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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence, as reported with amendment from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There are 95 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-24. Motions Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 35, 36, 46, 53, 74, 79, 82 and 95 will not be selected by the Chair as they could have been presented in committee.

Motion Nos. 30 to 34, 37 to 45, 47 to 52, 54 to 73, 76, 78, 80, 81 and 85 to 93 will not be selected by the Chair as they were defeated in committee.

Motion No. 11 proposes to amend clause 12. The Chair has been informed that an error was found in the report to the House on Bill C-24. This situation resulted in the tabling of a motion at report stage. The error in question has to do with an amendment to an amendment that was rejected in committee on a recorded division. The report to the House indicates, in error, that the amendment to the amendment was adopted. Accordingly, the Chair thanks the hon. member for Gatineau for tabling a motion at report stage in order to correct the report, but this was not necessary. I will ask that the bill be reprinted after third reading in order to add the following amendment to clause 12:

That Bill C-24, in clause 12, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 36, on page 7, with the following:

“incurred in the placement aboard the convey--”

Accordingly, Motion No. 11 will not be selected by the Chair.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

There are a large number of motions which have not been selected for report stage, either because they were identical to motions defeated in committee or because they could have been presented in committee.

The Chair feels that it may be appropriate to take a moment to review the selection criteria for report stage.

On March 21, 2001, the Speaker made a statement on the selection criteria for motions at report stage as follows:

First, past selection practices...will continue to apply. For example, motions and amendments that were presented in committee will not be selected, nor will motions ruled out of order in committee. Motions defeated in committee will only be selected if the Speaker judges them to be of exceptional significance.

Second, regarding the new guidelines, I will apply the tests of repetition, frivolity, vexatiousness and unnecessary prolongation of report stage proceedings insofar as it is possible to do so in the particular circumstances with which the Chair is faced. ... I also intend to apply those criteria in the original note.... Specifically, motions in amendment that could have been presented in committee will not be selected.

Consequently, the Chair selects motions which further amend an amendment adopted by a committee, motions which make consequential changes based on an amendment adopted by a committee and motions which delete a clause.

Aside from this, the Chair is loath to select motions unless a member makes a compelling argument for selection based on the exceptional significance of the amendment.

The Chair cannot predict every possible scenario, but it reminds hon. members that every bill is carefully examined in order to preserve the delicate balance between protecting the rights of the minority and the ability of the majority to exercise the right to vote.

Therefore, the motions will be grouped for debate as follows: Group No. 1 will include Motions Nos. 4, 25, 77, 83, 84 and 94. Group No. 2 will include Motions Nos. 6 to 8, 13 to 19, 22, 28 and 75.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 4, 25, 77, 83, 84 and 94 in Group No. 1 to the House.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 4

— That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 25

— That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 77

— That Bill C-24, in Clause 100, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 87 with the following:

(a) specifying any requirements or conditions that, in the opinion of the Government of Canada, should be met in order for a person to be certified as an independent remanufacturer;”

Motion No. 83

— That Bill C-24, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 89 with the following:

“which it is made but no earlier than November 1, 2006.”

Motion No. 84

— That Bill C-24, in Clause 108, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 90 with the following:

“earlier than November 1, 2006.”

Motion No. 94

— That Bill C-24, in Clause 126, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 100 with the following:

“have come into force on November 1, 2006.”

He said: Mr. Speaker, I stand to address this first group of motions to amend this badly botched Bill C-24. It is important to give some initial information to the public at large who are watching us today just how badly this bill has been treated. It was badly botched from the start. The negotiations were badly botched. As one person in the softwood industry notably said, Canada capitulated on everything. Subsequent to that there were further capitulations over the course of the summer. Now we have Bill C-24.

As the New Democratic Party members have been paying the most attention to this bill, we can say that the bill itself is badly flawed, badly botched. However, unbelievably the majority of the Standing Committee on International Trade, the Bloc, Conservative and Liberal members, refused to hear from witnesses across the country from coast to coast to coast who wanted to testify on this badly botched bill.

Unbelievably we heard from only two witnesses and they raised the issue about the poor drafting of the bill and some of the perverse impacts of this horrible legislation. Yet the committee just ramrodded through this legislation. In fact, half of the bill was not even considered in committee. There was no debate whatsoever on amendments. In fact, many of the amendments that were rejected were not even considered by the committee because the committee did not want to do its due diligence on the bill. We are now at report stage and amendments are being brought forward. What do these amendments do?

In the first group of amendments we are endeavouring to repair the incredible botch job that was done by the government on Bill C-24. One of the two witnesses who were allowed to testify before the Conservatives and Liberals shut down any testimony testified to the fact that there is this perverse double taxation in the bill itself. Because the government was not able to do its homework properly, we end up taxing twice any company that actually goes through the EDC formula. Unbelievably, that means that the companies that go through the Export Development Corporation are the ones in a sad, sad position with their cashflow and they actually do not get back 80¢ on the dollar. They get back 67¢ because the government in botching the drafting of this bill has taxed them twice. It is unbelievable.

Now that the government with the support of its Liberal allies has botched the bill, we are endeavouring to give an opportunity to those companies to go back to the minister and get refunds on the money that they should not have paid in the first place. That is why I moved Motion No. 25. We are essentially saying that since the bill does not allow those companies to come back except under the very strict provisions of the Financial Administration Act, those companies should have the opportunity to get back the money they should not have paid in the first place.

The reason most companies have rejected the government's plan, the reason that less than 50% of companies signed on to this strange, bizarre Export Development Corporation punitive tax, double taxation as we know, is no secret. The reason is the ruling on October 13 where the Court of International Trade in the United States said that Canada is entitled to get back every single penny. We do not have to go through this sellout. We do not have to go through the lost jobs, 4,000 to date since this badly botched deal was put in place provisionally, 4,000 jobs including many in my community.

We have a badly botched sellout. We have a badly botched deal. We have a committee that was out of control refusing to do its due diligence on the actual provisions of the bill. Far be it from the NDP to have to approve the bill because we disagree with the sellout in principle, but the committee did not do its due diligence. It is completely irresponsible. That means to softwood communities across the country we are now dealing with a deeply flawed bill.

There were virtually no witnesses, no due diligence and now double taxation. As usual, the NDP is having to be the effective opposition. We are saying to wait, that this bill is even bad from a Conservative point of view. Is there not one Conservative willing to stand and say, “I am sorry, we screwed up. We are going to try to correct the most egregious errors in this deal”? No.

Let us look at another element that we are trying to adjust. A committee that is out of control has adopted definitions for tenure that the United States pushed and on which the Conservative government just capitulated. They directly affect the B.C. timber sales program. It is unbelievable. Now tenure is defined the way the United States defines tenure. It means that the timber sales program which is designed with a sealed bid process is now defined as having tenure, which means the United States under anti-circumvention can raise the B.C. timber sales program that was directly put in place to try to get around those punitive illegal measures of the United States. It is unbelievable.

[An hon. member]

The more we learn.

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

As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has just pointed out, the more we learn about this deal, the more we realize this House is failing in its responsibility to softwood communities across the country. It is failing utterly and completely.

There are double taxation provisions and no provision to allow those companies to go back and push for the kind of justice they should be seeing. Clause 39 has to be deleted.

We are looking through these various motions, Mr. Speaker, that you have regrouped, I would say somewhat hastily. I would disagree with the provisions that you put forward.

The other aspect we touch on in Motions Nos. 83 and 84 is the fact that we have a deal that was put into place, badly botched from the beginning, that forced companies to pay a double tax at the border. When this was hastily and shoddily thrown together on October 11, the illegal American tariffs were still in place. It went from a 10.8% tariff to an additional 15% tariff that companies had to pay. They have to pay this and the government has no idea for how long. There were no witnesses allowed, but when we questioned officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, they had no idea when the illegal American tariffs had been taken off. We stepped forward and asked very clearly, why would we put into place provisions of this agreement when illegal American tariffs were still in place? Why would we pay 15% on top of 10.8%? We have said in these motions very clearly that the putting into effect of this agreement has to be November 1.

There was absolute chaos at the border. We have seen absolute chaos in the months since this was provisionally put into effect. There are 4,000 lost jobs, nearly 300 in my community. There will be other members of the New Democratic Party, the only party that is standing up for Canadians on this issue, who will be stepping forward and talking about job losses in their communities as well. There has been utter chaos at the border and companies are paying a double tax. They are paying the 10.8% and an additional 15% on top of that. We have said that the date has to be November 1.

For goodness' sake, 4,000 jobs have been lost because of the incompetence of the federal government, because of its complete lack of understanding of softwood in British Columbia and in other parts of western Canada. Those jobs have been lost. The government, even if it insists on ramming through this deal with the support of the Liberals, has to stand up and realize it made an egregious error. It screwed up. It implemented the deal hastily. To save face for our intellectually malnourished Minister of International Trade we had to rush this job. Because we rushed this job, the government screwed up and companies have had to pay twice.

It makes sense that we make adjustments to the bill, a bill with which we disagree profoundly, but we are trying to save the government from itself, so that the provisions of the deal take effect November 1. There need to be provisions for the companies where double taxation took place at the border, where companies paid the Americans these forced export taxes of an additional 15%.

Bill C-24 is horrible for the softwood companies and the 4,000 families whose breadwinners have lost their jobs. They can attest to that already with four weeks of absolute collapse of the softwood sector because of the incompetence of the government. If the government is absolutely set on ramming this bill through with the support of the Liberals, at least the government should make some provisions for the disastrous situation it has set up.

Disaster is not too strong a word when we are talking about 4,000 lost jobs. We are talking about raw log exports being stimulated now because, as we were told this summer when we saw the softwood agreement coming, this is a recipe for raw logs from Canada creating American jobs. Setting up the 15% export tax, self-imposed, when we won in the Court of International Trade on October 13 is absolutely absurd.

Now we have a bill that is even worse than the sellout, a bill on which the homework was not done, the due diligence was not done. The Standing Committee on International Trade completely failed Canadians. The ministry completely failed Canadians. The minister who has failed his constituents has now broadened his reach. He has betrayed everybody.

We have a situation where the implementation of the softwood agreement is being imposed at the same time as the illegal American tariffs are still being imposed. It is absolutely senseless and absurd.

In this corner of the House there is one political party that Canadians know will stand up for them and will stand up for softwood communities. My colleague from Timmins—James Bay and I went to Thunder Bay. We talked to softwood workers there. They told us how badly they feel about this. They have seen mill closures in northwestern Ontario.

I was in northern Manitoba a week and a half ago where there have been layoffs and shutdowns because of this badly botched softwood sellout. In northern Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in British Columbia there will be public meetings coming up and we will be going into Conservative ridings. This has been a badly botched deal. It is a badly flawed bill. The government and members in all four corners of the House have to make some adjustments to it so that the most egregious impacts are not continued to be felt across the country.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the news from back home that Tembec in Timmins is gone. One of the fundamental mills in our region has gone out of business. Smooth Rock Falls is down. Opasatika is down. Red Rock is down. Ignace is down. Kenora is gone. Dryden is gone. Across the line from us in Quebec, Malartic is down. Grand Remous is down. Béarn is down.

I have spoken to workers in so many of those communities. They understand very clearly that there is a fundamental disinterest on the part of the government about the future not just of their industry, not just of their jobs, but of their communities. That is very clear.

What was very confusing to some of the people I spoke to, particularly along the Highway 17 corridor into northwestern Ontario, is why the Liberal Party has worked with the Conservatives to force through these amendments to cut down debate in committee to 60 seconds so that the effects of this would not be reviewed. Why was it that the Liberal members in committee worked with the Conservatives to ensure there would be no public hearings?

When we got to Thunder Bay everybody knew that Thunder Bay was going to be one of the main areas where we would have committee hearings. Lo and behold there were two Liberal members in that community who broke ranks with the rest of northern Ontario. They were standing proud for the bill and standing proud for this sellout. I was wondering at the time whether the Liberal Party was trying to stop hearings in northern Ontario to save the embarrassment of their own members who signed on to this bill.

The hon. member has been in Thunder Bay as well. He has spoken to the workers. Does he think perhaps that the Liberals are going along with the Conservatives in order to try to protect ridings in northwestern Ontario where members have sold out their own workers and sold out their own communities?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay is absolutely right. He has been one of the most vocal people in standing up for northern Ontario. He has been a champion of northern Ontario, as has the member for Sault Ste. Marie. We have two members in the House who have been standing up for northern Ontario jobs.

The reality, as the member for Timmins—James Bay has just pointed out, is that we are hemorrhaging jobs in northern Ontario because of this badly botched softwood sellout. We are hemorrhaging, with closures and layoffs right across northwestern Ontario. We saw it in Thunder Bay, but we are seeing it right across northern Ontario.

The Liberals, who have been saying that somehow they are opposed to this, have been working with the Conservatives and pushing this along. I do not know how a single Liberal member from northern Ontario can stand up and say that the Liberals have been fighting the good fight after what happened at the Standing Committee on International Trade, when the Liberals did the Conservatives' dirty work to push this bill through.

The reality is that we are in the House now debating Bill C-24 in its badly botched form because of the Liberal Party, because of those Liberal members. They are the ones who pushed this through. They are the ones who said no, they did not care about softwood, that was just for the TV cameras. Now we are in the situation where we have a badly flawed bill that does not even do what the Conservatives said it was going to do because they screwed up the definitions and badly botched the drafting. Now we have a situation where northern Ontario is going to pay the price for having Liberals who are refusing to stand up for that region.

Not only are we seeing this in northern Ontario, but we are seeing it right across the country. We are seeing lost jobs everywhere, from B.C. right through to northern Quebec, and those lost jobs are a direct result of this badly botched softwood sellout.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have one specific question for my colleague. It stems from a previous speech that he made on this subject in the same context of saying that the Liberals are doing the Tories' dirty work in committee.

Is it not true that Canada is in effect doing the Americans' dirty work in their long known animosity toward the softwood industry in Canada? Is it not true that some of the money left on the table will in fact be used against the best interests of Canadians by our American enemies in this trade issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. In fact, it is the case and, even worse in Bill C-24, what we are adopting and what the Liberals and Conservatives are trying to foist on the House, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, is a bill that provides American definitions of virtually everything, including definitions of tenure and of related and unrelated people. All of those issues now go to the American coalition and it now has in place definitions that the Americans will be able to use against us.

Even better, thanks to the Conservatives' generosity and with the support of the Liberals, they now have half a billion dollars--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the NDP members are patting themselves on the back in their mutual admiration society down there, but some of the propaganda they put forward I think is reprehensible.

They claim that only 50% of the companies actually support this agreement when in fact we know more than 90% of the industry supports the agreement and signed on to the deal.

They claim that the recent ruling on October 13 of the Court of International Trade in the United States would have brought back all the money, as if that were the last court ruling there would have been. Those members ought to know how many court rulings, filings and counter-filings there have been on this file.

It is misleading to the public to suggest that this would not have been appealed. We know that the U.S. industry said it immediately would have appealed that decision and thus tied us up for several more years of punishing duties. This government has taken action.

I also think it is reprehensible for the member to imply that these 4,000 lost jobs are the responsibility of this government. I was elected in the year 2000. The former softwood lumber agreement expired in 2001. It was the previous administration that sat on this for so many years that it resulted in punishing job losses in my riding, as well as the member's, and in other coastal communities and indeed across Canada, while the previous government dithered and failed to take action.

This government, as soon as we took office, did take action. We took action quickly. We made it a priority. The Prime Minister immediately appointed the new ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson, as our representative, and we made this a high priority file. It got high level meetings, including that between the Prime Minister and the president of the United States, and that got things moving, with teams mobilized on both sides of the border to resolve this issue.

The result of that agreement is that on July 1 we initialed a legal text. By September 12, the Minister of International Trade and U.S. trade representative Susan Schwab had signed an agreement. On September 18, a notice of ways and means was tabled in this House which we are still debating today, with amendments, as we move forward in this process.

The highlights of the agreement include: the revocation of the punishing U.S. countervailing and anti-dumping duties; the return of over $4.4 billion in duties collected by the U.S. since 2002; the safeguarding of the provinces' ability to manage their forest resources; a provision ensuring that revenues from the border measures will stay in Canada; and a range of initiatives to enhance binational cooperation and the development of the North American lumber industry.

By October 30, the first cheques were already going back to our cash-strapped industry, with $950 million being returned to Canadian forestry companies, about half of that to our British Columbia companies, including coastal companies that have been suffering very much as a consequence of those punishing duties.

I want to address an issue that is a big concern for coastal communities, particularly in my riding, and that is the issue of log exports. It is an issue of great concern to coastal communities, particularly on Vancouver Island, and particularly the two central ridings of Nanaimo—Alberni, my own, and the one south of us, Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I am glad to say that there is a review team looking at this issue of log exports. It involves a couple of high profile people with extensive experience. Bill Dumont is the former chief forester at Western Forest Products, a man well respected in the industry, and Don Wright is a former deputy forests minister who is also very well respected in the industry. Mr. Dumont is a Vancouver Island resident with 35 years of forestry experience who served as chief forester for Western Forest Products, where he earned a reputation for sustainable forest management, consultation, and working with first nations, and he is an award winner.

I am glad to say that consultations are under way. I am looking forward to action being taken. We have the possibility, through clause 17 in this bill, of dealing with the log export issue. There is room to deal with this issue. I want to take a moment to explain why the log issue is of concern to mid-Island areas.

As members know in regard to the private lands issue, when we are talking about log exports we have public lands and private lands. About 5.7% of the B.C. land mass is private forest lands, but more than half of that is actually on Vancouver Island, and most of it is in two ridings right in the central Island area. That is because of something that goes all the way back to Confederation: the E & N land grants. More than 139 years ago, that land was committed to building a railroad and the resources attached to it were given to the railroad company. Because of that, we have extraordinarily large masses of terrain that are private lands at present.

I am disappointed that, following the collapse of the agreement of 2001, neither the federal nor the provincial government had the courage to deal with the log export issue. The federal government was responsible for private lands and the provincial government was responsible for public lands. Neither government, the former Liberal government or the newly elected provincial government, had the courage to deal with the log export issue, which had the consequence of having a tariff wall on our finished log softwood lumber products while our logs were being exported without any restriction at all at that time.

It seems to me that a tariff should have been imposed while that dispute was under way. That did not happen. As a consequence, we saw a huge increase in coastal log exports during the time of this dispute.

Tremendous realignment has also been taking place in the forest industry and that is affecting the log export issue. Forest giant Weyerhaeuser conveniently owned mills on both sides of the border. It is a huge company with about $16 billion in assets and is bigger than our four largest forest companies combined. Before Weyerhaeuser sold to a Canadian company called Brascan, it managed to get another large chunk of land near Port Alberni released from public lands into the private sector.

The consequences, particularly for the community mid-Island around Port Alberni, have been rather devastating, in that the large amount of private land creates a situation that allows logs to be exported. The logs are vulnerable to export, particularly from this mid-Island area.

Immediately after Weyerhaeuser sold to Brascan, the company divided into two, separating the lands from the mills. At the same time, one of the largest mills in the Port Alberni area, Island Phoenix Division, happened to be moved to the land sector, Island Timberlands. Almost immediately that mill was dismantled, with the loss of about 300 jobs. Conveniently, that particular site is now available for log exports. That is a concern to people in the mid-Island area. Of concern to all of the workers is the tremendous movement toward facilitating log exports. The mill portion of Cascadia was very soon sold to the Western Forest Products division, which now controls about nine of the remaining coastal mills, and Island Timberlands is simply a land manager that can export those logs according to existing rules.

I am concerned that the existing situation has resulted in a tremendous increase in log exports. Log exports have doubled since 2001. Since 1996, the amount of coastal forest wood being exported as raw logs has increased about 10 times.

I want to say that this agreement in general has been very good for Canada. To end the impasse, the government took action on a very complicated file. Billions of dollars are coming back to our entire Canadian industry, including the coastal forest industry.

