I would like to clarify our position.

We are not really uncomfortable. We know that this is a bad agreement. However, just as forest companies in British Columbia need to sell off their wood because the situation is urgent, for Quebec, as well, we can no longer put off this agreement. By not offering loan guarantees, the current government and the previous government refused to help businesses stay afloat during negotiations and while awaiting the final court rulings regarding the cases pending. Otherwise, it would have been possible for businesses—whether in Quebec, British Columbia or Ontario—to stay afloat, and to challenge the American government and its lobbyists in order to definitively obtain justice.

We now have an opening, since we are told that the agreement signed will not necessarily last seven years, as originally planned. In fact, anyone can put an end to this agreement, including British Columbia, or I believe so, in any case. Thus, once British Columbia has sold off its wood, will it change tactics and demand that the agreement be reopened? We would then find ourselves in negotiations once again, maybe nearly as long as these have been. Perhaps the future government called upon to debate the case will resolve it for good.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been really difficult listening to folks from the Bloc as they struggle to articulate their position on this important legislation. I think they are embarrassed about the position they have had to take. They feel backed into a corner like Conservatives and like the companies often have felt, that they did not have any choice around this legislation.

I am used to hearing something a little more principled and a little more demanding from that corner of the House. It is not like people in that corner of the House to give up an important principle so easily. I think that is what has happened, especially when we were on the verge of winning this case.

Also, it is clear in this agreement that provinces lose sovereignty over establishing their own provincial forestry policies. It is very clear that the United States will have the opportunity to vet any changes in provincial forestry policies. How that could be acceptable to members from the Bloc Québécois, given their position on the sovereignty of Quebec, is beyond me. It is not acceptable to me, as a member from British Columbia.

Steve Hunt, one of the western Canadian directors of the United Steelworkers said it very clearly. He said:

This deal doesn’t need tweaking, it needs a complete rewrite....part of a “sell-out strategy.” If this is what Bush-Harper talks 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.

It is not acceptable to the steelworkers. It is not acceptable to the forestry workers of British Columbia.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, l listened to my NDP colleague and to my Liberal colleague, who spoke earlier, and I simply do not understand their position.

I am on the international trade committee. I worked at the committee throughout the summer. I heard the testimony from witnesses and I read their testimonies. Softwood lumber companies are in favour of this agreement, overwhelming so. Some 90% of our industry is in favour of this, but there is more.

The premiers of the key softwood lumber producing provinces are also in favour of the softwood lumber agreement. In fact, the premier from the member's province is in favour of it and he has asked, actually almost begged, the member to support the softwood lumber agreement to help forestry workers and to help the lumber industry in British Columbia.

What is my colleague saying to the softwood lumber companies that are endorsing the agreement? What is the message he is giving them, that he happens to know better than they do what is good for them, better than the people who are in this industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member says we do not understand the deal. He will never understand the importance of the deal, the problems with it and the fact that many Canadians think this is a bad deal. He will not be travelling with the committee across the country to hear testimony from Canadians on this issue.

The committee in the summer decided to visit the Saguenay, Thunder Bay and Vancouver to hear from Canadians and companies about this deal. The committee agreed to set up that kind of tour. Then yesterday, on a motion from two Liberal members, the member for Welland and the member for Sydney—Victoria, it revisited that decision and cancelled the hearings.

That is unacceptable. Canadians must have the chance to express their views on this important agreement. Thanks to members, like the one who asked me the question, they are not going to get that opportunity. That is not appropriate.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the current dispute on the softwood lumber has existed for nearly 20 years and is clearly the most important trade issue between Canada and the United States. It is commonly known as “lumber dispute four”.

The issue centred on what is called stumpage fees, the amount charged by the Canadian government to lumber companies to harvest timber from public land. The U.S. lumber industry claimed that the stumpage fees were too low, thereby amounting to unfair trade subsidies.

In 2001 the U.S. government responded by imposing duties on Canadian softwood lumber entering that country. To date these duties, illegally collected from our forestry sector, have amounted to over $5.4 billion. The Washington-based Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports further claimed that Canadian firms were dumping product into markets at less than fair value.

Until the Conservatives came to power, the Government of Canada consistently and continually defended our forestry management regime, denying that it was subsidizing the lumber industry or that softwood lumber was being dumped into the U.S. The issues have been litigated seven different times through the U.S. courts and NAFTA and WTO trade panels, and Canada has won all seven decisions.

These decisions favourable to Canada mean that we are not guilty of subsidizing, we are not harming the U.S. industry and we are not dumping.

Let us think back to the January 2006 election campaign and the Conservative promise to demand that the U.S. government play by the rules on softwood lumber, repeal the Byrd amendment and return more than $5 billion in illegal softwood lumber tariffs to Canadian producers.

Let us move forward a mere three months to April 2006, when the Prime Minister announced, with great fanfare, that he reached an agreement on the softwood lumber issue. Although the details were missing, it was readily apparent that the Conservatives had broken their campaign promise to the lumber producers and to Canadians.

With the proposed agreement, the Conservative government has abandoned the Canadian position and has thrown away all the precedent-setting decisions favourable to Canada. This will negatively impact future disputes on the softwood industry when we become engaged in “lumber dispute five”, which I have no doubt will come in the not too distant future.

The implications reach beyond the softwood lumber trade, to all trade sectors with the U.S.

The credibility and integrity of this dispute resolution process of NAFTA and the series of rulings based on trade provisions have effectively been washed away. The dispute settlement chapter of NAFTA, chapter 19, just went out the window. So much for the rule of law, so much for justice and so much for fair play, let alone free trade.

The Conservatives should hang their heads in shame for this sellout. Not only has the Conservative government acquiesced into a settlement adverse to our forest industry, it has undercut Canada's rule-based trading relationship with the U.S. which will now encourage other U.S. sectors to ignore trade rules and, instead, seek political decisions in their favour, which will lead to more trade uncertainty. And for what? For 24 months of trade peace on the softwood industry; two short years.

The members opposite have chortled that it is a seven year agreement, with an option for two more years. However, the devil is in the details. They want Canadians to overlook the escape clause that allows either party to get out after 24 months. There is a stipulation that no retaliatory action can take place for one further year after this, but does this Conservative government really think that a government or a forestry industry, which refuses to respect the decisions in seven separate trade disputes, will respect these provisions? It is not likely.

Twenty-four months; two years. Members can be the judge. No, the Canadian people will be the judge in the next election.

What about the $5.4 billion of illegal tariffs that have been collected from our lumber companies? One billion dollars, or nearly 18% of these illegal tariffs, will be left on the U.S. table instead of being returned to the rightful owners in the Canadian forestry industry.

The ultimate insult is that $500 million of this will go to the coalition for U.S. lumber imports, the very organization that has led the charge against our softwood industries, the very lobby group that started this trade war. It is a sweet deal for it. Effectively, we reimburse it for its legal fees and expenses, even though it has consistently lost the decisions, and we also provide the coalition with a slush fund for future legal and political attacks to fight “softwood lumber five”. It is a sweet deal, indeed.

Canadians are a generous and accommodating people, but this is simply ludicrous. This is simply incomprehensible.

A further sum of $450 million will go, not to the U.S. treasury, but to the U.S. administration for yet unnamed meritorious initiatives.

What does this mean? I heard one trade lawyer at committee speculate that it will go to buildings and bridges and other goodies offered in a U.S. election year. Is that preposterous? Perhaps not. I will tell members what it is. It is simply ludicrous and incomprehensible. Canada should not be interfering in U.S. elections.

The whole issue confirms that the U.S. is a trade bully. It is prepared to play by the rules only when it feels like it and when it is to its advantage.

However, there is another bully in this game: the Conservative government and its Prime Minister. Members opposite will say that the majority of the forestry industry has agreed to this agreement, so why all the fuss? The reality is that no one in the forestry industry claims that this is good deal but the industry is on the ropes. Keeping in mind flagging lumber prices, a rising dollar and soaring energy costs, in addition to five years of illegal duties, which realistically represents their profits, they cannot afford to fight any longer. An 80% dollar is better than bankruptcy in anyone's eyes.

We also must keep in mind the Prime Minister's ultimatum to accept the deal or the reluctant lumber companies will be on their own in any subsequent legal battles. By the way, the government is withdrawing the loan guarantees provided by the previous Liberal government, loan guarantees that would have kept our lumber companies afloat financially while they reclaim 100% of their money through the legal process.

The lumber industry has been subjected to tremendous pressures, with ministers phoning large companies and MPs phoning small mills with a consistent and blunt message: “take it or leave it, take it or else”.

If this were not enough, the Conservative bullies have imposed a 19% levy on all refunded duties deposited on any holdout company. When faced with such punishment from their own government, it is no wonder the majority of the forestry industries are prepared to sign on to this agreement. They have no choice but to give in to such objectionable tactics.

Where do we go from here? As I understand it, the illegal 10.8% combined anti-dumping and countervailing duties levelled by the U.S. will be replaced at current price levels by a 15% Canadian export tax. Can anyone believe that? The export tax is higher than the current U.S. duties under today's market prices. The system is designed to protect U.S. producers from Canadian lumber exports at times of low market prices, when American mills are least able to compete.

Are members baffled by the Conservatives' squeals of delight that this is a great deal for Canada? I am and so are Canadians.

The deal would also cap Canadian exports at 34% of the U.S. lumber market. Our producers now have a quota when there was none before. This will effectively prevent any Canadian growth in the U.S. market. Our very efficient Canadian sawmills that have kept up with technological improvements cannot reap the reward of being on top of their game. So much for free trade.

The Conservative softwood lumber deal will have a negative impact on industry, which will also impact some of the over 55,000 workers in that industry, as well as the resource based communities in which they live. Who will stand up for the nation's forestry workers and these communities?

There is much to criticize in the proposed softwood lumber agreement. The Liberal Party's role is also to offer alternatives.

Our commitment to the softwood lumber industry in a supplementary aid package would have included: $200 million over two years to enhance the forestry industry's competitive position, improving its environmental performance and taking advantage of the growing bioeconomy; $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 to promote upgrading of workplace skills and to provide assistance to older workers impacted by forest industry layoffs; $100 million over two years to support economic diversification and capacity-building in communities affected by job losses in the forestry 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.

Notwithstanding strong concerns from the softwood lumber industry, provincial governments, forestry sector workers and resource based communities, the government has rushed into this agreement solely for its own political interests and not for the interests of those adversely impacted by this agreement.

This is why I will be supporting the amendment put forward by the member for Beauséjour to eliminate the punitive tax measure imposed by the bill, as well as the subamendment proposed by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, much of the hon. member's speech was inaccurate. I could in fact come right out and say that it was not true. However, in part of what he said he actually acknowledged what we on this side of the House have known and what that side of the House should know because this dispute has gone for 24 years, which is that the United States and the lumber coalition will never stop with litigation. In fact, they have told us that without this deal they will launch another lawsuit. It could go on forever and ever. With this deal we would have security. We would have seven to nine years with no litigation. Eighty-one per cent of the duties will be returned to the entire industry.

The member also talked about NAFTA. He was at committee when Gordon Ritchie told us that the United States had never intended softwood lumber to be under NAFTA. Perhaps that is why we have had this dispute for so long.

We now have an agreement and within this agreement there is a dispute mechanism that takes it out of U.S. trial law and brings it into international law, which will benefit the industry. We will also work on a binational council for the next seven to nine years to build trust and build a stronger North American softwood lumber industry.

I have a quick question. We know the NDP had the opportunity to do the Liberal-NDP budget and to negotiate with the former prime minister. Could you please let us know whether the NDP actually asked to have anything done on the softwood lumber file?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I might just remind the parliamentary secretary that she cannot ask a member a question directly. She has to ask the member through the Chair.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last part of her question, I was not privy to the negotiations, if there were any, between the principals of the Liberal Party and the NDP.

The member opposite talks about trust. How can one trust a government or a forestry regime that has no regard for trust? There were seven decisions in Canada's favour and the U.S. ignored them. It has no respect for the rule of law, so why we would trust it otherwise?

We have had security for 24 months, not seven years, not nine years, but 24 months. Perhaps I should not be asking questions but I wonder if the member opposite would go the line as guaranteeing that this agreement will last seven years or nine years. The only guarantee we have is for 24 months.

Twenty per cent of Canada's forestry industry dollars are left in the United States; $500 million for the very lobby group that started this whole schemozzle and another $450 million for some meritorious initiatives. Those are Canadian dollars in the United States doing wonderful things. Should we be involved with the United States when there are so many burning issues in Canada? Is our lumber industry there to subsidize the United States in making improvements to that country? I think not.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of the member opposite and I have to say that I think he stole some of the words right out of my speech. We tend to agree on how baffling it is that anyone would support this deal and how hard it is for us to explain to people in our ridings that this is a good deal when we all know that it is not.

I talked at great length about how this issue has adversely affected the mills and logging industry in my community. However, what is really baffling to me is how the member could have put a stop to the hearings in Ontario when we hear that he disagrees with this softwood deal.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House perceive ourselves as a constructive opposition and we take initiatives and make decisions based on that constructive word.

In fact, hearings on the softwood lumber industry continued through the spring into July and August. Unfortunately, there was a rudimentary agreement initialled by Mr. Harper in April, which was flushed out by a black and white--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Welland knows that he should not be referring to the Prime Minister by name. If he wants to talk about the Prime Minister, that is what the words “Prime Minister” are for.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A full agreement was signed between the United States and Canada. As far as I was concerned, I did not think it was reasonable to continue with hearings on the agreement when it was a done deal. It was signed and finished. Now we have a new bill that imposes export duties and it is appropriate that we debate it. We may in fact hear from some of the same people.

With respect to the agreement, it is over. To waste money travelling to Quebec, to B.C. or to Ontario with respect to the agreement would not be appropriate. It is appropriate to consider such initiatives, possibly, as we continue the debate on this bill, which I assume will go to committee after second reading stage.

[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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do understand the member of Parliament being here to represent specifically the interests of his constituents. Governing is a tough job. Governing is not just short term decision making, it is decision making for the long term.

One of the problems we have to deal with is that this deal is a short term deal. It does not guarantee long term stability in the softwood industry.

We heard yesterday and today about the meanspiritedness of the government, the bullying tactics that it uses. The trade minister told the lumber industry, “Accept this deal or we are going to abandon you. We are going to put penalties and sanctions on you. We are going to berate you until you get on side, or else we are going to make it really difficult for you”.

That is meanspiritedness. The member will understand and accept that. He has to fight for the well-being of the industries in his riding, but he also should consider the longer term given that the government can and should continue to support the softwood lumber industry with loan guarantees and other assistance while we get this matter sorted out, a matter which the Conservative minority government made a real mess of.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has reminded me that we should not think just of the people in our own ridings. We do not represent them alone. We should imagine that this is a long-term agreement.

I was saying that I consulted with the companies in my riding. I also compared the results with those for all the companies in Quebec. The responses I got from my riding were that it is a bad agreement but the companies still wanted me to vote in favour of it.

At the same time, the Bloc Québécois was doing its own Quebec-wide consultations. We got the same answer. That is what I said earlier.

Insofar as stability is concerned, one particularly large company that responded to me said that it was true that this was not the best of all deals because the companies would not have the seven years of stability that had been promised, and I agree. We were told in the spring that the deal would ensure seven years of trade peace. The company officials also told me that three years is not a long time but it is enough to enable them to reinvest.

That being said, I take the interests of my voters to heart, as well as those of all Quebeckers, all companies in the forest industry, especially softwood lumber.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too represent a riding in which there are several sawmills, particularly border sawmills.

In general, people are very pleased with the agreement. It is always possible to speculate of course. On one hand, the Liberals did nothing for 13 years, with the result that sawmills now have serious cashflow problems. On the other, my colleague in the Bloc Québécois indulges in speculations about what they could have done. That is to be expected, it is an agreement, it is an out-of-court settlement.

The government did the best it could. When we were in committee, Mr. Guy Chevrette raised some points that were met. Mr. Chevrette himself admitted that these points had been raised and he was pleased with the results. Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson even told us about the dangers of continuing, because under any procedure at all, the whole thing could collapse. The industry asked us to settle the problem, and we did. I cannot understand, therefore, what my hon. colleague was saying.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I never said that companies were very pleased with this agreement.

My colleague forMégantic—L'Érable said that the companies in his area are very pleased. I do not agree. That is not what Quebec companies told me. That is not what they told me in my riding. They said that they were extremely disappointed but that they were at the end of their rope and had no other choice.

A CEO told me that although the companies did win all their court cases—and their lawyers would have liked to continue and were advising them to continue—at the other end, their bankers were calling and telling them that there was no alternative. They had come to the end of the road.

The two previous governments created this situation.

[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.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member opposite is about the hearings that were supposed to go forward. I just heard from his hon. colleague that he felt they were a waste of time.

Does the member agree with his colleague, that hearing from Canadians on the devastation and the negative impacts of this softwood lumber deal is a waste of time?

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, consulting Canadians is never a waste of time. In my experience it has been one of the successes of this party. If anyone is known for being in touch with Canadians, it is the Liberal Party.

With regard to the hearings, my colleague said that maybe it was not appropriate at the time. We consulted the industry and ended up with a $600 million package that was focused on exactly what it needed.

If we are talking about consultation with the industry, we have done it. The $600 million package addressed its needs precisely. If anyone has consulted the industry, it is us.

The fact that the Conservative government would not even offer this option to industry, in the interim, until it probably came to a successful conclusion within a one year period is totally unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member talk about litigation and how we are on the verge of winning one more case and then all of a sudden it is all going to be fine and dandy, that we are going to have a great relationship with the United States and the softwood lumber industry will flourish.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This has gone on for 24 years, the last lawsuit for five years alone. Without this deal, it has been said to us very clearly by the U.S. lumber coalition that it will not end. Without this deal, there will be litigation after litigation. It will go on forever.

Our industry is at a state because of the lack of support from the previous Liberal government for 13 years. It did not do loan guarantees. It did nothing for the industry. It was content with 100% of nothing for the industry.

The industry is trying to hold its head above water right now. It is our Prime Minister and our Minister of International Trade who secured a far better deal than anything the previous Liberal government had on the table. We know that because our minister used to be theirs and now he is over here. Because of the leadership of our Prime Minister, he was able to secure a deal to help the industry survive.

The hon. member is not being truthful in some of his comments.

I asked one of his colleagues earlier, if he could let us know if he had any insight. I can recall when we had the Liberal-NDP budget. The NDP members could basically ask for anything that they wanted, anything that was of most importance to them. I do not think they asked for anything for the softwood lumber industry then. Shame on them.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if it is an opposition member speaking or the cheering section for the Prime Minister , and I am not even sure there was a question.

However, if there is absolutely no possibility of reaching a deal in a reasonable amount of time, why would the Conservatives sign a deal with these people whom they do not trust, whom they do not think would honour any agreement?

The hon. member says that the Conservatives have signed a long term deal with these people, when in fact we all know that there is a clause after two years. The odds are very good that the industry will once again not honour its obligations and probably break its deal with the Canadian industry.

My feeling is that the Conservatives have surrendered this package to the Americans. It does not surprise me. When we think about it, everything else they are doing in every other policy statement is very close to what Mr. Bush is proposing. It does not surprise me one bit that these people would collaborate with the U.S. on this deal. The fact is that most experts do say that we were very close to a resolution. We were probably a year away from a resolution, but what was missing, as I said before, was a package to tide over the industry for another year or so. This has been repeated all over the place.

When I have listened to my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, who have approved the deal, they are doing it with a certain reticence. There is no doubt about that. They do not believe the industry is well served with this deal. I think they also believe, like us, that the industry was forced into it under enormous pressure because of the fiscal needs of the industry in Canada.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today, as the member for Surrey North, to talk about what this agreement means to my riding.

Most people tend to think of the softwood lumber agreement as being more of interest to an interior area or a coastal area, but I live in an urban area and I know that within my constituency of Surrey North and within all of Surrey there are many IWA or steel IWA workers who are currently out of work and there are more who will be out of work. These are people who spent their lives working in the forest industry and are now losing their homes. They must move their children to different schools. Their self-respect as workers has been destroyed and their lives have been irrevocably changed. This agreement will not, in any way, help the people who are living in Surrey North or in Surrey in general.

We do not have one mill left on the Fraser River, all the way from New Westminster to Surrey and up the coast. The last mill closed a little over six months ago. This was the end of an era.

When these negotiations began, those workers, who were about to be displaced, had hope that perhaps this would make a difference for them, but this agreement has not. The $1 billion that has been left on the table like Monopoly money is of no benefit to these workers at all.

I know the forest industries have been pushed or strongly encouraged to support a deal that they do not really want to support but they have no choice. However, if we were to actually go out and do some consultations with the other people who are affected by the softwood industry, we would hear something very different.

What should be happening to the $1 billion that has been left on the table? Fifty-five per cent of all the wood in Canada is actually in British Columbia. In British Columbia, this is not just a small piece of an overall job base, revenue base or natural resource base. Now that the agreement has been signed, the money that will come back to British Columbia, as an example, will go into government revenue. How does that help displaced workers? It does not.

Many of these workers are no longer young and it would not be easy for them to change careers. Many of them are between 45 and 55 years of age. This money should be targeted to mitigation. It should be targeted toward job retraining. It should be targeted toward those communities that have been absolutely devastated economically by what we have already seen in the forest industry.

The fact that we cut down logs in British Columbia and then we export raw logs to other places to have a product made, surely the money coming back should be targeted toward value added industry and toward mitigating for workers and for communities.

We should remember that in every community where there are displaced forest workers, generally male but not always as a few women work in the forest industry, the other ancillary businesses in the community start to close. It is not just the worker who is affected. It is the worker's spouse or partner. It is the worker's children who may have to move away from the town and go to another school. It is the spouse who has lost the job when the ancillary business closed. The money that will be coming back to British Columbia should be going into the communities but it is not. It is going into government revenue. It could be used for anything and that is not right. It is not in any way a fair deal for British Columbia or for other forest dependent areas in this country.

I do not support this deal and I know many other people do not. I think many of the people who will be standing up to support it will be doing so either reluctantly or for other reasons on which I will not speculate, but may not be doing it because they are in full support of it.

As a whole, this House of Parliament and certainly some of the industries in British Columbia may have said yes, but the population is overwhelming in its rejection of this deal that has been negotiated. I think many people will be giving this deal simply tacit support and I am not sure that is the way we want to do this.

The other concern I have is that the agreement should give some long term hope to the softwood industry. However, if this agreement can be reopened in 18 months time, how much long term reassurance is there in that? Is someone going to buy a house and take out a mortgage knowing that this can be reopened in 18 months? I do not think so. Is someone going to make permanent future plans for themselves or their families based on the fact that this can be reopened that quickly? I think not.

In many ways we have the worst of all worlds in this. We have money coming back that will not be targeted to the workers, to the communities and to building healthy forests again. People have been very clear that healthy forests are part of what needs to happen in that mitigation.

I do not support the bill because workers across the country in the softwood lumber industry will be devastated by this. It is not fair, it is not right and it will not help British Columbians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Before proceeding to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Etobicoke North, natural resources.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again I have listened to a speech from a member of the NDP and its position simply does not make sense. My colleague speaks about the B.C. softwood lumber industry and the challenges it has had to face over the past decade. She speaks of plant closures, layoffs, displaced workers and the impact this has had on families. We know that and we agree with it.

However, I would ask my colleague to view this logically. All of that has come about because there has been no softwood lumber agreement. What has the lumber industry had to deal with? It has had to deal with high export duties, high legal costs and endless litigation, and I mean endless litigation. The consequences of the industry having to deal with those things were the very things the member spoke about: plant closures, layoffs, displaced workers, unemployment and a negative effect on families.

What surprises me is that the NDP position is not to change anything and to fight the softwood lumber agreement that offers stability to the market. This is what the softwood lumber companies see. They see stability in the softwood lumber agreement, which is what the industry needs.

The softwood lumber agreement will be in effect for seven years and can be extended for another two years. It will return over $4 billion to the industry, which is huge. This is the type of stability that the softwood lumber industry needs. When I sat in committee that is what I heard from the companies. They need this money to rebuild their capital, to invest in their workers and to invest in their industry.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I should tell the hon. member one of the reasons that the NDP oppose the agreement. Yes, there have been court challenges but Canada has won each time. To give away wins in order to get this agreement when the courts have said Canada is not subsidizing is a very foolish thing to do.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member share my fears that a great number of these smaller operators have been forced to sign on to this agreement because the banks are threatening to call in their letters of credit and if they do not sign on they will not get back their money to pay the banks; with that being done and some export taxes being applied, that their level of profitability will go down and soon they will find themselves in difficulty again; that the banks will no longer extend credit to them because they will know there is nothing more coming from the U.S.; that the industry will have zero support from the Conservative government; and that we will see an accelerated rate of closures of small and medium size mills throughout our country, all the responsibility of the Conservative Government of Canada?

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that British Columbia has a number of very large forest companies but there are small family owned companies, particularly in the interior of British Columbia, that already find themselves facing those kinds of challenges. They will continue to and in the end not be able to put forward a business case that will allow the bank to extend them any leeway or credit when push comes to shove.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member from Erie gave a speech earlier and asked the rhetorical question, how can we trust this government? That is what it really comes down to, I think. This is the government that just cut programs, as we know, for very vulnerable people in our society, for women, for youth, for aboriginals, et cetera.

But this softwood deal should have been a foreshadowing, I believe, of what we saw in those cuts. Let us look at the Draconian measures the industry minister presented to the softwood industry to get the companies onside, such as threatening to withdraw loan guarantees and saying that the government would not stand with them if they decided to proceed with judicial proceedings.

Does the member have some comments? Is this not a Draconian, meanspirited government or what?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Surrey North, very briefly.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer with just one example to my colleague's question. Many of the people in the forest industry, and I say this without any judgment, do not have a very high degree of literacy. They have gone directly into the forest industry as young men and do not have a high degree of literacy. What do we see cut? Adult literacy. So where on earth are these workers going to be?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am both pleased and saddened to take part in this debate because ultimately the bill that is now before us is a total abdication of Canadian sovereignty, a complete rejection of the rules of international law.

This government totally surrendered to the Americans. Then, in an attempt to justify their surrender, the Conservatives put a gun to the head of different Canadian firms by telling them they would receive no support.

Worse still, they have also been the accomplices of the banks because they wanted to finish the job. The only winners under this agreement are the banks who will all collect the $4 billion when the deal is done. The other winners, of course, are the American producers.

I notice in particular the support of the Bloc Québécois. Earlier, I heard the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain state that they had proposed such and such a measure, but they have given their unconditional support to the Conservative government while forgetting the workers and communities concerned. That is how they are propping up the government. They have decided to lie down in submission to save their positions rather than saving the communities and workers.

On the subject of older workers, they had a golden opportunity to say to this government, “We will support you provided that you introduce a program for older workers”. They could have held the government hostage. They decided to ask for nothing. Instead of finding solutions for older workers, they prefer to ask questions. The next day, after announcing their support for the government, they were pathetic. Having already sold their weapons cheaply, they were asking, “What are you going to do for older workers? What are you going to do for communities?”

What is there for workers in all this? Take a 58-year-old logger from Saint-Fulgence, who has lost his job; what is there for him? What is there for the person who has worked all his life in the forest industry and who had hoped this agreement would do something for his company? It will do nothing. He wondered if anyone thought about him, because all the great speeches were about the workers. There is nothing for him. He is being told, “Take the rest of your UI benefits, after that, you are on your own”.

There was an opportunity. In the Liberal program, which was defeated by the Bloc Québécois, there was $200 million over two years for making our forest industry more competitive and environmentally friendly. There was $40 million over two years for improving the general performance of our innovative national forest management system. There were millions of dollars for enhancing the competitiveness of our work force, for workplace skill development, and for assisting older workers in the forest industry who had been laid off. There was also $100 million for economic diversification.

Will this deal make any mills re-open? Has anyone heard any re-opening announcements since it was signed? All that I have heard are closing announcements. If there were so much confidence in this announcement and if the deal generated as much hope as the government representatives would have us believe, why is it that, day after day, there are closing announcements in towns all across the country?

It is sad for single-industry communities that have no hope of diversifying and that got zero, especially in the parts of rural Quebec represented by Bloc members, who did nothing to take care of them.

All that older workers got are speeches. I want to pay tribute in this regard to the NDP: when they were in the same kind of situation, with the same amount of leverage, they used it to protect the people in whom they believed. The Bloc did nothing. It claims to have leverage. It had the slogan “le vrai pouvoir”. But the only real power it used was sucking up to the government.

The feeling we have today in the House is one of immense sadness. Single-industry communities in which everything closed down will not take heart from this. All there is for older workers is the end of their employment insurance benefits and then the shame of not being able to have a decent retirement.

The House should put itself in the shoes of this 58-year-old man. What is he being offered in Saint-Fulgence? Here everyone lives comfortably and has hope for the future. But the House should put itself in the shoes of these people who worked in the forest. There is nothing for them in this deal. There is nothing, I say, except despair.

Therefore we have decided to vote against this agreement not just because of its content, but also because of what it does not contain. There is no related measure. Even the Speech from the Throne included somewhat of a paragraph to appease the Bloc a little, but in the end there is nothing concrete.

I maintain that a year from now, when we are on the other side of this House, we will take stock of this agreement and see how many jobs were created and which communities had to close and we will see that this agreement was bad for Canada, bad for companies, bad for workers and bad for the communities.

That is why we, the members of the Liberal party, have decided to vote against this agreement. We are convinced that after winning all its court challenges in front of international tribunals Canada was right. If the industry had received help from this government, it would not have needed to give in to the government's threats or its bankers' threats. That is what is so sad in all this. Not a single entrepreneur in Canada is happy with this agreement. It was shoved down their throat out of necessity. But let us ask the question. I come back to that because our mandate here is not just to protect big business. We are here to protect the average person. I am still waiting for someone to give me some good news on this agreement.

At the end of the day, this agreement is regrettable not only because of its content, which is a complete abdication, but also because of the lack of related measures. We know full well that this will not resolve anything for those already affected or for countless others who will be once the sector is restructured. The reality is that this sector will have to be restructured and several people will be sacrificed and will pay the price. It is not the major players or the banks who will pay, but the workers for whom there is nothing here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member for Outremont was one of the members of the previous Liberal government who, when in power, applauded the Minister of International Trade for refusing to help companies survive, applauded the Minister of Human Resources for refusing to accept the independent employment insurance fund and POWA, and applauded the Minister of International Trade when he refused to acknowledge that companies needed loan guarantees in order to stay alive during the negotiations. The current Minister of International Trade crossed the floor and has used the same strategy; he helped the oil companies—as did the member for Outremont's leader—by lowering their taxes rather than providing aid to forestry companies.

Did they consult Quebec companies before deciding to vote against the agreement? How much longer could the companies have lasted without government assistance? They must be pleased with what happened to the Bloc Québécois, because together with the NDP they now hold the balance of power. They have joined forces to defeat the government so let them all be present for the vote and let them defeat it.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for his question and his remarks. Nevertheless, I believe he is having some vision problems. The history surrounding this issue is quite simple.

With respect to measures supporting businesses and workers, last November, when he was Minister of Industry, the current Minister of International Trade made an important announcement about major programs amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. The only reason these programs were not implemented is that, for partisan reasons, the Bloc Québécois decided to bring down the Liberal government. It is clear that, if the Bloc had not brought down the government, these programs would be up and running today, and we would not have to worry about businesses surviving.

The interesting part of this story is that, for partisan reasons, the Bloc Québécois did not care at all about what might happen to workers and the industry. It cancelled the very program our government prepared in response to its demands and those of workers. The Bloc chose to align itself with people who do not give a damn about workers and industry and who have refused to grant any of their requests.

Despite all that, the members of the Bloc Québécois continue to support the government blindly. I fail to understand this. Why have the Bloc members—who hold the balance of power in this matter—not asked for a thing?

I have never seen a minority government get so much support for so little. This is the cheapest support there has ever been in the entire history of British-style parliamentarism.

The day after they pledged their support, they rose to try to make—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I hesitate to stop the member in mid-flight, but there may be other questions and comments.

The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I read with great interest this morning that the government released new federal documents that said that the government's top foreign policy priority is to have greater collaboration with Washington.

There is nothing that will foster that collaboration more than walking into negotiations saying, “Here, pick my pockets, take what you want, where do we sign?” Suddenly, we have a much greater collaboration and much closer relationship with the folks in Washington

However, the member who just made his speech talked about relationships, his concern for workers, his concern for the forestry sector, and the relationships that he values. Yet I wonder, why is he so afraid of actually talking to those workers, talking to the families of those workers, talking to the communities affected, and taking consultations right across the country, so that we just do not listen in the House to what the folks in Washington want, but that we stand up for the working families in this country and do what they have elected us to do.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP does not have a monopoly on consulting with real people.

When I mention people that will be affected, that includes some of my own family members. We understand the difficulties facing these people, what they go through every day within their families. We have heard it from workers everywhere in Canada and particularly in Quebec. As a member from Quebec, I have greater access to that province. We consulted businesses, we consulted industry. We have been in regular contact with Mr. Chevrette for quite some time, even when we were in power. He even attended a Liberal caucus meeting, the only time in his life.

Lastly, we realize that this agreement does not correspond at all to what communities want, nor what workers want. The only people satisfied are the Americans, who are applauding wildly. Furthermore, bankers are sleeping more soundly, since learning that they can siphon off $4 billion to reimburse the line of credit that was granted. Later, they will tighten other things up.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech, which was nearly as fascinating and energetic as the one before it. The only difference between my party and his is that we will eventually come to power, and I hope we can count on his party's support when the time comes.

My question for my hon. colleague is this: Does he think that this bad deal will have a negative impact on other sectors of Canadian industry, such as the agricultural and manufacturing sectors? Will this bad deal lead to other bad deals?

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I am pleased my NDP colleague is asking for our support. It shows that he is aware of the Bloc Québécois' importance in this House. Naturally, we will be delighted to support his party anytime they make good decisions once they are in power.

Can this deal have an impact on other industrial sectors? I should note that the softwood lumber sector does not fall under the free trade agreement. This sector is excluded, which is why the Bloc Québécois has always demanded specific aid programs for this industry. This sector experiences repercussions and, from time to time, is subject to American duties.

Losing jobs in a region inevitably has an impact on the local economy. For single-industry communities, this is obviously very important. Once the dispute has been resolved, the industry will get a breath of fresh air.

[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, the problem of my Liberal colleague and his party is simple. Once again, they are not in touch with what the public is asking. We are much more pragmatic than that. Of course we are capable of analyzing documents, making legal analyses and other things. The industry is saying they have had it with discussions on legal documents. The only problem is that the Liberal Party does not understand that and it is still wrapped up in discussions on legal documents.

The industry and workers are now saying that time is up. They want their countervailing duties back and even if it is a bad agreement, they want it now. That is why a majority of Quebeckers put their trust in the Bloc Québécois to defend their interests. We have a symbiotic relationship with the people of Quebec. Employers and employees are asking us to sign the agreement and that is what we are doing. We are not overjoyed to do so, just as they are not overjoyed to accept it.

The only problem is that the Liberal Party still has not understood that the legal discussions are over and that it is now time to move on, help the companies, the employees, the men and women who work and who have dedicated their lives to this industry. The Bloc Québécois made this decision to help its people and to stop fighting. As they say, the worst agreement is always better than the best trial. That is what the Bloc Québécois chose together with the industry, employers and employees.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

First of all, I wish to pay tribute to my colleague who just spoke. I think that he is putting us back on the right track as opposed to what we heard previously from the member for Outremont.

Second, I would like to ask a very simple question. Who did the NDP, the Conservatives or the Liberals consult in Quebec? I am under the impression, from what the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives are saying, that they did not consult anyone in Quebec. Or, if they did, they were not listening.

I would like my colleague to comment on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his question. He is quite right. If the NDP and the Liberals vote against this agreement, despite the appeals from the industry, workers and Quebec citizens, it is because they have not understood and they have not consulted

The Conservative party managed to negotiate a sellout agreement. They did not adopt the plan put forward by the Bloc Québécois. This plan, supported by the industry, called for loan guarantees and tax credits to cover potential losses. The Conservative Party negotiated this agreement, I reiterate, without consulting the industry.

Thus, the Bloc Québécois is the only party that is attuned to and wholeheartedly supports the interests of Quebeckers working in the forestry industry. These people can count on us.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join this debate. I would like to share with members of this House the concerns of the United Steelworkers so that they will realize that these are not just casual concerns and how serious this issue is.

The United Steelworkers represent over 280,000 Canadian members, 50,000 of whom work in the forest sector. They know the issue well and they are very serious about their concerns. They truly believe that the deal we are considering is a poor one and that Canadians already had a successful strategy to deal with the U.S. forest industry and administration's unfair and illegal imposition of lumber tariffs and duties in May 2002.

Since then we have shown the Americans that many Canadian sawmills could outcompete them, even with exorbitant duties on our lumber exports. Any recent economic problems firms face have more to do with the rising Canadian dollar than with U.S. protectionist measures. By winning in court, meanwhile, we showed them that the Americans' legal case was groundless and their protectionist measures were illegal.

Canada was winning after all, whether in North American Free Trade Agreement tribunals, the World Trade Organization, or U.S. courts of law. On July 13 the Court of International Trade ruled that the tariffs and duties were illegal, a judgment that simply serves to confirm our views. The U.S. is rapidly exhausting its legal avenues before NAFTA, as witnessed by NAFTA's rejection of American extraordinary challenges appeals. The U.S. is even losing at the WTO, the only body which had previously upheld some of its contentions.

We find it unfortunate, therefore, that the current government is prepared to throw away the advantages we have earned at law and instead decided to saddle the industry with what is clearly a terrible negotiated agreement.

In agreeing to the terms of the current agreement, it appears that the current government has fallen into the trap that Carl Grenier of the Free Trade Lumber Council describes when he observes that Canada has admitted that we are “guilty as charged” of producing subsidized lumber, dumping it on U.S. markets and unfairly harming the U.S. industry. We are therefore prepared to throw ourselves on the Americans' mercy, as Grenier notes.

But Canada is not guilty as charged on any of these counts. We all know that. Successive court rulings continue to prove it.

Nonetheless, for policy reasons known perhaps best to the government but not to Canadians, the government has rushed into this devastating agreement. It did so without proper consultation with affected governments and stakeholders. In spite of commitments to the contrary, the deal was even initialed in Geneva before industry representatives had a chance to comment.

It is, in short, a hastily concluded deal. The steelworkers truly believe that we all, as Canadians, will come to regret it. After all, it is clear that the agreement is severely flawed. Those are the issues that are being pointed out to the government today.

The terms do not provide free access to the U.S. market, in spite of the Prime Minister's claim in the House of Commons on April 28. Canadian exports are capped at 34% of the U.S. lumber market and further trampled by the so-called surge mechanism, a policy which effectively penalizes Canadian producers for efficiency. Meanwhile the U.S. companies continue to have free access to the Canadian raw logs, while third country producers enjoy truly free access to the U.S. market.

The timeline, which has changed dramatically over the course of negotiations since April 27, potentially gives Canada as little as two years of peace, not the seven to nine we were originally offered. We learned that the U.S. would now enjoy preferential rights to abrogate the agreement, yet the $1 billion price tag remains the same.

The timing is poor, since most industry analysts agree that the U.S. housing market, hot until recently, is now cooling off. That means that from the onset of the agreement, Canadian producers will likely be paying 10% to 15% in export tax, a rate higher than even the current level of U.S. tariffs and duties.

What is in the deal for Canada? As was noted in a submission at the standing committee back on June 19, the steelworkers believe that the only reason to sign off on this agreement is the prospect of getting back a portion of the illegally held money currently held by the U.S. commerce department. They respectfully submit that this is just not a good enough reason to lock Canada into what is really a short term fix that not long from now will permit a renewal of U.S. protectionist measures. Developments since June have merely confirmed this judgment.

After all, although the deal calls for the return of 80% of the illegally taken remissions of Canadian companies, there are still no provisions in the agreement for much needed investment in the Canadian forest sector, even though we have seen a number of recent closures attributed to the lack of sufficient capital formation in Canada.

While many of the plants and their equipment in Canada remain starved for capital, our forest companies have continued to invest profits made in Canada in United States and overseas acquisitions, mergers or outside the sector. Notably, Canadian companies like Canfor, Abitibi, Ainsworth and Interfor have purchased mills in the United States. Steelworkers continue to have major concerns until we move forward.

To this end, there must be commitments that a generous portion of any remissions firms receive from a settlement of the lumber dispute will be reinvested in job creation, worker training and retraining and infrastructure and community adjustment in Canada, not outside Canada.

It is a bitter pill for workers and communities to swallow, for instance, when they learn that while the deal calls for $500 million in spending on such works in the United States, it calls for not one penny to be invested in Canada. How, they ask, can Canadian firms continue to invest in sawmills in South Carolina, Washington and Oregon, the OSB mills in Minnesota or plants in Maine while plants in this country continue to be closed due to lack of investment and capital? The Globe and Mail recently commented:

Underinvestment in the Eastern Canadian forest products industry has been chronic for so long that it would take billions to make the country's pulp and paper mills as modern as those in Scandinavia or South America.

The deal, however, with its abruptly short actual term of peace from U.S. trade actions, even provides the U.S. industry and the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports with a reward for sponsoring what have now been definitely shown to be illegal trade actions: a $500 million nest egg with which to finance future harassment, as early as two years from the time this deal goes into effect.

In short, by now it is clear that this agreement does not well serve Canadian interests, whether the interests are of our forest industry, forest sector workers, forest based communities, or Canadian citizens. It provides insufficient value to Canada while offering dangerous incentives to future U.S. trade actions. It does not represent a satisfactory resolution to the lumber trade dispute.

Steelworkers recommend the following course of action. Canada must renounce this agreement. The government and Canadian companies should continue with their legal actions. They urge Canadian companies to not agree to withdraw their legal challenges nor to agree to the payment of funds to the U.S. industry. The government should continue to support the legal actions required to erase fully all possible U.S. legal actions.

In short, the United Steelworkers of Canada urge Canadian companies and governments to set aside selfish interests and clearly stand up for Canada and Canadian interests. We must keep in mind the reality that Canada's forest sector is our leading industry and that it is a major source of jobs.

I have appreciated the opportunity to share the feelings of the United Steelworkers of Canada and to ask the government to rethink this whole deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber agreement has dragged on for years, for way too long.

[An hon. member]

Twenty-four years to be precise.

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

Twenty-four years. It is unbelievable, and the previous government could not seem to deal with it.

The lumber producing provinces across this country, including British Columbia, where the hon. member who is yapping back here is from, the industry, all the small loggers and the large loggers support this. Lumber producers from Quebec and from the east coast benefit big time, as do all the lumber producers in Ontario, or the bulk of them, and the ones from my riding.

I ask the hon. member, how many logging companies are in her riding and how many of those are in support of this agreement?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding as a member of Parliament is that we are here to represent all of the country and not simply to look at parochial interests in our own riding.

This is an industry that is important and needs our support. We could have had a deal a long time ago. We wanted a good deal. This one is not a good deal. It is not a good deal for Canadians.

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.

[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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his input on this important debate.

We have had several days of debate on this whole issue of softwood lumber, but what I have not heard from members is what I think is the real issue. The real issue is about trade. It is about trade under NAFTA. It is about the years that this country has spent to build up trade relationships under the various treaties we have.

I am very concerned about the whole issue of dispute settlement mechanisms. It appears that notwithstanding all this work that was done to establish the rules of the game, those rules have been set aside, through bullying tactics, to impose a deal on those who have no choice. I wonder if the member would care to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for raising this. As I referred to in my remarks, under our trade agreements we have a dispute settlement mechanism that we may as well not have. It is astounding.

The member talked people being forced off an issue, but when it is our own government that is forcing us off the issue, that is amazing. Our own Minister of International Trade is pushing at Canadian companies. It astounds me. Members might note that I am lost for words at times on this, because it flies in the face of everything that this House represents or that a minister should represent in this House.

As for our role, I will remind the Conservative members that they had as their campaign slogan “Stand up for Canada”. If this is the way the Minister of International Trade will stand up for Canada, God help us all.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to ask any questions this morning, but I think the member from the no democracy party has drifted off the ranks.

I would just like to bring to our minds the fact that Canadians know very well why the Liberals failed to reach this agreement. It was partly because there was no leadership on that side of the House and partly because they saw the phenomenal financial benefits of dragging out the litigation for another seven to 10 years.

In January, Canadians chose change. They chose a leader who actually brought together a deal that, frankly, represents the wishes and the needs of 90% of the lumber community in Canada. It helps save families' incomes. It allows us to move forward. One would arguably agree, in fact, that the better relationships this Prime Minister has been able to establish around the world have allowed us to bring this agreement together.

There is one thing I would like to ask the member to comment on, because of course he is telling us all these woeful things. I do remember back when NAFTA was brought in by another government with leadership, and our economy is extremely strong today as a direct result of that NAFTA agreement.

I just wondered if the member could comment. I am from Ontario. I remember the Rae days. It took a decade for Ontario to pull itself out of the economic bliss that Bob Rae as premier got us into, yet on the federal level we entered an economic boom as a result of a Conservative government with leadership.

I do not know whether the member wants to comment on that embarrassing period in the history of Canada, particularly Ontario, but maybe he wants to tell us why 90% of the lumber industry wants this agreement. The member has his head in the sand in thinking we should just go on forever with litigation. Maybe he wants to comment on that in some logical way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the member heard my previous logic.

On the situation in Ontario in 1990, the hon. member asked about the government of the day. As I recall, that was two years into the free trade agreement. The 500,000 lost Ontario jobs that I just spoke of took away funding from the tax base. We were in the worst recession in the history of our country at that time. That government ran three successive deficits of $10 billion, $9 billion and $8 billion to keep people employed and to keep the economy moving.

Would I have made the same choices? I do not know. I was not sitting around the cabinet table. Did I agree with the social contract? No, I did not agree with the social contract, end of story.

Getting back to the hon. member's point, he talked about how the previous government showed no leadership and all kinds of things around that particular file. I will remind you that you brought the Minister of International Trade--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I caution the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek that he should be speaking to the hon. member through the Chair, not using the second person. He did that a couple of times and I let it slide, but if he keeps doing it, I have to bring it to his attention.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the help. I am a new member in the House and your advice is always well received.

Again, all I can say is that in my view, in the view of my party and in the view of the critic in this area, this softwood deal is a major sellout. I stand by that.

[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.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing the comments of the member for Churchill. She spoke about the impact in her riding, particularly on smaller communities, individual families and workers. We do not hear very much about this. We have heard a lot from the government that the deal is supported by the industry. In actual fact, I believe we are looking at very large corporations with their backs to the wall.

As we learn more and more about the agreement, and as the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek pointed out earlier, it seems to be unravelling. I think there is more and more unease and concern of what the impact of this deal will really be.

I am from British Columbia. There is no doubt a huge impact on local communities as a result of this agreement. One of the things that really puzzles me is the agreement does not seem to be based on any industrial strategy, a strategy that looks at Canadian resources in a way that sustains our environment, protects jobs and produces value added products. There is still massive shipment of the export of raw logs in B.C. This deal will accelerate that problem.

Would the member comment on the job loss in her community and what kind of industrial strategy she thinks is required, instead of the softwood lumber agreement, that would actually provide stability to communities in Churchill, communities on the west coast of B.C. and other communities in Canada?