Clause 17 of the agreement allows us to take action through the governor in council. We are looking at that right now with the province and the review team to deal with this coastal log export issue. I am hopeful that we will see action. I have been discussing this issue with the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Natural Resources. I know they are discussing it, as I have with the provincial minister, Rich Coleman, the minister of forests.

I am hopeful about the report tabled by these very capable forest experts from British Columbia on the issue of coastal log exports. There have been discussions and consultations going on over the past year. I know that they have heard from the community and I know the community is very upset.

In particular, people at Port Alberni have been counting the logging trucks coming out of there while the mills have been shut down, impaired or working at partial capacity. Even during the recent salmon festival, a ship pulled into the port to load logs for South Korea to be milled there while we have mills working at less than capacity right there in Port Alberni.

We are concerned about the impact of these coastal log exports. The agreement is a good agreement for Canada. We are going to move ahead, but the sidebar issue here on the coastal log exports is one that I hope we will be able to address through the provisions of clause 17. I hope we will see some action to help keep those logs get processed in Canada and on Vancouver Island and to help keep as many jobs as possible right here at home.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will explain later in my speech how much the Liberals are against this bill, but I have a question for the hon. member. What really bothers me is the part about leaving $500 million in the United States to the lobbyists who are going to use it to come back at us in 24 months after the expiry of the agreement.

In the previous government I was involved in a lot of negotiations and at that time if money was going to be left on the table it was going to be for constructive uses there, whether it was Katrina victims or low income housing, but there was definitely no intent for it to be left there for the lobbyists of the U.S. forest industry.

How can the member stand here, agree with this bill wholeheartedly, and say it is a good bill when money is going to be left on the table to come back and bite us later?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is concerned for his rural community, but I am concerned when I hear the member object to this agreement when his government had the opportunity to solve this issue a whole lot sooner and allowed these tariffs to accumulate at the alarming rate they did, strangling our coastal communities and forest companies. The previous Liberal government was ready to sign an agreement that was not anywhere near as good as this one for the Canadian industry.

I want to draw attention to something that is a big concern while I have the opportunity. An article in Saturday's Globe and Mail discusses investment in the coastal industry and some of the comments are indicative of where we might be going, which concerns me.

Jimmy Pattison, a big player on the west coast, talks about making big investment in the coastal industry and that is because there is some measure of optimism that what goes down must come up. Hopefully it will come back. Russell Horner, chief executive officer of Vancouver's Catalyst Paper Corporation, stated:

There needs to be a major restructuring, with closure of a lot of assets and reinvestment in others. The government doesn't need to fund that, but they need to facilitate it...when things shut down, they need to let them shut down.

I know that is a concern because Catalyst runs the paper mill in Port Alberni. We do not want to lose that paper mill as a consequence of the lack of available raw materials from the downturn on the softwood side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was amused to see the member for Sydney—Victoria speak in opposition to the agreement when the Liberals in committee tried to ram the thing through. They did the Conservatives' dirty work for them. I like him personally, but I think it is audacious, even for a Liberal, to stand in the House now that the television cameras are back on and say that the Liberals are opposed again. It is in the House now because of the Liberal Party and Canadians will not forget that we are debating this bill in the House because of the Liberal Party.

I would like to go back to my colleague from the Conservative Party who said some things that were absolutely shameless. He knows that on October 13 the Court of International Trade ruled in our favour. This has been the line from the beginning. The Conservatives said it would be endless litigation. The Prime Minister said it would take seven years of litigation.

The member knows that following that decision customs and border protection has already started paying 100% of the dollars out to the companies that did not sign on to this badly botched deal. He also knows that most companies have not done the legal work for the Export Development Corporation because they know full well this is a badly botched deal and that they should not be involved in it. He knows all those facts.

However, the question that I have to ask is--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about money coming back because of the Court of International Trade ruling. He knows full well that the U.S. industry announced that if it was not for this agreement being in place, it would have immediately launched an appeal. That appeal was not launched because of the good work of this Conservative government in arranging an agreement that prevented the U.S. industry from appealing that ruling. The member knows that to be the case and he continues with his NDP “pat themselves on the back spin”.

I want to discuss another issue which is the concern about the move to private lands. Port Alberni, which has been hit so hard by this issue, has also been hit hard by rain recently. Next to the town of Port Alberni is a huge of tract of land on the Beaufort Range that has been the subject of extensive logging because of private land practices there. In fact, back in January there was an investigation. Forest officials were brought in to examine the blowout in the water and there was a boil water advisory as a consequence of that. There have been some very serious changes with the Private Managed Forest Land Council--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak at report stage of Bill C-24, commonly referred to as the softwood lumber bill. It is with great disappointment that we have witnessed some of the actions of the members opposite trying to make our committee non-functional.

The hon. member said that he liked me, but it is with great sadness that I find that the hon. member is taking me off his Christmas card list. This is not the spirit of the season and I hope he reconsiders.

During the 2006 election of the Conservative Party of Canada it outlined its softwood lumber strategy. In that platform the Conservatives promised to be tough with the American government, defend the Canadian softwood lumber industry, and stand up for the forestry worker and help the struggling communities.

Looking closely at the Conservative platform, specifically the small section on forestry, we see several promises. I would like to take a moment to go through a few of those promises today and how they apply to Bill C-24. One promise was to get tough with the Americans on this file. The Conservatives promised they would: “Demand that the U.S. government play by the rules on softwood lumber”.

I do not think that anyone who read this promise thought for a second that what the Conservatives really meant was they would turn their back on years of hard fought negotiations, turn their back on the cornerstones of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and turn their back on the sustainability of forestry communities. In their haste to appease the Americans and score some political points they capitulated on issue after issue.

Over the years our previous Liberal government fought time and time again through trade panels and international dispute resolution mechanisms to win battle after battle on softwood lumber. Whether it was at WTO or NAFTA, time and again we won those rulings. Admittedly, time and again the Americans appealed these rulings. Protecting their domestic lumber industry was paramount. One need only look at the Byrd amendment to see the lengths they would go through to secure their industry and by extension, the power of the lumber industry of the United States was going to work against us.

Big lumber in the U.S. wanted to limit access to Canadian softwood lumber into what the Americans perceived as their God-given domestic markets despite NAFTA and WTO rulings. Quite frankly they lobbied, bullied and pushed, and dragged out the process in the hope of maximizing their profits and waiting for someone to come along and give in to their demands. That opportunity materialized in the form of the Conservative government across the floor. So desperate were the Conservatives to get a deal, to show action on this file, that they stormed ahead and committed to a flawed agreement.

This agreement has concerning implications, not only for the softwood lumber industry but for other Canadian producers. Polls show that Americans are in support of free trade in principle. In fact, 66% of Americans are in favour of free trade; however, this support crumbles the second that the so-called free trade is not in their best interests.

This is not entirely surprising, but it does point to the fact that if today we capitulate on the softwood lumber, what will be next? Will it be beef, automobiles or grain? Who knows what is going to be next? That they have given in on this file shows lack of resolve, again for cheap political points. The Prime Minister pointed out some kind of great new bond with the American administration but is, frankly, a travesty.

This brings my comments on Bill C-24 to another promise made by the Conservative Party in its blue book. On page 19 in the Conservative 2006 platform it states that the Conservatives would defend the rights of Canadian producers and demand the “return of the more than $5 billion in illegal softwood lumber tariffs to Canadian producers”. We on this side of the House know only too well that the Conservatives are not that good with the math. In 1993 we inherited their deficit mess and we worked long and hard to balance the books of this mismanagement.

That being said, here we are today, and the Conservatives have lopped off a full $1 billion from their promise. That is $1 billion in illegal collected duties. That is $1 billion of our Canadian economy. To lop this right off and give it to the American administration and to the lumber industry, not only demonstrates the Conservatives are bad at math but they are bad negotiators. It is clear to all but the party opposite that at least half of this funding will be used by the American lumber industry to fund legal and political attacks against our industry.

Can we imagine $500 million of Canadian money being used by the American lumber industry to lobby against us? It is unbelievable. The Americans must have thought it was Christmas back in the spring when this deal was being made, and it will be Christmas again when the legislation is passed.

The Conservatives are throwing away the lumber industry to the wolves. With Bill C-24 they have backed the Canadian softwood lumber industry into a corner, and what is worse, they have given the American lumber industry a stick, a $500 million stick. What is more, after just 24 months, Canada's proud new government has given its opponents an escape clause to walk away from the deal. What shrewd negotiations, they have given away all we have gained through our trade agreement resolution process.

They have given opposing industries in the United States funds to lobby for two years against our industry, at which time they can pull the plug and possibly gain increased domestic and international ports again, financed by our Canadian funds. That is how the government protects its domestic industry. That is how a government fights on the international stage for just treatment.

Recently, the Prime Minister has been going around suggesting that he does foreign affairs differently than the past government. He does it differently all right. He walks a different walk and he talks a different talk indeed. He is walked over by the Americans, has miscommunications with the Chinese, and he ignores the European Union. That is hardly a stellar new approach.

Realizing my time is short, we could talk all afternoon on the travesty done here. I want to finish my comments by remarking briefly on the excellent work of my colleague, the Liberal critic for international trade, the member of Parliament for Beauséjour.

In the House we are all aware that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador traditionally receive what is called the Atlantic exclusion. This exclusion recognizes that the lumber industry in Atlantic Canada is different because it is primarily conducted on privately owned land. The Americans have perceived this to be more in line with their domestic market and have therefore waived the tariffs that they impose on the softwood lumber imports from the rest of Canada.

When the recent softwood lumber deal was struck, the exclusion was in that agreement. However, when Bill C-24 was tabled in the House of Commons, the legislation did not have the same language. The Maritime Lumber Bureau raised these concerns with the hon. member for Beauséjour and other parliamentarians. The result was an amendment which was passed at committee to make the language more clear to ensure the continuation of the Atlantic exclusion.

I want to applaud my colleague's work on this amendment and his efforts to work out a deal so the new wording in the bill could be included and the exclusion maintained in exchange for our cooperation with some of the amendments put forward in committee.

We hope that the government resists the urge to roll back these improvements that are part of the report stage amendments. This betrayal will be noticed by the provincial governments, and must make members, like the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, very happy with the changes in these rollbacks.

Despite this agreement at committee, I want to be very clear that our party does not support Bill C-24. It is flawed legislation brought back by the Bloc and the Conservatives where possibly they tried to make improvements such as the Atlantic exclusion. The reality is that we have been duped. We can only hope that our interventions here at report stage will make members in the Conservative Party come to their senses and pressure their leaders to have the bill withdrawn from the House and negotiate a new deal for the betterment of all softwood lumber producers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to take the intervention of the member for Sydney—Victoria.

The Liberal members on the committee rammed through Bill C-24 and refused debate on most of the bill. Aside from the section on the maritime lumber exemption, which we in the NDP supported, the Liberals rammed through every section. Now the member for Sydney—Victoria stands in the House and says that the Liberal Party is opposed to Bill C-24.

The reason Bill C-24 is in the House today is because of the Liberal Party. The Liberals were the instigators. They were the ones who pushed this bill along. It would still be in committee and we would still be looking at changing some of the most egregious errors that were made had it not been for Liberal members ramming it through.

I do not know how to take the member's intervention. Is it possible that he has finally realized that the Liberals made an egregious error and they are apologizing to Canadians from coast to coast to coast for having rammed through Bill C-24 and having done the Conservatives' dirty work? I hope that is the case but I think it is another example of Liberal double-talk. The reality is that the bill is in the House today because of Liberal support.

We know the bill is bad for Canadians but it is the Liberals who forced it through. The bill is here in the House now, after being rammed through at record speed, because of Liberal Party support.

The NDP has been the only party actively standing up and saying that with the thousands of lost jobs that have resulted since the bill was rammed through provisionally a month ago, with the billion dollars that we are giving away, despite a court decision that says we do not need to give away a single penny, with the export tax that is leading to job losses and shutting down value added production in this country and the fact that this deal stimulates raw log exports, we must ask why the Liberal Party forced this bill through.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite a question. The reality is that the committee was becoming quite dysfunctional. Mostly because of the NDP filibustering, the committee was not going to get past the first clause.

We all knew that the Bloc and the Conservatives would push the bill through committee. We, being the wise Liberals, the party of the centre, we tried to get some amendments in at committee that would help the lumber industry, not only in Atlantic Canada but right across Canada. We made the best of the situation. We cancelled the filibustering that was going on by the NDP and the rhetoric that was not making any sense.

Yes, we pushed some amendments through because, at the end of the day, the Bloc and the Conservatives were going to push the bill through and we needed to make some constructive changes to the bill. Those are the changes we are pushing for and the changes we still want to see but we are adamantly against Bill C-24.

We wish that in the future the NDP could be a little more cooperative at committee and make things work. It is the season and I am still waiting for my Christmas card.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard that response but I can see that he is almost blushing after saying that.

The member talked about not wanting to listen to a discussion that was not constructive. Why was it that the Liberals were not interested in hearing from people across Canada? Is it that Canadians from across Canada might have something to say about this that he says we were filibustering and wasting the Liberal's time.

The member can talk to his own colleague from Thunder Bay. The committee would have had hearings in Thunder Bay but the members from the Thunder Bay area support this agreement.

For the member to stand up in the House and say that the Liberal Party adamantly opposes the agreement is not true. Because the Liberals cancelled the hearings across the country so people could not have input, is he saying that the people of Canada would be wasting the Liberals' time by giving their concerns?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member spoke about the member from Thunder Bay.

Whether it is in our rural caucus or any discussions in our caucus, the member from Thunder Bay is out front and centre for the industry. He is trying to make the best of a bad situation brought about by the Conservatives.

The NDP members are trying to take this issue on as though it is their cause, that they are protecting the workers and the industry. All our great citizens need to do is to look at the blues from the committee to know that the NDP members wasted the committee's time many times by filibustering.

I hope there is some sensibility here and that some of the amendments pass so we can get on with the show.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will first state the position of the Bloc Québécois on the proposed amendments to Bill C-24, Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, and, then, outline the position of the Bloc Québécois on Bill C-24 per se.

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to the following amendments.

Under Motion No. 4, the government would not be required to enforce the act; that does not make much sense in the context of fiscal legislation. Motion No. 25 greatly complicates the collection of export taxes and the enforcement of the act. We understand that the New democratic Party does not want the act to come into force, but Quebec lumber companies want it to.

Motions Nos. 83 and 84 would have the act become effective as of November 1. The fact of the matter is, however, that the anti-dumping duties were removed on October 12. Adopting these two motions would mean leaving the lumber trade unregulated for two weeks, which is contrary to the terms of the agreement.

To help members understand the position of the Bloc Québécois on the thorny issue of Canada-U.S. relations with respect to softwood lumber, I will describe once more our party's approach.

It is important to understand that the Bloc Québécois is unenthusiastically supporting Bill C-24.

This bill allows the implementation of the July 1 softwood lumber agreement between Ottawa and Washington by: setting the terms and conditions for the return to Canadian lumber companies of countervailing and anti-dumping duties representing 81% of the money currently held by Washington and about 65% of the amount that these companies have paid, taking into account variations in the exchange rate over the past four years; setting the terms and conditions for the return to Washington of the billion dollars that companies have to leave on the table; setting trade barriers that will govern the softwood lumber trade between Canada and the United States, including export taxes and export permits; and authorizing the payment of export tax revenue to the provinces.

The industry has stated nearly unanimously that this agreement was not satisfactory. It has, however, concluded that it was better to accept this bad deal than to continue fighting. In a word, the industry is at its wit's end.

The attitude of the federal government, be it Conservative or Liberal, has left a bitter taste. By refusing its support, it has considerably weakened the industry, forcing it to accept this agreement for fear of seriously jeopardizing its future.

The Bloc Québécois, after consulting the industries and workers in the forestry sector during the summer, came to the conclusion that it had no choice but to support the agreement because the industry, with its back to the wall, could not wait any longer. To act otherwise would not have been irresponsible.

The Bloc insists, however, on stating clearly that although the bill must be approved, the government cannot claim to have settled the problems the industry is facing. The industry is dealing with structural problems and the softwood lumber agreement does not solve them.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is calling for the government to implement a series of measures this fall to assist the forest industry, which is facing serious difficulties at the very moment it has been weakened by a lengthy trade dispute.

We want an income support program for older workers, an economic diversification program for communities that depend on the forests and special tax status for the 128,000 owners of private woodlots in Quebec.

In addition, we want an increase in funding for the Canadian model forest program of the Canadian Forest Service, and special tax treatment for the $4.3 billion in countervailing and anti-dumping duty that will be refunded by the American authorities to recognize the losses incurred by companies. We also want accelerated amortization of equipment; a program to stimulate innovation and improve productivity within the forest industry; a market diversification and wood marketing program; and, finally, financial compensation for maintaining forest access roads.

Some of these measures will become meaningless if they are not introduced this year, a pivotal year for the industry. The Bloc Québécois is counting on the Minister of Finance to properly respond to these needs when he makes his financial and economic update announcement.

Bill C-24 contains legislative measures to implement the softwood lumber agreement of last July 1 between the governments of Canada and the United States.

All of the provisions take effect from October 1, 2006. Since the bill was not yet approved on that date, the measures that it contains will be retroactive to October 1, 2006.

It introduces an export control system in the softwood lumber sector, which I will now describe.

Ironically, this control still takes the form of amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act. This act is normally used to control trade in arms and dangerous substances or to limit trade with particular countries under economic or military sanctions. Here, though, it is the products of Canadian firms that are being hit by the restrictions in the act.

In provinces like Quebec that choose to be subject to a lower export tax but have a ceiling placed on their exports, the bill provides that exporters must acquire a licence, which is a kind of export permit. It will enable Ottawa to ensure that companies cannot exceed the quota allocated to them under the agreement.

The methods of allocating export quotas are not specified in the act. This will be done later by regulation. The Government of Quebec has suggested that 94% of the quota should be allocated to companies on the basis of their past exports, with the remaining 6% available on a first come, first served basis.

The Quebec industry was concerned that the agreement provided for quotas to be allocated on a monthly basis—one-twelfth of the annual quota—and that the possibilities of exceeding this monthly quota in case of especially large deliveries were so limited that companies would be unable to honour their contracts or even reach their full annual quotas. We must remember that the construction industry is cyclical and lumber deliveries tend therefore to vary considerably from one month to another.

This issue still has not been resolved, and the government has not made any specific promises. At the most, the binational group responsible for ensuring that the agreement works well will deal with the problem. The Bloc Québécois hopes that the government will try through this binational group to make the monthly export ceilings more flexible. In order for this to be done, the bill already provides all the latitude needed to accommodate greater flexibility because things are done through regulation.

I could go on explaining the entire bill in this way, but I will stop here, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member for Gatineau's speech, but I do not understand. I do not understand the Bloc Québécois' position at all.

Since the provisional implementation of this agreement, 2,000 jobs have been lost in Quebec. Jobs have been lost in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, plants have been shut down in Abitibi, and jobs have been lost in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and on the North Shore. In short, more jobs have been lost in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada. Yet the Bloc still says it will support the agreement. It will support the bill even though we all know it is a bad deal and not at all in the best interest of Quebeckers.

We also know that this agreement has an anti-circumvention clause, which also appears in the bill, that directly affects Quebec's power to act. This clause forces the Government of Quebec to go to Washington if it wants to change its forest policy. The province has to get approval from the Bush administration for any changes even though forest policy falls exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. Even though it is within the purview of the Government of Quebec, we have just ceded the Government of Quebec's sovereignty.

The Bloc's policies in this House are inconsistent. The Bloc is not defending the Government of Quebec's right to make changes to its forest policy, nor is it fighting for all of the jobs that were lost because of this bad deal.

Why?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP.