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is reflective of what is happening with smaller operations in my riding of Churchill. Certainly the concern is the immediate impacts that will be felt because of this deal.

One of the first things that happened was a night shift was lost. Because of the quota system, there is great fear that the agreement will have a serious impact. It has been made clear to the workers in the smaller mills that this is likely to happen.

What seems to be important is the government seemed anxious to strike a deal. Perhaps it was politically motivated and done in haste. I know it has been mentioned several times that there has been a long history surrounding the agreement, and there is. It represents years of hard work, efforts and challenges, which were won on behalf of Canadians. Many believed this would continue into the near future. It was the role of the previous Liberal government to support the industry so it could continue with those challenges.

Workers in my riding do not often talk about jobs lost, but it is a primary concern. They are talking about sovereignty issues and the future of our country. The workers feel the agreement is a clear sign that Canada is selling out and that our rights are sailing down the rivers and the lakes.

We need to support the industry. We need to look to incentives to help the industry develop in other areas.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on to the bill in front of us.

I have heard the debate over the previous number of days and have followed it in the press and throughout the time I have been in Parliament. I have tried to put it in the perspective of the north. We are mentioned in the bill because the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut get an exemption under the clauses.

In some ways that is a result of certain trade links we have with the state of Alaska. Certainly the United States does not mind taking care of its own. In terms of Alaska and the relationship of how it receives lumber from some of the north, the United States is very good about taking care of its own. That speaks volumes about the United States and suggests to me volumes about what Canada is about right now.

This agreement is about short term gain for long term pain. Let us look at it from a perspective of what the government is trying to accomplish. The government is very interested in moving toward a majority in Parliament the next time an election is called. It is very interested in appearing to be decisive and able to deal with issues. I think this has triggered the effort that has gone into selling out our industry. It is short term gain.

There will be short term gain in the industry as well, because the industry is starved for dollars and opportunities. We will get some investment dollars back in the short term. Companies will be able to hang on for a little longer and continue to work in the industry. However, we are in a North American market where housing has boomed for many years and now it is starting to die. When housing dies, the requirement for forest products die and the prices drop.

As the prices drop, the duties come in, so our industry will get the double whammy. Not only will we not have prices that are strong, but we will also have a duty imposed on us. That duty will drive us further into the ground. As time goes on, the industry will either shrink or the corporations will recognize that unprocessed raw logs will continue to cross the border duty-free. Their incentive, as the prices drop and as the duties come on, will be to relocate manufacturing and processing of wood into the United States. That is exactly what will happen with this deal.

Where will we be at the end of the day with our lumber industry? We will be in long term pain. That is what we will get from this deal. We will get a short term gain and long term pain.

Where is Canada going with this softwood lumber deal? It is larger than that, of course. Canada fundamentally is structurally altered with the free trade deal. Exports to the United States increased by 250%, and the U.S. now receives 87% of all Canadian exports.

As Canada becomes more dependent upon U.S. markets, trade within Canada and the rest of the world has decreased. The result of the free trade deal has led to dependency. We are in a dependent position to a country that has 10 times the economic clout that we do. We put ourselves in a position of a mouse and we have shortened the chain to the elephant. What kind of life is that when we are so close to that big foot?

I have noticed one thing in the softwood lumber deal. It is the interference of the deal in federal-provincial and provincial to provincial relationships. All of a sudden we have the United States demanding that we treat our internal politics differently.

We have deals for the Maritimes. The Americans have given it an exemption. We have different deals for Quebec. We have different deals across the country. Therefore, we have a foreign power now telling us how to run our internal affairs. That to me is once again an abrogation of Canada's sovereignty, the sovereignty for which all our forefathers fought hard and that this government seems to treat with a great deal of disdain.

The rights of Canadian citizens are being taken away in this deal. All of a sudden we have a deal that has numerous punitive clauses that go beyond most people's expectations when they go into business. Corporate directors are to be held liable for corporate debts due to the duties that are imposed under this deal, even for companies in bankruptcy.

Spouses and children are liable for the debts in the case of transferred properties. We are going to track them down to make sure they deliver this blood money over to the government.

Searches without warrants are authorized under clause 77 for records pertaining to payments and taxes. The authoritarian arm of the government will come down on these people who try to go away from this very special deal with the United States. Canada is basically giving up control of our country's resources to a foreign power.

When we think of it, this is a foreign power that is 10 times our size. When we focus on its finances and its manufacturing, the U.S. is a global power of immense and important distinction. What does Canada have in contrast? Canada is a country of 32 million people with a vast landscape of land and resources. Canada's strength is in what we do with those resources and how we position those resources for our children and our grandchildren.

When we sell out these resources, as we are doing here, we are doing irreparable harm to all those young children who want to grow up and live in their communities in regions of the country such as the northern and rural areas of Canada.

What are we doing? We are saying that this lumber is not for Canadians. We are saying that we will ship these logs down to the United States and these young Canadians can go and work in the cities. What we are doing here is giving up control.

I could talk about the energy deal that Canada signed under NAFTA but I will save that for another debate because there certainly should be a debate on our energy sector soon. If the government thinks that it can get away without talking about energy in this Parliament, without putting these things on the table, then it has another think coming when it comes to the NDP caucus.

Conservatives used to say that good fences make good neighbours. When they said that I liked Conservatives. I thought they were good guys. I thought they were there to protect us and take care of us. They have certainly fallen far away from that goal.

I have not had a chance to talk about the environment yet. To me the boreal forest of Canada is one of the last refuges of natural wilderness that we have in this country and it is being destroyed. What will this deal do to help that boreal forest? Zero. This agreement does not take the boreal forest into account at all. We are again abrogating our responsibilities to the environment. We are creating a situation, unlike northern Europe where they get 12 jobs for every one job that we get in the forest industry, Canada is going in the other direction with this deal. This is very sad.

I do not think I need to talk about jobs. We have heard it and we know what will happen. This is the deal that these people want for Canada.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Western Arctic said that this was short term gain and long term pain, and I fully agree with him. This is the trend that the government is setting right now. It has a bullying nature as well. It wants to rule by exclusion, not by including people, when we hear that only 10% of the people will be affected by this deal.

He also mentioned the children and the environment. We had child care agreements with the provinces but when the present government came in, with its bullying nature, it cancelled those. That is the trend it is setting. It is the same thing with the Kelowna agreement, which also affects a minority group. The Conservatives say that this not a group that will vote for us, so they take it away.

The hon. member talked about the environment and the Kyoto protocol. The government is setting a trend of ruling by bullying and by exclusion.

I would like to hear from the hon. member how this trend will affect Canadians in general.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I outlined my feelings on this particular deal. In a number of ways, we are seeing the problems we have with Kyoto. We have a problem in that we want the advancement of our oil and gas industry but it has gone without any environment regulation and without any planning gone into it to ensure it is working for Canadians and the goals of Canadians.

Right now my party is pushing very hard to see that tax subsidies are taken off some of these developments that, by and large, are serving our neighbours to the south. We need to stand up on this issue.

I feel confident that Canadians are listening to us when we talk about the issues. I am confident that at the next election, the bullies will get their due. If they do not stand up for Canadians soon, they will get their due.

With all the bullying they can do in the House of Commons, when it comes to bullying people into voting, it will not work.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Victoria is known to be the city of gardens, not the city of forests, but we will be impacted by this very bad deal. By giving up control over our resources, by signing an agreement that encourages the export of raw logs and by preventing and not encouraging value added industry, all the communities, even those that do not have forests, will be impacted.

In my riding there is a fine woodworking company that sells incredibly beautiful furniture around the world, and this is the kind of small business that will be impacted.

I wonder if my colleague, whose comments I appreciated, would speak to the issue of value added industry and the impact that this deal might have on those small businesses?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I will just speak to value added in terms of energy.

Right now, Sweden, Finland and many other countries are buying wood pellets from Canada and using them to produce clean energy in their own countries and yet we do not do this. We have a huge opportunity in Canada to develop the biomass energy industry and this could really help. The United States cannot stop us unless somewhere in this insidious deal the development of the biomass energy industry would be considered a subsidy to our people. I do not understand the deal well enough, but we are dealing with a powerful trade nation and it may have included some of those qualifications in the deal.

I certainly would like to understand the deal better because it is something that needs to be explored. However, the opportunities in the biomass energy field in this country are huge and we need to take advantage of them. They will work for Kyoto.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to hours of debate on this ways and means motion relating to the so-called softwood lumber dispute. I have heard some very eloquent speeches from members all across the House, particularly those who have softwood industries in their ridings. They talked about the implications for their constituents and those businesses. We have heard stories about people who have gone bankrupt and people who have enormous loans and do not know whether they will have a future in the industry.

Those are devastating circumstances, which is why we are here debating the issue. However, we need to consider that this is not simply a debate about softwood lumber. This is, more important, a debate about the state of free trade between Canada and other countries.

When I first came to Parliament back in 1980, we were talking about trade deals. I remember going through the Mulroney years where free trade was the mantra. That was the future. Significant debate was held about whether or not we should enter into bilateral trade deals. As members know, we now have a variety of deals and they have been good for Canada.

At that time, diplomatic and consul-type people were going back and forth to meeting after meeting, month after month, almost year after year. One of the items they talked about more than anything else was the dispute settlement mechanism. In other words, if there were a problem with a deal, would they be able to anticipate the substantive importance of it and the criteria under which they could deal with its resolution under a trade deal. We have not had a lot of discussion in the House on that but I think it is vital because this is not just about softwood. This is about softwood and every other trading relationship that we have. This is, in fact, an admission that the dispute settlement mechanism does not work.

Panel after panel of both NAFTA and the WTO have ruled that we are not subsidizing our softwood industry. During all the time the discussions were going on, we know that duties were being slapped on. I have heard a lot of numbers thrown around in the House but, just for ballpark purposes, we are talking about $5.4 billion of duties that have been withheld and charged to the industry.

We are also faced with the unusual situation of the trade minister in the current government, who is responsible for this file, having been the minister responsible for this file in the previous government. We have some continuity here but we need to look at what the trade minister said to Parliament, to Canadians and to the industry. What he was saying was that we would fight this thing. He said that we were right under the NAFTA panels and under the WTO panels. He said that we would fight for the rights that we negotiated as part of the NAFTA. That is the essence of what he said but he sold our softwood industry to the Americans.

The softwood industry believed the minister and said that it would fight with the minister even if it meant going into debt to fight it in court. The federal government then said that it would give the industry loan guarantees and that it would stand with the softwood industry shoulder to shoulder to fight the Americans.

What happened? The government brought the industry to the brink and then the minister said that he had changed his mind because it was taking a long time. He claimed that fighting this was costing a lot of money. He also said that he was getting a lot of pressure from softwood lumber companies asking how they were supposed to manage their lives and operate their business on loan guarantees. They wanted to bring this issue to a head.

What happened? Parliament was virtually hijacked one day with, eureka, we have a deal. But the deal was not to get our $5.4 billion back. It was something else. It was “We are not going to worry about what the WTO and NAFTA said about the dispute and about their decisions on whether or not we were subsidizing. We are going to abandon everything we have done, all the strategy that was carried through and pushed into, we are just going to abandon all of that”.

The government sat down with the U.S. and basically said, “Let's cut a deal. This is not a win-win. We don't want to spend any more money in the courts. We want to bring this to a head. There is $5.4 billion on the table. How about if we give you $4 billion and we will call it square?” That is what happened.

[An hon. member]

It is $4.5 billion, Paul.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will understand that if we are talking about the American document, it is in U.S. dollars, but if the member is telling me it is $4.5 billion in Canadian dollars converted, that is fine.

Basically, for argument's sake, there is $1 billion left on the table. That $1 billion is not going where one would think it would go. In fact half of it, half a billion dollars is actually going to the U.S. lumber industry lobbyists who are going to use that half a billion dollars to fight us any other time something comes up in the future. Does that not give them an advantage? The U.S. softwood lumber industry all of a sudden is going to have $500 million to fight future disagreements that may come up.

The balance of the money that they are not going to give us back is basically going to George Bush and he will be able to do with it whatever he wants. He probably is going to invest the money in Iraq.

Why is it that the minister who has been the continuity on this entire file would take the industry down a road that he was not prepared to fight to the finish? He was not prepared to stand up for the softwood industry from the beginning to the end. He bailed out. That is why we call it a softwood sellout.

I understand the industry has been shafted by the Conservative government, totally shafted. People in the industry are not getting all their money back and any money they get from this settlement is going to be turned over to the banks to repay the loans they had to take to go through this process that the minister sucked them into. That is what it turns out to be.

I have great sympathy for people in the softwood lumber industry. They cannot even count on the leadership of the government and particularly the minister to be with them. What did he do afterward? He came into the House and said, “Take the deal. If you don't take the deal, we are not with you any more”. It is like Allstate when someone has an accident, “Sorry, not with you any more”.

It led some in the industry into basic bankruptcy in many cases and now for the government to say, “We are not with you. If you decide to further pursue your legal options, do not even count on the Government of Canada to be by your side. Do not even count on the Government of Canada to be there to provide loan guarantees. As a matter of fact, we will look for other ways to make sure that your life is uncomfortable”.

When the Conservative Government of Canada threatens the softwood industry, all I can say is shame on the government, shame on the government.

This is an issue of trade. Trade issues will arise. Maybe we have to reaffirm our commitment to free trade agreements and to the support of dispute resolution mechanisms that we will not abandon so that we do not give false hope to any industry which is caught in the same regard.

This is a short term deal. It is not going to provide security or stability for the industry for the long term. It is less than 24 months. On top of that, what does it mean in the future? Who is going to respect NAFTA in the future if they know all they have to do is spend more money?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The hon. member's time has expired and just at the right moment. There will be time left for questions and comments, but we are now at the time for statements by members.

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.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Mississauga South had the floor. There were five minutes remaining in the time for questions and comments following the hon. member's remarks.

I therefore call for questions or comments. The hon. member for Windsor West.

[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?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the member that what has happened on the softwood deal, where we have a minister in the previous government being the same minister in the current government on one side he was fighting to the finish utilizing the NAFTA and WTO rulings as well as relying on the dispute resolution mechanism to help us to deal with these.

Now he has abandoned it totally and he has abandoned the industry. What is worse, now we have a situation where not only has he threatened those who have not signed on to the deal, he has also said that the government will make their lives uncomfortable. We have also found out that if others choose to pursue their legal rights, this may jeopardize the current deal.

Therefore, I would think that this whole softwood sell-out has been a boondoggle right from the beginning. The government should be ashamed of itself for not standing with the softwood industry rather than threatening it.

[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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also have some grave concerns about the impact on other trade arrangements. This has obviously not worked because the government has not supported the process.

However, I think it is even worse than that. We all know that the deal was not supported by the industry some time ago and all of a sudden there is a mysterious flip-flop to taking a cash settlement which left a billion dollars on the table to the benefit of the U.S. industry and to the U.S. government.

Could it be that the change of position has to do with the government's preponderance of decisions it is taking, which seem to be following an American policy rather than a Canadian policy, the republicanization of Canadian policy? Whether it be foreign or economic policy, there is a litany of examples. I think it is time the Conservative government was exposed to its beholdenness to George Bush.

[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.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I read in one of the papers that the EDC was asking the recipients of the duties that were held to have them signed over to the EDC as part of this deal. What does he make of this? Does he not feel, as do other Canadians, that there is something suspicious about this? The EDC wants the lumber people to sign over their receivables so that it can continue this process. Is there a hidden message there somewhere?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has asked the companies to put a gun to their head. Now it is asking them to load it. It is unacceptable.

The EDC does not support what should happen, and that is the facilitation of our trade. It is just another good example of the fact that there is no support for the industry. The strong-arm tactics of the government have been reprehensible. We are talking about a government that is supposed to be business friendly. To use these tactics is deplorable. It is not acceptable and it sends a bad message for other industries.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Windsor West for his historical comments. It is worth remembering what happened around the auto pact. Canada played by the rules and lost the auto pact as a result of that, and we saw the impact.

There are a lot of ironies in the softwood lumber agreement. Originally, the NDP did not support NAFTA, but we believe, since it is in place, that we should play by the rules. We would like to see that change, but those mechanisms exist for dispute resolution. Yet we have a softwood lumber agreement that is completely negating those rules.

Could the member for Windsor West elaborate on the impact on the loss of jobs? I know he is experiencing that with the auto sector in his community. Now we have a whole new chapter, the lumber industry, which is about to stamped on. Thousands more workers stand to lose their jobs as a result of a very bad agreement and the fact that Canada capitulated and allowed the agreement to go ahead.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver East brings up a very important point. At the end of the day, this is about jobs and communities. These jobs and communities are often very much dependent upon each other for success. We have seen this all over the country, where we witness towns and communities in crisis.

It is important to note that the government still has yet to come forward with a sectorial strategy on anything. The previous administration talked about it for the auto, aerospace and textiles industries, but never did anything. Now the current government, with this deal, is saying that if the U.S. does not want to play by the rules, Canada is going to agree. It is not going to play by the rules. By not doing so, there will be injurious effects to the industry and the communities. There is no sectorial strategy. Why is there no strategy for the communities that will be affected? Why is there no plan to help?

The very least the government could do is set a sectorial strategy for the industry to help those who will be punished by its bad decision. Instead, the government is saying that this is the deal, live with it and it will move on. It may be good for the government, but it is bad for others. That is not acceptable.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is some fine print with regard to the deal, particularly with regard to those softwood lumber producers who still wish to pursue their legal right, their recourse through the courts. It appears there is a possibility that they may in fact scuttle the deal. This is a question that has not been answered directly by the government.

Why do we proceed to debate the ways and means motion, which may not be relevant if the reports are true? Maybe the government should be called upon to explain what the delay is in the payments and whether there is any basis to the allegations that producers, who wish to pursue their legal rights, may kill the deal.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it exactly right. It is a significant problem and it perplexes me as to why the government would want to pursue it in such a hostile fashion.

I think it is part of a larger agenda to get some political points, whether it this one, or dismantling the Wheat Board, or attacking the auto and shipbuilding industries by coming forward with a creative free trade deal. All those things are thrown up in the air to confuse the public and to move forward for the government's own political agenda. At the same time, it is not dealing with the outright facts. It is not even answering a simple question. Is this all for not because the courts are going to decide?

[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.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed very much listening to the comments from the member for Vancouver East. She was very eloquent in presenting the facts.

Throughout the exchanges and agreements and potential signings, people keep sticking to the figure of $5 billion. We have been talking about this for eight or nine months. If an individual had $5 billion in the bank, would there not be interest accruing? It seems that the figure is stuck at $5 billion. As I understand it, it is $5 billion of Canadian money that is supposedly being held somewhere in trust. I do not think it is being held in a closet or in a drawer. It is somewhere accruing interest. Does the member have any knowledge on that?

Next, it is my understanding that the companies in Canada that choose not to sign onto this deal will be penalized by the government with a levy of 19%. I would like her to comment on that.

In closing, it is a bit unfair in terms of her comment about the Liberal side. I think the nation out there knows as people follow this debate that we have been fighting this deal vigorously because we believe it is unfair for Canadian industry, for Canadian products and for Canada as a country.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the Liberals changed their minds in committee, especially after what has happened today in terms of the debate being cut off. I would hope that the Liberal members might reconsider their position about how important it is to have hearings in those three centres across the country. There are lots of people who need to be heard and want to be heard.

In terms of his questions, the issue of the $5 billion has been raised time and time again. In any other business accounting practice, interest would be a part of the financial reconciliation at the end of the day, but somehow this has gotten lost in the shuffle. It is not just a question of $5 billion and the fact that $1 billion is being left in the U.S. It is also a matter of the interest not being calculated.

In terms of the 19% levy, which is in effect a double taxation, a punitive taxation on those companies that do not sign on, this just seems to be the most alarming precedent, that the government produces an agreement and then basically aims a shotgun at companies and tells them that if they do not sign on they are going to face an extra levy. That is fundamentally undemocratic by any perspective and it is one more reason that we should not allow this deal to go ahead.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the situation has changed quite remarkably with this deal over the last few days, in that the government has now postponed it again for 30 days.

To my mind the postponement would give the government, which claims it has all kinds of support for this deal, a great opportunity to go out across the land and conduct public hearings in three locations to actually hear what Canadians think about it. We could hold off on this vote until the government went out there to prove its case and show the public across the country that the government has support for this deal, that the supporters are willing to stand up in public hearings and express their support and give parliamentarians direction.

Does my hon. colleague feel that this would be a great opportunity for the government to prove its case?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is entirely right. It really begs the question of why the government is so intent on rushing this deal through by what it did today and in not allowing hearings. I think the Conservatives are in a bit of a spin. They are no doubt worried that the momentum they thought they had is not moving forward and is actually falling apart. Now we see a delay until, I believe it is November 1 and there may be further delays beyond that.

It would be very good for the government to stand the test and hear from Canadians. What is it afraid of? Why is it not willing to hear from people in some of the key affected communities? If the government thinks this agreement is so good, it should listen to what people have to say. There is nothing that says time would not allow that to be done.

We ask the government and other parties to reconsider this idea and support the need to have hearings in those affected communities.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has sold out the Canadian softwood industry with this deal. We are voting down the deal because it is a bad deal.

From the start we said that free trade agreements would not work. I remember the long discussions in the mid-1980s. We said that NAFTA would be problematic. At that time we were told to have faith, the trade agreement would work and that Canadian companies would definitely benefit from the deal.

What has happened subsequently is that in my area of Trinity—Spadina, a great number of garment factories have closed their doors. A large number of immigrant women lost their jobs and their livelihoods because of the free trade agreement. In the mid-1980s there was a lot of discussion. We put forward many arguments about what would happen to some of the industries. We were told that there would be some losers and some winners and that we would see the results.

In Trinity—Spadina thousands and thousands of jobs were gone and a lot of factories and entire areas were emptied out. Fortunately, we were able to bring in other industries, software and many others, to help rebuild that whole area. Definitely, the garment industry in downtown Toronto has been almost entirely eliminated. I think the same is true in parts of Montreal. On top of that, right now in the garment industry there are home workers, people who take work into their homes and get very, very low pay. All of this is because of free trade.

At that time we also said that the free trade agreement would not necessarily work because of chapter 11 as big companies could sue different levels of government.

A few years ago the small town of Hudson, Quebec decided to ban pesticides. Some companies said that was not fair, and under the free trade agreement and under chapter 11, the town of Hudson was sued, but thanks to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and many others, the town won at the end of the day. As a result, different municipalities are now able to ban pesticides if they wish to do so.

We were told that the industry would benefit, but look at what is happening. In the softwood deal the whole dispute settlement mechanism will be thrown out. We were told to rely on the courts, that the courts would protect us. Actually they will not any more. This agreement is destroying the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism by agreeing to give hundreds of millions of dollars to the Bush administration and the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports. The message is clear. We will pay the Americans to bully us. The Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports is the main opponent of the Canadian softwood lumber industry. We are rewarding the coalition with hard-earned Canadian cash for harassing Canada, for harassing Canadian companies, for harassing Canadian workers.

I want to quote what is being said about it. One of the columnists in the Toronto Star said that thanks to this deal, we can stop pretending we have a free trade agreement with the U.S. and move on. That is what this deal is all about.

In the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal, which by the way is in an area where a large number of jobs are going to be gone or are gone already, it said:

How much longer is Canada going to let itself be kicked around by a handful of powerful U.S. senators doing the bidding of their lumber baron constituents to ignore NAFTA's repeated rulings against them? How much longer is George W. Bush going to condone this betrayal of America's best friend? And how much longer is Stephen Harper going to stand for it?