First of all, let us look carefully at this issue. The Quebec softwood lumber industry is asking us to pass this bill because it is under the gun. It is in a terrible position. The longer we wait, the harder it will be for the industry to get back on its feet. As for the anti-circumvention clause, it specifies that a country cannot act in such a way that circumvents the agreement. It is very important to understand this.

Thus, Washington could not try to limit access to its market any more than what is specified in the agreement. Compared to the years in which no further trade was possible without the Americans imposing an appalling tax, the situation will at least allow the industry to start fresh on a basis that will finally resolve this issue. This is what the industry wants, as well as the unions representing industry workers.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the debate on Bill C-24, I keep hearing the member for Burnaby—New Westminster continually bring up the position of the Bloc Québécois on this bill. Time and time again, my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois who spoke on the bill have explained the situation of the forestry industry and the people who depend on it, with respect to the softwood lumber issue and the agreement with the U.S.

Time and time again, we have said that our industry in Quebec literally had a gun to its head; time and time again, we have said how many sawmills in Quebec had to be sold to American interests; time and time again, we have repeated that we in the Bloc Québécois stand up for our Quebec industries. We are the voice of the industries and people of Quebec in this House.

On many occasions, however, I have seen colleagues from the NDP put forward all sorts of arguments that did not take into account Quebec's position.

Why is the NDP defending the Canadian position so strongly today? Why is it shouting from the rooftops that this is not a good bill and that—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry, but the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville has run out of time.

The hon. member for Gatineau now has the floor.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks.

What we have here is, on the one hand, populist demagoguery and, on the other hand, a party called Bloc Québécois which is a responsible political party. Faced with the situation the softwood lumber sector is finding itself in today, the Bloc Québécois is taking a courageous and responsible position, in cooperation with the industry and the labour unions representing the workers in that industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today to report on the deliberations in the Standing Committee on International Trade on Bill C-24 to implement Canada's obligations under the softwood lumber agreement.

I would like to start by thanking the committee for its close study of the bill. The members worked hard across all party lines to put forward amendments that took into account the concerns of industry and the pressing need to implement the bill in a very timely fashion. It was truly a team effort. I know I speak for all members on this side of the House when I express our gratitude for the energy and ideas brought to bear on the bill. I am confident that their collective contributions and amendments have helped to clarify important elements of the bill.

Today I would like to update the House on the amendments approved by the committee.

The first amendment stems directly from a request from the Maritime Lumber Bureau. The bureau represents lumber companies throughout Atlantic Canada. As members know, the softwood lumber agreement already excludes Atlantic provinces from an export charge. This reflects a long-standing history whereby these provinces have been excluded from U.S. trade action.

Bill C-24 included provisions respecting the exclusion of the Atlantic provinces. However, the bureau wanted to ensure that this exclusion was further clarified in the bill. Therefore, led by the government and in particular the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, the committee discussed and passed this important amendment.

This clarification leaves no doubt that exports from the Atlantic provinces are excluded from the export charge and that a charge will only be imposed if there is a circumvention of the agreement. It also brings other exclusions, those of the territories and the included companies into the same clause. To ensure the proper functioning of the Atlantic Canada exclusion, the government will be proposing a few technical amendments to the bill at report stage.

Our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments that stemmed from concerns expressed by the Quebec Forest Industry Council. The first is a proposed amendment to clarify the timing with respect to the date of shipment for exports sent by rail to the U.S. Second is a proposed amendment to further clarify the definition of FOB value, which is the freight on board cargo, in the legislation. As with the Atlantic exclusions, these amendments directly address the concerns of the lumber industry.

The next amendment concerns independent remanufacturers. As the House knows, the softwood lumber agreement ensures that independent lumber remanufacturers will not have to pay an export charge on the value added component of their products. In fact, this was an essential component of Canada's position throughout the negotiations and in direct response to industry requests. However, the industry asked for further clarity. Therefore, the bill, with the government's amendments at report stage, will make clear how the independent remanufacturer will be treated and certified.

The government also put forward a number of amendments to reflect the agreement's entry into force date of October 12, 2006.

These proposed amendments, while relatively minor in nature, will give our lumber exporters an added measure of certainty and predictability to go forward and plan for the future. Indeed, time is of the essence for the bill. Canada's lumber industry is facing a number of challenges. Lumber prices are at the low end of their cycle and production costs are rising. Combine these challenges with the continued strength of our dollar and we can begin to understand what our industry is up against.

That is why, as the amended bill makes it through the House, we should remind ourselves of the importance of moving it through in a timely manner. Our lumber companies need the stability, predictability and cash that the agreement provides.

The agreement eliminates punitive U.S. duties. It ends the costly litigation, which has gone on for far too long. Under the agreement, the U.S. will immediately dismiss all trade actions against our companies. It takes our lumber producers out of the courts and puts them back where they belong, in communities across the country, growing their enterprises and contributing to Canada's economy. It provides stability for industry hit hard by years of trade action and drawn out litigation.

For the next seven to nine years, no border measures will be imposed when lumber prices are above $355 per thousand board feet. When prices drop below this threshold, the agreement gives provinces flexibility to choose the border measures that most benefit their economic situation. I should add that all export charge revenues collected by the Government of Canada through these border measures will stay in Canada and not end up in the U.S. treasury, which was the case before.

The agreement returns more than $5 billion Canadian to companies, a significant infusion of capital for the lumber industry and the workers in more than 300 communities across Canada who depend upon it.

I am happy to report that the Export Development Canada duty refund mechanism, which we developed to expedite refunds to companies, is ahead of schedule. More than $1.8 billion has already been dispersed to companies, and Export Development Canada will continue to make expedited refunds over the coming weeks.

While the money is good news in itself, we must also consider what this money represents for the forest workers and the communities. The badly needed cash provided by the agreement will help our lumber producers reinvest in their enterprises, improve efficiency and weather the current downturn in lumber prices. Most important, it will let them do so in a stable and predictable trade environment.

We cannot overestimate the importance of this kind of stable environment to our lumber industry. Along with the refunded cash, the stability and predictable environment created by the agreement will allow lumber companies to make long term plans and grow. It will also put us on the right path toward fostering further development and integration of a stronger North American lumber market, one where Canadian companies can play an essential and leading role.

Contrast this positive new environment with what life was like before the agreement. Our lumber producers have spent the better part of the last two decades engaged in a number of drawn out legal battles with the United States. They know that just because we win one battle, it does not mean we win the war.

Our victories in a number of trade courts, including NAFTA and the WTO, were simply appealed by the U.S., costing millions in legal fees and creating much uncertainty for the industry. In fact, some estimates pegged the total cost of fighting these battles for governments and individual lumber companies alike at over $300 million since 2002. The enormity of these fees stands as a testament to the high price of continuing with the strategy built entirely around litigation.

When I hear calls to continue litigation, I remind people of the steep price of taking this path and the extremely uncertain outcome waiting at the other end. This is a case where there is simply no trade peace waiting for us. There is only continued litigation, crushing legal fees and punishing U.S. duties.

Therefore, I would ask all members to carefully consider the cost of turning our backs on this agreement. Ask the lumber companies that are getting over $5 billion Canadian back to reinvest in their enterprises and weather the tough economic times in which they find themselves. Ask the major lumber producing provinces that join the overwhelming majority of industry in supporting the agreement. Finally, ask the hundreds of thousands of people in lumber producing provinces across the country who rely upon a stable and predictable trade environment for their livelihoods. Ask them if they would like to turn back the clocks to a time when this agreement did not exist.

The government believes our lumber communities have suffered long enough. We believe they need the stability and resources that the agreement provides. We believe the agreement is the single best way forward for our softwood lumber industry and the over 300,000 Canadians who rely upon it.

I am confident that the majority of parliamentarians agree with this assessment. Therefore, I ask for their support of the amended Bill C-24, and I thank them very much.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in her comments, the parliamentary secretary referred to some of the government amendments it is seeking to have accepted at report stage of Bill C-24.

By our examination, six of the seven government amendments, which deal with the Atlantic Canada exclusion, reduce or roll back some of the amendments proposed by the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. In her speech, the parliamentary secretary thanked him for his good work. We believe his amendments, which were supported at the committee by Conservative members, improved the position of Atlantic Canada's historic exclusion. Yet at report stage, we find the government intends to roll back what its member had proposed as an amendment, an amendment supported by the Conservatives at committee stage.

We see the same thing with respect to the definition of independence, which was included with respect to Canada's independent lumber remanufacturers. The committee included this definition in the legislation, supported by some government members. We were surprised at report stage to see the Conservatives trying to turn back the clock, or undo what we thought had been some very positive work done at committee.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain why they have changed their minds?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that he and I agreed yesterday to meet today at 11 a.m. so I could take him through those amendments to assure him that this, of course, was not the case. In fact, the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley is in the middle of a briefing right now to take himself through those amendments to have a full understanding. He also realizes that the clarifications are very technical in nature.

However, there is one exclusion that was amended at committee. When clause 26 was actually approved by committee members, we made an error. The way the clause is worded right now, it would actually affect the industry all across the country. All the industry would be required to go through the Maritime Lumber Bureau. Unfortunately, all industry across the country just cannot go through the Maritime Lumber Bureau and provide their information to them. We do need to change that amendment so that it follows what the softwood lumber agreement has to say.

The softwood lumber agreement talks about the Maritime Lumber Bureau and it provides for the historic exclusion, which we as a government support, but the one very important part of it is that we have a domestic tax policy in Canada and we cannot have an international treaty overriding our domestic tax policy. Many times throughout the agreement there are sections where our domestic tax law applies that actually has not been put into words or even spoken about in the softwood lumber agreement.

I assure the hon. member that we are not doing anything.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's efforts to vainly defend the indefensible, which is this badly botched deal and this badly flawed bill.

What is interesting, in the exchange with the Liberal member opposite, is that it is quite clear that there was even more botching in the process of drafting the amendments that were supposed to fix the first draft of botches that came in Bill C-24.

The parliamentary secretary said that Canadians needed to think about what life was like before the softwood sellout. The answer to that is very simple: the 4,000 people who had jobs then do not have them now after the signing of the agreement. In the last four weeks, 4,000 jobs have evaporated into thin air. Canadians who think about what life was like before the softwood sellout can think of the thousands of people who are no longer working and the thousands of families that have lost their breadwinner because of the appalling incompetence of the government.

The parliamentary secretary referred to some repairs that were made to this badly flawed bill, Bill C-24. We only heard two witnesses at the standing committee. A number of errors were identified. Why were other clauses, like clause 6, clause 25 and clause 18, not repaired?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing the usual rhetoric coming from that hon. member. I find it very disappointing, especially because he continues to deliberately mislead Canadians and this House when we are talking about job losses within the softwood lumber industry.

We acknowledge that there has been some job losses but it has nothing to do with this agreement whatsoever. It definitely has everything to do with the previous Liberal government's inability to secure a deal and its inability to stand up for the softwood lumber industry and do something. In fact, it did absolutely nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the past number of months I have thoroughly examined and outlined the shortcomings of the softwood lumber agreement. We know for certain that it is not close to that proposed by the previous government in August, 2005.

Many of the objections to the nature of the high-handedness are now, regrettably, becoming a trademark of the minority government. The lack of consultations are also of concern. I even had Thunder Bay included on the list of sites for four nationwide hearings during the committee stages.

As to the success of our legal battles, we were winning on the NAFTA and WTO fronts. These are concerns. The fact that the major objection of the United States on subsidization was refuted is something that I outlined previously.

The concern that the $500 million could be used against us still needs to be addressed and the impatience of the government to please the President of the United States are some of the objections that I have outlined since April. They have been well-documented and I have vocalized the concerns of the workers, the families, the communities, the municipal leaders and their associations, the suppliers and the companies.

I have also been in constant communication with all concerned. For Thunder Bay—Rainy River and, indeed, for all of northwestern Ontario, the goal is to keep people working so they can put food on the table, pay their mortgages and keep their families together.

I believe that during the debate and the vote, my message has been consistent and clear. It is to fight hard for what is best for the people of northwestern Ontario, do not let partisan politics create artificial constraints in representing one's constituents and listen to the workers and the companies that employ them. I have done all that. After six months of discussions, hearings, debate and several votes, I have strongly stood up for all concerns.

The companies in northwestern Ontario have been on their knees financially for some time and need the cashflow to keep people working. In fact, if the House will recall, it was the NDP that abandoned the workers of northwestern Ontario by supporting the Conservatives, and people know this. They know it was the NDP that cost all of these jobs. The blame lays squarely on the NDP for destroying the $1.4 billion forestry accord.

Along with the members for Kenora and Thunder Bay—Superior North, and indeed all northern Ontario Liberal MPs and senators, we were able to establish a package of support that also gained support from MPs across the country. A combination of loan guarantees, modernization incentives and environmental cleanups were gutted by the NDP. It is clear that it has no understanding whatsoever of economics.

One of the most despicable, even by NDP standards, public relations stunts recently took place. Inviting members to a debate without the decency of first talking to the members to see if they were available hit a new low. If people thought this was the hallmark of NDP character assassination techniques, one can just imagine its fear in not being able to even send a direct invitation. Many members of the NDP's own caucus and more in the labour movement were embarrassed by this deliberate setup. It was a new low for them.

All members of the House deal with the debate in an honourable parliamentary manner. That the members for Timmins—James Bay and Burnaby—New Westminster would stoop to this subterranean level has revealed their lack of character.

Over my 30 year span in elected office, I have never once seen such action. My record of public accountability and accessibility as president of three major municipal organizations, as mayor, councillor and now as representative of the people of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, speaks loudly and clearly of someone who is known to be fair, reasonable and honourable. Would I ever pull such a stunt like that? Never. It is astonishing that the NDP does not even have enough class to apologize. It is very sad and very lame.

As the first round of cheques have now been deposited and the companies have, with great reluctance, accepted this deal, it is vital that any obstruction or posturing that would delay the flow of further funds would only hurt the workers.

I ask all members to please let us move forward and cease any needless obstruction. If we are doing it for its own sake, then that is not the gesture of this Parliament.

The reason I voted in favour of this agreement, after many months of outlining my objections, was to restore economic vitality. Employees have been calling my office and dropping in to thank me and for that I am very appreciative. When a worker has been laid off and is now working again it means the entire difference. If the people of northwestern Ontario are working it means that northwestern Ontario is also working.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I hate to interrupt the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River but it being 2 o'clock, we must move on. He will have five minutes left the next time this bill is debated.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Resuming debate. Is the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay rising on a point order?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising because the former member had made a number of personal attacks on myself and my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, and I was hoping he would be here to respond. However, it appears that he cut corner and ran. I would be very concerned about having to use the time for my speech to actually to respond. I was really hoping I could ask him a question.

Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to get the unanimous consent of the House that I could speak to the member's empty chair, which is what I have had to do when I go into his riding?

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I am sure the hon. member would appreciate that but the practice in the House has been to not put questions to somebody who is not here. The normal practice is to have questions at the conclusion of a member's speech and that member's speech is now over. It ended some time ago, so the period for questions and comments went out the window with the member. I am afraid the hon. member will need to use up some of his own valuable time to respond if, as and when the time arises.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is now rising on debate.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today. I find it fascinating and very telling that the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River made his statements and then scrambled out of the House before questions and comments. I will be speaking to an empty chair but that has been the sort of situation that we have been facing in northern Ontario.

I listened to the hon. member's speech and what it--

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You know and everyone else knows, including the member for Timmins—James Bay, that there is a long-standing rule in the House that members do not make reference to the fact that someone is not in the chamber. He keeps talking about empty chairs and wishing the member were here so he could speak to him.

I would ask that he respect the rules of the House. If he wants to give a speech, which nobody really wants to hear, we will let him give it but he should also abide by the rules.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I know the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, in referring to an empty chair without mentioning anybody, is in order because of course there are some empty chairs in the chamber, as we can all see. However, he does not normally want to do that in relation to any individual member. The fact that he is unable to ask a question of a member who had been making a speech some time ago and was nameless was fine, but once he starts naming names he is sort of stepping over the line.

I would caution him to respect the rules in this regard and avoid reference to a member's presence or absence in the chamber because if we were to get into absences, as the hon. member knows, we could go on at some length.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay can continue.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel very chastened by that. The fact that the seat that was empty, but will not be mentioned, is no longer empty makes my point moot, so I will start over again.

When I was listening to the member's speech, it reminded me of being in a madhouse funhouse with the distorted mirrors of who said what and positions were upside down when they were really flipped over, and what was really black was white. It seems to me that we would need a political Emma Peel and a political John Steed to actually work through the labyrinth of Liberal misconceptions being perpetrated.

The biggest misperception, and I do not take it personally, is that when I and my colleague went to Thunder Bay to take part in a public debate, it was characterized as some kind of low grade character assassination, that it was completely outrageous for a member of Parliament to do his due diligence and engage in debate. I feel I have to clarify that just for the folks at home to understand the kind of political chicanery machinations we are dealing with in the language here.

The hon. member had stated that the NDP had initiated this public meeting and we tried to set it up as some kind of publicity stunt, when the fact was that we were invited. We were invited by members of the member's own constituency. We were invited by CEP. We were invited by the United Steelworkers to a public meeting and we agreed to come. The fact that they were unavailable or chose not to come is beside the point, but it was made very clear at the public meeting held by CEP in Thunder Bay, to which we were asked to go along with the members from the Thunder Bay region, that if they were not able to come, we would be more than happy to go back to Thunder Bay to debate them in an open forum.

I do not see how that could be characterized as character assassination to any extent, unless of course one group doing its job and another not doing its job is somehow character assassination of those not doing their work.

To bring the point home, I will read a letter that was written in the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal on October 31, 2006. The people who put on this event felt it very necessary to clarify the spin being put out by the member who had not been there at the time but who is now sitting in his seat right here.

Joe Hanlon, president of the United Steelworkers in Thunder Bay, said that he was publicly responding to the letter from the MP for Thunder Bay--Rainy River. He said that if that member and the other member from Thunder Bay would like to come before the people of northern Ontario to discuss why they have voted in favour of a sellout softwood lumber deal, he would invite Roger Falconer from the Steelworkers, Cec Makowski from CEP, as well as the two NDP MPs, and MPP Howard Hampton, the provincial NDP leader, and ask them to come back to Thunder Bay. He went on to say:

Even though these individuals, two of whom are MPs from other ridings, came to attend our meeting here in Thunder Bay last Thursday, our two MPs couldn't or wouldn't take the time or effort to show up. [The member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River] states that he is listening to his constituents. It would be nice to know who he listens to because I know that a lot of people have sent him letters asking him to vote against this bad deal. If you look at the recent issue of [the member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River's] “Report to Constituents”, there is not one mention of forestry.

That is the word of constituents from Thunder Bay, people who are involved in the industry and who are concerned. When I went to Thunder Bay to speak to them, I went there because I am a northerner and I had been invited there. He had been invited there. I would like to meet him anytime in Thunder Bay. I will meet him here, but to say that I was involved in character assassination when I was fighting for the rights of people in northern Ontario, I think it goes without saying that it is very typical of what we have been seeing here.

We see other members standing up and trying to create a solid Liberal front, standing up to softwood, when in fact they have shut down the debates. They have shut down the public hearings. They have accused our attempt to have public input as some kind of waste of their royal time. I find that very shameful.

There are many issues that have to be addressed with this deal. I would like to refer, for example, to the comment of the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, on May 17 in Hansard, where he said that this deal was a “stab in the back”. Why is it a stab in the back? It is a stab in the back because this deal accepted the fundamental American argument from the beginning. The deal says that we in Canada agree that we have unfairly subsidized our industry, which is a falsehood, and that we must completely change how we deal with forestry in order to please the Americans.

I would say that the member is correct. It is a stab in the back. It is a stab in the back to our industry that tried to maintain a solid line and looked to government for help.

On September 25 the member stated that the constant shifting position of the Prime Minister has caused much confusion about what it is we are voting for or against. I would actually infer that as confusion within the Liberal Party in terms of whether it was going to stand up or sit down. He said:

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.

That is what the member said and on that point I would certainly agree with him because we were in an unprecedented situation where the Parliament of Canada was being asked to act as a predator on its own industry. We were being asked within this House to impose illegal penalties that we had won in trade dispute mechanism after trade dispute mechanism. They were recognized as illegal, but we were going to add on penalties to our own workers and on top of that, we would add on a further penalty for the companies that did not buckle under.

Of course I would say that it is a stab in the back and a deal that is attempting to please the Americans rather than help our own industry. Why the member three weeks later stood up and gave the big two thumbs up to the agreement, I am still not quite sure.

There are many issues about this agreement that need to be examined. We have talked with industry. We have talked with the workers. We have talked with the communities across northern Ontario that are going down. The question is, the government had the ability under the Liberals and it did not do it. It had it under the Conservatives in order to give some funding up front in order to alleviate the cashflow problems that industry was facing.

We now see that for the companies that have signed on, the government is flowing taxpayers' money to them through the EDC payments. That money could have been flowed before and it would have allowed our companies the necessary financial breathing room because they really are at the end of their ropes.

What is amazing about the deal is the notion we have accepted here of crippling our own markets, of putting export taxes on the value added for wood products. Many of our companies have their head offices in the southern United States. It is very clear that an American company looking to invest would not invest in a crippled market. Companies would not invest where they would be paying higher export tariffs if they create value added in their wood. They will be investing south of the border. Why? Because they have $450 million of our money. They are our direct competitors. Plus they have another $500 million given to the George Bush administration to do with what it wants.

There was not a penny, nothing, rien, nada for our own communities that have gone down right across the country. They were pleading for help. They were pleading for retooling. They got nothing. The message given to the people of Smooth Rock Falls, Opasatika, Red Rock and communities like them was that they were being cut adrift from the economy of this country and that they are on their own.

There are moments in the House when we do need to stand up and speak to the bigger principle. The bigger principle here is the fact that we have a situation where a government looking for a quick photo opportunity signed off on an agreement and accepted everything that the American trade interests wanted, and sold our own industry down the river. One of the prime economic engines of our country was sold down the river. Thousands upon thousands of jobs are dependent on it. Communities across northern Canada are dependent on this. Where was the government? It sold them out. That is unacceptable.

As the New Democratic Party, we will continue to fight in the House to make sure that every single amendment that affects our communities and our jobs will be heard.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to think about how many hundreds or thousands of jobs have been lost in his riding and lost in all of northern Ontario. It is not necessarily due to the softwood lumber agreement; it has something to do with the forestry industry itself.

We had the opportunity to travel to Timmins to make an announcement late last fall, just before Christmas. We talked about $1.6 billion for forestry companies, money that was going to help them stay in business, money that was going to keep jobs in northern Ontario. That money was going to make sure that families could have a good Christmas and continue to live in dignity in northern Ontario. But the member and his party at that point saw fit to side with the Conservatives and bring on an election that no Canadians wanted. It cost jobs all throughout northern Ontario.

We knew the way was not to sell out Canada on a softwood deal. We knew we had to support the companies to make sure they had the resources, to make sure they could keep those mills running, to keep the sawmills going to provide employment in northern Ontario.

My direct question is, how many jobs did the member lose in his riding and how many were lost in northern Ontario because of his sellout to the Conservative Party which forced the election and took the $1.6 billion away from the forestry companies?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could say I am surprised at the question, but I am not, because it looks like one of those funny little 10 percenters the Liberals spread across northern Ontario in an attempt to change the facts.

The reality is that the member's own former government went on the nation's television to plead with the Canadian public when the Liberals were caught in one of the most disgraceful scandals in Canadian history, promising an election 30 days after the Gomery report which would have put the election in March 2006.

Suddenly in the great Liberal rewriting of history there was this betrayal, this secret night of the long knives where the heartless NDP stood up with all the poor peasants and tossed the member's party out on its royal petard. Before the Liberals went, they crossed the country promising things they never delivered in 12 years. It was the great red book of all red books, the great mother of red books.

The Liberals came into my riding on the eve of the election and they had the nerve, they had the gall to tell people, “Vote for us. Keep us in power and we will give you money”. Meanwhile, our communities had been down here time and time again asking the former prime minister to work with the forestry industry and they got nothing. They got zero. But on the eve of the election it was like, “Stick with mama Liberal and we will feed all you little children”.

Now there is this hilarious rewrite that allows the Liberals to send their 10 percenters into ridings across the country saying, “Under the Liberal government we created all the great child care spaces; under the Liberal government we saved the environment; under the Liberal government we were there for the forestry industry”. The Liberals did nothing for the forestry industry and thousands of jobs went down. When we were asking for the money to be put up front they did nothing. That is when the jobs would have been saved.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments. His perception and analysis remind me of the flesh-eating disease and that is when the body politic here is eating upon itself. That is what this deal is about. We are actually taking the decisions that were dealt with in the United States court and saying, “No, no. That is not good enough for us. We will make sure we penalize our own industry, our own people and our producers”.

We travelled as a caucus to northern Ontario and Thunder Bay to talk to the people there. I was profoundly moved by the challenges in front of the people there. They are not getting a lot of support, not only from the current government but from the previous government and the present provincial government. It is really quite sad.

If this deal goes through, what will it do to the people in the member's constituency? Because this deal is no good, what can we do? Obviously we need to propose something that is better. I would like the member's take on that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the time to explain what needs to be done, but I will be very brief. The effects of this deal will be profound and they will be profound across the rural regions of northern Canada.

That is why we needed to have hearings. Hearings are what all governments need to do. It is what Parliament does. It is part of our work. It is to hear from the people affected. Yet the hearings were squashed because, as the Liberal member said earlier on, they thought the NDP was wasting their time with filibustering and all kinds of inconsequentials, the inconsequentials being the voice of the people of Thunder Bay, the voice of the people of The Pas, Manitoba, the voice of the people of northern British Columbia. The Liberals worked with the Conservatives to squash the hearings.

If there had been hearings, if the public, labour, business from across the country had spoken, we would have heard what was wrong with this deal and we would have heard some good solutions. But no. The Liberals would rather send their 10 percenters out with their mistruths and their rewrites of history than to hear from the people of Canada. That is one voice they always hate to hear from, because at the end of the day the people of Canada will stand up and say, “You are selling us down the river, you and the Conservatives”.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of coercion is that? That is called duress. No wonder some of the companies are saying that we should sign the deal. It is because they do not have any real choice. How can the forest products industry in Canada fight a countervailing duty claim by the United States without support from the federal government? It cannot be done. The industry knows it.

Our Liberal government supported the industry in the fight. We had a two-track process. We were supporting the industry in the fight through the NAFTA panels, the litigation and all that morass, and we were also looking at whether we could negotiate a deal. We never saw a deal that was worth cutting and the deal before us is no such deal either.

The agreement sets out certain aspects that are very disadvantageous for the forest products industry. It calls on the companies to drop their lawsuits. Once they drop their lawsuits, they can sign on and get their rebate. In fact, the rebates are going out as we speak, through the Canadian Export Development Corporation, at an irrevocable discount, I might add. If this deal is not followed through on, those companies will not be able to get the 20¢ that they have left on the table, the $1 billion that the Conservative government has left on the table.

However, some of the companies are doing it because they do not have much choice. The government has basically pulled the rug out from underneath the forest products industry in Canada.

The previous Liberal government proposed a package of $1.5 billion. In fact, in today's environment, that ante probably would have to be increased. It would have supported the industry. It would have supported the industry in using biomass energy to help companies reduce their energy costs. It was a package that would have helped them diversify their markets. The package would have helped them innovate. It would have helped them with some tax measures and made them more competitive with the U.S. softwood lumber producers and the U.S. forest products industry.

Where was the Minister of Natural Resources while the sawmills, pulp mills and newsprint operations in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia were dropping like flies? Where was the Minister of Natural Resources in defending these forestry based communities? We do not hear from him. What initiatives has the minister come forward with? Nothing. This is a tragedy, because the forest industry is being devastated. It is being hurt very badly and we do not hear a peep from the Minister of Natural Resources.

We hear something from the trade minister, but we do not hear anything from the Minister of Natural Resources. We hear that he is travelling in China and here and there, but we do not hear anything about concrete measures that would help the forest industry in Canada.

Next, there will be foreign takeover proposals for our oil and gas industry and our forest products industry, and maybe there will be more in our mining industry. Where is the Minister of Natural Resources in speaking out?

We know what the position of the Minister of Industry is on these points. His position is that the markets will solve everything, the markets will prevail, and the government has to get out of the way and allow the markets to resolve everything.

What about the question of whether this is in Canada's national interest to allow our natural resource icons, our natural resource assets, to be gobbled up by companies outside of Canada? Does this make any sense? We should have a debate in Canada about this. We should not allow foreign companies to just take over Canada by stealth. Let us have a good public policy debate about it.

Where is our Minister of Natural Resources when it comes to standing up for Inco, for Falconbridge, for the oil and gas industry and for the forest industry? We do not hear much from him. This is a time when the Minister of Natural Resources should be defending the interests of our forestry communities and our natural resource communities across Canada. We hear nothing from him. It is a shame. It is a crime.

It is most unfortunate, because the gun is being held to the heads of some of these companies. The companies then go to their members of Parliament and say that they need their members of Parliament to sign this deal. It is a bad deal, they say, but they do not have any choice because the Conservative government has pulled the rug right out from under them.

These issues are understandable. If we had a Minister of Natural Resources who actually stood up for the forestry communities, we would not be in this mess. We would not have the policies being dictated by a Prime Minister who goes to Cancun and allegedly comes back with something. He did not come back with anything. We are now mired in Bill C-24, which should be defeated forthwith.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member opposite that the steel manufacturing sector in Hamilton is shaking in its boots right now because of the style, or the lack thereof, of the negotiations that are now taking place.

On the member's comments about the Minister of Natural Resources and how ineffective he sees that individual being in the House, I would say more rhetorically that perhaps the minister, along with the rest of Canada, was sold out by the Minister of International Trade.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek that of course Hamilton is a big steel town and it should be concerned, because if we can win battle after battle at independent panels and debunk the lie that softwood lumber in Canada is subsidized, and if we have to cave in when we are winning all the battles, what are we going to do with steel? What are we going to do with other sectors? This sets a terrible precedent.

As well, within itself, it is a bad deal. It has the anti-circumvention clause, which would allow U.S. softwood lumber producers to challenge any forest policies developed in Canada, whether at the federal or the provincial level, because they might not like them. They might think the policies do something to help our industry. What if the federal government wanted to help the industry to innovate, to help them adapt to biomass and develop their biomass energy resources? U.S. producers might say that is a circumvention of this trade deal.

The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek is right. We know that Prime Minister has his ministers on a very short lead. I think the Minister of Natural Resources is on about a six inch lead.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would not blame people who are at home watching this debate for trying to figure out what exactly happened, because many of them may have tuned in a couple of years ago to see the current Minister of International Trade when he was on the other side of the House, when he was a Liberal minister arguing the softwood lumber deal. At that time, he was trying to sell Canadians a bit of a bill of goods or a package that none of us found suitable, but then he flip-flopped over to the Conservative benches and, within weeks of being a Conservative minister, he came to us with a package that suddenly we were supposed to take. Suddenly it was as good as he could do.

I wonder if my colleague could point out the irony in the situation. First, we do not believe Canadians were well served by this minister when he was on either side of the House. Second, what can he tell Canadians to give them any confidence that someone is driving this bus with any degree of competence?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give the member that feeling of confidence about the driver of the bus, but I am afraid I cannot.

In the last Parliament when the Liberal Party formed the government, there were a lot of discussions with the U.S. about a potential deal, but I would say that within our caucus the bar was set very high, extremely high, so high that the deal would have to be so good as to be almost perfect, because we were winning on the other track.

What happened, I think, when our former minister of industry went over to the other side in a sort of horrible act of treason, if we want to call it that, was that he then came under the influence of the new republicanization of Canada's government. I think he was convinced by the Prime Minister. They had a little chat with President Bush in Cancun and figured out a way to do this deal. The deal had been rejected by our Liberal caucus.

This deal was part of a package. We are still waiting for what the Prime Minister came away with from that meeting, because he talked about the fact that for travel in the western hemisphere we would get something less than a passport, but that had been on the table for about a year and a half.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on a point of order.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the current speaker, but I came in as quickly as I could, having watched the previous speaker make I think an outrageous claim accusing the Minister of International Trade of treason. I would ask him to withdraw that comment. That is obviously outrageous and he should withdraw that comment immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. Minister of Agriculture for his comments. I must admit to him that I did not hear the comment. I will look at the blues and take his comments under advisement.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke has the floor.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Bloc Québécois colleague's comments. I had the opportunity to work with him and the other member of the Bloc Québécois who is on the Standing Committee on International Trade. We share many of their concerns.

As I indicated in a question earlier this morning, members of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons are very concerned. With the amendments proposed by the Minister of International Trade, the government is trying to change certain improvements, certain amendments that the Standing Committee on International Trade adopted weeks ago.

My question for my Bloc Québécois colleague is very simple: Will the Bloc Québécois vote in favour of the amendments proposed by the Minister of International Trade—those that are in the first or second group on the list of amendments the Speaker has selected for debate?

Will the Bloc Québécois support the minister's amendments when the time comes to put them to the vote?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Beauséjour. Dozens of amendments were proposed during the clause by clause study. There were about 132 of them. We knew that many of those amendments would be a waste of time, but that some of them, a few at least, would be good ones. We supported some of those amendments in committee.

Then there were the amendments proposed at the report stage. There were 95 of them. Mr. Speaker, you selected only 19 of those. It made sense not to open some of the amendments up to discussion. However, some of those amendments were very important.

The Bloc Québécois intends to support some of the amendments in the second group. It appears the Bloc Québécois will not support any of the amendments in the first group. We will have an opportunity to discuss this in detail when we go through the second group of amendments. At that time, we will discuss exactly how we intend to support the government. We may even have an opportunity to support the Liberal Party.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments from my colleague across the way. I must say that I am a little bit surprised because he tried to sort of contort himself into a pretzel in his logic.

I have been very proud to work with the members from that side of the House in supporting labour legislation, in supporting progressive legislation like getting the anti-scab law past second reading, and in speaking to the motion on income support for older workers. I was proud to do that. Yet, here I see the members justifying their support and their party's support for the softwood sellout by saying that they have listened to industry and that this is what industry wanted.

What about the workers in the forestry sector? How will the member go back to the communities in his riding and talk to the steelworkers who have been here on the Hill, and who have talked to us about the devastating impact that this deal will have, not just on the workers but on their families and on the communities in which they find themselves.

If the hon. member wants to have a record of supporting the workers in this country, he must oppose this deal. I would urge the member to reconsider before we get to the final vote on this deal. He should come join us and oppose the softwood sellout.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is inconsistency in what I am hearing about the lack of committee hearings.

I understand the member for Burnaby—New Westminster was trying to get hearings across the country. Where I find the inconsistency is the Liberal Party, which signed the original NAFTA deal, argued against hearings. Is it correct that in committee the Liberals blocked hearings across the country? I could not imagine why they would not want to hear from Canadians on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the inconsistencies we have seen from the official opposition since the beginning of the softwood sellout.

I understand that my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, pushed for cross-country hearings and the opposition parties agreed with the government party and said no to any travelling by the committee to hear from the workers, who are so negatively affected in these communities.

Then the question was asked as to whether the affected workers and small businesses could come to Ottawa so the committee could hear their testimony. The answer from the official opposition was no. It did not want to hear from the very people who were most seriously impacted by this legislation.

It is a dilemma to understand how members of the official opposition could say that they are opposed to this legislation when they were not willing to hear from the very people who are most adversely impacted by it.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has obviously had a ton of first-hand experience with the very direct impact in her community and home province with the implementation of the softwood deal. She has made it quite clear that this deal, especially in the forestry sector, has been unbelievably harmful. It has affected workers, their families and the entire community.

I come from a community that has been known as “Steeltown”. It has already been devastated by the job losses experienced in a declining manufacturing sector. Obviously trade deals are very important not just in the forestry sector, but in the steel sector as well.

Could the member tell me from her experience and review of the softwood deal if there is any hope at all for those of us in Steeltown, whether trade deals affecting the steel sector might be next and we will lose the same kinds of jobs in our home town as have been lost in her community?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, raises a very serious concern. The softwood sellout has put the whole dispute mechanism in the NAFTA agreement into question.

Surely, when the Americans can agree to the softwood deal and the Conservatives can capitulate to the tactics that they have shown on this, when every international softwood panel has found in favour of Canada and yet we sell out to the American interests on this, it puts into question each and every trade agreement that we have under NAFTA. It certainly destroys the myth that there was a dispute mechanism through NAFTA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend across the way quite well. When he expresses his distaste for this agreement, I understand that. However, the facts are the facts. This agreement would not be proceeding if it were not for the fact that the Bloc chose to support it. When the Bloc conferred with the community, what did the other industries say about the potential damages that they would be facing as a result of this agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is close to the Quebec industry and the unions.

When we consulted the key players in the forest industry, the softwood lumber industry in Quebec, they asked us to support this agreement, but to make certain amendments to it, which we did. The unions also asked us to do so.

That is why we are going ahead. Despite everything, I would like to tell our colleague that this agreement is the work of the parties in power—Conservative and Liberal—who turned a deaf ear for many years and refused to listen to an industry in difficulty that needed support.

The government turned a deaf ear and eventually reached the point of no return. The government said it wanted to go ahead and recover a portion of the countervailing duties that had been paid, but only a portion. Only some of the money will be recovered. We will try to move forward and support our industries for a few years with this agreement and other programs. We hope that the government will put in place an action plan to support this industry, which still has many needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend and colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé on his excellent speech.

It is a rather sombre speech. If I understand correctly, my colleague is not very enthusiastic about this agreement. I would like my colleague to tell me more. Will this ill-advised, incomplete agreement help the industry? Does he anticipate further cuts, more job losses or price increases? What do the paper mill manufacturers think about the agreement? I would like to hear his comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, some of the countervailing duties, the money paid by our softwood lumber companies, will come back and will help the forest industry to breathe. But the industry is not yet out of the woods. We know that some companies have closed their doors in Quebec, and this has caused major job losses. Other action programs have to be put in place to support this industry in difficulty. This is why we hope that the government will set up an action plan to support the softwood lumber sector.

I also talked about monthly quotas, which are another problem. These quotas will have to be spread over a minimum of two or three months so as to respect our industries’ capacity to export to the U.S. If a quota is for one month, an export quota that sets the delivery time for linear board, for example, and we cannot deliver what we are entitled to deliver, we will still have major difficulties. As far as regulations are concerned, adjustments and policies that are more advantageous to companies will be required.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak to Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence. It is the part that states, “to amend other acts as a consequence”, that caused the discussions that we had back in Hamilton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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 Don Valley East, Income Trusts.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not making any suggestion that the Bloc was blackmailed or anything else by the government. I was referring to the pressures that Bloc members had received from their communities and the unions to which the member referred. There may have been some misunderstanding but it certainly was not as it seems to have come across to the hon. member.

As to what would happen in our community if we were to be lobbied in the same way, the member makes the question too easy for me in the sense that it would be easy for me to stand up and say that yes, I would stand up and fight and I would do this and that.

In fairness to your question, without being in that situation it is very difficult to respond as to what we would do at that point in time. I would like to think that the conclusion we would reach is that it is a bad deal and we would not support it.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Before I recognize the next questioner, I would like to advise the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek to address his comments through the Chair, in the third person and all that.

The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that 10,000 Quebec forestry worker jobs have been lost in recent years. These 10,000 forestry workers have not been consulted. They have not been asked as to whether there should be--

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

Baloney. You're lying. They've been consulted.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Allow me to finish.