We found that the Prime Minister said not that long ago in 2005, I know I should not have read out his name. I apologize.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Reference was made to a member in the House, specifically the Prime Minister by his name. I believe that the rules state that members of the House should be referred to by either their title as ministers in the cabinet or by their riding names.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I would ask the member for Trinity—Spadina to not refer to the Prime Minister by name in future.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker. Yes, I admit it. I read that quote and I realize that was the case. I extend my apology. It will not happen again.

Let me read another quote of the Prime Minister from 2005. At that time we were told:

If the U.S. industry is able to pressure the government not to return duties when it has lost its last NAFTA appeal, it will not matter if most other trade is dispute free. If the rules are simply ignored, then the very basis of a rules-based system is threatened and the future of all Canada-U.S. trading relations could be profoundly affected.

We know that because of this deal, if it passes in the House, Canada's future U.S. trading relations will be affected negatively. We are looking at probably steel and wheat. All kinds of deals and trading relationships are going to be negatively impacted because of this deal.

It is also a clear example of how the current government is foregoing the interests of Canadians to appease our big neighbour to the south. All Canadians and all Canadian companies want their interests to be championed by the Canadian government, a government that was elected to look out for the best interests of the people.

Unfortunately, the softwood lumber industry has been given the short end of the stick by the government. The softwood lumber industry is not being subsidized by the Canadian government nor is it being protected from the onslaught of American companies in coalitions.

We know this deal is going to be bad for jobs. In many ways it is going to be terrible. We at the the time said to thousands of workers who lost their livelihoods over the past five years that there would be a light at the end of the tunnel because we kept winning these various disputes. At the end of the day, when we win all of the various court cases and there is one last one, the $5 billion will be returned to the companies. The companies will then be able to invest in their industry. Then the Canadian workers would be able to benefit. We said to them, “Let's just keep going”.

Unfortunately, this agreement is very unfair to individuals and their families who still work in the softwood lumber industry because there will be continuing instability and unpredictability within the Canadian softwood lumber industry. There will be less money to reinvest in the companies to upgrade and there is no money to streamline and no incentive to do so.

It will probably also mean more sellouts to raw log exports and the industry will be harmed because of it. We will be noticing that there will be restructuring of the softwood lumber industry because there will be a lack of a competitive edge with American competitors and that is why there will be a problem of jobs lost. With limited flexibility in the softwood lumber industry through quotas and taxes, it will make it difficult for the industry to plan its business and be competitive.

It is also going to be a problem for big cities because we will end up, especially Americans, having higher prices in terms of building homes.

That is why we are going to be voting against this very bad deal. It is bad for workers and bad for the industry.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member for Trinity—Spadina is, why can she and her party not support this agreement?

This is an agreement that has the support of all major softwood lumber producing provinces. The province of British Columbia is lending its support to this agreement. The province of Ontario is lending its support to this agreement. The province of Quebec is lending its support to this agreement. In addition, this agreement has the support of a vast majority of companies in the industry. An overwhelming majority of companies in the industry support this agreement.

How can she not support this agreement when the three major lumber producing provinces and the vast majority of companies in the industry support it? How on earth can she stand in her place in the House and not support an agreement that has the support, both from the provinces and the companies in the industry?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. It is called $1 billion. It is called Canadian cash. It is Canadian sovereignty. If we were to support this deal, it would mean handing over Canadian cash of $1 billion to the U.S. The only people who are happy with this deal are the Americans who know they are walking away with this money after they have bullied us for many years. They will use this money to continue their attack on our industry.

Since this agreement was first announced, 112 Canadian companies have filed lawsuits against the Canadian and U.S. governments in reference to preserving the integrity of chapter 19 and securing the refund of 100% of the duties illegally collected by the U.S. treasury. The fact that there are that many Canadian companies filing lawsuits tells me that many Canadian companies are not happy with this deal.

The $1 billion being left behind is, in my mind, the result of trade crime and every penny of it should be returned to hard-working Canadian taxpayers.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the member for Trinity—Spadina said. She talked about a lot of things aside from the lumber trade deal but she also said that trade deals will not work. She generalized it and I think it was a bit of an unfair statement to make as we would not have had the prosperity we have enjoyed in the last 10 or 12 years, the longest uninterrupted economic growth in the history of our country.

Is she suggesting that we do nothing? Today our trade surpluses have grown and, as a result, created over three million jobs. She talked about lost jobs in the last five years. Canada has been growing in terms of jobs.

She talked about the garment and textile industry. As the former chair of the international trade committee, I remember people coming before the committee who knew that this industry was going through changes, for example, in supporting the LDCs that I know the member is not aware of. They learned to adapt and we learned to be more competitive and change our methods.

I will close with this question. Is she simply saying that we should not have international trade agreements, that we become an esoteric country and not deal with anybody? What is she really saying?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying precisely is that the dispute settlement mechanism is gone. Under the agreement we have this mechanism and we keep winning it. We win it in the courts and yet this deal is going to set a precedent.

Yes, we do need trade, but it has to be fair trade. It is not just about free trade. There is nothing free about this when we lose $1 billion. There is nothing free about it when Canadian companies are being harassed by American coalitions. What is so free about it when we have no rights left?

The fact is that trade with the U.S. is not the only route. We should start focusing and spending a lot more energy and effort in looking at trade with China and India, which we are doing somewhat, but nowhere near enough in terms of encouraging small businesses, for example, to connect and find ways to trade with other countries.

I was talking about the dispute settlement mechanism and the fact that we keep winning in the courts. Yet, we are signing a deal that will end up leaving $1 billion on the table.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Are there any other members who wish to be heard on this same point of order? The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House and the member that the motion has already been adopted, so she is trying to deal with something after the fact. She is not in a position to do so. I would refer her to Standing Order 56.1(b) which essentially says it should be used for the management of the House's business and the arrangements of its proceedings

Those arguments were made in the House already and it is unfortunate that the member is bringing it up at this time. I would remind her that we have not cut off debate in any sense of the word. In fact, the member and each member of her party is entitled to continue to debate the full time that is allocated to them. So the suggestion that somehow we have cut off debate on this very important subject is not correct.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Any further interventions on this same point of order?

Hearing none, I would like to advise the House and particularly the hon. member for Vancouver East that the Chair will take this point of order under advisement. The Chair is already aware of previous controversies which have existed about the use of this particular procedure and at some point the Speaker will get back to the House on this point of order.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to have a few moments to put my thoughts on the record on this important piece of business before the House.

I represent a constituency in northern Ontario that is very dependent on forestry for its economy. It is important that all of us who represent ridings from this important part of our wonderful country speak clearly, concisely and passionately about subjects that have impacts on us. In northern Ontario, we have an economy that is very exposed and fragile. Government decisions such as this one throw an element of instability into a market that is already unstable because of the vagaries of that market to begin with.

We in northern Ontario--and I use the word “we” in light of the fact that I have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the forestry coalition in northern Ontario and with members of municipal governments across northern Ontario--will feel the impacts of this agreement. These representatives speak to me and to our caucus and members of the Liberal and Conservative caucuses very clearly about the impact of this agreement on them. They speak about the reality as it exists right now in northern Ontario where forestry is concerned. It is “the perfect storm“, as they say, of which this agreement is an important part.

In northern Ontario, we need government to be in partnership with us. As has been done over the years, we need government to work with communities in the north to bring some stability to that part of the country. Without that stability, without those communities and without those partnerships, a very important element of the Canadian economy, the resource sector, the forest industry, will be damaged. In my estimation, that damage will be irrevocable. That is what I have heard very eloquently from concerned community leaders and the industry itself in northern Ontario.

They have said that we had come to terms with the free trade agreement. We were not crazy about it when it was first introduced and passed in the House, but in looking at it, and being as we are in that part of country, resilient people who come up against challenges every day because of the geography, the weather and sometimes the isolation that we experience, we came to terms with the agreement. We brought to the table the best minds we could find and were able to take advantage of it to develop a sector of the economy that was, for the most part, robust and exciting. It provided jobs and supported communities. It contributed to the overall good times that we have had over the last 10 to 15 years as far as the economy is concerned in this country.

However, we have gone to court time and time again with the Americans because they kept fighting back and trying to take advantage of loopholes. They brought grievances to the table that were really non-existent according to the framework of the free trade agreement. The industry and communities and others spent hard-earned scarce dollars to carry out those legal proceedings. In each instance, Canada won the battles.

Yet here we are now with the Conservative government of the day willing to roll over, play dead and be a patsy for the Americans. In a very real and important way, this will have negative implications for the forestry industry in northern Ontario. It sends the wrong message.

As members know, Canada relates with the American economy in some very direct and immediate ways on a daily basis. In almost every sector of our economy, the U.S. is our major trading partner. What if we find ourselves now and in the future having to roll over when any sector in American industry stands up and feels that it is being harmed in some way by our good work, our ingenuity and ability to create product, ship it across the border and sell it at a competitive rate to communities and individuals in that jurisdiction? What if the industry that we are competing with down there can simply stand up, take us to court and play us out over time so that we spend all our money trying to defend ourselves?

Then, when the government of the day, the Canadian government elected by the people of Canada, in partnership with the American government and that industry, simply says it is wrong and it will fix it with a new agreement that does not reflect or respect the legality or even the spirit of the free trade agreement that was in place, or the vehicles that were in the agreement to resolve disputes, what trust do we have or can we have in any agreement that we will enter into with that country down the road?

I can imagine all kinds of scenarios where that in fact will be the reality. More than anything else, we need stability in the economy of northern Ontario. We need to know what the rules are. We need to know, when we invest our money, work hard and do those things required of us to be competitive in the world we are moving into and the global economy in which we now operate, that we will be successful, that we will be able to provide jobs, sell our product and keep our communities not only viable but vital in the world that is ahead of us.

The agreement that we are debating today and have debated over the last couple of weeks, this agreement that the government has capitulated on, that the Liberals have said that they will vote against but really did nothing with when they were in government for 13 years, will have a devastating effect in northern Ontario for that industry sector.

Over the years government has understood that it needed to be at the table, that it needed to be a partner and that it needed to come with some real tools into areas like northern Ontario if we were going to stabilize our resource based economy.

Mr. Speaker, you know, coming from Manitoba, and I know, coming from northern Ontario and having been a member at Queen's Park for 13 years, that the resource sector has been almost totally ignored for about 10 or 15 years. The capital barons of the world, particularly the U.S. capitalists with all the money, have been turning to the very new-fashioned and attractive high tech industry. They forgot about the backbone, the bread and butter, the meat and potatoes of the Canadian economy, which has been there since the beginning of time and will continue to be there and be our staple. They forgot about that and allowed the powers and the winds of the market to batter us to and fro to the point where now we are in difficulty and in some instances in desperate shape.

Governments of different stripes over the years have known and understood that. In Ontario, we have had Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats. Manitoba has had New Democrats. Here in this place we have had Liberals and Conservatives. They knew they needed to be there in a more meaningful way, not just capitulating and turning over whenever the Americans got upset with us. They knew they needed to have vehicles like FedNor and the provincial ministry of northern development and mines. They knew they needed to be present in those communities and working with us.

The bill we have before us today is a slap in the face. It turns its back on and walks away from that very important resource sector economy, the forestry sector, which is reeling in northern Ontario today. I dare say that if we go forward with this, we will, all of us, in one way or another, reap the negative consequence.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the last two New Democratic Party speakers on this issue. Their failure to be informed on the issue is quite astounding.

The member who just spoke talked about the deal as though it is something that is not supported by the industry. That is false. In fact, it is supported by the industry wholeheartedly. It is a good deal for Canada. It is a good deal for the forestry industry. It is something that has been lacking in this country for a long time now. Instead of standing up and speaking against the deal, the NDP should be congratulating this government for arriving at a deal.

The NDP members talked about a billion dollars going to the Americans to be used by their industry to fight the Canadian industry. I would like to correct them on that. The meritorious initiative is $450 million, almost half of that billion dollars, and that fund is being controlled by a non-profit organization to carry out acts that are going to help. When we look at who is involved in that organization, we see that in fact it will give opportunities to the Canadian lumber industry to sell lumber. There will be opportunity for Canadians to be involved in those initiatives in many ways. It is not money going to the American government at all. That has been mis-portrayed.

In terms of the dispute settlement mechanism, which was mentioned by one of the previous members--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. There are only five minutes for questions and comments. There were a number of people rising. The member has used up almost two minutes, so I am going to have to recognize the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping there might actually be a question in that diatribe we just heard.

This is an important sector in northern Ontario. This is an important piece of business by this government that is going to very directly affect every last community in northern Ontario. For the member to stand up and simply make personal attacks on my ability to speak on behalf of those communities leaves me feeling somewhat disappointed about the seriousness with which this government takes this very important issue.

There is one issue, though, that the member raised and that I would like to briefly respond to. The softwood industry was bullied into supporting the deal. The Canadian industry witnesses appearing at parliamentary hearings have confirmed that the Conservative government coerced the softwood industry into accepting a flawed deal. This bullying forced the cash-strapped softwood industry to capitulate just a few months away from winning the final legal battle against the American tariffs.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. During the last election, the leader of the NDP said to the nation, “Look what we got you. Lend us your votes”.

As for the member who spoke so passionately about his riding of Sault Ste. Marie and northern Ontario, where the sector really has an impact, I want to ask this member something, because the member for Vancouver East said, “We were that close. We were that close”. If we were that close, I ask that member and the entire New Democratic Party, why did they then prematurely defeat the government of the day when we were that close to making a deal?

Today I think that party has betrayed the nation as much as the government has.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we were that close in a legal process that actually should not have involved politics and this government. If the government had left the industry alone to work out its concerns through the legal process that was available to them through NAFTA, yes, we would have had a different deal.

Obviously, it sounds as though the Liberals still have not learned a lesson from that election. That election was about corruption and a culture of entitlement that the Liberal government seemed to have no difficulty with, and obviously it still has not backed away and turned its back on that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be rising today on this bill because it speaks to the economic part of my region of northern Ontario. I will be glad to speak to the subamendment to a bill which in essence, and we need to really put this in context, is probably one of the most venal and pusillanimous pieces of legislation ever brought before the House of Commons because of what is at stake here. We are being asked in Parliament to put a gun to the head of our own industry to support this government's desire to act in a predatory fashion against not just the forestry industry which is a leading industry in this country, but against the communities of our area.

I have spent much of the past few years meeting with the laid off forestry workers in Kapuskasing, Smooth Rock Falls, Opasatika, Béarn, Timiskaming, people who have seen their livelihoods go down the drain because of an ongoing punitive disagreement with our number one trading partner.

Throughout that period when the former Liberal government was in power, we were asking for a commitment that the federal government would be there alongside our industry. We were asking for loan guarantees. We were asking to see them through the final periods of legal decisions that were being brought down because we were in the final stages of those legal decisions. We did not get that support from the former Liberal government.

In fact the message that was delivered was very clear to communities like Smooth Rock Falls, Red Rock and Ignace. The message was, “Your communities are being cut adrift from the social economy of this country. You are on your own. When it comes to standing up for the interests of the resource dependent communities of the north, you are on your own.”

That message was amplified a thousand times when our friend the floor crosser brought with him a quick and dirty deal on softwood. Let us be really clear what is behind the push to get this deal signed now.

We are looking at a government that is interested in a short shelf life so that it can return to the voters with a couple of photo ops and a few boxes ticked off on its list of deliverables. One of those deliverables will be the sellout of our forestry industry.

During a radio debate I had with the health minister, he said, “We managed to get this deal signed in seven months. That is unprecedented”. Certainly, if they roll over and play dead they can sign anything in a short period of time. That is what has happened.

Let us just talk about the overall deal before we get into some of the more disturbing aspects of it.

We have $1 billion of our producers' money that is going to the United States. Of that, nearly half is going to our direct competitors to be used against us and to retool their communities, whereas our communities are being left with nothing. Our present government will give $1.5 billion a year in oil and gas subsidies to the tar sands in Alberta. It has given nothing to our forestry communities and yet we have $500 million being sent to our competitors.

Ask the Canadian companies that are reinvesting where they are reinvesting. They are reinvesting south of the border. We are seeing that with companies from my own riding that were formed in northern Ontario, that received most of their support year after year from northern Ontario are now reinvesting south of the border because that is where the investments will be made.

Parliament is being asked to deliver money to our competitors. What do we get from that? Do we get a seven year deal? No. Do we get a five year deal? No. Do we get a three year deal? No. We get a bare 18 months. And our competitors in the U.S. can take this money and come back after us at any point. They have already declared that they are going to do that. This past week the U.S. lumber lobby said that they are coming after us with all guns blazing. They made that clear.

[An hon. member]

Without the deal.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

With the deal or without the deal.

Instead, do we have a free trade agreement? No. Do we have a fair trade agreement? No. We have a very limited market in which we are now expected to compete. If the market in the U.S. drops to any degree, and with the present housing starts it looks like the market is going down, we will be facing even higher tariffs.

What did we give up for that? We are being asked to give up the legal victories that we built up over the years. The present Prime Minister is not being honest with the Canadian public if he expects us to believe that we would have had seven more years of legal wrangling, that we had to get a deal in place in order to get some peace. The fact is we were within our final two appeals. Once we were at that point, there was no turning back.

Why has the forestry industry not capitulated at this point? The government has had a gun to their heads, yet some of them are still holding out because they know that if they give up on these legal rights that they won in court, then they have nothing.

These are the overall facts of the case, but it is important now to really speak about the new level the government has gone to in terms of its puzzling attitude toward our forestry industry. It is not enough that the Conservatives sat down and signed over everything that we had on our side to get a quick deal. With Conservatives I guess we expect them to do that. We have a long history of Conservatives selling out the national interests, so that would not be a surprise. What is surprising here is that they are acting in a predatory fashion against our own companies. This is unprecedented. Let us look at some of the clauses.

Instead of the 10% softwood duty, we are now being asked as Parliament to impose a 15% duty on our own companies. That is supposed to be a deal. On top of that, we are now looking at a government that is adding an extra punitive charge against companies that are still standing up for their own interests. We are being asked as parliamentarians to go after financially the companies that are not buckling under to the government's deal.

That is an unprecedented situation. I do not think we could see in history any other example of a government coming before Parliament and saying that it wanted to punish, to financially attack, our own industry, and this is after a period of major economic crisis. That we are being asked as parliamentarians to target our own industry is a puzzling betrayal.

Clause 10 imposes the 15% export duty as soon as the deal is signed. That is a double taxation above and beyond the existing anti-dumping countervailing duties.

Clause 18 imposes a special punitive tax that is designed to go after the companies that are standing up. If this special tax is in place, companies will be paying 37%. That is not the U.S. fair lumber lobby wanting to bring this in, it is our own Conservative government to force compliance.

Again we have to put this in perspective. We know of the financial drain that has been put on our industries because of the softwood crisis. What the government is saying is that if those companies stand up to the government, they will be facing financial ruin. Because of the limited margins that are left within our Canadian bank accounts for forestry, we are going to have our own government going after them.

On top of that, clause 48 would require a six year burden of record keeping on these companies.

Clause 77 states that the government does not even need a warrant to enter softwood businesses to ensure that our own companies are complying. We have our own government acting against the interests of our industry.

Clause 89 gives the government the right to demand a blank cheque from any of these companies to pay up immediately. A Canadian forestry company that is trying to stand up for its best interests and has not knuckled under to the government's deal, what kind of success is it going to have when it is renegotiating its loans at the bank, when the banks know that their own Government of Canada can come in, check the books and go after them?

The Conservatives pushed this deal. I can understand that. Some of the Liberal members from northern Ontario are supporting this deal. I cannot understand that, in particular in regions where our industry is facing such a severe crisis. What astounds me is that members of the Bloc Québécois are supporting this deal. That is the party that stood in this House and denied motions to get pesticide bans across Canada because it might interfere with Quebec. That is the party that has undermined child care plans for the rest of Canada because it somehow might interfere with the jurisdiction in Quebec. Yet when we look at a bill that would allow the United States government to set forestry policy within Quebec, that is okay. When we look at a bill that allows the federal government to target Quebec companies and go into their businesses and check on their compliance and charge them if they are not going along, that is perfectly fine for the Bloc.

This world seems as if it is turned upside down. We are being asked in Parliament to turn against our own industries and our own communities. This is an unacceptable situation. We need to have it on the record that this deal is one of the most venal and pusillanimous arrangements ever brought before Parliament. On behalf of the forestry, softwood, pulp workers in northern Ontario, I will never support a deal as craven as this one.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the NDP member say that the Bloc Québécois is really in favour of this bill. I would like to say to the member opposite that he, himself, often whines and complains about pretty much anything, but when it comes time to vote, he votes in favour. So why does he say one thing and then do the opposite? I think that what someone says is one thing and what I understand is another.

Quebeckers support the softwood lumber deal. Obviously, backs to the wall and a gun to their heads, they have no choice but to accept the agreement. And people wonder if we support it. They are asking us to vote to get them out of this mess, to give them some air so they can survive.

That is what the Bloc Québécois is doing. If the members opposite fail to understand this, that is their problem, but they had better not expect us to go along on their bandwagon to places we do not want to go.

I have a question for the member opposite. The president of the FTQ, Mr. Massé, is concerned that in the wake of this agreement, the Americans will take control of all forestry companies in Quebec and elsewhere.

Does the member believe that acceptance of this agreement may lead the American forest industry to buy us out?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I live in the Timiskaming region on the Ontario side and I see the effects of forestry cutbacks, the same as I see in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. What I hear from our producers is that this is a bad deal. This is a deal that has been forced on us by government. If we allow this precedent to go ahead, our forestry industry will be in a much poorer situation two years, three years, five years down the road.

The principle that our provincial forestry policies can be challenged by the United States government is an unacceptable intrusion into the sovereignty of our provinces. We as New Democrats will continue to stand against that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the member's comments and have found a lot of misinformation in what he has had to say.

I would like to ask why he has chosen to recognize that this dispute really has gone on for the past 24 years. He has also chosen to ignore the testimony that has been placed in front of the committee throughout the summer. The committee sat all summer and heard from witnesses on softwood lumber. We were told clearly from the very beginning with respect to NAFTA that the United States did not want to include softwood lumber within NAFTA. In fact there was a memorandum of understanding where it was carved out. That is the reason we see the United States not accepting the results and why we are not able to reach a settlement.

I will agree with him that the industry is in a really bad state of affairs. It is as a result of the neglect of the previous Liberal government. For 13 years it was not only unable to get a deal on the table, but it actually did nothing for the industry.

My question for the hon. NDP member is, if he is so concerned about softwood lumber, when his party was negotiating the Liberal-NDP budget, why did it not say a word about softwood lumber then? The NDP could have asked for anything it wanted at that point and it never asked for anything for the softwood lumber industry.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for a big wind-up and I am somewhat underwhelmed by the response.

The question, I find, is absurd. We need to be focusing on the fact that the government came in with the express position of getting a quick and dirty deal that could be signed. When industry saw this deal, and I talked to people in the industry across this country, they said that this is a bad deal. The government said to them, “Well, too bad. We are not going to negotiate anything better”. That is unprecedented.

If I were the assistant to the secretary, I would leave the room in shame as well. It is a shameful deal the Conservatives have pulled on us. It has to be articulated in the House that the Conservatives went back to our own industries and told them, “We will not stand up for you. We will not fight for you. Take this deal or leave it”. When industries still refused, they came back with the 19% tax on our own companies. That is predatory.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The question is on the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those in favour of the subamendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Call in the members.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the vote be deferred until the end of government orders tomorrow.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The opposition whip has asked that the division be postponed until the end of government orders tomorrow and, accordingly, this is what will happen.

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.