The 10,000 forestry workers were not consulted regarding this agreement. We know that the 1,500 Canadian softwood companies that were slapped with punitive taxes by U.S. customs were not consulted.

The minister initially consulted with a core group of 25 large softwood companies and the consultation was kept secret. Subsequently, a letter of invitation was mailed to a total of 300 companies but smaller businesses were never consulted. The list of the 300 companies has not been made public and many witnesses, who were invited by the NDP and other opposition parties to appear at the committee hearings, confirmed that they were excluded. Even the Governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba were not really consulted.

I have a question for the Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Would his constituents be interested in being consulted on the $1 billion that were left at the table and which belong to Canadian taxpayers and Canadian companies? Would the member like to perhaps talk to his constituents as to how many ways that $1 billion can be spent?

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

Mr. Speaker, the one thing I know about the history of Hamilton, Hamilton East and Stoney Creek as well is that the workers there are a group of people who want to be heard. When I return home I listen to them discussing the fact that the hearings--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a famous song that asks, if I had a million dollars, what would I do with a million dollars? I want the House to think about what we would do if we had $1 billion. It is really quite tragic that Canada caved in at a moment of strength, given that international rulings continued to land firmly on our side.

This deal will kill the NAFTA process which has favoured Canada's position and forfeited at least $1 billion plus hundreds of millions dollars more in interest that would have come our way had our negotiators hung tough.

On April 7 the United States Court of International Trade ruled that the U.S. industry was entitled legally to no money, not a penny, none of it. Well, 20 days later the U.S. coalition was offered a deal to take $500 million. Of course they said yes. Of course they would want the $500 million because they were not entitled to one penny and yet they got $500 million. That is a really good deal for them.

Second, the net present value at the end of April was not the same as it was at Christmas especially as the pot kept growing. We talked about the $500 million but there was more. Actually, $450 million would go to some kind of meritorious initiatives in the United States. Why? How? Why is Canada providing foreign aid to the United States? Is the United States poor? Is it desperate? Is it in need of financial support? Are U.S. citizens suffering from AIDS and have no funds to pay for medication? Maybe the people are poor, but the government is not poor. Are the Americans suffering from bad water, dirty water, and they have no funds to clean their water? They must be desperate. That is probably why our minister gave $450 million directly to the President, not to congress. I do not quite understand it. This is a lot of money.

Not only is the $500 million going to the coalition, but it is Canadian money that is going to the President himself. Congress will not be involved in any way with this agreement. The Government of Canada is making a gift of $450 million to the President of the U.S. Perhaps this is the price of friendship between Canadian prime ministers and U.S. presidents. It is not the first time.

We have a nasty habit of prime ministers wanting to do everything to please presidents of the United States of America. Last year in the summer I recall that the former prime minister committed Canadian troops to go south in Afghanistan just before he visited the United States President. This time we are giving the Americans $1 billion.

The U.S. consumer lobby was shocked by this deal. The American consumer group could not believe it. American consumers for affordable homes claims to represent 95% of U.S. lumber consumption. It is especially shocked by the fact that $1 billion of the $5 billion collected by the U.S. government will not be returned to Canada despite the fact that we kept winning all the trade deals in the courts. That lobby group reports that $1 billion will be put into two funds and the lobby cites statistics of the U.S. census bureau that show that higher lumber prices will result because the tariffs have priced 300,000 Americans out of the market for new homes. That is also the impact of this agreement.

Imagine what we could do with $1 billion. I asked students just a few minutes ago and they said it would be really useful to invest in some training programs.

What about some English language training for new migrant workers? What about helping some new immigrants to get certification and employment opportunities in areas of need, such as nurses, doctors, et cetera, especially in our northern communities and communities where a lot of lumber is being cut and where there is a lot of unemployment. It would be wonderful to have some money for training.

It would also be wonderful if there was some money for transportation and infrastructure in order to reduce energy costs, perhaps some community centres for young people, or some grants for arts and culture and some workshops.

Within three minutes the students were able to think of at least seven to eight different ways on how to spend the billion dollars. It is so sad knowing how many forestry workers have lost their jobs recently. As I said earlier, in Quebec alone almost 10,000 forestry workers have lost their jobs in recent years. Will they get any of this $1 billion? No, because this $1 billion has gone completely to the United States.

We know that because of this deal we will have significant job losses. Why? Because this deal will discourage Canadian value added production. It will stimulate raw log exports rather than having the logs dealt with here and creating jobs in Canada. This deal does nothing to protect that. Because of the quotas and export taxes producers will not be hiring workers back if they do not see any room for expansion in the future.

The Québec Forest Industry Council said that there will be massive restructuring or layoffs. The Ontario Forest Industry Association said that there will be shuttered mills and unemployment, and that about 20% of the mills could close as a result of the policies of this government.

This deal is bad for the industry. It is bad for Canadian taxpayers. It is bad for a lot of towns and it is certainly not good for this government to accept it.

Last, it is fatally flawed because there is no democratic process. As I said earlier, there was no process where the majority of these companies were consulted. Certainly, most of the companies that must now pay this tariff were not consulted. Only the very big companies and a percentage of the 300 small businesses were consulted, the rest were not.

I urge members to take a close look at this and vote with their hearts and not support this deal.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague and she loves to sing songs. I will get to that in a second. However, a big part of the downturn in employment in the industry might have something to do with the fact that housing has slowed down considerably and people simply are not buying lumber.

She loves to sing the song about “If I had a billion dollars”. She comes from the “glass 20% empty” club. We, and the Bloc, and I think a lot of other members in the House come from the “glass 80% full” club. So, when she is making up songs, I wonder if she would mind making one up that says something like, “If I had $4 billion what would I do?”

Does the hon. member have any idea what the workers and the companies are doing with the $4 billion that they have now because of the good work of this government?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that I am good at and singing is not one of them.

I did not know there is a housing slowdown. If I look at my own city, there is a housing boom. In the last five to eight years there have been many condominiums and houses built all across the greater Toronto area. Certainly, there is no shortage of builders in need of workers and lumber. I do not understand where this is coming from. What does the member mean that there is a housing slowdown? I have not noticed that there is one.

The other thing that we know is that we are entitled to $5 billion. We know that especially after a court decision that was so clear. It was not the first or second decision. There has been court decision after court decision that has said the $5 billion belonged to Canadians. It does not belong to the bullies. The coalitions have been bullying us and we are now paying money to the bullies. This is their reward for bullying us. That does not make any sense whatsoever.

Really, we are rewarding them with $500 million for causing our lumber industry to suffer and layoff workers over the years. Instead of pushing back, we give up and say, “Thank you for bullying us, take this $500 million and take the $450 million for your President who has given you so much strength to bully Canadians”.

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

I have a comment for my colleague opposite. She said there is a housing boom. In Ottawa the buildings and condominiums going up are made of concrete. She should have come out of her cocoon in Toronto for a while and gone to Kapuskasing, Timmins, Englehart, Swastika, New Liskeard, Cobalt and Tri-City, to see how many houses were built this year in those towns. She also could have come to Abitibi, to Rouyn-Noranda, Amos, La Sarre, Mont-Laurier, to my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and to Saint-Eustache.

How many houses were built of wood this year? There is a housing slowdown.

In my opinion, my colleague should take the time to assess the rate of construction in Quebec and Ontario before making comments or saying that we have not consulted our people.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly believe in consultation, unlike other members in the House who do not. Most Canadians are suffering through it.

No, it is not just Toronto. It is also Vancouver and Ottawa. Many big cities are in fact having a housing boom. I know why there is no housing boom in many small towns. I visited Thunder Bay recently and its lumber companies are going bankrupt. They are going bankrupt because they have been harassed year after year due to the softwood lumber trade.

In the towns the hon. member was talking about even Domtar has closed down its shop and is laying off forestry workers. That is why these towns are having trouble. The workers are really having difficulty. They are in their forties and have--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina but her time has expired. I now recognize the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

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

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

What are some of the points?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, hearing the words “continental integration” made me want to bound to my feet in the middle of my friend's speech, because in the 1980s when we were fighting the free trade agreement one of the issues we were fighting for was the issue of trying to avoid continental integration.

When we read that this agreement infringes on provincial constitutional prerogatives by both Ottawa and Washington and that the anti-circumvention clause allows Washington a right to oversight of and veto power over Canadian forestry practices, I ask the member this: how in the world does he figure that a sovereignist Bloc could have supported this agreement when it is a blatant attack on sovereignty?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how anyone could support this deal. It is not a good deal, especially for those of us who are here to try to represent workers, working communities and working families. I think it is a bad deal.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from B.C. His community is obviously profoundly affected by the forestry industry. I am from Steeltown. I am from Hamilton. My riding is Hamilton Mountain. We obviously have huge concerns about what trade deals are doing to industries right around the country.

Yet for this deal, which has such a profound impact on his community, his home province and many other provinces such as Quebec, for example, and provinces right across our country, workers in these communities were not able to actually voice their concerns to the government. All 308 members in the House have committed to take on the concerns of our constituents and voice them in the House and to take our responsibilities seriously. I will bet that the member had many people in his community coming to his community office and wanting to participate in public hearings and make their voices heard.

They are now doing it through him, but I bet those people would have really liked an opportunity to participate in official committee hearings that travelled from community to community. Then all of us could have learned from the experts, not only about how the implementation of trade deals like this one is impacting the forestry industry in those communities, but how it might also ultimately affect communities like mine in Hamilton.

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

Mr. Speaker, because we did not have the opportunity to have these hearings, which would have been the way to go, as the member mentioned, what I did was take a poll of the industry and the local government in my area, including the mayors and regional directors.

The vast majority said no, the deal was bad. Those who said yes to the deal also said that they had a gun to their heads and had no choice but to accept it. Another one said, “I have no choice, but on principle I am not going to accept it”. That person thanked me very much for standing up to it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was most taken with my colleague's remarks when he drew the connection between what the new Conservative government is doing regarding the softwood lumber deal and this mad crusade that it is on to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would like the member to expand on his comments. I believe he was saying that these are two serious trade irritants to the Americans and that the Conservatives are doing the Americans' dirty work. Could the member expand on what he meant by bringing the Canadian Wheat Board into this debate on Canadian softwood lumber?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret. There is pressure, internationally, for us to dismantle the way we do things in Canada. The duties put on softwood lumber are as a result of how we do business in Canada. In British Columbia we have had to change. We are trying to scramble to try to meet the Americans' expectations with regard to stumpage.

The Canadian Wheat Board is another example. It is a threat to how we do things in Canada. The pressure is there from the large American companies that want to open up businesses in Canada. This fits in very much with that philosophy and the whole idea of Canadian sovereignty, about which I talked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have very much to add because the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan always does such an exceptional job of putting her case completely. However, for some people, who have been watching this debate this afternoon, it must seem kind of odd that I and my colleagues, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and the member for Trinity—Spadina would speak to the bill and we feel so passionately about it when we do not have the forestry industry in our communities. Yet this bill matters profoundly and it should matter to everyone across the country. It not only affect the forestry, but it is also a harbinger of what is to come for other industries, as we have talked about before in the House, like the steel industry in my community of Hamilton.

Also there is a $1 billion opportunity cost that we have just squandered when the government cut programs such as literacy and SCPI. What that means for a community like Hamilton, for homelessness initiatives, is just devastating.

We need to ensure that we look at this deal closely. I would encourage all members of the House to reconsider their vote, to stand up for their communities, to do right by the workers and their families and for all the programs that are on the chopping block. We have just given $1 billion Canadian away.

Could the member comment not just on the impact of this deal on the forestry sector, on those workers, but also on the opportunity costs that the deal entails?

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

Mr. Speaker, what the member for Hamilton Mountain addresses is the great failing by both the current Conservative government and the former Liberal government.

I can hear an echo in the background that at one time would have talked about shipbuilding. The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore would certainly talk about the fact that we are lacking a credible industrial strategy from coast to coast to coast. We do not have a credible industrial strategy that talks about the forestry sector, or the auto sector or shipbuilding.

The country has had a proud tradition of not only using its raw resources, but also of manufacturing its raw resources. This is a vital element of how we keep our economy healthy and whole.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member comment how she would react to the fact that the Quebec labour unions are in favour of this agreement and she is not?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a broad and vast country. One of the benefits of our country is that we are allowed to have different opinions.

The United Steelworkers, which has representation across the country and in British Columbia, has asked us to vote against this agreement. It has made a number of suggestions about how we need to take a look at softwood lumber. One of them is that we should immediately withdraw support for the Prime Minister-Bush softwood deal. It also suggests that we should curb log exports, equalize the Mexican export log prices through an equivalency tax to dramatically increase the cost of exporting raw logs, that we should have a reinvestment fund, which is earmarked to recoup softwood duties and revenue from the export tax for investment, and that we should have a new social contract that reinstates the fact that we use our resources closer to home.

Just as the member could pull one group out of a hat that says it supports the softwood agreement, I can pull another group out of the hat that is absolutely opposed to the softwood lumber agreement, saying it is bad for communities, bad for workers and bad for industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today with the member for Hamilton Mountain. There is the reality out there that people may be asking why people from Steeltown would stand up.

This agreement sets a bad precedent for softwood lumber, but it certainly will set a bad precedent for the rest of Canada, the rest of the manufacturing industry in fact, like in Hamilton.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely appropriate that people from Hamilton are speaking against the softwood lumber agreement. I have said it once, I have said it twice and I will say it many more times. I call upon the House to develop an industrial strategy that takes a look at us keeping good manufacturing jobs in our country, good processing jobs across a variety of sectors.

The people from Hamilton would be very pleased to see the House stand up and protect our industry and talk about what is good for it and good for our workers and communities. I think it would be incumbent on us to take those kinds of initiatives and protect those good paying jobs.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time does not permit for me to--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I must agree that time does not permit the hon. member to continue as it has expired.

The House resumed from November 21 consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. I understand the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has eight minutes left in his allotted time.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Traditional sovereignists.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Traditional sovereignists, as my colleague from Skeena says.

I am just stating this clearly for the folks at home who may be watching. I am not sure that Canadians fully understand the impact of this hastily thrown together sellout of Canadian sovereignty. It is not only the dollar figure; perhaps this clause I have mentioned is even more damaging than the $1.3 billion we left on the table.

For the record, this is the second time that a Conservative government has snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory on a lumber file. For the historical record, I remind my colleagues in the House that in 1986 the GATT, the World Trade Organization's 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., abruptly aborted the challenge that we were winning. The preliminary finding was issued in our favour, and even though we were winning and would have perhaps put this whole issue to bed at that early stage of this longstanding challenge, he aborted it, so the findings were never officially published.

It does not take a suspicious mind to assume that Mr. Mulroney did not want the ruling to become part of the permanent record. He did not want to offend the Americans in any way at that fragile stage of his newly crafted free trade agreement. I can only say that I cannot condemn enough that kind of sellout of Canadian sovereignty and well-being.

Let me make a comparison that I wanted to draw in my opening remarks. There is a connection to be made. The Conservative government is doing the Americans' dirty work for them, not only on this big trade irritant that was the softwood lumber issue, but also on the Canadian Wheat Board, which has offended Americans for years. The Americans do not like this collective action on the part of Canadian farmers.

The Americans filed 11 separate trade challenges against the Canadian Wheat Board and lost every single one of them, but now the Conservative government has promised to do what the Americans could not do by any legal challenges. The government has served notice that it intends to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board in spite of all the empirical evidence that the Canadian Wheat Board serves the interests of Canadian farmers well and is an important prairie institution.

I will take members back in history again. We should take note of the fact that there was a dual market voluntary wheat board at one time. It failed in one of the most catastrophic bankruptcies that Canada had known to that time. It failed in 1935 in a spectacular bankruptcy.

We know that the dual desk cannot work for one simple reason, that is, if the initial offering price is higher than the market price, the Wheat Board will get all kinds of grain delivered to it and will have to sell the grain at a loss, and if the initial offering price is lower than the outside market, the Wheat Board will not get any deliveries. Then, boom, the board will be out of business in one or two years.

We know that it will be the death rattle of the Canadian Wheat Board to do away with single desk marketing, yet the government seems to be on a mad crusade to do the bidding of the Americans, to do their dirty work and do away with this great prairie institution.

Those of us on the NDP benches shake our heads and wonder why--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I apologize to the member, but the time for his speech has run out.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the time ran out so quickly because I know my hon. colleague takes these issues of intergovernmental relations very seriously. The defence of our national interests is of pre-eminent importance to the member.

I wonder if the member would comment on what type of precedent this sets, if in fact it is a precedent, because I believe the Conservative Party has a long and sordid history of selling out Canadians to our American neighbours. What type of precedent does this set and what type of message are we sending to our American partners in the way that we trade with them, in the way that we seek fairness in our trade?

Has the signal been sent by Canada that we will continue to fight unfair trade practices? Or are we simply going to draw up our own pieces of legislation, deeply flawed as this one is, and cave on every major issue that our American partners ask for?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is troubling and worrisome that we have done such a terrible job of representing Canadian interests in the process of these negotiations.

I come from a trade union background. I have negotiated a lot of collective agreements. One thing I can tell members without any hesitation is that we are not going to get much of a package if we announce ahead of time that we give up.

That is virtually what our Minister of Industry did. Before the negotiations were even over, he announced that this was the best deal we were going to get. The Conservatives' bargaining strategy was to be on their knees, which is not a bargaining strategy at all. It is not coming from a position of strength; it is coming from a position of weakness.

I do not know who we sent down there to bargain on our behalf. I think the people who negotiated the free trade agreement should be dragged into the streets and shot, frankly, and as for the people who negotiated this agreement, it borders on economic treason to sell the economic interests of Canada down the river for God knows what other secondary objective they may be trying to achieve.

What I can tell members is that the one thing has been ignored in all this hype about how thankful we should be that the Conservatives get along so well with the Americans is this reality: Canada tossed away a significant victory that was won not just before the North American Free Trade Agreement panels but before the U.S. Court of International Trade. On April 7, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the duties on softwood lumber were illegal. Within days of that very time, we were rolling over and accepting a deal that left $1.3 billion on the table.

My colleague from Trinity—Spadina was itemizing what that $1 billion we left behind could buy in terms of other necessary social spending. At a period of time when the Conservative government was nickel-and-diming all these important programs across the country, it was cavalierly leaving $1 billion on the bargaining table in the United States. It does boggle the mind as to how they can be so cavalier and frivolous with massive amounts of money and so miserly, to the point of almost being cruel, with $100,000 here and there that would keep an important program going in one of our communities.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member for Winnipeg Centre can draw some sort of connection or parallel, as he was doing in his speech, between Canada's new position on the Wheat Board and its dovetailing with what the Americans are hoping to achieve across all our economic sectors.

Is there some sort of game afoot, does he suspect, between Ottawa and Washington right now to break down the very tools and mechanisms that Canadians have relied upon for our own economic success?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very thoughtful remark. If I could go back to my opening comments, it seems that the new Conservative government is hell bent and determined to shred any competitive advantage that we may enjoy over the U.S. in any industry sector where that may occur.

Whether the Conservatives are just yielding to pressure from the U.S. or whether they have ruled that we should harmonize in some way, why would we voluntarily give up our advantages such as those in the resource sector, where we are blessed with abundant natural resources? Why would we sign a deal that would actually encourage the export of raw logs and discourage the value-adding of that lumber before it gets shipped across the border? It is inexplicable.

To put it in simple terms, when we strip down this agreement into a couple of pages of what it actually does, Canadians will be horrified. They deserve--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we are again standing in the House reminding Canadians what a bad deal the softwood agreement is for Canada and for Canadian forestry workers. My friend from Winnipeg was very clear in his comments and reminders to the Canadian public.

I first acknowledge the hard work and determination of one individual in the House, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. The member has been tireless in his efforts at the committee, bringing forward amendment after amendment and speaking for hours, trying to get the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc to understand what is happening in forest dependent communities across the country and why forestry workers are opposed to this very bad deal. However, all of his amendments were shot down by the other parties, amendments that attempted, in a strong way, to make a very bad deal marginally better. We knew it would not improve it much, but at least he tried.

On behalf of the many forestry workers in my riding and across the country, I thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his commitment and for standing up in the House for Canadian jobs. It is something we do not see enough of, and that is what we are talking about here.

The Conservatives could have used our wins at the NAFTA and WTO tribunals as a bargaining chip to get full redress for Canadian companies and Canadian jobs. Let me once again remind us all that Canada won at every trade dispute, including the ruling on October 13, a mere month ago. The ruling confirmed that Canada was close to a decisive victory, as we had said. My colleagues have been pointing this out for a couple of years now. Instead the Conservative government sold us out. The Conservatives took those wins and they negotiated them away, which is ludicrous. It almost makes me speechless, but I will talk anyway.

These American tariffs have now been struck down by the U.S. courts as well as NAFTA panels, but under this deal Canadian industry will be paying more in punitive tariffs, not less, and that is a shame.

I come from the labour movement. If I were at the bargaining table and negotiated away a huge settlement for the members who I represented, I do not think I would be representing them much longer. In fact, I am sure they would be calling for my demise.

I have to wonder, as many of my constituents do, what was the rush to settle in this way. When we were so close to winning and we knew it, why would we negotiate that settlement away? I know we all wanted to see an end to this trade dispute, but after so many years of stalling by the Liberals, with no negotiations, nothing going on, why would the Conservatives sell Canada out so quickly? Surely they must have known that we were about to win the final victory. It really shows an incredible lack of foresight on their part.

The deal discourages value added production in Canada. The export taxes are based on the value of the exported product. This is why so many forestry workers in my riding and across the country do not support the deal. They see the end of their jobs and their communities and they are very concerned. It is no wonder that in my riding, and probably in other ridings where there are forest dependent communities, we are seeing a massive increase in the export of raw logs and jobs.

Hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of logs are exported every day out of the north island. This means the end of jobs and the closure of mills. Communities are suffering as a result of this. It is a travesty, to say the least, that the communities, which are surrounded by forest, do not see any of the jobs related to them except the cutting down of trees. We support those jobs. Those people also understand and support the workers from the mills who are losing their jobs. Therefore, it is not a question of one worker pitted against the other. Most workers understand what is going on. I know the people who work in the bush and cut down the trees, the fellers, are very supportive of the mill workers and would love to see the communities thrive and grow.

I will talk a little about some of the small communities that I represent in Vancouver Island North, forestry communities that are struggling to make ends meet after their sawmills have closed because there is no value added. Also fishing communities are struggling with unemployment because they cannot get enough fish to keep their processing plants going. It is the same scenario in another industry.

These were once thriving communities. They are surrounded by oceans and forests, yet the bounty of these resource is heading south out of the country across the border to the U.S. or other parts of the world to be processed. This represents the loss of jobs and communities at a devastating level. It does not seem that there is any commitment on the part of the government to maintain these value added jobs in our communities any more.

The impact that it has on the people in those communities is devastating. They are in crisis. Their homes are devalued. They cannot afford to move, but they cannot afford to stay either, especially if they have children and the schools and the hospitals close. There are no services left and all the other businesses leave as well, and they become ghost towns.

To add insult to injury, because it is such a beautiful area and it is surrounded by the forests and the oceans, when homes sell in a lot of those little towns, at a very low price I might add, they are usually to wealthy Americans, looking for a cheap vacation home. It is a slap in the face to those workers, unfortunately.

It is not that we are against the U.S. and it is not that we are against trade. We want to stand up for Canadians, for our communities and for Canadian jobs. I thought it was our job, as members of Parliament, to stand up for our communities and to make good public policy that respects our resources, our jobs and our communities. I thought that is why we came here. Therefore, I am glad to speak on this ill-advised bill and hopefully convince members in all parties to stand with us and oppose this very bad deal.

I want to talk specifically about one industry that is struggling, a very small value added flooring industry in my community, in the Comox Valley. It is an environmentally sustainable industry. It goes out to get waste wood out of the forest after the logging companies have been there. Whatever is left on the forest floor, whether it is alder, cedar, maple and fir, it makes flooring out of it. It is a fabulous little business. It is doing so well, employing a few people in the valley. Unfortunately, it has been hit with high tariffs on the value added. It is losing over $300,000 a year. For a small business, that is devastating.

The owner is wondering now how he can survive. He cannot set his prices with any certainty because he does not know what the cost will be in the future, and his market is mainly the U.S. He is really struggling with this. It is for him also that I speak, and other businesses. He is just one voice, but I know he has been representing others in opposing this deal. Not only forestry workers are suffering under this very bad deal, but small manufacturing is as well.

All the forestry workers and small lumber companies wanting to have their say are never going to be heard now. There were going to be hearings. The international trade committee had agreed to have hearings across the country. We were looking forward to having a hearing in Vancouver. Many of the companies and workers from my area were going to be witnesses. They wanted to tell the committee and all parties about how they would be impacted by the deal. However, those voices are never going to be heard because the hearings were shut down.

Unfortunately, another piece of our democracy has been taken away from us because we will not hear those voices. It is another tragedy. They want to tell their stories. They are really concerned about what is happening with the country, not only with the resource but with the our communities as well. I think it would have been valuable for all members of the House to have heard the impacts of this very bad deal at the ground level where people live. That is the most important thing that we can do in the House.

Again, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, for his great work on the committee. He has done an exemplary job.

I would like all members in the House to pay attention to what is going on in small communities across the country. The resource industries are the backbone of our country and it is time we respected them.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made a compelling speech on what she terms the ill-advised bill. I have come to know the member opposite relatively well. I am honoured to serve with her on the natural resources committee. I have certainly come to understand how sensitive she is to the needs of her community and how, in a macro way, she understands issues facing Canadians.

She has described the bill as ill-advised. Could she comment on what she would like to see done to remedy or fix the ill-advised motion before the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many things that can be done, the first of which is for the House defeat this ill-advised bill. Once that is done, members can use their wins at every level, especially the final win, which said that Canada was owed every penny of the $5 billion plus taken in illegal tariffs over the many years that this dispute lingered. That money should come back to Canada. The government would then be in a very good start and end position to ensure that our industry would get the money back so it could re-tool some mills to ensure we could do the value added here.

There is probably more we can do with regard to our natural resource forestry policy, which would see us maintain our forests for the benefits of Canadians. That is not to say we want to stop trade, but we want to ensure the trade is done in the interests of Canadian communities, industry and jobs.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very intrigued by the comments of my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. Similar to my riding, the ability to attract investment, create an entrepreneurial spirit and add value to wood products is a struggle each and every day. She talked about examples of value added companies, the manufacturers that were able to get on their feet and put people to work.

Could she comment on what kind of message is being sent to small and medium size businesses that are struggling to make a go of it in rural parts of British Columbia and elsewhere in the country? What signal is sent by the government, without even allowing the possibility of hearings or any testimony to come from those communities and businesses, when it passes such fundamentally atrocious legislation as this one?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley lives in an area similar to mine and he has many of the same issues. His riding is also surrounded by forest, water and beautiful scenery. I know he understands very well what the impacts are on industry and workers in his community.

The message the government sends to individuals, workers, communities and small business is that it really does not care what anyone thinks. Unfortunately, we will not hear their voices. They were shut out of the hearings and coming to the committee. This very bad deal, which will affect them in such an adverse way, basically tells them that they do not matter in society. To me, that is absolutely the wrong way to go.

It is time we stood up for our industry in Canada. Small business is the backbone of our country and we need to recognize that. We need to support it and ensure that the value added sector is able to thrive. We do not need to put restrictions on its ability to trade and get its product out. It is ludicrous. We want to ensure that the industry can do business, employ people and keep our communities going.

I thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for interest and commitment to his community.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while it is a pleasure to join in this debate, it is a sincere displeasure to have to again rail against a government's misguided, arbitrary and bullheaded position on the softwood lumber file.

For many years the region and communities that I represent have sought certainty, resolution, and some level of justice when dealing with the unfair illegal tariffs that our American neighbours were slapping on our value added products. For years communities sought some sort of support. The businesses and industries sought some measure of effort and strength from the federal government to say to them that they matter, that the communities in our country that produce the wood products that are used throughout our country and around our world matter enough for the government to fight.

Lo and behold, there was an election last winter and a government came forward with a new mandate. Unfortunately, it used the same minister that was bungling the file before and it produced a deal that was flawed completely. It is so flawed in fact that mill managers in my communities, people who are deeply invested in this industry, who have their own personal money invested as mill owners are turning to me and scratching their heads, and wondering for what possible purpose the federal Government of Canada sold them down the river.

They asked me whether there was some kind of horse trade that went on between Ottawa and Washington to arrive at such a deeply flawed deal. Challenge after challenge and finally we arrived at the international court in the United States, the last place of refuge for the scoundrels in the United States who were perpetrating this trade fraud upon Canada. When we arrived at a decision that was favourable and every single dollar collected illegally from Canada was to be returned to Canada, Canada caved, completely rolled over, and asked the Americans to beat us again.

This time it was wood. The next time it might be cattle, fruit or some sort of product that will affect another part of this country. I can only wonder what will happen to those members in this place who represent communities that are trying to survive and trying to make it in the international competitive market. When their time comes calling, the Americans will go after their products when a very narrow interest and lobby group, and a few members of congress will get together and decide to target the next product out of Canada because they had so much success and fun going after softwood. They were able to beat us so soundly that even though we won in the courts, we were willing to throw the whole deal away at the last minute for some narrow interest, some narrow political victory that the government of the day was seeking.

The government came into office and said it was going to strike new relations with the United States. I almost wish back for the bad relations because if the new relations produce deals that hurt the communities that I represent like this one does, I worry for the future.

I will speak specifically of those communities because a lot of members listening to this debate and citizens watching it on television have a hard time contextualizing this. Who are we talking about? What kind of communities are we talking about? We are talking about Prince Rupert, Terrace, Skidegate, Queen Charlotte Islands, and communities right across our country. These communities have, in their very DNA, the hewing of wood and hauling of water. These are communities that were formed on the principle that they can make an honest buck, that people can go out into the woods, knock down trees, mill them, and send them to a market that will be appreciative and pay an honest dollar for them. These are communities right across my region.

My region is over 300,000 square kilometres, the most beautiful area in the most beautiful country in the world. In these communities we rely on our ability to use the natural resources we are endowed with and sell them on fair terms to the marketplace. Under the NAFTA, something we negotiated our energy away in order to have, we were meant to have the ability to go and freely, and fairly, trade with our partners to the south.

Lo and behold, when the deal did not work for some in the United States, they threw up tariffs and our government somehow caved. It caved to the point where we self-imposed a tariff that we know was illegal. We will impose a tariff on our own products that we know is wrong and impact the communities that have added value to this wood, and have struggled over the years to maintain those jobs.

Through ups and downs, thick and thin, they have been able to keep those jobs going, paying into the coffers that pay the salaries of members in this place, that pay for the functioning of the government, and pay for the health care services and education that we all rely on.

When those people needed the government to stand up for them, it could not be found. It was so busy running around K Street in Washington hoping to make nice with the Bush government. It did not for a moment stop to think about the economic future of the communities that I and other members in this place represent, and for the economic future of our country.

It is in the DNA of the people who I represent and we must consider the forests, the trees and the endowment with which we are privileged to be blessed. The first nations communities, for millennia, have relied upon these resources to sustain our communities. When the white settlers first showed up, it was one of the first things we did. We opened up these small lumber mills and soon the industries grew in sophistication and size, but were always based upon our ability to access a market.

These are hard-working people. They are honest people. They get up every day, go to work and bring their lunch pails. I was curious in my first term here in this place to find out how much in fact we contributed to the federal coffers, how much in fact we contributed just in economic terms to the health and well-being of this nation.

I asked the Library of Parliament researchers to do a little study for me. It turned out to be a long study, three months. I have boxes piled high in my office. I asked them to calculate, estimate as best they could, how much money was sent out of my region, out of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, into the federal coffers and then how much was returned in payments and services from the federal government.

After three months of study the researchers came back to me and said the very best guess they could make over the last 10 years was that there has been a 10 to 1 ratio every single year. For every $10 our community sent out, $1 came back in services. One would think we would be complaining about it, but these are honest hard-working Canadians who do not even mind a little bit. That is fair. We have the privilege of living in one of the greatest countries in the world and one of the best regions in which to live. That is well and good.

However, here we are working hard contributing $10 for every $1 that comes back. Money was sent from the good people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley to help pay for the negotiators, help pay for the lawyers, and the members of Parliament and cabinet minister who sit in the government to go out and fight on our behalf. What did they come back with? A complete and total failure.

They came back with the idea that we are going to leave $1 billion on the table, half of which is going to get used by the very lobbyists who launched this case in the first place to fight against us again another day. There was over $450 million left for that sole purpose, and another $500 million in change left over for Mr. Bush to fight another election.

The economic base of my communities are absolutely ensconced in this sector. The forestry sector provides over $120 million as an easy estimate annually to our region. The government response to the shutting down of mills, to the loss of jobs, and to the exodus of our young people across my region has been what? It has been to freeze the funds of Western Economic Diversification, to not allow any of that funding to go out that allows the communities to actually diversify their economies, to not in fact deliver on any of the pine beetle money because we have also had this near perfect storm created, an absolutely devastating infestation which according to the Forestry Council of Canada has been caused by global warming which the government refuses to address.

We have had a provincial government hell bent on providing as much raw log exports as is humanely possible and then ramping it up every year beyond that thereby eliminating any real incentive to add value to the wood products that we have in our communities. Add this to a promise made by the government to deliver more than $400 million in economic development money to compensate for what has happened with the pine beetle, which has not shown up, but in fact has been reduced by $12 million for some absolutely ludicrous reason.

The perfect storm has been created for my communities, a storm in which it is absolutely of no value or purpose for anyone to enter into our communities, to bring the investment dollars, and to create those industries, small, medium and large to add value to the wood products with which we are endowed.

I worry deeply for my communities and I worry deeply for the future that it holds. When I speak to high schools and colleges and I look upon the young people and talk about what their future means in our region, there is not a lot of hope.

I stood in front of a class in Hazelton, B.C., which has lost all three of its mills. I asked for a show of hands among the hundred students as to how many were planning to stay, live and work in the community of Hazelton. A single hand went up amongst the 100 students. The government response to this growing tragedy in my region has been silence and a sellout deal. It must be rejected.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that there have been two court decisions recently, one on July 14 where the top U.S. trade court, the Court of International Trade, ruled that the payout, under the so-called amendment, to the U.S. firms that launched the lumber trade actions was illegal. Prior to that there was another court judgment.

Would the hon. member describe to us why this trade deal not only wastes Canadian taxpayers at least a billion dollars but what does it do to the NAFTA trade dispute resolutions that were supposed to save all the different court challenges caused by NAFTA?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here is an incredible scenario before us. When the NAFTA was being negotiated and when the FTA in particular was being negotiated, the Americans very much wanted access to our energy. They very much wanted energy to be placed within the FTA and then eventually into the NAFTA.

Canada resisted and for good measure. Under the principles of the agreement, once the pipeline is opened up to a certain level, under no circumstances, even our own national interests, can we ever lower that amount of energy going forward. More than 50% is now leaving the oil sands in Alberta to the American markets. It is heading toward 60% almost.

What we did in trading away that energy profile and trading away that access is we said, “Give us this dispute resolution panel”. We realized and recognized there was at least some sense of sensibility within the trade negotiators at the time that there was an unbalanced relationship in power. The Americans knew that we depended so much on their market for our goods. Our negotiators realized in some small moment of brilliance that we needed to rebalance the power between the trade partners and establish this panel. This panel was meant to settle the disputes when one was overpowering the other, as is the case with the softwood lumber tariffs.

Lo and behold, the panel under this deal is absolutely null and void. There is no sense in even establishing it or having it any more because we have caved. We have said that even when the panel sided for Canada and even when the Court of International Trade sided with Canada, we are willing to take defeat. We are willing to accept less than what the dispute panel and all the other courts have decided in our favour.

Canada is not even accepting silver. It is not even getting on the podium. When we had the gold in our hand and the victory was ours and every dollar was meant to be returned, Canada said, “We would rather not have that. We would rather have something else”.

We thereby set a precedent that other industries within the United States who seek protectionist measures will follow and we have said as much because the practice has been borne out. If Canada is pushed hard enough, long enough, and far enough, it will cave. What we will do is offer up our future. What we will do is offer up communities that do not politically matter at this particular time.

It is a shame to be calling this negotiation a fair trade or free trade or anything. This has to be the greatest misnomer in economic trade history. It has allowed some pretence to Canadians to feel as though we actually have access to the U.S. market. Only 50% of our products actually fall under NAFTA. The rest fall under favoured nation status.

The illusion is perpetrated by the elites in this country, by Bay Street and others, that somehow this deal is a panacea. They say that it is a wonderful thing for Canada and that it also protects our access to the U.S. markets. This is even when we have completely lost, we have chosen the path of defeat, and we have chosen to not listen to the court hearings and to the decisions that have been passed down by U.S. and international courts alike.

Canada's willingness and determination to actually establish fair and free trade with our partners to the south, who we rely on and who we need for our future economic prosperity, will allow something else to take place. This will allow some absolute miscreation. This devilish deal perpetrates a complete apprehension of the idea of fair and free access to the U.S. market.

It is a shame and a travesty. I truly worry for the communities that I represent and for their ability to have any sense of representation from the government because it is gone under this deal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most recently, the NAFTA extraordinary challenges panel ruled that there was no basis for these duties, but the United States has so far refused to accept the outcome and has asked Canada to negotiate a further settlement.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for London—Fanshawe has done a remarkable job of addressing the many problems, errors and botching of this bill and of this softwood sellout.

The member represents a proud city, the city of London, which is currently in a byelection. The Liberals are saying that folks in London should be voting for them so they will have a good representative in Ottawa. However we have seen here in Ottawa that the Liberals, when the camera lights were on, talked about opposing the softwood agreement and opposing the sellout because they somehow understood it, but the second the camera lights went out they worked behind the scenes with the Conservatives to ram the bill through committee. The Liberals and the Conservatives, working together, said there would be no debate on half the bill and limited time on provisions that include errors around double taxation, a double export tax for companies and other huge egregious errors, and the Liberals and Conservatives, the dynamic duo of the devils, worked together to force the bill through committee. It is now in the House because of the Liberals.

I would like to ask the member for London—Fanshawe how the Liberals could be so hypocritical and why anyone in London would want to vote for a Liberal when they have shown such poor representation in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, the immediate response is practice. It is very clear that there have been unconscionable attempts in committee to silence the hon. member in his attempts to bring the bill to a point where it would actually works for Canadians and for the people who are depending on the softwood lumber industry.

In terms of the member's question about London--Fanshawe, it is not just on jobs where we see that the Liberals have failed London. It is also in the realm of affordable housing. We had a Liberal minister in London North Centre who promised everything. He said that he could support the people who worked there but did the Liberals support anti-scab legislation? No. The same minister insisted that he would provide affordable housing. London, Ontario is second only to the city of Toronto in terms of homelessness in the province of Ontario.

This record is disgraceful. It underscores over and over again how the Liberals have failed Canadians, have failed Ontarians and have failed Londoners. I will tell the House that it will not happen again after November 28 because there will be another NDP MP in London and she will come to this place and she will make a difference.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was paying close attention to my colleague's speech and one of the most compelling remarks she made was what she itemized as number six. I believe it talks about Canada as a sovereign nation signed on to this unprecedented clause in the bill that would require provinces to first vet any significant changes in their forest industry policy with the Washington, D.C. In other words, it is unprecedented that we would need to ask Washington if it were okay to change something like stumpage fees or our cutting levels.