[The Acting Speaker, 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.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona is rising on a point of order. I will recognize the hon. member in this unusual circumstance.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is an occupational hazard of being a little guy and hard to notice, but I was rising with my party to vote for the subamendment and my vote was not recorded. I want to be recorded as having voted in favour of the subamendment.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member was rising for whatever reason to vote and his vote will be counted as requested. As unusual as it is for the Chair to recognize a point of order before the announcement of a voting result, and I do not regard this as a binding precedent, I felt in the circumstances, since the Deputy Speaker was unable to be seen to be voting, we missed out despite his diminished size.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #37

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

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.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to represent the New Democratic Party and the people of Timmins—James Bay who are very dependent on forestry products and the forestry industry for the economic viability of our region. I am pleased to be speaking on their behalf on this bill.

The House of Commons is somewhat like a surreal theatre because we have on any given day, on any given number of bills, 300 people in the House, half of whom act like Chicken Little, that the sky is falling, and the other half who say life has never been better.

Then, of course, we accuse each other of all sorts of calamity, and perfidious behaviour, that if the bill is allowed to go through it will undermine the very future fabric of our country.

With that being said, there are occasions when a bill is brought before the House that does have profound implications, it must be challenged. In terms of this bill and what it is proposing to do, it has sold out the rights of our resource industry. On top of that, the predatory nature that the government is imposing toward our softwood producers who are not knuckling down, and the pressure that the House is being asked to bring to bear upon our own industry is certainly one of the more egregious examples I would think in our nation's history of a government acting against the interests of its own people.

Being from a Scottish background I would think of what my grandmother would say now. She would talk about Such A Parcel Of Rogues In A Nation:

What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
We're bought and sold for English gold-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

There is a fundamental difference between the parcel of rogues who sold out Scotland and the parcel of rogues that are selling out our resource industry right now. At least the chieftains who sold out their own people in Scotland got some money for it.

We are being asked in Parliament to pay money, so that we can sell ourselves out. I think that is an unprecedented situation. We are seeing that the communities I represent no longer matter to the government. They are being written off the political and economic map of Canada, communities such as Smooth Rock Falls; Kenogami; New Liskeard, where they have lost jobs; Red Rock; and Ignace.

They are being told to fend for themselves because when industry came back to the government after the deal was presented, it said the deal was bad and that it could not go forward with it.

What did the government tell our own industry? It said, too bad, sign it because the government would sign it regardless. When the industry did not buckle down, the government came forward with a number of clauses that I will get to in a moment where we are actually going after the economic viability of any company that has the guts to stand up to this venal sellout of our resource industry.

What did we get out of this deal? We are giving $1 billion to our competitors, $500 million that will be used against us in the competing communities and against the coalitions that have been actively pursuing these wasteful legal actions against us. There is not a cent being put into any forestry community in the country suffering from job losses as a result of this battle.

Instead of the 10% softwood deal, we are being asked by Parliament to impose a 15% tariff on our own producers in order to win peace with the Americans.

Instead of fair trade and open trade, we are now being given a crippled market, a market with a narrow window for our own producers to work within. If the market goes south at any point, more restrictive tariffs will be imposed.

What kind of investments are softwood producers going to be willing to make in Canada because they cannot ramp up the market? It will become a static market. There will be no incentive for a company to invest in Canada under this deal.

In fact, we are seeing that the companies that are investing, that have plants in Canada, are investing south of the border. I could name numerous Canadian companies that are already setting up down in Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina because it is a better climate for them down there. Perhaps they will be making use of the $500 million that was taken out of Canadian companies and sent down to our Canadian operations in the U.S.

What kind of peace did we get out of this deal? Would we have sold a billion dollars of our producers' money to get a seven year deal of peace? Perhaps. For five years? It would have been iffy. For three years? We have a bare 18 months, and the escape clause for the Americans is that they can terminate it anytime they feel that we are not playing by the rules, and guess what? Within the last week, we have the U.S. lumber interests already saying that they are gearing up to come after us with full guns blazing. No wonder they are getting ready to gear up. They have $500 million of our money to come back after us once this deal is signed.

Those are the well known facts, but less well known. This is what needs to be heard outside this House and it needs to be heard in every resource community across this country, particularly the clauses the government is bringing to attack our own industry, and to feed on our own industry. The political version of the pine beetle is what we see with this Conservative Party.

Clause 10 will call on Parliament to impose a 15% tax on our own producers who are using fair and open trade. We will be imposing a tax on them.

Clause 18 is the real kicker clause. The government is going to impose a special tax on companies that do not knuckle under and give up their legal rights. I ask this House, has there ever been another case where a government has imposed a tariff on its own producers to punish them for not bending down and kissing the ring of the trade minister on this deal? Now we are looking at tariffs upward of 37% being applied against our own companies in order to force agreement on this bill.

Clause 48 would require a six year burden of record-keeping for these companies. This is another administrative burden that the government is imposing on our own producers.

Clause 77 states that the government does not even need a warrant to enter the premises of our softwood producers.

Clause 89 gives a blank cheque to the minister to demand payment from these companies at any time. I need to put this in perspective because our producers are suffering from a major financial crisis at this moment. The government knows this. The government knows that many of the stalwarts of the softwood industry are on very weak financial legs.

What chance would any of these companies, that are wishing to maintain their legal rights, have of going to the bank to renegotiate overextended loans when the government is asking this House to impose measures that will demand money from those producers? We are applying a 37% tariff against our own companies. We can go in and check their books. The government can audit them, can go after them, and can take money from them.

What producers will be able to secure financing from the banks through this period? Yet, that being said, they still have not buckled under to this deal, have they? We still know that industries are saying that even if they are on their last legs, this deal is a bad deal because it is a bad deal for the long term viability for the resource industry of Canada.

The other aspect of this deal in terms of a venal sellout of our national interests is that we are allowing the U.S. lumber coalitions to set and to have a say on our own domestic provincial policies in terms of forestry management.

Once again I return to the notion of the rogues that sold out this nation. At this point I really feel it is incumbent upon me to speak to our friends from the Bloc Québécois. Here is a party that stood up in this House and opposed a national plan for pesticides because it would interfere with the rights of Quebec. Here is a party that opposed a national child care plan because it did not want any intervention at all in the rights of Quebec. Here is a party, when we had our debate on an Alzheimer's national strategy, that said it would not support to any degree a national Alzheimer's strategy because it interferes with the rights of Quebec.

Yet, this is a party that stands up in this House with its kissing cousins, the Conservatives, and says that it will allow the United States government to set forestry policy in Quebec. It will allow the Conservative Government of Canada to come into Quebec to check and ensure that its producers are complying.

That is the level of interference that the Bloc Québécois members are sitting back and allowing. It is fascinating. It is unprecedented that they, along with the government, are selling out the long term interests of our resource sector and our provinces' ability to set resource policy in this country.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to ask a question, but I feel compelled to with the extremely effective and accurate case that the member has put forward, and I compliment him on that.

The position has been put forward by the government that the only other course which has been recommended by the government and which the member has criticized, and effectively as I said, is a continuation of the legal process that would not benefit the industry. The government members have laid out chapter and verse how they feel that a lack of benefit would result.

It was my recollection that while we had won in every international forum set up through the WTO our cases with respect to the softwood lumber issue, that the government was still on the tangent with respect to the bill.

It was also my recollection that one of the opportunities we had was to pursue this through the American courts to seek justice which had been given but denied in terms of the course that the government has decided to take.

I would like to ask the member this question. In view of the fact that there is this huge paradox that he has indicated, not only for the industry and sections of the industry but with the position taken by the Bloc Québécois, what other course, given what the government's rationale is, would he have suggested that the House should take?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing this out. It is a very interesting question because we were looking at the final stages, the final two legal hurdles. We have won in every court dispute. We have the legal precedents behind us.

Our Prime Minister said we were looking at seven more years of litigation. That is not true. With the Tembec case, we were subject to one final appeal. In the extraordinary challenge committee judgment that would have come out in August, we would have been in a position where we would be winning the final last two non-appealable judgments. They were going in our favour. That is why industries are still not signing on because they are being asked to give up those legal precedents.

The question is, why not wait? Why not allow our industry to secure those legal judgments? I would submit to the House that what we are seeing here is once again an exercise by a government that is more interested in cheap slogans and photo ops. It is preparing to bring the House down perhaps this spring than actually securing the long term interests of our industry and our resource dependent communities.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his insightful analysis of an issue that has not had sufficient analysis or time. I would like his comments on the consultation process.

We hear from people who are producers and certainly people who are working in the field that they were not listened to or talked to. In fact, we asked the government to provide a list of who it consulted. It is in a locked box and there is no key to that box. Obviously, we are having to go by the terms “just trust us”.

Many people have been concerned about the process and I would like to get my colleagues comments on the process of consultation for this sellout.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the consultation process was very clear. This is a government that said to the United States, “Look, we want a quick and dirty deal. What do we have to do?” and the United States said, “Here, sign this”. That was the end of consultation.

We asked the industry, where were they? They were not at the table. We have talked to representatives of industry. Representatives of industry have phoned us. We have met with them. They said again and again, “We went to this government and we said this deal is a bad deal”.

They were all over the media saying that this was a bad deal. Not only has the deal not improved since industry first spoke up, but the deal has become worse in the meantime. There was no consultation because the government was not interested in the long term interests of the resource sector.

The government will give $1.5 billion a year in subsidies to the Alberta oil and gas industry, but we have had community after community right across this country go down. They were begging for loan guarantees and support to see them through. They were starved of support. There are communities like Ignace, Red Rock, Kenora, Opasatika, Béarn and Malartic that have gone down, and the government has sat back and watched them go down.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we often hear from the Conservatives that the industry and the local communities support this deal. The reality is that some of them have said they are going to support the deal because the Conservatives have said they will not support the industry if the deal is not signed. How could the forestry industry in Canada possibly continue this countervailing duty fight without the support and encouragement of the federal government? It just would not work. U.S. producers are bankrolled extremely well and the precedent has already been set.

We have to help the industry. That is why our party has said we would reject the deal. It is contrary to NAFTA. We would provide some bridge financing, some support to the industry, some loan guarantees. That would not be countervailable because we have won at every single panel.

This is not about subsidies. Anyone who thinks this is about subsidies is not dealing with reality. This is about protecting inefficient U.S. producers. They are not as efficient as Canadian sawmills. In terms of total factor productivity, they are about 40% less productive.

Most of the forestry land in the United States is private land. As soon as U.S. producers launch countervailing duty claims, the private lands are revalued upward because the U.S. has a protectionist policy in place. Who wins? Shareholders of big companies like Georgia-Pacific, International Paper, Boise Cascade and all those companies, they win. Do homeowners, homebuyers and developers in the United States win? Of course not, because the price of a house goes up by about $1,000 to $1,500 a year. Who else wins? We know who else wins. Lobbyists and lawyers in the United States are big winners because this is a big gravy train for them.

The deal perpetuates the lie that Canada's softwood lumber industry is subsidized. That argument has been defeated many times by objective panels, which have had U.S. representatives sitting on them. This is a sweetheart deal between the Conservative government and the Bush administration. If we scratch the surface, we find that it is not such a great sweetheart deal for Canada, but it is a sweetheart deal for the United States.

We have debated in this House to a great extent on why this is not a good deal, so I will not get into all the specifics today. I want to branch out into a different line of attack.

The president of the United States had the opportunity to reject the appeal that came to him in the White House, the extraordinary appeal, when the panel said it wanted another appeal. The authority to reject that appeal was in the hands of the president of the United States. He could have ended this countervailing duty case. It would have meant that the $5.3 billion would have come back to Canadian producers and the countervailing duty action would have ended. What did he do? He said no. He said to do a deal but that he still had to give U.S. producers their ability to appeal, even though panels consistently said there was no subsidy.

The United States has said our timber is underpriced. What the Americans are really saying is that we do not have a full auctioning system in Canada because most of our forest land is crown forest land. There is some private land, but most of it is crown forest land. A lot of the forest land in the United States is private land, so the private timber is auctioned.

However, what has happened in the United States? I think we should pay some attention to this. Maybe timber in the United States is overpriced. I will tell the House why that is the case. I know this to be a fact.

In the Pacific northwest in particular, there has been speculative pricing. People are bidding forward in terms of forward pricing. Twenty years hence, they will have to harvest this timber and in many cases they have found it is not economically sound to do so. The U.S. Forest Service also puts a lot of timber up for auction. When companies deliver on their auction price, the economics do not work and the U.S. government lets them off the hook on their auction price. Is that an auction system? I do not think so.

The U.S. Forest Service also provides huge amounts of subsidies for road building and other aspects of forestry in the United States. Does that ever come into the equation? Of course not.

As well, what about the subsidies at the state and local levels? I worked in the forest industry, and I can tell members that in Tennessee, Arkansas and Georgia if anyone tries to put up an OSB mill, a lumber mill or a pulp mill, the state governments and the local governments will be there writing cheques like we would not believe.

Does that come up in the debate? No, because the process is skewed. All we can do is try to defend our system. In our system, because of a public policy preference in Canada, most of our forestry is on crown land. We have a very good and very efficient system.

If we move to more of an auction system in Canada, the presumption is that it will push up delivered wood costs in Canada. I submit to the House that this is not going to happen. In fact, it could end up being exactly the reverse, and that by putting more timber up for auction, the delivered wood costs will go down. What would be the case then?

If the U.S. producers were sincere about their concern about our delivered wood costs, which of course they are not because they are only concerned about protecting their inefficient sawmills, if the Americans were really interested, that would be a concern to them. If we move to more of an auction timber system, then delivered wood costs to the sawmills will go down.

Why would that happen? I know there are some mills in British Columbia that have a mix of what are called small woodlot operators and crown timber. In their mix of timber, a lot of the wood they get on the auction system is cheaper than the price of the timber they are getting from the crown land.

As for this panacea, first of all, this is philosophical in nature. Because the United States has mostly non-crown forest land, then that must be the best system, so we in Canada have to go to auction timber. I would contend that this is robbing us of our sovereignty in terms of Canadian public policy.

We have the anti-circumvention clause within this so-called softwood lumber deal, which not only will attack moves by our federal government or the provinces to lay out good, sound forest policy in Canada, but also will rob us of our sovereignty. It fails to recognize that we have a different approach to things here in Canada. Why should we submit to the U.S. approach and policy when it comes to the way it deals with its forest companies?

This deal is not really a deal. It perpetuates the lie that Canadian softwood lumber is subsidized. We know for a fact that is not the case. It basically says to us that if we do not have an approach to forest policy that is similar to or the equivalent of what is done in the United States, then we must be wrong and the U.S. must be right.

I am a great believer in the power of the market. A market tells us a lot in terms of what is economically viable and what makes sense. But to have a functioning market, there has to be a fair market, a free flowing market, with knowledgeable buyers and sellers, and the market has to stick with the agreed upon prices.

As I said earlier, we have instances in the United States on auction timber, because there is this frenzy of speculative pricing into the future, where the pricing becomes disassociated with the economics. There is the case of the U.S. Forest Service, which has let some of these companies off the hook downstream in terms of their bid price. Is that what we would call an auction system? I do not think so. In an auction system there is a bid and, come hell or high water, we are stuck with that bid. It is not functioning like that in the United States.

In the U.S. Pacific northwest, we have seen the impact of the environmentalists. The famous spotted owl has taken huge swaths and tracts of commercial forestry land out of production. Is that the right environmental approach or not? I am not here to debate that. What I am saying is that it has taken huge amounts of productive forest land out of contention and that has resulted in a huge amount of speculative pricing, pricing that I would contend prices their timber erroneously high. Then our system ends up pricing timber in a fashion that is consistent with our values, our culture and the way we go about forest policy in Canada.

This deal is a total affront to Canadian sovereignty and our ability to set our own course here in Canada. For that reason, this deal should be rejected completely. We should provide the industry the support it needs to fight this countervailing duty right to the bitter end, because we have won and we will continue to win.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke has a considerable amount of experience through his former role as parliamentary secretary to the finance minister. I think we can see from his comments and those of the previous speaker that there is concern expressed on two counts. The first is the punitive nature with respect to the application of this agreement on our own softwood lumber industry. The second is the question of precedents, whereby there is no evidence and no adherence to the rule of law with respect to international treaty obligations. On those two counts, our future would be imperilled inasmuch as a great deal of our trade of course is through the WTO and NAFTA.

In view of those two inferences which come from this particular agreement, in particular the one with respect to precedents that would affect future agreements in a wider spectrum of industry, I would like to ask the member how he sees this agreement in terms of that precedent, and whether he can see on the horizon other implications for other industries in other parts of our economic sectors.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question from my colleague from York South--Weston. This is fundamentally one of the major problems with this deal. We have consistently, through objective panels, won the argument that Canadian softwood lumber is not subsidized. Through independent panels that consist of people from the United States, people who are experts in their fields, we have consistently won that battle.

If we have to negotiate in a case where we have been winning every appeal under the NAFTA panels, what does that say for other sectors? I know that the steel industry is concerned. I know that other sectors are concerned. They say they believe they have strong cases as well, but there are very few cases that could be as strong as that of softwood lumber. We have won consistently at every single panel.

I am sure there must be some people in the United States who are now thinking, well, my goodness, if Canada is going to negotiate around softwood lumber where the panels have consistently said there is no subsidy, that gives us a good opportunity, so why do we not take on Canada as well? It sets a horrible precedent. In principle, it argues totally against the notion of NAFTA, free and fair trade, which the U.S. signed on to, we signed on to and the Mexicans signed on to. This is a horrible precedent.

We know this has nothing to do with subsidy. We know that as soon as Canada starts to take more than 30% of the market share of softwood lumber in the U.S. market, the U.S. producers belly up to the bar, bankroll a huge fund and say they are going to launch a countervailing duty action. They know that puts the Canadian industry into disarray because it takes a lot of money and effort to fight these countervailing duty cases.

This is a horrible precedent. I think we should fight it and we should provide support in the communities and the industry. If we are going to fight this, we have to give them the tools to fight it. Many of their balance sheets are not in great shape, so we have to provide the financial support to fight this to the bitter end. We will win it. We have won and we will do so again.

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

Mr. Speaker, many ridings across the country have experienced economic impacts from the softwood lumber dispute, but the changes in my riding have been particularly acute.

New Westminster, Coquitlam and Port Moody were once part of the engine of the forest industry in British Columbia, with many mills and ports collecting the harvests of B.C. and sending products out through the Fraser River and on to the Pacific. The quay in New Westminster used to bustle with lumber traffic, but no longer.

Several large lumber mills have closed over the past decade, such as the Fraser Mills plant of International Forest Products Limited, formerly owned by Fletcher Challenge, and the plywood plant at Fraser Mills, which was closed in November 1990. The Flavelle Cedar Division of Weldwood of Canada Ltd. in Port Moody also closed, and Interfor closed its remaining manufacturing facility at Fraser Mills in September 2005. The only lumber mill still running is the smaller Flavelle mill in Port Moody.

I was in the House of Commons when the last Conservative government signed the free trade agreement. It is clear that the Canadian people were sold a bill of goods about the benefits of that agreement.

Mechanisms were supposed to be in place that would stop punitive trade actions of the past. Dispute resolutions and harmonization of trade, we were told, would be the result.

However, this softwood sellout lays bare the results of the FTA and NAFTA. It seems the Americans never intended to play by the rules. Once the going got tough, the Bush administration has found a willing partner in the Conservative government for the sellout of our softwood lumber industry.

This deal is based on a falsehood that Canadian softwood lumber industries are subsidized. This falsehood was exposed and rejected in each and every NAFTA and U.S. commercial court ruling. Each and every ruling has sided with the Canadian industry. Despite unequivocal dispute settlement decisions and trade court rulings, the U.S. will not play by the rules, and the Conservative government has capitulated.

The Conservative government is allowing the U.S. to abandon the rules when it does not like the results. Canada won major legal battles under the North American Free Trade Agreement and U.S. commercial courts, and Canada was just a few months away from winning the final two legal cases which would have voided the dispute and refunded every cent of the $5.3 billion in illegal levies.

Incredibly, now, we are leaving a billion dollars on the table. The deal gives $500 million in funds, owed to the Canadian softwood industry, to the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, which will no doubt continue to hammer away at our industry.

The sellout sets a bad precedent not only for softwood lumber but for other industrial sectors in Canada. This deal opens the door to U.S. attacks on every Canadian industry the U.S. now wants to target. The remaining industries in British Columbia may now come under further attack because of this unravelling of NAFTA.

The softwood lumber agreement will further downsize the Canadian softwood industry and there will be huge impacts on softwood communities in British Columbia and on workers throughout British Columbia and Canada.

Mill & Timber Products Ltd., which now owns the Flavelle cedar sawmill in Port Moody, is opposed to this deal. It has a long history in our community, but has suffered because of the aggressive and illegal actions of the U.S. softwood lobby.

It seems the only companies that are in favour of this softwood sellout are the ones that are headquartered in the U.S. We know this deal is bad for smaller and older companies, but it is supported by the multinationals. We know that thousands of jobs have been lost in smaller communities throughout British Columbia and other parts of Canada.

What does this deal say about the direction in which our country is going?

Many Canadians have said to me that they feel our country slipping through their fingers. Whether it is on foreign policy, which is quickly becoming a branch plant of the White House, or weakening sovereignty at our borders and our coastlines, Canadians know the government is moving us in the wrong direction.

It is entirely possible, once the money is given to the Americans, that they will decide to unilaterally suspend the deal and we will be back again at square one. Communities and industries will have gone through a huge struggle, and for what? The stability that our industry needs will only come when the court victories we have won are enforced and the Americans begin to play by the rules to which they agreed. We are certainly not going to achieve that result by wimping out and backing down.

We know this deal is wrong because it sells out our industry. We know its wrong because it sells out our communities. It sells out thousands of working families in British Columbia and Canada. We know its wrong because it sets a precedent that allows our largest trading partner to ignore trade agreements and all agreements it has signed with us.

The government will now have to stop any pretense that we have a free trade agreement with the U.S. It is just not there. It is a very sad day for Canada. It is a sad day for our working families, which rely on the lumber industry to feed their families. It is a very sad day for those small communities in British Columbia and across Canada that will feel the very negative impact that the government has achieved by selling out Canadian interest in the softwood deal.

[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.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Joliette.

With regard to the delay in the agreement for another month, thus postponing its implementation to November 1, and given the consequences of not having loan guarantees, is there an indication of the number of companies in Quebec that run the risk of going bankrupt or closing their doors?

[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.

[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, 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—

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Statements by members. The hon. member for Crowfoot.

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, 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.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's dissertation and I share his concern about other industrial sectors across Canada being undermined by the government if we see the template for softwood being utilized.

What strikes me about this agreement was the necessity for haste. The fact is that the government wanted a quick and dirty deal with the photo op, the handshake and a political slogan at the end of the day. It needed it within the timeframe of what it thought would probably be a very short Parliament.

The long term interests of the entire country were put on the table. I will have to ask my colleague a question in terms of his experience with the auto sector. From what I know of the forestry sector, if a community like Red Rock looses its mill, what future is there in that community? It would be gone. It is the same with Ignace, Smooth Rock and Terrace Bay, the communities that have suffered. Their long term viability was put on the table and sold down the river and there are no alternatives.

I wonder if he has looked at the implications for this template of industrial relations with our biggest partner, which is simply to roll over and play dead anytime our biggest trading partner calls us from the Waco, Texas ranch and lays down the orders. Is he concerned about how this will play out in terms of the auto sector and other industries within our country?

[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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in what my colleague had to say pointing to what seems to be a worrisome trend. When we talk about the softwood lumber sellout, it is in the context of this broader pattern that seems to typify the Conservative government to date.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is driven by the ideology of the government. It has nothing to do with good, sound business practice; it is all about ideology. It is not fair trade. It is free trade, but it is not fair trade.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin where my colleague left off. It is fraught with hazards and pitfalls when we have a government that is driven by ideology more than reason and logic or a business case or some economic policy. If it is pure ideological zeal, the government is bound to make mistakes and it is bound to stumble into places it does not want to go.