What does the hon. member think of the significance of this dangerous precedent being set, surrendering our sovereignty and the Bloc supporting it?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a very salient point and has emphasized my concern. This is a sovereign nation and we make our own decisions when it comes to the determination of sovereignty in the north and to our industries and job creation.

We have lost a great deal in the recent past. We lost our Auto Pact. In my city, the automotive industry is a significant employer. Our economy depends very much on auto making and on the parts industry.

The Liberals signed away the Auto Pact and now we see the Conservatives signing away our authority, our autonomy in terms of the softwood lumber deal. One has to wonder what is next. When we look at our precious programs, like health care and the supports to our community, one has to worry about what indeed is next.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motions in Group No. 1, starting with Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Accordingly, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 25.

The next question is on Motion No. 77.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 83. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 83 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion Nos. 84 and 94.

I shall now propose the motions in Group No. 2.

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

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-24, in Clause 10.1, be amended by

(a) replacing line 27 on page 5 with the following:

“referred to in section 10:”

(b) replacing line 12 on page 6 with the following:

“underwent its first primary processing in one of”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-24, in Clause 10.1, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 32 on page 5 with the following:

“Territories or Nunavut; and”

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-24, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 13 on page 8 with the following:

“who is certified under section 25.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-24, in Clause 14, be amended by

(a) replacing line 38 on page 11 with the following:

“Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador, as provided in subsection 10.1(2),”

(b) replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 12 with the following:

“responsible for excess exports as determined under subsection (2) shall pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada a charge calculated”

(c) replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 12 with the following:

“excess exports.

(1.1) The charge becomes payable at the time that the softwood lumber product is exported.

(2) A person’s excess exports shall equal”

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-24, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 2 on page 12 with the following:

“primary processing in one of those provinces from”

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

moved:

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to correct you. You were talking about Motion No. 19. You are moving from Motions Nos. 17, 18, and then 19, clause 17 and clause 18.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Thank you. I appreciate the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster raising this. We will check into the accuracy of that previous motion, but I will continue reading the whole group of motions and then we can determine what the point of order is all about. Motion No. 18.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-24, in Clause 17, be amended by

a) replacing lines 42 and 43 on page 12 with the following:

“product from the charges referred to in sections 10 and 14.”

(b) replacing line 3 on page 13 with the following:

“charges referred to in sections 10 and 14.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-24, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 17 with the following:

“containing the prescribed information;”

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

moved:

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-24, in Clause 99, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 86 with the following:

“imposed on those products under section 10 or 14,”

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

Mr. Speaker, we are on to the second set of amendments of this badly botched bill. Anyone who is watching the House of Commons right now would have been able to see, as the Speaker reviewed all the amendments, how badly botched this bill has been.

The Minister of International Trade is now bringing in amendments to his own bill. Why? Because he screwed up, quite frankly. He botched it. He botched the negotiations. He botched the entire process. Now he basically has admitted to all Canadians that the bill itself is so badly flawed that he is bringing in amendments to try to fix some of his errors, but only some.

We have had no due diligence on this bill. We have had no due diligence at all. The government said it would consult. Back at the end of April when it announced a so-called framework agreement, the government said it would sit down and work with the industry to try to put together this softwood sellout, so even if we were very concerned about some of the provisions, we took the minister at word, and we should not have done this. Then we found out in the week prior to July 1 when this agreement was initialled that there was no consultation with the industry. The industry was told to take it or to leave it.

Subsequent to that, the NDP forced hearings this summer. What we heard from the industry throughout the summer were concerns about this bill, concerns about the impacts of giving away $1 billion and having an import tax imposed on our softwood products.

The minister went into overtime. Being very concerned about his political future and his political career, what he tried to do was browbeat and bludgeon the companies into submission. He was able to extract, like a confession from a torture house, little letters saying they would support the deal if--and this is an important if--the minister got 95% support. He never got that support, so the government changed the bill.

The Conservatives changed the agreement. They rewrote what they said they could not do. They rewrote the softwood sellout, making even more concessions to the United States in the meantime, and then throughout that process. As one industry representative said, Canada had capitulated on everything. Another industry representative said that this was the worst negotiation he had ever seen Canada go through. At the end of a badly botched negotiation, the minister came up with an equally badly botched bill.

The bill was presented in the House. With the support of the Bloc, the Conservatives and the tacit support of the Liberals, the bill was taken from the House to the committee. I will come back to the Liberals in a moment because their attitude and behaviour have been absolutely disgusting throughout this whole affair.

The committee should have been exercising due diligence, but the Liberals and Conservatives on the committee refused to hear more than two witnesses. The first two witnesses already had raised serious concerns about the botching in the crafting of the bill. In clause 18, effectively what we have is a double tax on companies. The companies that go through the Export Development Corporation are not getting 80¢ dollars back. They are getting 67¢ dollars back. Those concerns were raised by the only two witnesses the Conservatives and Liberals would allow.

Then letters came in from across the country, from workers, communities and people involved in the softwood industry, letters saying that the government please must have hearings on this. People said the government must have hearings, but the Liberals and Conservatives shut that down. They had already worked together, the Conservatives and Liberals, the two devils working together in their teamwork to sell out softwood communities across the country. They had already killed the public hearings that the NDP had forced over the course of the summer. We were supposed to go to Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. We were supposed to go to Thunder Bay. We were supposed to go to Vancouver. No, the Liberals and Conservatives killed that, working with the Bloc, of course.

The net result is that this bill, even though witnesses asked to come before the committee, did not receive its due diligence and was rammed through over a 12 hour period, with most of the bill not being debated at all. We now have a deeply flawed bill and a punitive bill. As one of the two witnesses allowed by the Conservatives and Liberals to appear before the committee mentioned, it is an extremely Draconian bill. One gets 18 months in prison if one violates the provisions of this bill.

One of the amendments we have brought forward addresses the whole question of assessments. The liability of a person to pay an amount under the bill is not affected by an incorrect or an incomplete assessment. The minister screwed up on the negotiation and on the bill. Now the government is giving itself a blank cheque to go after softwood companies that have either disagreed with it politically or that cannot keep up with these huge financial payments they are being forced to pay, the export tax, the double taxation on the refunds that should be coming back to communities.

What happened next? On October 13, Canada won in the Court of International Trade in the United States. It was an enforceable decision, and we were entitled to every penny back. Instead of saying it had taken the wrong course, that it should never have been that irresponsible, that it should not have thrown away $1 billion when it did not have to, that it should not have imposed an export tax on our softwood companies, and I will come back to the mill closures and the job losses in a moment, the government decided to cover this up, not talk about the victory in the Court of International Trade and pretended that it was many years of litigation to come.

However, the minister and Michael Wilson were unable to say from where this litigation would come. They know the Court of International Trade is the last resort. They know it is a three judge panel. It cannot be overturned. They know all this, yet they are deliberately setting out to mislead the Canadian public because they cannot sell their badly botched deal.

The New Democratic Party will not stand for that. We will be out there talking to Canadians, as we have already. We have been to communities, such as Thunder Bay, which have been hard hit by this, by the Liberal betrayal and by the Conservative betrayal of softwood communities across the country. Since this deal with the devil was put into place, the Liberals and Conservatives working together, in the first week we saw, with that provisional agreement, 2,500 jobs eliminated.

Many of these jobs were in northern Quebec.

We have seen the loss of jobs. In a month we have seen now 4,000 jobs eliminated, including, as I mentioned in the House yesterday, at Western Forest Products in New Westminster, British Columbia, where 284 jobs were eliminated. Communities across the country, British Columbia, northern Alberta, Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, where I was the week before last, have been hard hit by layoffs and job losses, as have northern Ontario and northern Quebec.

The job losses have been universal and all the Conservatives can say is that they are sorry, that maybe it is the Liberals' fault. The Liberals say that maybe it was the Conservatives' fault. They are both at fault. They have both supported this badly botched deal, this horrible sellout of Canadian interests. As the member for London—Fanshawe just mentioned, it does not just affect softwood. The fact that we are throwing away litigation that we have won means that any other industrial sector can be targeted the same way.

What is worse is we are now giving half a billion dollars to the American softwood industry. It was dry. It did not have any legal funds to continue. Now it will have half a billion dollars to come at us again. For those 4,000 families that have lost their breadwinners, because of the incompetence of the Minister of International Trade and government and the betrayal of the Liberals, it is scant conciliation to know that Canada is right and that what should happen has not. What should happen is a reinforcement of our rights. We won in the Court of International Trade. The money has to be paid back. In fact, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has already been sending 100% dollars to softwood communities that did not sign on to the deal.

The minister did not get the required level of support. What did he do instead? He changed the deal, when he said all along he could not change it because the Americans were tough negotiators.

That is the situation we are in now. We have a badly flawed bill, the most egregious aspects of which the NDP has been endeavouring to fix. We have the Conservatives now admitting they screwed up on the bill by presenting all kinds of last minute amendments to try to save a bill that they know is bad. However, the members of Parliament in this House have a responsibility to softwood communities and a responsibility to Canada.

In all four corners of the House, members should be reading the deal and the bill. They should talk to the industry, which has said this deal is bad. In fact, they should talk to the independent lumber remanufacturers that wanted to appear before the committee, but were refused by the Liberals and Conservatives. They should talk to those 4,000 families that have lost their breadwinners because of the incompetence of the government.

We are putting forward these amendments because we, as the effective opposition in the House, are not going to stop standing up for softwood communities, even though they have been betrayed by the Conservatives and Liberals. The softwood workers will know that they have a champion in the House in the New Democratic Party. We will not stop. We will continue to fight for softwood communities and for softwood justice.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the yeoman's work he has done on this file, pressing against all odds. There were motions and courses taken, which have not been taken before in parliamentary history, in an effort to shut down his voice in committee and to remove his ability to be an effective opposition member. It is quite remarkable. It brings to mind the ancient expression “methinks he doth protest too much”. We have watched the government pull out every stop to end talks on this issue.

Usually when people associate themselves with the term “deal”, there is something positive that happens. There is a good trade of terms. When we look at this deal, particularly from the perspective of hard-working softwood communities that rely on value added, they must wonder who is standing up for them in this place. They must wonder if they had the misfortune of voting for a Liberal, a Bloc or a Conservative member. They must wonder where their members on this issue. They must wonder if their MPs are defending their right to have a trade relationship, with the United States in this case, that is fair and equitable so they have the ability and a due right under a so-called free trade agreement to trade freely with our competitors.

Could the member comment as to the processes and the designs used, particularly by the Liberals and the Conservatives in conjunction, to circumvent and shut down the debate? Would the member speak about preventing the democratic right of a member of Parliament to speak to issues and speak to amendments?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's question goes far beyond members of the House. It is a shutdown of softwood communities wanting to express themselves.

Softwood communities wrote to the international trade committee. Softwood workers wrote to the international trade committee. Steelworkers wrote to the international trade committee. Lumber remanufacturers and the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association wrote to the committee. This is group is based in British Columbia and represents lumber remarnufacturers in British Columbia.

First, the industry said no. The Conservative government browbeat those companies into submission and forced them to send in a letter that was meaningless, it turns out, because they never got the 95% support that was obligatory under this sellout.

After that, working together, the Liberals and Conservatives shut down the hearings. The Liberals did not want to go to Thunder Bay. They did not want to consult with people in Thunder Bay, Vancouver or northern Quebec. They did not want to hear from softwood communities. The Liberals actually moved a motion to shutdown the consultation. It is absolutely appalling to hear Liberals saying they are opposed to the deal. They have done everything in their power to force the deal along. They shutdown the hearings publicly. They refused to have hearings in Ottawa. They refused to do their due diligence.

Now the government is reacting in a panic mode. It is throwing in amendments left, right and centre. We have seen a half a dozen amendments today. The government now realizes how badly flawed the bill is.

The flaws and errors in the bill go far beyond what the government is prepared to fix. There are a whole host of errors, such as the double tax in clause 18, which the government just does not understand. That is a sure recipe for trouble when we have a government that does not even understand the bill or the impact of it. Not a single Conservative MP has stood up for softwood communities in the House.

The Liberal MPs only stand up when the TV cameras are there. Behind the scenes, they are driving that knife into the back of softwood communities across the country.

What has happened has been a betrayal of trust to the softwood communities, softwood workers and their families across this country from coast to coast to coast. It is deplorable.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, concerns one of the details he mentioned in his speech. I have heard him raise it a number of times.

I do not think Canadians fully understand the dangerous precedent that is set when we are about to pass an agreement that forfeits Canadian sovereignty. For us to make any significant policy changes about the forestry industry, we have to ask permission from Washington.

How does that make the member feel? Could the member explain to Canadians, if it is possible, how in God's name the Conservative government could think this is a good idea?

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

Mr. Speaker, basically anti-circumvention gives the Americans an oversight into any changes in provincial forestry practices, y incluant au Québec. What that means is we have given away the ability to change forestry practices without American oversight. It is unbelievable to me that three parties in the House would agree to it. It is another example of the appalling betrayal of softwood communities across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I thank the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert for his courteous and parliamentary response when there was a personal and unparliamentary attack on me in my absence in the House yesterday. I think everybody understands that the House has rarely 308 members in it during every minute of every day. When people either do not understand the rules or deliberately choose to ignore them, we have the obligation to remind them when they cross the line and have regressed into some state of affair that is less than human.

For the past number of months, my outspoken criticism of the proposal has been well documented, and rightly so. We all have concerns. I believe everybody would agree that the legislation, as it would pass now, would be somewhat less than perfect. Nonetheless, even with its shortcomings, it is now in effect. Some of the concerns I have expressed with regard to NAFTA and the World Trade Organization and what implications this may have in the future are things on which we as parliamentarians will have to remain consistently vigilant.

On the $500 million going to the United States government, it really behooves this government to monitor it to ensure that it is not used against Canada and its manufacturers and suppliers.

There are many other points and they have been well documented. I am on the record and I stand by them. I have vocalized the concerns of workers, families and suppliers depending on this. Smaller communities, represented by their mayors, reeves, chiefs, associations and companies, have been involved in this, not only for the last six months but probably well before I was elected federally. They have been pressuring MPs to act on this issue. I have come to know it from many different angles.

When I was fortunate to be a member at the international trade committee, I was one of the persons who put forward an amendment for a hearing to be held in Thunder Bay. However, once we are past certain stages of delaying, obfuscating and holding things up for our own sake, whether one is partisan or not, why continue doing that? The goal is to ensure that we get the best possible legislation for people. In northwestern Ontario the goal is to keep people working.

Voting for this was a very difficult decision for me, especially as someone who has been so actively vocal. Over the past number of months, I had a number of meetings with individuals. I received phone calls, emails, faxes, all those kinds of things. I had meetings with union leaders, other labour groups and associations to try to find a way to ensure that whatever happened would be in the best interests of not only the people in northwestern Ontario but of all Canadians and for our future representations in dealings with the United States. This applies not only to forest products, but agriculture and other fields of trade as well.

I take the duty of voting very seriously. It has been a troubling time. When we think of the companies in northwestern Ontario, they have been on their knees financially. We know the deal that would have occurred last August 2005 would have been much better for them. However, it did not happen. On the legal front, we also know that our forest product companies and the people who work in them, had they been able to sustain themselves until the recent rulings, would have persevered, prevailed and overcome many of those objections. They would have had a much better deal for the future of the country.

I was very concerned about the pace at which we were trying to secure this deal. I spoke openly and often about its shortcomings. Now that it is in effect, those companies that were financially strapped really felt with the greatest reluctance that they had to accept this deal because they needed the cashflow. We have already seen the positive benefits of that. If I were asked for any one reason why I could agree with just about anyone in their consistent objections, their reasonable objections and concerns and need for improvements, I would not hesitate to say that they are correct and that they are making an excellent point. The bottom line is had we stopped this, the companies it affects in northwestern Ontario would now be out of business and we would never be in a situation where we could recover.

These are difficult times. The impact of the infusion of money I know firsthand. People know about my open door policy which I have had throughout my career both as a mayor and now as an MP. An open door policy means meeting with people almost 24-7, always being available, accessible and approachable.

People's concerns varied considerably. There were concerns that we would be swept up by the President of the United States or that it would mean the end of communities in northwestern Ontario through implosion. The concerns really did run the gamut. People came to my office to tell me they are glad to be back at work, putting food on the table, and that the mortgage is being paid again. That is the kind of thing that I see firsthand. Smaller companies which supply many of the larger operations are also hiring people again. Companies can now re-employ and do the operational maintenance work. They can hire the tradespeople to do that work.

I also have to thank the members of my party for the freedom to express my opinion on this matter. As a party, members are making quite vocal objections which are reasonable and well put and I respect them for that. I also respect them for giving me the chance to speak with no attempt at stifling what I have to say. It is a sign of a truly democratic operation when we can rise above the partisanship and others understand why I have to support the companies, the workers, the families and the communities in northwestern Ontario.

The member for Kenora and the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, myself and several others designed a response for the forest product companies and the labour movement. They asked us specifically when we were in government to address this question. Loan guarantees, modernization, environmental upgrades, and energy conversion systems were fundamental not only to the softwood lumber industry but also to the pulp and paper industry.

The $1.4 billion that was booked last November but never had a chance to fly would have made a tremendous difference. When I tell people that had we been able to have that infusion of $700 million of loan guarantees and had we been able to sustain the legal battles until this fall, we would not have had to rush into this agreement. We would have been in a much better position. People understand that and members in the House know that, but the fact is we did not. All of that support for the forest products industry was booked. I do not know where it was spent, but it certainly did not go to the forest industry.

In realizing that as a federal government we could have been the sustainer, the lifeblood, the continuance of the forest products industry, the softwood lumber industry, we realized just how much was lost.

Today the Ontario Forest Industries Association itemized across Canada 5,000 lost jobs. I do not know what percentage that $1.4 billion would have saved, but I believe it would have been significant. It also would have been an infusion that would have kept the bankers away. It would have kept many of the smaller companies viable. In capitalizing for energy conversions, environmental upgrades or modernizations, it would have kept many of the suppliers and small trades operations going too. We know they are all connected and they all need each other. I thank those people who piloted that through.

It also is quite interesting that when we determine that some kind of support system is necessary--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I was trying to give him some hint that his time was running out, but he never looks at the Chair. The member's time has expired and we will go to questions and comments. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has provided clarity. The Liberal Party supports the softwood sellout. That is important for Canadians to know.

The idea that the Liberals are saying they do not support it, that somehow they would do it differently is wrong. The Liberals support the softwood sellout. That is good, because it gives Canadians a very clear choice between the Conservatives, Liberals and the Bloc and their proposal which has led to 4,000 lost jobs, and the NDP.

The member asked had we stopped this softwood sellout, what would have happened. We already know that we won in the Court of International Trade on October 13. Customs and border protection is already sending out 100% cheques to the companies. What the former Liberal government should have done and what the Conservative government we have been saying since January should do is provide funding to the companies. That is what has happened as well.

Through Export Development Corporation, taxpayers' money has gone to help support those companies.This deal with all of the sellouts involved, all the capitulations of the American government, the Bush administration, do not need to happen. The Export Development Corporation has already started using taxpayers' money to support the softwood industry as we said it should, and U.S. customs and border protection, as a result of the Court of International Trade decision, is already paying that money out. Had we stopped this; do we stop this now? What happens is we take off the export tax, we take off the punitive tax that companies are experiencing and we start to get back some of the 4,000 jobs we lost.

I have two questions for the member. The first is that for some time there has been an invitation for him to attend a public meeting on softwood lumber. I went to Thunder Bay with my colleague from Timmins—James Bay to debate the issue of softwood lumber. Why will the member not agree to a public meeting that the Steelworkers have asked him to have on softwood? Second, I have been tracking, certainly the NDP has been tracking, the number of lost jobs in northern Ontario. I would like the member to tell us how many hundreds of jobs have been lost since this deal was provisionally put into effect on October 11.

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

Mr. Speaker, just so it is known, over the entire course of my 30 year political career, I have never shied away from debating anybody, any time.