I take my colleague's point that we are seeing a very worrisome pattern develop. In the first few months of this new Conservative government, we are seeing a trend of deep integration of not only foreign policy, defence and national security, but also this worrisome idea that we are expected to undermine, destroy and shred any competitive advantage that we might enjoy in any industry. For some reason, we are obligated to do away with any competitive advantage we might enjoy by virtue of the quality of our product, by virtue of our geography, or by virtue of the fact that we are blessed with certain natural resources. We are not allowed to enjoy that competitive advantage; we have to harmonize with the United States and give the Americans equal access even if it defies reason, logic, business sense, credibility, intelligence, or fair markets.

This is the irritating worrisome trend. The softwood sellout is perhaps the most graphic recent illustration that leads us to say this.

It worried me when The Vancouver Sun published the details of a leaked letter that the Bush administration sent to the U.S. lumber lobby. In it the American administration confirmed the objective of this deal was to hobble the Canadian industry for at least seven years. That was the stated objective published in The Vancouver Sun, a right-wing newspaper. Do not take it from me; this is not some pinko paranoia; this is common knowledge.

The second worrisome thing is that fully $450 million of the $1.3 billion in illegal duties will go to grease the re-election wheels of the protectionist Republican administration. Canada's timber industry will be forced to subsidize the ongoing illicit attack on itself.

I have never heard of anything like that. It borders on what I would call economic treason to fund our opponents, to fund the enemies of Canadian industry so that they can more effectively hobble us, hog-tie us and drag us down the hole that they are in, all of this with the explicit consent of the Canadian government, in fact driven by the Canadian government. The U.S. lumber industry has no better friend than the new Conservative Government of Canada, that much is clear. And there is more.

This softwood lumber deal is trade managed of, by and for the American lumber lobby, and get this. Here is the most mystifying thing. I do not know how the Bloc Québécois can hold its nose and support this deal. A supposedly sovereign nation has signed on to this unprecedented clause requiring provinces to first vet any changes in forestry policy through Washington, not through Ottawa but through Washington.

Those guys in the Bloc are sovereignists. Those guys supposedly can grasp the idea of a sovereign nation and the integrity and the freedom to chart their own course that that entails, but this deal, for the first time in history, obligates Canadian provinces to vet any changes in forestry policy, such as increasing cutting, reducing cutting, even stumpage and duty fees, with Washington.

People wonder why we are upset. Some of us are horrified. This is where it borders on economic treason. I hope they negotiated better than 30 pieces of silver for signing on to this. I hope they got 40, 50 or 60 pieces of silver. I hope they got a wheelbarrow full of dough for this sellout because that is how appalling it is.

We cannot talk about this softwood sellout in isolation because it is directly and integrally connected to another trade irritant. If this is a graphic illustration of the new Conservative government doing the dirty work of the American government and the American softwood lumber industry, there is another more graphic illustration before us. That is this mad crusade of the Conservative government to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, in spite of the overwhelming empirical evidence that a majority of Canadian farmers support the Wheat Board and that farm income is better off across the board because of the single desk Canadian Wheat Board.

There were 11 separate trade challenges by the American government against the Canadian Wheat Board and we won every one of them because we are right and the Americans are wrong. North Dakota farmers are asking if they can sell their wheat through our single desk because we get a better price. The dual marketing system being proposed by these guys on behalf of the American government so that they can handicap and cripple the Canadian grain industry, the single desk idea versus the dual desk idea, everyone who knows anything about the marketing of wheat knows that the dual desk idea is the demise of the Wheat Board; the voluntary Canadian Wheat Board is a dead, bankrupt Canadian Wheat Board.

Why? I will explain it in one simple sentence. If the initial offering price is higher than the market, there will be all kinds of deliveries but it will have to be sold at a loss. If the initial offering price is lower than the outside market, then there will not be any deliveries. There it is in a nutshell.

That is why dual marketing is not going to work. That is why the Conservatives, through some ideological zeal, are deliberately trying to dismantle the Wheat Board in spite of reason, logic, the business case, all the empirical evidence. Let us hope they are aware of the collateral damage they are going to cause to the port of Churchill, the port of Thunder Bay and the port of Prince Rupert because that Canadian grain is going to be shipped south and mixed with American grain and we will lose the identity of our superior product.

The reason we get better prices is that our product is superior. The world wants good Canadian grain. They do not want it mixed with the secondary quality grain and marketed that way.

We are here to serve notice that the Conservatives are in for the fight of their lives if they intend to dismantle our Canadian Wheat Board without a fight. I tell them they are in for it. We are gearing up steam and the Canadian prairie farmer will win this fight and the new Conservative government will lose. I guarantee it.

It is a pattern that Margaret Atwood spoke to when she said that a beaver bites off its testicles when it is threatened. If this is true, then the beaver is certainly an apt symbol, if not for Canada then certainly for a succession of governments which, when faced with the ceaseless bullying of the Americans, carve off big chunks of the Canadian identity and offer it to their attacker. What kind of bargaining stance is that? That is not even a bargaining strategy. It is a disgrace.

I do not know who the government sends down there to bargain on our behalf but they come back with a pretty poor package. I have done some negotiating in my life as leader of the carpenters union. I would be ashamed of myself if that were the best I could do with all the resources the Government of Canada has to send down a bargaining team. It is like trading in the family cow for three beans, none of which actually sprout.

In this worrisome trend to do the Americans' dirty work, the government is forgetting one thing. It is forgetting that by statute it cannot dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board without a plebiscite, without a free vote of the member farmers. That is what the government is trying to sidestep, basic democratic protections that were built into the statute because they knew the enemies of the Wheat Board are legion and they are not going to go away.

The Conservatives and the Americans hate the Canadian Wheat Board, just like they hate public auto insurance, just like they hate medicare, just like they hate any collective action that might cooperatively advance its members. They are ideologically opposed to the little guys coming together and in unity gaining strength so they can protect themselves. It is anathema to Conservatives and to Americans. They are attacking a common sense solution.

Let us look back to the 1930s, before the Canadian Wheat Board, when some poor farmers were at the mercy of the robber barons, the grain barons. That is why--

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Before the member gets back to the Regina manifesto, it is my understanding that we are here on the softwood lumber agreement, on an ill-advised amendment by the Liberal Party, and yet the hon. member is going on about the Wheat Board.

I just ask the hon. member to please direct his comments to the issue at hand.

[The Acting Speaker, Ken Epp]

Thank you for that point of order. I think it is well taken. The hon. member from Winnipeg will have to really hurry to get back to the point of the bill because he only has 40 seconds left.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to connect the two into a pattern.

I will end with a simple quote to illustrate how Canada's timber industry is now forced to subsidize an illicit attack on itself. It is an article in the Globe and Mail quoting a senior government official warning that opponents should prepare themselves for the consequences of rejecting it.

In other words, suggesting that if anybody rejects this the government will no longer help them in their court challenges. It will no longer defend the Canadian industry. It is a matter of take it or leave it. That is the kind of bullying tactics that have been raised by members on our side before, which is why we resent this deal. We condemn the government for failing to protect the interests of Canadians by agreeing to this deal. We condemn the Bloc Québécois for its 30 pieces of silver deal to support this thing. I hope it received a pretty good package for it because it sure sold out its own sovereign interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed by the logic or illogic of the New Democrat Party.

First, the hon. member, instead of talking about the softwood lumber agreement, went on at length about the Wheat Board. What surprises me about that is why the hon. member does not want western farmers to have the same freedom of marketing that we have in Ontario. I cannot justify that. I am an Ontario member of Parliament and I cannot justify not giving the same freedom to western farmers as farmers have in Ontario. There is no reason for that whatsoever. I am surprised he is not doing that.

With respect to the softwood lumber agreement, these are the facts. We have two countries that have come to an agreement on this, and it is not just Canada and the United States. I know the NDP members do not like the United States and they do not like to have anything to do with the United States. Nonetheless, it is our major trading partner and trade relationships between the two countries are very important to Canadians.

The two countries have agreed to the deal but we need to look at who else has agreed to it: the three largest provinces in this country which do not have Conservative governments. There are Liberal governments in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The three largest provinces with a softwood lumber industry all support this deal and the industry itself overwhelmingly supports it. Of course they support it in Atlantic Canada, they received an exemption.

Why is it that the NDP members think they are the only ones right and everybody else is wrong? Have they not figured out that this is what has to be done?

The hon. member said that he was a negotiator with the union. He must know, even if his colleagues do not understand, that every time an agreement gets made there has to be give and take on both sides. It cannot be all on one side, everything for everybody and nothing on the other side, because that is not how agreements are made. The hon. member should know that if he has been in negotiations. I appreciate that most of his colleagues have never had to make an agreement, but he should point out to them that there has to be that give and take.

Why does the NDP stand alone against everyone else on this great deal for Canada?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out the inexplicable bargaining stance that Canada adopted when it set out to negotiate this deal. I will show members its bargaining stance because I know a bit about negotiating.

The Conservatives' bargaining stance was on their knees. They were saying, “Please, please, leave us with our dignity. Leave us with something intact, please”. That was their bargaining stance. I am embarrassed as a Canadian that they came back with such a lousy package.

With what little time he has allowed me to keep, I would like to point out that we inexplicably threw away victories that were pending in the courts, not just in the free trade agreement panels but in the U.S. Court of International Trade. On April 7, it ruled that U.S. duties on Canadian softwood were illegal, just about the time those guys were down there rolling over, giving up and on their knees saying, “Well, we won the ruling, but we'll accept your last offer anyway”.

They announced publicly in the House of Commons the deadline by which they had to accept the deal. What kind of a negotiating strategy is that? Are they crazy?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr.Speaker, what we have is a court decision that these tariffs were illegal and this government comes into this House and asks the members of Parliament to stand and vote on a new tariff to replace an illegal tariff that would add even more to that tariff. The government then puts in a predatory clause to go after the companies that continue to stand up for their legal rights and collect even more tariffs.

As well, we are being asked as members of Parliament to support the fact that the government has given away provincial resource rights to the United States.

As well, it has brought in clauses that would allow the government to go after individual companies for the finances if they stand up.

Has the member ever seen a deal that is so bad? Not only did the government sell us out but it is acting in a predatory fashion against our own companies?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The amazing thing, Mr. Speaker, is this is the second time a Conservative government has sold us out on this deal. In 1986 the GATT, the World Trade Organization's predecessor, issued a preliminary finding in Canada's favour on the legality of U.S. lumber duties, but the prime minister of the day, Brian Mulroney, chucked that out. He was so eager to sign the free trade agreement he threw that ruling out and aborted the appeal.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with some concern about our sovereignty, not just on this deal but many other issues and files. Many people have talked about the softwood lumber industry only affecting the hinterland, but Bytown was built and formed on the lumber industry. I hate to think what my ancestors might be thinking if they were to see this deal. They would see we have sold our sovereignty down the river. We used to have a country, but we have sold it.

We have won every time we have challenged the Americans and they have challenged us. The government is using accusations of Liberal lawyers, which is tantamount to selling out by way of fighting. I do not understand the logic when we have won at every trade deal dispute panel.

Another was NAFTA. There were aspects of that agreement with which we disagreed, but the most contentious and hardest fought part was the dispute settlement mechanism. If this deal goes through, we will be saying it is worth nothing, nada, rien. What we have shown by our acquiescence is that we do not have the fight in us any more. The dispute settlement mechanism and all the pieces in the trade agreement, with which the NDP had large problems, even the little pieces that would allow us to exert our sovereignty, are gone. They are blowing in the prairie wind. We need to take a look at this deal in light of that. We need support for our communities.

I was recently in Thunder Bay and I spoke to the people. I did not speak only to people who were supportive of the New Democratic Party. I spoke to mayors and councillors and to people living in the communities as well. These people basically were giving away their homes. They asked why the government was not there for them. They see the government giving $500 million to the other side to sharpen the guillotine. They see us putting our necks on the line. They are shocked, appalled and very angry. They hear the government say, on one hand, that it will stand up for Canada. On the other hand, they see it go to Washington and sell us out.

Canadians do not need members standing in this place saying that they are standing up for Canada. Canadians need another voice. They need to hear that we are here for their communities, that we are here to ensure that the people who built the country, communities and places like Ottawa and Gatineau will be honoured and that we will not sell them out. With this deal, we are selling out our ancestors. We are selling out the whole idea of what it was to have a sovereign country.

Let us talk about some of the problems in this deal. I will not have time to go over all of them because there are too many.

The deal is based on the falsehood that the Canadian softwood lumber industry is subsidized, and we fought that in court. That was the argument of the Americans. That was thrown out not only from our side but from the American side as well. What does the government do? It basically says that the Americans are right, that we are subsidizing our industry. What is even worse it is giving the Americans money to fight us again.

The agenda is to take away our management system, which ensures we have a sustainable industry, unlike that in the United States where there is no sustainable industry. We are going to integrate our management system with theirs. That is the agenda, let us be real about this. That is the elephant in the room. The Americans would like us to adopt their management practices. Then we can take the whole industry, move it south and forget about having an independent voice vis-à-vis softwood lumber.

This deal gives away the $500 million. It provides $450 million in funds to Washington, which will turn around and use those funds at its own discretion. If that is not absurd, then I do not know what is. This deal puts unreasonable constraints on trade by applying punitive tariffs and quotas that hinder the flexibility of our industry.

We need to be nimble, responsive and ensure that we have a sustainable economy, but that is gone because of this deal. When I go to Thunder Bay again, people are going to have a lot of questions about who is standing up for them.

What is happening in these communities? People are putting for sale signs on their homes, asking for the best offer. They are moving, some out west to get jobs and some to Toronto. This is ripping communities apart and they are looking for help. This deal will not help them at all. In fact, it will make more communities fall apart.

The deal kills the credibility of NAFTA. It sets a bad precedent. It is really important for all Canadians to understand this. The deal is based on precedent. All the dispute settlement mechanisms have been built into agreement. We have put forward arguments, indicating that we are right and our arguments have been okayed by both sides. Internationally, Canada has been seen as being right. If we acquiesce to the other side, we are setting a precedent and sending a signal that we are not going to stand up for Canada.

We need to talk about the thousands of workers who have lost their jobs. One of the first files I dealt with when I was elected involved lumber workers who had been thrown out of work. Those workers did not go to other jobs in the industry. Many of them had nowhere to land. Sadly, that is the story across the country.

This deal discriminates against Canadian companies. It also affects communities. Communities will not trust the government any more after it gave a blank cheque to Washington. People will probably look within their own communities for help because they cannot depend on the federal government. It has sold them down the river.They will try to find other ways to get help, and that is a real sad commentary.

We have talked about the consultation process before. It was held in a closed shop. Consultations were not held from coast to coast to coast to find out how this deal would affect communities. Instead, it was done held behind closed doors where only certain people were invited. Even in that process, duct tape was affixed to people's mouths. They were told not to talk about anything and if they did, they would pay the price. That is really pathetic. Even then, some are not abiding by the Conservative Party line.

We are left with a real dilemma for Canadians. They see a government that ran on the ticket of standing up for Canadians, but what they ended up with was a sellout. They have ended up with a softwood sellout that essentially shows the government has acquiesced. We used to have a country, but we are selling it down the river. This is a sad day for Canada.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the comments in debate of the member for Ottawa Centre on the softwood lumber deal. I think the facts should be put on the table.

The fact is that the country was facing a situation whereby the United States was continuing to collect duties on softwood lumber and other products. The United States government had actually amassed and collected over $5 billion in duties. This is not money we had. This was in the country south of the border. The United States government had collected these duties. The fact is that litigation was continuing. The litigation was continuing to go on. There was no end in sight for that litigation. Those are the facts.

This government took leadership. The government sat down with the Americans to try to negotiate an end to this. We have been successful.

The options in front of the government were twofold. The first option was to continue litigation. There was no guarantee that we would win that litigation. As a matter of fact, while that litigation was going on, which could very well have taken years, the government of the United States would have continued to collect these duties, getting hundreds of millions of dollars more in duties. There was no guarantee that in the end we would have won that litigation.

The other option was for the Government of Canada to sit down with the United States government. That is what we did. We negotiated a great agreement. As a matter of fact, it is so good that three of the major softwood lumber producing provinces supported this deal: the province of British Columbia, which has a provincial Liberal government; the province of Ontario, which has a provincial Liberal government; and the province of Quebec, which has a provincial Liberal government. The agreement is supported by the vast majority of softwood lumber companies in the industry. It has broad support across a variety of stakeholders and a variety of groups across the country.

My question for the hon. member is this: why are he and his party using the rhetoric of anti-Americanism to oppose this deal?

I have to say something else before I end my remarks. As a member of this House and a proud member of this government and this party, I take offence when members of the NDP stand up in this House and question my loyalty and that of my party and question my commitment to this country and that of my party.

My parents were immigrants to this country. They worked hard when they got here. They built for themselves and their family a life of opportunity and hope. I do not need to take any instructions from the NDP as to the commitment I have and my government and my party have.

Will the member cut out the anti-Americanism?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when we have a government like this. The member asked about why should we keep going. It is because on this side we are not quitters. We have a government that says it cannot do better, but we were doing better.

I am very taken by my hon. friend's story, but we are all descendants of immigrants, with the exception of some of our aboriginal friends in this place. In my case, it was Scottish immigrants. My ancestors came here with common sense and determination and wanted to make a difference. They were not quitters.

If only they could see what is happening today. We actually won the decision on April 7. We won, so why are we cutting deals and giving away money? People do not give up when they win. That is when people dig deep, like our ancestors did when they built this country. We do not give it away. We sign a deal, fine, but we have to make sure it is a deal that is good for all of us. We do not give away the store.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his calm, level-headed recitation. I will apologize. I may have overstated things in my zeal and enthusiasm. This is why I rely on my level-headed colleague from Ottawa Centre to temper remarks with reason and balance and to make the same compelling argument that there was no business case for giving up when the government did.

The government was on the road to success. The U.S. Court of International Trade actually ruled in our favour on April 7, at the same time that our minister and his minions were down in--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my father helped negotiate the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and I will say one thing: he never ever would have come back to his minister and said that this deal was a good deal. He would have said to keep up the fight and make sure it is good for Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 16, at the hour of adjournment.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine on a point of order.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking clarification. When you say that the vote is deferred until Monday, October 16, did I understand you correctly to say at the end of government orders at 6:30 in the evening?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

That is exactly what I said, but I said it in French.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House has made good progress today on the business before it. I thank all members for their cooperation and want to wish everyone a pleasant holiday weekend. I believe you would find consent to see the clock at 2:30.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 16 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:13 p.m.)

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 Speaker, 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.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before you determine the vote, the NDP had clearly intended to vote for this amendment, so all NDP members present would seek the consent of the House to be recorded in favour of this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to say that as far as parliamentary tradition is concerned, I believe there are no points of order, including this one of mine, until after the vote is taken. I would hate the viewing public to consider that it was the clerks who made the error. Clearly the NDP did not intend to vote for this amendment or members would have risen when they had the opportunity.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I appreciate the intervention of both the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. chief government whip. In the circumstances, what happened is the hon. member stood up before all the yeas in fact had been counted and was obviously getting up on a point of order because she said she was not counted that way. I recognized her because I thought there was some irregularity.

Having pointed out what happened, the votes have been taken. We will hear the result of the vote and then I will hear the hon. member for Vancouver East if she wishes to make a submission that there be additional votes counted. I think that is the normal way we would do this. I am sure the House will look favourably on her request in the circumstances.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #41

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the amendment lost.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Clearly the NDP had intended to vote for this amendment. Sometimes things happen very quickly and I believe in the past we have taken this into consideration. The NDP members are here and we are in support of this amendment, so we would ask the House to consider that the NDP be recorded as having voted in favour of this amendment. We would ask that of the House.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I am afraid there is no consent. I think it would be difficult in the circumstances to make other arrangements, so I am afraid the request is denied.

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.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, the Minister of International Trade, for the leadership he has provided on the issue of softwood lumber. It is clear that on this side of the House we have consistently sought to represent the national interest. The leadership which our new Conservative government has shown on this file is a demonstration of a government that protects the interests of those who depend on their government to provide guidance and direction.

I am very pleased to represent the softwood lumber producers not only of my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and eastern Ontario, but of all of Ontario in this debate.

Until recently, rural Ontario has had the voice of only two members when the policy of antagonizing our largest trading partner was put in place by the old government. Softwood lumber producers and workers are still feeling the repercussions of those disastrous days before.

I am pleased to be joined by many other voices on this side of the House who are not afraid to speak up for Ontario. The time has come to settle.

I have listened very closely to the interventions of members from Ontario who do not represent those areas of the province that have suffered as a result of the softwood lumber dispute. If those members could see the disruption of life in a household of a sole breadwinner where there is no other employment in a remote community, those members might understand why our new Conservative government put such a high premium on resolving the softwood lumber dispute.

Frankly, I am surprised by members from northern Ontario, such as the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, who decided to play politics with the future livelihood of forestry workers in their ridings. There is a time for politics and there is a time for statesmanship. I applaud the member for Sault Ste. Marie when he acknowledged the benefits of the Free Trade Agreement which have been brought to the forestry industry, particularly to northern Ontario. Take the next step. I ask those members to think about the workers in their ridings who will benefit from this agreement when we vote on accepting this implementing legislation.

Considering the volume of trade between Canada and the United States, it is an accomplishment that there are so few trade disputes that do arise from time to time between our countries. Therefore, it was important for our new Conservative government to act and to resolve the softwood lumber dispute.

I appreciate that those softwood lumber workers who have recently experienced job loss look to our government for leadership. If only an agreement had been reached sooner, maybe those workers would not be in the position of being unemployed today.

It is totally insensitive to the plight of the unemployed softwood lumber workers to suggest that they should wait for a ruling that may or may not come, leaving their fate in the hands of some lawyers who have a vested interest in prolonging a dispute rather than seeing it resolved.

Our new Conservative government exchanged uncertainty for certainty, and certainty is what pays the bills.

It is my privilege to speak today as the member of Parliament for a riding where men still work the forest. I recognize the hardships that have been faced by the workers and their families as a result of the softwood lumber dispute.

While it may have been politically expedient for the old government and its left-wing supporters to sacrifice the workers and their families as they prolonged a dispute that in the end would have produced only losers, as we say in Renfrew County and in some other parts of Canada, it was time to either fish or cut bait.

Communities that are dependent on the lumber industry do not have the luxury of waiting for a room full of big city lawyers getting rich on endless litigation to finally say, “We have had enough. Let's settle”.

Jobs have been disappearing at an alarming rate in rural Ontario. The need to keep jobs in the lumber industry to maintain our way of life is paramount.

The softwood lumber industry in my riding is characterized by small operations, many of them family owned, and by people who are not looking for handouts, just fair treatment.

The old government's softwood lumber policy caused significant unemployment in my riding. Worried softwood lumber producers called my office on a regular basis with the hope that the softwood lumber dispute was over. Families with their principal breadwinner unemployed wonder how they are going to survive this coming winter. In rural areas jobs are hard to come by.

Ben Hokum and Son Ltd. in Killaloe; Murray Brothers in Madawaska; McRae Lumber in Whitney; Heideman and Sons in Eganville; D and S Calver Lumber near Pembroke; Gulick Forest Products and Thomas J. Newman Limited in Palmer Rapids; and Bell Lumber in Renfrew are just a few of the businesses in my riding affected directly or indirectly by this softwood lumber dispute.

It is clear this softwood lumber crisis could have been avoided. We all knew the softwood lumber agreement would expire when it did. If the previous government had been paying the slightest attention, it would have known that the American lumber industry was pushing for countervailing duties.

There was some idle talk about building alliances with American consumers and other interested groups to fight the countervailing duty imposed on our industry, but like all the talk on climate change, the old government was all talk and no action.

Softwood lumber is big business in Ontario, exporting $2 billion worth of goods annually and employing 20,000 people directly, many of whom work in eastern Ontario. The gross regional income of the central and eastern Ontario economy is $5 billion annually in the forestry industry alone. The region employs 133,000 people.

In the Ottawa Valley the forest industry supports nearly 4,500 jobs. That translates into 2,055 direct jobs, over 1,000 indirect regional jobs and another 1,295 indirect provincial jobs. Primary wood manufacturing is over 10 times the provincial average. In actual dollars and cents, our forest industry output is $294 million annually. I can identify over 100 forest product companies that make their home in Renfrew County.

What is even more important in this debate over softwood lumber is how it was affecting our trading relationship with the United States. For value added products, the United States market is number one in Ontario. More than half of all forest products in Ontario are exported.

Members will understand why we on this side of the House use the term crisis when we refer to the state of the Canadian softwood lumber industry.

Those products have the largest export market in the United States. Exports from Ontario have increased by more than 100% since 1991.

The United States' construction industry is worth nearly $700 billion U.S. every year, and it will continue to be the focus of Canadian wood product shipments.

It was imperative that our new government respect the special trading relationship we have had in the past and prioritize the need to resolve this trade dispute.

I urge all members to set politics aside and pass this legislation as quickly as possible.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's remarks. I would like to explore some of those remarks, more specifically, the logic that underlies the message the hon. member is sending.

The hon. member seems to be saying that when we are involved in a court case and we are up against a bigger, wealthier opponent, that we should give in as fast as possible, get the best deal that we can possibly get, and cut and run and get out of there. Not only should the weaker party give in and get out with the best deal they can but no one should help them financially to stand up for their rights.

Does the hon. member not see a parallel between her government's position on softwood lumber and her government's position on the court challenges program, where it is abolishing a program that is meant to give financial support to weaker, smaller parties that are standing up to the status quo to have their rights respected?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the return of more than $4.4 billion U.S. marks a significant infusion of capital for the industry and will benefit workers and communities across Canada.

Even if Canada were ultimately successful in this round of litigation without a negotiated agreement, the U.S. lumber lobby could still launch a new case against imports of Canadian softwood lumber the following day starting a brand new lumber dispute. This agreement prevents that.

To those who continue to say that Canada was on the verge of a complete legal victory, the implications of continued litigation need to be more clearly understood. Even if Canada were to be ultimately successful in litigation, the U.S. industry could file a petition and request the imposition of new duty orders immediately thereafter. Meanwhile, the stability and predictability would continue to elude our softwood lumber industry.

[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?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the work that the international trade minister has done in obtaining the $4.4 billion back that had been paid in countervailing duties. This hard won agreement offers a practical and immediate solution, one that is supported by the major lumber producing provinces and a clear majority of the industry. This agreement is the best option for Canada.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to continue the debate and discuss a unique event in Canadian history.

Never before has a Government of Canada snatched defeat from the jaws of victory like this minority Conservative government has with the Canada-U.S. softwood sellout. Never before has a government fought a trade dispute in the courts, won every single case, and then turned around and dismissed these victories. Never before has a government thrown the rule of law completely out the window.

Never before has a government given up our leverage in our negotiations before making an agreement. Never before has a minister caved in to meet an artificial timeline that was of his own making. Never before has a minister bullied our own industries to please the United States. Never before has Canada witnessed a government that has gone to bat for political expediency instead of going to bat for hard-working Canadians.

Simply put, this softwood lumber deal is not a deal at all. It is a complete sell out.

Last Friday, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Canadians are entitled to the return of every single penny of our $5.3 billion that was illegally imposed by the United States and that we have free entry of our product into its markets. We finally have the United States in its own courts, so why is the government wiping away five years of legal victory? Why are we foregoing $1 billion of the total duty owed and agreeing to a new border charge that can be as high as 22.5%?

This deal reeks either of complete incompetence or of complete inexperience, and I fear it reeks of both. The agreement that the minority Conservative government has rammed down Canadians' throats makes a mockery of free trade and turns over our domestic sovereignty to the United States of America. It also creates a sliding scale export tax that at current price levels is actually higher than the current U.S. duties, 22.5% versus the 8.5% that we were previously paying versus the 0% that we would have been paying after last Friday.

This agreement also abandons all our legal victories and gives up, as I said, $1 billion to secure the peace. How long are we securing the peace for? For as much or as only two years.

This agreement also seeds our decisions over domestic resource management to the United States. Now Washington will be calling the shots in our very own forests. It caps the share of the American softwood market at 30% when in fact the previous Liberal government turned down a cap of 34%. This deal is actually worse than the deal we previously declined.

This agreement also contains anti-surge provisions that cripple the ability of our forest industry to deal with unexpected circumstances such as the rise of the pine beetle infestation in British Columbia. It exposes firms to needless uncertainty by agreeing to a monthly measurement for surge protection when U.S. demand is highly variable on a monthly basis.

The agreement encourages other sectors to seek political decisions to get protection from Canadian industries, all but guaranteeing more disputes in the future.

It gets worse. Not only are we giving up more than $1 billion, but we are returning over half this money, $500 million, to the very U.S. lumber industry that we are engaged with, money that it will use down the road to attack Canadian industry.

Even American lawyers think the floor crossing minister was suckered in this deal. The inexperienced, incompetent Conservative government took the terms of the surrender and now Canadians will have to pay the price. They will have to pay the price in lost jobs, lost hope, and devastated world communities.

This deal was botched by the member for Vancouver Kingsway and, sadly, it was botched badly. Now our forestry industry, our forestry workers, and our Canadian communities will have to pay the price.

Over 360,000 Canadians are employed in the softwood industry. We have a well-earned international reputation for the quality of our wood and our products. It is not an easy time. They are also facing pressure from a high Canadian dollar, high energy prices, lower housing starts in the United States, and a shrinking demand for global newsprint.

This deal, I am afraid, will only worsen their plight, and has in fact already directly caused the layoff of thousands of workers in just the past 30 days.

Industry associations warned us that this Conservative deal would cause a disaster. The Ontario Forest Industry Association estimates that it would cause 10% of the industry to lose jobs, and we are well on our way. The Bank of Montreal expects more shutdowns of both pulp and paper and sawmill facilities. The Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association warns that this deal would all but destroy this sector.

To add insult to injury, the minority Conservative government has continued to bully our industries into submission. The Prime Minister has backed Canadian softwood industry representatives into a corner and left them with no choice but to cede to this flawed deal.

There is a better way, however. We do have a choice. Canadians and this Parliament can say no this botched deal, and that is what we should have done from the start.

We should see our NAFTA challenge through to the end, as it has last Friday. We should implement an aid package immediately that will invest in improving our industry's competitive position, that will invest in skills of our workforce, and will work to develop new overseas markets for our wood products.

The Liberal Party cannot support this deal in good conscience, not when the Conservative government leaves $1 billion on the table, restricts our future free trade with the United States, and results in thousands of layoffs instantaneously.

It is our duty as the official opposition to stand up for the interests of the Canadian lumber producers, for the 360,000 employees, and for the interests of all Canadians.

We stand opposed to the minority Conservative government's humiliating surrender and we oppose this weak deal to which it shamefully has capitulated.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Conservative government has invoked closure and is shutting down debate in this House. We also know that Conservatives are refusing to speak to the softwood lumber agreement because they are so embarrassed by it.

In fact, there are 123 Conservative sheep that will refuse to speak to it, despite the catastrophic job losses we have seen in the past week in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. There were nearly 3,000 jobs lost in the first week of this bad deal's implementation.

We also heard last Friday the Court of International Trade say that we have the right to every single penny back on the money that was illegally taken. We are giving away $1 billion for nothing.

I would like to ask the member two questions. First, how does he react to the fact that we won in the Court of International Trade and we should get every single penny back? The only thing stopping us is the Conservatives and the Bloc working together to try to ram this bad deal through.

Second, given the fact that the Liberals and the trade committee stopped the hearings that were to take place across the country to hear from the public on this bad deal, would he be prepared to bring forward, with his colleagues, an actual proposal for hearings so that the international trade committee could go across the country and hear from the public on this issue?

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gets back down to those three key points, but before I go into those three key issues, the question we all have to ask ourselves is, why would the Conservative government capitulate to a deal right now? We are winning in the courts. We have been winning in the courts. The rate at which duty has been applied has been consistently dropping from 27% to 11% to 8%, and now as of last Friday it was going to go to 0%.

I ask the Conservatives to rethink the process here. We have been winning every single court case that we have entered into.

At the same time, they decide that they want to now get in bed with the Americans and say that maybe they will capitulate to a deal. Of the $5 billion-plus that was our money in the first place, that is owed to the producers of Canada, they will leave $1 billion on the table for the Americans and $500 million of which can be used any which way they want. Then they come to Parliament to see if they can ram this down parliamentarians' throats.

We all need to stand up and say no, this deal is not good enough for Canada. It is not good enough for the House of Commons and it is definitely not good enough for our industry.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some chagrin to the fact that it seems as if the member opposite is not going to support the softwood lumber deal. I am quite shocked because I would expect he would want to support his own riding, and mills in his own riding, including Goat Lake Forest Products that has certainly written to the member and asked him to support the softwood lumber deal. Yet, he states that the deal is not good enough for him and it is not good enough for the country.

What it is, quite frankly, is a much better deal than the previous Liberal minister and government were able to get. It does not put exemptions. It does not pit one region against another. It is a good deal for Canadians, so why is it not a good enough deal for the member?

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question seeing as he is one of the few Conservatives who is willing to come to the House to debate this important Canadian issue today.

The question comes down to this. We have a floor crossing minister who imposed an artificial deadline for himself that he had to meet. Why, when one goes into negotiations, especially with the United States, would one impose a deadline on oneself?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I cannot hear the member's reply. There is a bit too much noise in the House and I would like there to be a little bit of order so I can hear the member's reply.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member talked about the floor crossing minister but he must have been talking about those ministers in the previous Liberal government.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

That does not sound like a point of order. I will allow the hon. member to respond to the original question.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we need to ask ourselves is whether this is a good deal or a bad deal. On the face of the fact that we have been winning case after case against the United States and the fact that duties have been dropping from 23% to 8.5%, why would anyone, let alone Conservative politicians, accept a deal where we would give up $1 billion and increase duties to our own producers?

[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. 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—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I apologize, but I must leave enough time for the member to respond.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade, the hon. member and I often take the same view on various subjects.

Given that I have supported his requests on several occasions and given the context he has described, I would hope that he will support us when we ask the government to choose some representatives from Quebec—political representatives and forestry industry representatives—to sit on the bi-national committees.

It is still possible to protect the Quebec forestry industry, even though certain provisions suggest that the United States government may put obstacles in the way.

I am convinced that if the hon. member helps us to get some industry and political representatives from Quebec, we will be able to work for the good of the industry.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees that the softwood lumber agreement is bad. The Bloc Québécois will support this agreement because our Quebec forestry industries have no choice. Either we support the agreement and the industries can recover part of the five billion dollars, or we do not support it and the agreement does not pass, in which case the companies will have nothing and will have to close down.

I would like my colleague to explain for us how we are losing a billion dollars. Where is this money going? Will some of it be going to our Quebec companies? Are we just losing it outright?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member.

Who really wins in all of this? As I said earlier, it is the United States government that wins: for all practical purposes, it wins a billion dollars for having forced the forestry companies of Canada and Quebec to go bankrupt, leaving workers unemployed.

That billion dollars is very easily divided up. Five hundred million is going to certain U.S. companies, to benefit the United States in the same sector. A $450-million fund will be left to the discretion of the Americans. Fortunately Bush does not want and cannot have another term of office, because this would help him get elected. The billion dollars has mainly been used to develop specific friendships with the Bush government. There is $50 million remaining, which could in the end benefit Canadian business because it is for initiatives designed to promote the use of lumber, from Canadian and U.S. firms alike. Fifty million dollars may seem like a lot of money, but if most of it goes back to the United States, nothing will be left for Quebec and for Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is about four or five minutes before 2 o'clock, so the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake will have about four minutes before question period and can finish his speech afterward. The hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from October 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

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

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

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

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

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

A Conservative government will:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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

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

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

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would she comment on that?

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

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

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

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from the Conservative Party making his speech. I would like, however, to repeat the position of the Bloc Québécois, which supports this agreement but in a context where the Quebec industry had told us that they were on their last legs and that they had to support the agreement because, in the last analysis, they had no choice.

Since 2002, we have had Liberal governments and now a Conservative government who did not support the companies who were dealing with the softwood lumber problem.

The Bloc Québécois, as everyone knows, asked for loan guarantees from the Liberals. During the election campaign, the Conservative Party told us it was going to offer loan guarantees but it did not do that. We called for flexibility in employment insurance to help the workers who were affected by the softwood lumber problem, but there was no flexibility, either from the Liberals or the Conservative Party. We called for support for processing activities in order to provide new opportunities for the Quebec forest sector but no measures were introduced.

I hope that this House will listen to these remarks. I believe this is a bad agreement but we have no other choice than to sign it, because the industry is on its last legs. However, this Parliament should learn a lesson, including the Liberals whom we kept after for months and months to come to the help of these companies and to support them even in terms of legal costs. To date, the legal costs for companies in the forest industry exceed $350 million. They have received no assistance from the government.

I believe this should be a lesson for the Liberal Party, the Conservatives, and for all members. If we do not support our companies in this kind of dispute, we will wind up with an agreement like this one, which is unsatisfactory for all the companies and all the workers, but in the end we have no choice but to support it.

I would like to hear the member’s comments about my remarks.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague from the Bloc has a real concern for the industry and certainly the sawmill industry in the province of Quebec. As for the rest of Canada, this is a good deal for Quebec. As a matter of fact, there is enough flexibility built into the agreement that it allows for free trade in lumber, the same as we have in Atlantic Canada, for 32 mills in Quebec. Those border mills will all have free trade in lumber. Furthermore, it allows for enough flexibility in the deal that other provinces can adopt Atlantic Canadian and border mill standards throughout Canada and have free trade in softwood lumber.

The great danger, which has been a danger from the very beginning of discussions with the Americans and the very basis for our exemption in Atlantic Canada, in subsidizing the industry is that those subsidies will then be seen as countervailable and we are back into another trade war and another round of talks. That will go on forever. We will never get away from it.

I understand the concern. It is certainly something we talked about and we were willing to do as a government. However, the best agreement and the best thing we could do for industry was to bring surety, bring this agreement to fruition. That is what the Minister of International Trade has been able to do and that is the lifeblood of the industry and the future for the country.

It is a good agreement and I appreciate the member's support for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member has raised the question of the Atlantic exemption.

I must say that I was very surprised when I was participating in the debate on this bill in the House at the end of the September to see another Conservative member from Atlantic Canada rise and say that the government had to amend its own bill because the language around the Atlantic exemption did not actually use the word “exemption”, that it was not strong enough, and the bill was so bad that the government was going to have to bring in an amendment to its own bill to include the actual word “exemption” when it came to the situation of the industry in Atlantic Canada.

I know the Atlantic exemption has support in every corner of the House, but how does the member respond to the fact that the bill is so bad in the way that it has been presented to the House that not even something where there was universal agreement could get worded properly in this piece of legislation?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief, but I am always amazed at the rhetoric from my NDP colleagues. They take something and manage to twist it into another vein altogether that does not resemble at all the point brought forward by the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. The point was that everyone was here trying to be an expert on this piece of legislation, but all the opposition parties had not read the bill or they would have picked up the same thing that my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley picked up.

I am not a lawyer but the intent is there for the exemption. Whether the language is exact, the intent is there.

The issue is that this bill should be embraced by the member from British Columbia because it is a great deal for British Columbia. If they really get their act together out there, they can follow Atlantic Canada's example and have free trade in softwood lumber. It can be done. We have proven it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is both a pleasure and a distress to enter into this debate. Talking of rhetoric, we take no lectures or lessons from other sectors of the industry. British Columbia has a proud forestry tradition. My particular riding takes no lessons or lectures from anyone in the House when it comes to the pain and suffering that has gone on in the forestry sector over the last number of years.

We have watched families in distress. We watched the previous government not show up to the table with the loan guarantees. I know it is difficult for members to listen and to actually participate in the debate but they need to understand that when a government starts to spin on the dance of rhetoric and starts to talk about how other parties are playing politics all of a sudden, it is a good indication that the facts no longer support its cause.

The response about the exemption to Atlantic Canada, that the intention was there but that the language was not, is absolutely dumbfounding to me and to many Canadians, both in Atlantic Canada and across the country. How could such an important concept as the exemption that was parroted and chirped across the country for Atlantic Canada not make it into the bill and have to be pointed out by other members in the House as opposed to the drafters of the bill, the government itself?

Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in the northwest corner of British Columbia, which is 300,000 square kilometres and is the absolute heart and soul of the softwood industry in the country, understands the deal well. Just recently I was on a tour throughout the western part of my riding, some 900 kilometres on the road. We held open houses and discussions and allowed people to come in and comment. There was no bias on my part. We just simply sat and listened to what people in our communities had to say about the deal.

From across the political spectrum in my region, people who vote all different ways came with absolute disappointment and dismay at the inherent basic flaws communicated in this so-called agreement which, more and more, is a sellout. I wonder if the government has any excuses or reasons for the 3,000 people who just lost their jobs in Quebec and Ontario and the families that they support.

The government just seemed so desperate in its need for victory. However, in April , on the very day the Prime Minister so proudly announced the deal, the Americans were filing more lawsuits against us. The government needed a victory so badly that it left $500 million in the hands of the American coalition, which has been hurting our communities for so long, to continue to fight us. Somehow the government has twisted itself into believing that it is a good idea, that it is a good idea to get smashed over the head year in and year out.

At the very end, last Friday the Court of International Trade found again for Canada, which is the final place for this decision to go, and Canadians need to know that. There is nowhere else to go for the coalition. However, the government has taken that victory away, has handed the Americans half a million bucks to beat us up some more later and has signed a deal that offers no certainty whatsoever.

I know members from the Conservative benches care for their communities, especially those members who have softwood industries in their ridings. I call upon them to stand in their place today and defend the principles of the bill because they need to be accountable. We have heard so much talk about accountability from the Conservative benches but when we come to a deal like this politics trumps common sense. Why would we leave a half a billion dollars behind for an industry that is dedicated to fighting against any notion of free trade?

The climate for investment in Canada has been destroyed by this deal. Why would an operator who operates on both sides of our borders have any notion of putting money into a mill in Canada when all they need to do is take their money back, place it into a U.S. mill and avoid a self-imposed tariff altogether? I have yet to hear an answer from the government.

I have spoken to the mill managers and the people on the line and they do not get it. They do not understand why the provincial government in Victoria, British Columbia is so keen on raising the export of raw logs thereby raising the export of British Columbian jobs to other places. When I am in my riding I see the trucks drive right past the mills that have shut down and dump the logs in the water, boom them up and send them south.

For heaven's sake, this so-called deal says to a producer, says to a manufacturer, “Do not invest in Canada. It is much smarter to invest in the United States or just about anywhere else, because if you invest in Canada and you value add to any of the wood that Canadians produce, you will be hit with a tariff of up to 24% on your cost of production”.

I wish there were someone in the government who could simply answer that basic sense of economic disequilibrium that has been created by the government's one action, the tendency, the nature and the drive for industry to no longer invest in our country at a time when we have lost over 10,000 jobs in this sector. It is not as if we have any more blood to give. We have already given at work and at home. There is no space left in the industry other than its complete collapse.

The true and deep concern I have in this debate is that for the government to secure some sort of improved relations with our American neighbours, which we all want to see, for that so-called victory it has signed a deal that allows Washington to interfere with provincial regulations on how we cut our own wood. This House of Commons does not have that right constitutionally but somehow we have just cut a deal that allows Washington to comment on our own forestry practices at the provincial level.

Many communities have been through so much, with thousands of jobs lost. I would invite members in this place to take a tour through my community and visit those places that have in excess of 90% unemployment. I wonder if anyone in this place can conceive of that in their hometowns, to go back home next week and find 80%, 85%, 90% of the people willing to work in their communities gone, simply unable to work. Imagine the social devastation, never mind the economics, we know that: schools closing down and hospitals no longer able to operate at a time when industries needed the support.

The Conservatives were with us for a moment when we pleaded for loan guarantees for the industry but the previous government was unable to deliver. The Court of International Trade, the last place for the scoundrels who perpetuated this fraud upon Canadians and Canadian communities were heard, the court sided with Canada. Canada has sent our lawyers down to plead on behalf of the American cause. We are asking the court not to settle this case, to not award the entire $5.4 billion to Canada because we have this incredible deal that gives us foreign change, and which, by the way, perpetuates trade wars into the future.

It is not only remarkable that $500 million will end up in the coffers of the U.S. coalition's war chest to fight again, but it sends a disturbing signal to other industries that try to compete with Canada. What we are saying is that the Americans were right. They must have been right because why else would we leave money behind? We must subsidize our industry.

Conservative members have stood in this place and made the argument that no, there is no softwood subsidy and we are not operating a subsidized system. However, by capitulating to them we are saying that they are right. If the Americans were able to end up with this much of the Canadian industries' money, we must be subsidizing. This opens up the floodgates to other industries that cannot compete.

I only wish we could have some form of free trade. The lie has finally been put to that concept of free trade in this country. We only need to look at the way the Americans have handled themselves and the way that Canada has now decided to place itself in such an incredible position as to harm Canadian industry and communities by simply admitting, through this deal, that we must have a subsidized industry, and by putting in jeopardy all the other industries in Canada that now must try to compete with the Americans who we know are protectionists. We have seen it. The Conservatives just said so, and it is true. They will subsidize and they will protect. They will try to offer unfair competition to our industries, particularly in an industry like softwood where we know the Americans cannot compete.

Canadian mills are the most efficient in the world. I have those mills in my riding. I have visited those mills and we have talked to the foremen and the people running the shop. They know that they are running the best. All they want is a fair playing field and an opportunity to compete but instead they will be hit with a 24% duty on their wood. We are going to self-impose a duty when we have said that we are not subsidizing and that we are operating a fair game.

The problems with this deal go on and on. A lot of Conservative members would like to ignore the fact that there is an actual cap on the amount of wood that can be produced. However, it is not done by company but by region. We have also assisted some of the larger companies that have the capacity to invest more money against some of the smaller ones because as soon as the cap is reached it hits everybody in that region. It does not hit the individual company that may have flooded a market. It hits everybody. Suddenly the cap goes up. The tipping point on this, the point where the tariffs start to be imposed, the price of a board foot of lumber has been below the trigger point for months.

This is an opportunity for the government to finally stand up and admit some of the absolute flaws in this agreement. We each need to stand up and represent our communities, which is what we were sent here to do. We were sent here to represent the people who work every day or who are trying to get back to work. We need to get the job done and get a better deal because this deal sells our communities and our future down the river.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to visit the member's riding. As a former British Columbian and Yukoner, I have gone through Skeena—Bulkley Valley on many occasions, and he is absolutely correct. Not only is it one of the most beautiful areas in Canada but it has some of the hardest working people in those mills and in forestry and, I may say, in many ways in a very environmentally sustainable way because they know the future relies on their jobs in those mills.

It is sad to see a number of businesses in small towns like Fraser Lake, Burns Lake, et cetera, closing down or reducing the number of employment opportunities which has caused people to go elsewhere. He now knows exactly what we on the east coast have been going through with our fisheries. He also knows what the farmers are going through now on the prairies.

I have been here for nine and a half years now and I have seen and heard of countless numbers of farm families shutting their farms down and the large corporate companies taking over. I have seen many fishing communities, like the one in Canso, Nova Scotia, literally shut down and thousands of people having to move away from their homes.

In the last week alone 3,000 jobs have been lost in the lumber industry under the watch of Liberal and Conservative governments. It is a pattern. It does not matter which industry it is, farming, fishing or forestry, which I call the three f's that built this country, they are being decimated by the government.

What scared me the most today was when I heard the Minister of Natural Resources, who himself is from British Columbia, say very clearly, “We need this deal so we can restructure the industry”. That makes me very nervous. My colleague is right when he says that whole logs are being sent out of British Columbia into the United States to be brought back as a finished product that we buy. It is like the world's largest gypsum mine that is just outside of my riding. Every ounce of gypsum is sent to the United States and we buy it back as Gyproc.

Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy and that we need to turn this around? I would like my colleague to elaborate a bit more on that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the consolidation of industries, and the consolidation in particular of this industry, has been staggering. We have watched mill upon mill get bought up. It almost seems like in the last five years, in this particular plight of industry as more and more tariffs were slapped onto Canadian companies, more and more of those sawmills were either shut down or bought outright. When they are bought, it is not as if business continues as usual. Anybody who has been at the bottom end of a consolidation knows what that means. It means job losses. It means losses to entire communities.

If anyone in the Conservative benches would actually like to stand and debate some of these issues about what is going on in northwestern British Columbia, I would urge them to do so, but the interest seems to have been lost. The air is out of the balloon.

The Conservatives just want this thing to coast through and not actually address the concerns of mill owners I just talked to this past week. They said, “What's the point?” They have been struggling to get their mills up and running and were finally able to do it after some months. Then they looked on the horizon and they saw more dark clouds mounting. The clouds were a self-imposed tariff on their industry. Why? Because George Bush needed a deal and the Prime Minister wanted it so bad he could not wait.

He could not wait after this many years to look at the decision by the Court of International Trade. The court said, “It's all yours Canada. You were right. These communities were right to survive and thrive on the industry that they had built”.

Instead, the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade needed something so desperately that selling out a few hundred communities, selling out families, was not so bad because in their equation maybe that was worth it in the long run.

As parliamentarians, as people who are elected, we have to go back and look those people in the eye. We cannot have what happened to the Atlantic fishery. All those parliamentarians over the years turned a blind eye to what we knew was happening while the federal government shirked its responsibilities. The cries that came out from those communities that needed a sustainable industry fell on deaf ears. Now, we are watching a repetition of this in the softwood industry. It is an absolute disgrace.

We try our best to look through the legislation, to read this deal, which I have done, and which I hope and pray that the Conservatives at least have done in their blind support for this thing. I cannot find one scintilla of enthusiasm for investing and reinvigorating our softwood industry.

Instead, we have a $12 million cut to a beetle fund that would help mitigate what was going on with the pine beetle outbreak in British Columbia. That was the answer: sell them out down the river one day and pull back funding to help communities transition the next. That is hardly supportive of rural Canada. We are going to have to switch governments as soon as possible.

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.

[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.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member from the NDP. NDP members are standing here today saying how bad of a deal it was. It really is shameful that they prematurely overthrew the previous Liberal government when, according to their words, we were this close to making a deal.

The member outlined how the United States of America is now dictating our forestry industry policy in Canada. That is very bad. It is shameful that the new Conservative government does not understand this.

Yesterday the Minister of International Trade, if there is such a department, responded to a question by saying that we would get all of the $5 billion back. We had heard it was $4 billion, but the minister went on record yesterday and said it was $5 billion. Nobody really knows what it is.

If the member knows, will he enlighten the House on whether we will see a cheque from the United States of America for whatever it is, $4 billion or $5 billion? Rumour has it that this money will never arrive in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the beginning comments of the member go without a response. It is quite hilarious how the Liberals are still so heartbroken. It was the decision of Canadians to toss them out of office. It was not the NDP that ended their reign of power. It was the Canadian people who did that, and they did that rather resoundingly in some cases. They should never forget that Canadians made that decision, not the folks who sit in this corner of the House.

He asked if I know if that money will be delivered. I have no faith that the money will be seen by Canada. I find it hard to imagine the photo opportunity with the Prime Minister and the President of the United States standing there, with the handshake and the big smiles for the cameras as the big cheque for the illegally collected softwood lumber levy is handed over to Canada. I just do not think we will see that.

We know that the provisions of the deal mean we are giving $1 billion of that illegally collected money to the United States, $500 million which goes to the association that launched the attack on the Canadian industry. It is unbelievable that we would fund the people who brought us this crisis in the first place so they can plan their next attack on Canadian industry. I do not think there is anyone here who does not believe that the protectionists in the United States will make that move.

It is also ironic that we are giving $500 million to the White House to use as it will. It says it is for reconstruction for Hurricane Katrina victims, but we know that it is a slush fund to be used by the Republicans as their elections approach. There is no way we should be using that to fund the re-election of protectionist American legislators, but that is exactly what we are doing under the terms of the agreement. It is completely unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, the other day we heard someone from the Conservative government lash out at environmentalists, blaming environmentalists for the decline of jobs in the forestry industry in Quebec. What is next?

My colleague is absolutely right. The deal is so bad it is like robbing the owner of a store of $100 and a judge saying that the robber only has to pay back $80 and he can keep the other $20 for himself. However, for the government or someone who represents the cabinet to blame environmentalists for the decline of jobs in Quebec in the softwood lumber industry is simply unconscionable.

My colleague from B.C. is very concern about this, and I would like his comments on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the lack of enthusiasm for the deal that I have often heard around the House. We hear that it is the best deal possible under the circumstances. He hear that we will be subject to endless litigation for years and years. We hear that we have to accept this because we cannot do any better. I do not accept that for one second.

When we know we are behind the eight ball, when we know we have done a bad thing, we often lash out at absolutely the wrong people. Some of that has been going on around the House as people try to rationalize their support for a very bad deal. I am very disappointed in that kind of behaviour in the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, The Environment; the hon. member Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Softwood Lumber.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased again to speak to this very important issue on behalf my constituents and people across Canada who are involved in the resource based economic sector of forestry, and to put some thoughts on the record and challenge the government to rethink this agreement, which does not do all the things it anticipates it will. We are already beginning to see some of the results of this play itself out in the thousands and thousands of jobs that are disappearing. Communities are being affected across the country, particularly my region of northern Ontario.

Before I get to that, I want to share this with the folks who are watching. What we are involved with this afternoon is really a process of closure, or ending debate in the House. The government saw that we, as a party, were very concerned about the impact of the agreement on our constituents. It knew we would to speak to it for as long as it took to get all our thoughts on the record and to challenge the government as effectively as we could. This place is all about that. We are here to ask the government to consider amendments to a bill that might improve it and make it better.

However, the government brought in closure. It forced votes in the House on an amendment we brought forward. It forced votes in the House on an amendment the Liberals brought forward. Now we are at a point where there will be no further amendments or opportunities for us, as elected members of the House, to bring forward suggestions that might make the bill, or agreement, better, if that is possible, or to speak on behalf of our constituents in that way.

We are here in this place on Tuesday afternoon, speaking to a bill which the government wants to ram it through. That has been the government's approach to this from the very beginning. The minister was brought across the floor from the Liberals, I suppose because he had some history and some experience with this, to find a way to put together a deal with the Americans, a deal which ignores all the legal decisions made over a number of months and years in our favour. I guess it has been done to curry favour with the Americans. When the governing party was in opposition, there was a sense that the relationship with that country was not as good as it would like it to have been.

I served for 13 years in the Ontario provincial legislature at Queen's Park. I remember this very same closure procedure being used over and over again. From 1995 to 2003, the Conservative government introduced motion after motion. This changed the landscape of that province. The current government is beside itself now on how it can recover some of the wonderful programs that had been put in place, over a number of years, by varying political stripes. These programs improved the lot of communities, families and people. They were put in place to protect industry and the economy of various regions and to turn the province into an industrial heartland, which was the envy of the rest of the country. The Conservatives turned it into a province that is now struggling from one day to the next to support education, health care and all those programs that we know are necessary if we are meet the challenge of participating in the new global economy.

I remember Thursday afternoons because I was usually on duty. Some of my colleagues and I would spend a couple of hours in the legislature debating a closure motion. We are not debating a closure motion here, but the process that we are engaged in is in fact a process of closure.

One cannot be anything but disappointed that the members of the Conservative Party are not standing to speak on behalf of their constituents. They know as well as we do the impact this is having on them.

Since a lot of them come from rural and northern Canada, within their constituencies, they must have small communities that are being affected dramatically and negatively by this agreement. They must be affected by the government's unwillingness to support the industry in its legal challenges, challenges that were successful and within a whisker of forcing the issue of making the free trade agreement work. Many of us had some concerns about the free trade agreement when it was first brought in, but we learned to work with it in the interests of our industry and jurisdictions.

The Conservatives have not taken the time in this place to get up and speak to this agreement. They are not taking the time to talk on behalf of their constituents and communities that are being hammered. Even if it does not affect people directly, it sets a precedent. It creates a pattern. It sends a message on how the government will stand up and fight for other interests for a region that is resource based.

I do not have to look any further than what is going in western Canada right now with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. This is a vehicle that farmers themselves decided to put together, fund and run in order to get the best value for their investments, for the work they put in and for the products they produced. The Wheat Board has been a successful vehicle over a number of years now. Literally thousands of farmers, who are behind the Wheat Board and support it, are aghast that the government is being so aggressive in doing away with it. They are surprised.

I attended a meeting in Saskatoon this summer of some 250 to 300 farmers. It was held across the street from a very secretive closed door meeting, by invitation only, of supporters of the government who saw this as their opportunity to do in a vehicle that they had ideological differences with for quite some time. The farmers I met with said that nobody was speaking for them. Nobody was bringing their voice to this place to challenge the government on doing away with the very vehicle they put in place to protect their interests, investments and products and to be able sell them for highest value in the marketplace.

I am disappointed that Conservatives are not standing up to speak on behalf of the communities involved in forestry. I am disappointed they do not recognize the impact of this on those communities. In my own area of Algoma in northern Ontario, people pick up the newspaper every day to see that another mill has closed down somewhere, whether it is Nairn Centre, Espanola, Dubreuilville, White River. The list goes on and on. That is just northeastern Ontario.

In northwestern Ontario it is even worse. NDP members met with the leaders of northwestern Ontario a couple of weeks ago when we were in Thunder Bay for our caucus retreat. They shared with us the very devastating reality that confronts them every day. The forestry coalition and leaderships of those communities talked about mill closings. They said that when a mill closed, they would lose population, the value of property would go down and nobody wanted to set up shop. There is instability and no confidence any more in those communities. People do not want to invest in a small business because they do not know what the future will be. It is up in the air.

I hear from people in the communities in my area and in northwestern Ontario. I am surprised Conservative members are not speaking on behalf of their regions, communities or people because they have to be experiencing the same thing. It cannot be just in northern Ontario, northeastern Ontario or northwestern Ontario. I know it is happening in other areas. Members of my caucus, who have spoken on behalf of their constituents and communities, have said that this is already having a devastating effect.

I say never mind looking at the past in terms of this, which is bad enough; let us look for a second at the future. If this agreement continues and the Americans continue to have the kind of control they have and we keep shipping product into the United States at a cost that makes it uncompetitive, how will we ever add value to anything we do? How will we have a future?

That is my concern. That is why I am so disappointed this afternoon that we find ourselves in this process of closure on this important agreement and piece of public business.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was very passionate. I know that he is a strong advocate for people who are suffering the effects of poverty.

In the context of this softwood lumber agreement, could the member for Sault Ste. Marie talk about the fact that what we see with this very bad deal is many companies forced into closure impacting not only on the mill workers but also on the workers who support those industries, all the secondary spin-offs? There are the transportation and fuel industries and then there are the tertiary industries as well, such as the restaurant and service workers.

I know that many of the communities in northern Ontario are suffering from the impacts of the spin-offs from softwood lumber. I wonder if the member could comment specifically on what he sees as the very real impact that goes out to the second and third levels from the direct workers in the forestry sector.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. It is the kind of question that I was hoping the Conservatives would ask or maybe make a speech about. Everybody knows that in resource based communities, for every one job in the primary sector, there are three or four jobs in the support or service sector. The member is absolutely right when she says that when one of those jobs goes, those other jobs go as well. People then are left behind. They have no work or they have to leave town and leave their families behind, who then live in poverty.

We used to have a social safety net in this country. We used to have employment insurance that worked for people. We used to have social welfare that actually worked for people, but the incursion of this very cold right wing wind that has come into Canada and Ontario over the last 10 or 15 years has made it such that the safety net has been rent asunder. It is not there any more.

Only about 15% or 20% of people who have paid into EI all their lives now qualify for EI when it is their turn to collect for a little while when they are in between jobs. EI is not there. As well, in just the last couple of weeks, the government cut literacy programs, which would have been helpful for these workers as they try to shift gears and get into other work.

As for welfare, in 1995 Mike Harris cut welfare by 21.6% for the poorest of our families and our most at risk and marginalized citizens.

Let us put all of that together: this terrible agreement, plus the impact when plants close and people lose their jobs, plus the multiplier effect with the fact that we no longer have the social safety net that all of us worked so hard to put in place. Then we begin to understand the devastation and the poverty that now exist and will continue to exist.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but listen carefully to the member's speech which, with all due respect, was rather sanctimonious.

I have one question for the member.

Our government has just put in $81 million for literacy programs and I think it is passing strange and somewhat irresponsible to talk about cutting literacy programs. I would ask my colleague this: is $81 million not something to applaud? Are all the different programs that we have put in for literacy across this country not something to rejoice in and applaud?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Conservative member for actually participating in this debate this afternoon. I will say to her that any investment in literacy is important and helpful good news, except that the government has cut the legs out from underneath all of the volunteer groups, the not for profit groups, and yes, the groups that deliver literacy across this country. They have been cut off at the knees. The member's government has cut millions and millions--

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Where?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

In adult literacy.

We had a committee meeting this morning. We brought in the literacy groups that have been impacted by the cuts made in the last two weeks. They spoke of the cuts they are experiencing. They spoke of the impact this will have on their ability to actually deliver literacy programs.

There will be more of them coming in. I invite you to actually come to the meeting, listen to those people and perhaps ask them questions. I invite you to sit in for one of your colleagues and ask them the question that you are asking me about how this is impacting on them.

There have been very real cuts. Those very real cuts are going to be a problem for older workers, particularly those in forestry centred communities across this country who are losing their jobs because of this terrible agreement.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I would remind the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie that we do not refer directly to hon. members. We address our comments through the Chair.

[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.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, and her reference to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and his passion on this issue. Let me also confirm that fact. I chaired the committee on international trade and he was a member of that committee and I recall how passionate he was about this issue.

The member for Nanaimo--Cowichan said that the previous Liberal government should have provided “loan guarantees to the industry”. The Liberal government of the day brought forward a report, supported by the member for Burnaby--New Westminster, which indicated that it would provide loan guarantees. I just want to inform the House of that and through you, Mr. Speaker, the nation.

The member said we were reeling because we lost the election. We are not reeling because we lost the election. The people will judge very quickly. Let me assure you that people will judge you. Why? They will judge you because your party and your leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, struck a deal with the BQ and the Conservatives. Who did they let down? Housing, post-secondary education, urban transit, the environment; the NDP reneged and all that money was gone. How are they going to answer to their constituents in the future not just on softwood lumber, but on all the other issues that I just mentioned?

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I would just remind the hon. member for Scarborough Centre not to address his comments directly to other hon. members. The hon. member for Nanaimo--Cowichan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to talk about the previous government's track record on softwood lumber. The Liberals had years to implement loan guarantee agreements, and in the dying days of their very fragile government, they suddenly had an epiphany.

Although it was not me specifically who talked about Canadians bringing down the former Liberal government, I want to remind the member that the former prime minister had actually already signalled an election. An election was mere weeks away. Whether it happened in January, February or March, we were going to have an election. Canadians are the ones who determined the fate of the Liberal Party.

It is important that we also remember that we have a responsibility here to make sure that we are talking about forestry workers in this context, not old history.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to comment on something I find very ironic about this deal, about the timing of this deal and about other actions of the Conservative government.

We know that almost half of the $1 billion that Canada is giving up to the American protectionists as a result of this deal is going directly to the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports. They are the folks who initiated the campaign against the Canadian softwood lumber industry and who have pursued the attack from the very beginning. We are funding their future activities. We are giving them this money so they can pursue their protectionist ways and other ways down the road.

The irony for me is that at the same time the government is providing this money to the very people who attacked our industry, it cancelled the Canadian court challenges program which allowed minority Canadians to take on the government where questions of Canadian charter rights were involved. Here we have a government that is setting up a court challenges program for American industry while at the same time it is getting rid of a very small but important Canadian program to assist minority Canadians with their charter rights.

I wonder if she could comment on the irony of the juxtaposition of those two items.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do think it is ironic that we are handing money over to the U.S. government and to the lumber industry down there and part of that money will have no accountability provisions attached to it, and this is from a government that constantly talks about accountability. We are going to hand over huge sums of money without there being any accountability to the Canadian public.

It is ironic that we are cancelling the court challenges program which allowed charter challenges to ensure equality rights in Canada were protected while we hand over this money that has no accountability attached to it and it is going to really impact on our industry here in Canada.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on the issue of softwood lumber and the agreement that is being pursued by the Conservative government that will leave our industry far short in the future.

It was very interesting to hear the Minister of Natural Resources speak today in the House and admit that the industry was now going to have to be restructured. Quite rightly, if this agreement is carried through, it will create fewer jobs in the industry and more exports of raw material to the United States.

The fact that this agreement has no tariff on raw logs will drive the destruction of our sawmill and related products industry across the country. This is especially so in British Columbia where the value of the logs is so high and the opportunity to export them is so strong.

Despite being right on this issue and supported by every tribunal ruling on softwood, we are going to lay down to the United States on this. This is not good. This sets a bad precedent. Once we give in on this issue, we can be sure that the United States will be back again on another issue. The U.S. does not recognize weakness, it recognizes strength. Here we are acting in a fashion that is weak, that is insipid and that does not nearly stand up the way we should.

It is so ironic that in this House the Conservative government has berated our leader for cutting and running in Afghanistan, yet at home we see the same Conservative government cutting and running on this issue. I find that to be logically inconsistent and much like the rest of the government's debate on this issue.

This deal declares open season on any Canadian industry that the U.S. wants to target with illegal tariffs. The U.S. knows that it will be rewarded. The Conservatives are as bad as the Liberals were in caving in to American interests. I remember when the Liberals came to power in the early 1990s they said that they were not going to go along with NAFTA. What did the Liberals do as soon as they were elected to power? They went along with it. They definitely went along with it. The Liberals went along with a lot of those types of arrangements which for instance are now driving our energy industry and which are harmful in the long term to our economy.

NAFTA has reinforced inequalities of power across North America and has entrenched an economic model of integration that has resulted in a growing gap between the rich and the poor in North America.

This Harper-Bush sellout of our lumber industry is just the beginning.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I remind the hon. member for Western Arctic that we do not refer to other hon. members by name, but just by their title or riding.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the NAFTA promise of secure access to the U.S. market was never anything but an illusion. Nothing but shreds remain of a guarantee of an end to arbitrary U.S. tariffs, yet the takeover of our industries continues apace, from retail to beef, from manufacturing to energy.

NAFTA prohibits the imposition of an export tax on energy or on basic petrochemicals that exceed those applicable to domestic consumption. That is article 605(b). When coupled with quantitative control prohibitions of GATT article XI, this ban on export taxation effectively and entirely removes government control of energy exports.

Not long ago we had a made in Canada price for energy, Canadian oil and gas companies were the primary people in the industry, and a 25 year reserve of gas was set aside for Canada's future needs. That is no longer the case.

The impact of the Alliance pipeline on our gas industry was huge. Yes, it brought immediate wealth to Alberta and British Columbia, but it also exported all the liquids that we need for our petrochemical industry in Edmonton, in the heartland of our oil and gas industry, and now we are short of those. We will see plant shutdowns soon. Just like the export of raw logs, when we export raw energy, as the Alliance pipeline does, down to factories in Chicago, we are exporting jobs south of the border. We are taking them out of the Canadian perspective.

No other country in the world in a time of peace has signed away so completely its energy resources, present and future. Canada, interestingly enough, is the only NAFTA country prevented by the energy exporting provisions in NAFTA. Four years ago the U.S. adopted a national energy policy that emphasized national energy security, self-sufficiency and even support for domestically owned firms. Canada, meanwhile, is required by NAFTA to continue exporting oil and gas to the U.S., even if it experiences shortages.

The interesting development was the liquefied natural gas terminals in Quebec where the company is talking about security of supply with two forms of energy, but when we look at the company's plan, the natural gas that is flowing to Quebec right now will be diverted to the United States once the LNG terminals are in place. Where is the security in that?

The Mexican energy sector under the agreement does not parallel that between Canada and the U.S. because Mexico protected its energy industry. Mexico's actions are given respect in the United States. To quote from the U.S. national energy task force report, “Mexico will make its own sovereign decisions on the breadth, pace and extent to which it will expand and reform its electricity, oil and gas capacity”.

Integrating our energy and our economy into that of the U.S. means it is subject to U.S. ownership, decisions, priorities and prices. That is exactly what the softwood lumber deal means to our forest industry. The pattern continues. It was started by the Liberals and is continued by the Conservatives. Let us not wait until our industries and agriculture become completely uncompetitive, until Canadians are left begging for their own energy at 40° below. We need to really look at this deal very carefully. This deal represents a further step down that slippery slope that leads to deep integration of our economies and the loss of Canadian sovereignty, jobs and a secure resource base.

As a northerner, I probably live further away from the U.S. border than most people in this chamber. I feel secure in some ways there, but I do not feel secure when I come into this House of Commons and see the people who are representing Canada making decisions for short term benefit and political gain, and forgetting the long term implications to this country and to our sovereignty, which our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought to first obtain and then continue to uphold.

John Diefenbaker would be turning over in his grave right now if he knew what these Conservatives were doing to our country. They are following the Liberal pattern. The Liberals were great at continentalism, always have been. Now all of a sudden we have them all together. I hope Canadians in the next election really realize that we have Tweedledee and Tweedledum when it comes to protecting Canadian sovereignty in this country.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I would just remind all hon. members that cellphones are not to be used in the House. They often disrupt those giving speeches.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Western Arctic for his speech this afternoon. I know that, as someone from a resource area of Canada, he understands the importance of a deal like this and how bad this deal is for Canada.

I wanted to ask him about the $1 billion in illegally collected levies that we give up under the provisions of this deal, that we pass on to the Americans for their use. We have already talked earlier this afternoon about the money that goes to the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports to pursue its protectionist ways, but the other half of that $1 billion goes directly to the White House.

Ostensibly, it is for educational and charitable causes in timber-reliant communities, initiatives related to low income housing and disaster relief, and education and public interest projects addressing forest management issues, but it has been reported widely, and many of us I think agree, that this is really just a slush fund for electing more republican protectionists to Congress in the United States.

It is rather ironic that Canada would agree to establishing that kind of slush fund for the Bush White House, to elect more members to Congress who believe in the things that they believe in. I wonder if the member for Western Arctic might comment on that.

I also think it is rather ironic, and I have used that word a number of times this afternoon, that in the course of this deal there is half a billion dollars for support to American forestry communities, apparently, but there is absolutely nothing in here for support to Canadian communities that have been so devastated by this agreement and by this attack on our industry.

I wonder if he might comment on those issues.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question triggered in my mind one of the reasons why I worked so very hard to get into Parliament, which was the deal that was struck between multinational diamond companies and the Canadian government on the diamond resources in the north.

What a giveaway we had there. The Liberal Party, in its wisdom when it was in power, chose to give that industry carte blanche in the treatment of our resource there, and certainly as a northerner I railed against that for many years.

However, that is symptomatic of the larger problem. Canadians are wealthy in resources right now and we are willing to sell them off at the lowest price to maintain political promise.