Sometimes in life there is a courtesy extended where if one is going to debate someone, one actually lets the other person know when the debate is going to be as opposed to holding it and then asking why the person did not show up. Just in terms of normal human relations, I was not extended that courtesy, but certainly we are making plans to enjoy a frank and open debate with the hon. member. We are working on a time for that.

Those who have read Winston Churchill's biography The Will of the People know there comes a time in one's political career, and certainly it should happen more often in this House, when one must look beyond partisanship and do what is best for one's community, one's riding and also for one's country. I know the member opposite is locked in some kind of dogmatic mind space that does not allow him to understand that when companies are on their knees and the workers are unemployed that if one has a chance to help them, then one sets aside one's dogma and partisan rituals and does what is best for the people.

Unfortunately I know that most of the rest of the Liberal caucus will oppose this legislation, but for my riding, my people and our companies to sustain themselves and continue to be a vibrant business for northwestern Ontario, I am compelled to ensure that there is no obstruction to the flow of money. Had it not been for the NDP, we would have $1.4 billion to support the industry and we would have lost hardly any of those jobs.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have an open invitation to have a debate. The member's office was notified about a potential debate. Since he has now said he is open and amenable to it, will he commit right now in the House of Commons to engage in that debate in his own community prior to the House rising for the Christmas break?

It would be very good for him to suggest a couple of dates, but at the very least to commit that he will appear in public to debate the merits of this bill. Certainly the New Democrats would welcome the opportunity. He could immediately remove the delusion that the $1.4 billion left on the table by the Conservative government has anything to do with our opposition to this bad deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am certainly never afraid to debate you guys. That is not really fair, but I do not mind any time, actually.

We are working on the dates, as I said. Perhaps you do not have the schedule. Maybe you are not as committed to your own constituents as I am. Nonetheless, if you dare--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. Unfortunately we are getting into a negotiation here in which the second person is being used constantly, so perhaps the members could negotiate the time of the potential debate in the lobbies. The time has expired in any event.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech of the member for Sherbrooke and I also appreciate the work he does in the Standing Committee on International Trade, as well as the work of his colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. I very much appreciate their work.

I have to say, this House is in a critical situation. The money for the loan guarantees that the Bloc and the NDP have been demanding for such a long time and that the government refused to give has already been given. The Corporation de développement des exportations has sent the money to the Quebec companies.

We also know that in the United States, Customs and Border Protection is in the process of sending cheques to the companies as a result of the October 13 ruling. The money is already in the hands of the Quebec companies or on the way. It is not thanks to the government, nor to the agreement, but because the government finally took action.

Now that the money has been handed over, the anticipated penalties and massive job losses are on the horizon. We saw this happen in Abitibi, in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and on the North Shore.

The threat of the Conservatives triggering an election on this issue is nothing more than a threat. They know full well that if they try to campaign in British Columbia or in other regions of the country on this ill-conceived agreement that is full of concessions, they will not be re-elected.

I want to know whether the hon. member for Sherbrooke would be prepared to convince his colleagues from the Bloc Québécois to vote against this agreement. This could cancel all the additional penalties of 15% imposed on the companies. The money is already going out because the government finally did what we have been asking it to do for so long. Would the Bloc be prepared to say no to this agreement and say yes to the sovereignty of the Government of Quebec in forestry policy, a sovereignty it lost because of this agreement? There are also all the other costs and all the other taxes that the companies—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with one of my NDP colleague's views, namely that the Conservative Party will no longer be there after the next election and that it will no longer form the government. We are in complete agreement on that point. We even agreed on certain amendments.

It is true that there were job losses in the forestry sector. There was talk of tens of thousands of jobs lost. No matter the number, it is always too high. The countervailing duties to be paid by the industry and the U.S. competition were also against us. And there was also the significant downturn in the market.

We cannot say no to the agreement at this point. If I have understood my colleague's remarks, now that everyone has their money we could vote against this agreement and we will have recovered our money at any rate. That is an unacceptable way of doing things.

The agreement was signed. The bill only allows the government to implement it. We must live with this agreement. I hope it will be for the shortest possible time. What we believe to be important for the forestry industry is to return to free trade. We hope that the forestry and softwood lumber industry will be part of the free trade agreement with the United States in order for both parties to have real access to the market. Our industry could modernize, become more competitive and the money recovered could be used for that purpose.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am at the mercy of the House on this but given that there is only one minute left before the House is required to proceed to the taking of a deferred recorded division, I wonder if we might agree to see the clock at 5:55 and proceed. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence, as reported with amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 2.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this issue again because as New Democrats we have been speaking out about this issue for some time.

I would like to bring to the House's attention that I was in Thunder Bay earlier this week where I met with people from the ridings of Thunder Bay—Superior North and Thunder Bay—Rainy River because of the announcement that was made just this past week by Bowater at its Kraft mill. On the very day that the provincial Liberals announced an electricity rebate for northern mills, Bowater was telling its employees and their families that it was demanding the right to reopen contracts, demand concessions and that the future of Bowater was on the line.

That was on the same day that Tembec Timmins went down. Tembec Timmins is fundamental in the softwood industry in our region. That was also the same day that the provincial Liberal minister, David Ramsay, told the people of northern Ontario not to worry, that they had gotten off scot-free. He was sounding somewhat like the Marie Antoinette of the forestry industry at that point.

I went to Thunder Bay to meet with the employees of Bowater because Thunder Bay was supposed to have been on the list of communities for hearings on softwood. A promise was made by parliamentarians at the committee that they would have hearings across Canada, from one end of the country to other, to hear from the people who were being affected because certain key communities will definitely take the brunt of the legislation if it goes forward. Thunder Bay is certainly one of those communities where the people were very upset when they heard that the hearings were cancelled. The committee cancelled the hearings with the help of the Liberal members, unfortunately, because the Liberal members of Thunder Bay stand up alongside the Prime Minister and give this deal the big two thumbs up. They sold out the people of northern Ontario on this and I, in no way, can allow this to go unrecorded because this is an issue where we need the people of northern Ontario to stand together.

I would like to reiterate some issues in case some members are not quite aware of the impacts of this deal and what it will mean for the forest dependent regions of the north, and particularly northern Ontario which I represent.

The first issue is the process that was entertained in this deal going forward. It was very clear that the government was interested in a quick photo op. It wanted a dirty deal done dirt cheap and done quickly so it could turn around and show back to the electorate and say that in its little check box of things that the Conservative government accomplished it finally dealt with the softwood deal. However, to get a deal done dirt cheap and done dirt quickly, it basically had to concede everything to the U.S. trade competition.

Our government did not seem to have a problem with that. It sat down and carved out a deal where basically we gave away every right that we had won in court decision after court decision in terms of defending our rights to maintain a free and open market in wood. The government came back here thinking that industry would sign on. Industry did not sign on. Industry was deeply opposed to the deal because there are number of elements in the deal that will affect the long term viability of industry in northern Ontario for years to come.

First is the fact that we were asked to agree to a crippled market and if that market starts to grow the tariffs start to come on again.

Second, our companies are having to give up the legal rights that they fought for and won.

Third, we will be taking money that belonged to our producers and giving it to the United States. It is a billion-plus dollars, and of that, $450 million goes to our direct competitors. Here , in Canada where we have had community after community impacted, mills going down and a need for government retraining, restructuring and commitment to help the industry get on its feet, there is no money. There is no money for Red Rock, Dryden, Thunder Bay, Opasatika and Smooth Rock Falls but our competitors in the United States are using our money to retool.

We had our direct competitors who, after years of fighting the softwood deal, were pretty much at the end of their road and they did not have any money left in their pockets. Now they are flush with cash.

Bowater is an American company in Thunder Bay. Like many of our companies now, Bowater started out as a family operation. It could have been Great Lakes Paper. It could have been, in my region, Malette and McChesney, who were bought out and have become larger and larger corporations, further and further from the source. Many of these corporations now have operations in the southern United States and in the north.

When we talk to people within the industry, it becomes very clear as to where they will be putting their investment dollars. They will not be investing in the forest industries of Canada right now because there is no incentive to do so. Will they invest in Georgia? We can bet they will. Will they invest in South Carolina? They are already doing that and they will be using the money from our producers to retool their plants south of the border. It is an outrageous situation.

What is so disturbing about this deal is that another aspect to this would have come out in hearings in the amendment stages had the other parties not tried to silence the amendment process by limiting 60 seconds per amendment. These are amendments that will have profound impacts.

What we are being asked to do in this House of Parliament is to use the power of the Government of Canada to act as a predator on one of our primary industries. The forestry sector in Ontario is about the second largest industry in Ontario. We are being asked to go after our own producers because our producers have been efficient and they have used their resources well. In northern Ontario we have managed our forests well. We have a bountiful harvest of trees. We have a good system for bringing that forward and a public system but we are being asked to impose tariffs. We are putting a punishment tax on our own industry in order to placate Washington.

What is an even more outrageous predatory aspect of this deal is that our government is insisting on a further punishment tax for the companies that are holding our their legal rights, rights they have fought for year after year in court decisions. The government will impose a further punishment tariff on them.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I wonder whose side they are on.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Exactly. It is a question of whose side the government is on. In this financial climate that we are in, we are not kidding around. Many long-standing Canadian industries are almost at the end of their ropes. They were asking for financial aid but that aid never came. Now, for the companies that have signed on, the first money that is flowing is actually taxpayer money. It is money coming from the EDC to the companies that have signed on.

We were asking for that money to flow ages ago in order to allow our companies the lines of credit they needed to give them some breathing space until we could get through the final court challenge on October 13.

Those are some of the key areas that need to be looked at when we talk about this softwood agreement. They have profound implications for the forestry-dependent communities of our regions. It is hard to tell people in Smooth Rock Falls, Opasatika or Red Rock to reinvent themselves without a mill and become entrepreneurs. We have been through this in northern Ontario. We had the great adjustment committees that took a way of life and put people into a sunset life.

I have seen what it has done to communities after people are told there is no future for them and that the committee will not work with them on economic development opportunities. The best the committee said it would do was to give them some re-education. I remember the committee doing that when our mining sector was going down. What did that re-education give anyone? It taught the men in the mining sector, those who ran skidders, machines and the jacklight drills, how to play solitaire on computers assuming that somehow would allow them to reinvent themselves as entrepreneurs in the dot-com age.

However, that never happened because in northern Ontario, as much as we try to develop into other sectors, we remain fundamentally based on the resources of the north, on the hydro, on the forestry and on the mineral production. Those are the fundamentals on which we build an economy. What we are seeing with this deal is absolutely no incentive to go to value added because we are agreeing to impose an export tariff on the value of the product that is created. Therefore, if we are creating value added in northern Ontario, we are paying more for it.

Why would a company do that work in the north when it can do it south of the border and get the benefits from a government that has agreed to act in a predatory fashion against its own members?

I have met with people in communities across the north, with industry officials and with union people. As New Democrats, we remain absolutely opposed to this deal, not just because it is a bad deal for Canada but because of what it says about the government's willingness to sell out our domestic industrial sector from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member because I am concerned that he continues to ignore the facts.

First, we know that the softwood lumber dispute has gone through 24 years of litigation and the last lawsuit for five years alone. Without this deal, the U.S. lumber coalition has told us very clearly, not only through the public and news releases but very verbally, that there will be another lawsuit without this deal. Why does the hon. member continue to ignore that with a new lawsuit there will be new countervailing duties and new anti-dumping duties, which could total 27%?

I also want to point out that the trade committee was one of only two committees that sat throughout the summer. We heard from witnesses, not once, not twice, but many of them had three opportunities to come before us. Why is the member deliberately misleading the House when it comes to the number of times the committee has heard from witnesses?

I also want to talk about the fact that the deal will provide stability and predictability for 7 to 9 years, that 90% of the--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is very unfair to say that I would be deliberately misleading the House. I would like the hon. member to retract that. That is very unparliamentary.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey has heard the point of order and the chair occupant has also heard the allegation. I know she will do the right thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member has not been on the committee so he would not know that we did in fact sit throughout the summer and had an opportunity to hear from many witnesses. He obviously was not there. Deliberately? No, because he was not sitting on the committee. However, now he knows witnesses had ample opportunity to come before the committee. Hopefully, he will remember that in the future.

Why does the hon. member and his colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, continue to stand onside with the lobbyist lawyers, who they have dragged before committee over and over again? They are the only ones who have won with litigation and they are only ones who will win if this deal does not succeed.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I had a question like, I would wear a bag over my head. She is telling us the U.S. lumber lobby will come back after us and hurt us. What should we do? Roll over and give it everything it wants so it will leave us alone? What kind of government policy is that? Of course it will come after us. It comes after us in steel, it comes after us in wheat and it comes after us in hogs. The job of the government is to stand up to it, not back down.

Then she said that I did not realize the committee heard from people. It did not hear from the people being affected. To talk about us standing with lobbyists, when that member will not go out to the communities to meet the workers and the people in the industry who are affected, is a joke. Talk about standing with the lobbyists; she is standing with the U.S. lobbyists.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to hear the member for Timmins—James Bay talk about what he did and what he could do. The fact is, as a member of the fourth party of the House, there is not much he can do.

He had an opportunity to support some of the work the Liberals did. He talked about a deal for training and cogeneration plants for communities to ensure they could deal with high hydro costs. He talked about research and technology to ensure that companies could move forward, and he wanted support for all that.

He got all that in a forestry package that the Liberals put together. His answer will be that we did it at the very last moment. He knows that is not the case. I announced it would be within six months and we were within two weeks of doing that.

Would he sooner have the deal that Liberals proposed, which was something and it would be on the ground, or would he sooner have the softwood deal we have now?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find the member's use of math interesting. Six months before the election, we were meeting with the mayors of northwestern Ontario, who were in Ottawa. We were talking with them and asking the Liberal government to give us a signal. We never heard a peep.

I cannot remember the Liberals ever promising this big package until the eve of the election when they pulled out the big deathbed red book and crammed in all the promises that they had never delivered year after year. They pulled it out and said that if Canadians gave them one more term, if they were re-elected them, they would help all the little children around the world and they would give them all the stuff they never gave them before. No wonder Canadians never fell for that.

When he talks about high—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We know that it will solve very few of them.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that the Prime Minister made a promise and delivered on that promise. He delivered a deal to the softwood lumber industry that he promised during the campaign. This deal is for seven to nine years free of litigation and it returns over $5 billion American to the industry so that it can survive.

I notice that the member has acknowledged today that the previous Liberal government was unable or unwilling to solve this dispute and to give something back to the industry, but surely he is here voting in favour of and supporting the deal. Can he please tell us why he is supporting it? Surely it cannot be as bad as he has suggested. He knows there are some good things in it. He knows that Quebec is supporting it. He knows that the industry in Quebec is supporting it. Perhaps he could enlighten us as to why he has decided to support the deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, in this House, we have to repeat ourselves endlessly in order for some politicians to understand the reasons why we support or oppose certain measures.

As we mentioned, we asked for a loan guarantee program to support the forestry industry while the trade dispute with the United States was ongoing. The Liberals were ineffective and did nothing. When the Conservatives campaigned in the last election, they said they would support the industries with loan guarantees. When the Conservatives were elected, they forgot about it. They forgot all about it just like they forgot to support the industry. They signed an agreement on July 1 which, unfortunately, meant major losses for the Quebec industry.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said the Prime Minister delivered on a deal, but the truth of the matter is that he did not deliver on a deal. He simply caved in to American pressure.

I want to remind the member for the Bloc that I chaired the committee on international trade. The issue we focused on was softwood lumber. The members from the Bloc at that time agreed, given the presentation from the lumber industry. I have pointed out in my presentations in the past that representatives from his beautiful province of Quebec asked for financial support. The report, supported by the members from the Bloc and all, said to provide funding for final arbitration, which we felt we were going to win. Had it not been for the betrayal of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, the funds were there to continue. Simply, it is important for Canadians to know this.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has just made comments about the reasons why we supported this agreement. However, I would like him to remember the needs of the Quebec industry, the Quebec nation and the Canadian nation regarding softwood lumber when he was in government.

We asked questions of the Liberals in the House. We asked them on many occasions—pressed them hard on this issue—to provide loan guarantees to these companies so that they could weather the dispute with the Americans as it went before the courts, NAFTA tribunals and all other avenues, and they did nothing. Today, he is asking why we are supporting the softwood lumber agreement. The industry was on its knees, was losing money and human and financial resources. It was no longer able to ride out the never-ending storm. The Liberals did absolutely nothing in this regard.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster will want to know that there is less than a minute for both the question and the answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was interesting that the Liberals said earlier that we should not support the agreement, when they did everything they could in committee to make sure the agreement went through. As usual, I very much appreciated the speech and the presentation by the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. I also appreciated his comments about our work together.

Nevertheless, we have to ask ourselves some questions, including the following question. In Quebec, 2,000 jobs have been lost since this agreement took effect on an interim basis. We are talking about 2,000 jobs. With all the policies in the agreement, Quebec is losing the ability to manage its own forest policies effectively. The question arises: why does the Bloc still support an agreement that is taking away Quebec's powers and has led to massive job losses in Quebec?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé will want to know that the time is up, but I will give him a few minutes to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question from the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

We had a lengthy discussion in committee about the question he is asking me. I will repeat what I said then, and I know that he knows the answer I am going to give him.

Quite simply, we also have to respect the analysis that our industries have made of this agreement. I have told the member for Burnaby—New Westminster that. We must not believe, as the member for Burnaby—New Westminster seems to think, that our unions and our industries do not understand the issues this agreement involves. They, too, understand the issues. They have their own lawyers and their own human resources, and they are telling us to support this agreement—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's bad enough.

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

Yes. The member for Winnipeg Centre is right when he says that three minutes is bad enough. My colleague had only that much time to address each of these important issues he was raising with regard to this legislation.

Then the committee decided that the three minute amount of time was too long and should be reduced to one minute, but in one minute members can barely get the topic they are addressing out on the floor. A member cannot make a serious argument in one minute about what is important in an amendment and why that change needs to be made.

Even that was too long for the committee and the members moved to eliminate the ability to address any of the amendments all together. What a travesty of the parliamentary process. What a ham-fisted attempt to just shut down any discussion and any serious attempt to address the problems of this legislation.

I have very serious problems with what happened in that committee. A member, who was taking his responsibility seriously to represent the people of Canada, to represent people in forest communities, to represent workers in forest communities, to represent their families, to represent other industries affected by this agreement and this legislation, was shut down and did not have the opportunity to raise those concerns and speak for those Canadians and those communities.

I cannot imagine why that was done. What possible good did that serve, to shut down someone who had done that work and brought those concerns to the committee? In fact, in doing that, over half of the bill was not even considered by the committee in any serious way. The committee only heard from two witnesses in this process. Other witnesses were suggested by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. They were key witnesses and trade experts who could talk about the problems with this legislation, who could try to fix some of the very serious issues that have not been addressed in this legislation. They were shut down as well.

Between the time limits, the refusal to hear key witnesses, and the refusal of the committee earlier to travel the country, I think a real disservice has been done both to Parliament and to the people of Canada.

I am also very disappointed that at this stage of the debate in the House, which is the report stage, there was a limitation placed on the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and his ability to table amendments at this point in the process.

We know that many of his amendments were not considered seriously and were not considered at all in the committee process when the committee was doing the clause by clause review of this legislation. He attempted to have the House, as is his right, address those issues here during the report stage debate. Unfortunately, most of his amendments were ruled out of order.

I do not know how we in this place could say that an effective and complete debate took place in committee when many of those amendments were not considered. I would think that a standard would be that if a committee had a chance to have a reasonable discussion of an amendment then maybe there would not be a reason to have that discussion here in the House, but unfortunately that was not the decision that was made.

I think the problems with this debate, the problems with this process, and the problems that were made respecting the democratic process of this institution continue with this phase of the debate as we are looking at amendments at report stage in the House.

I know that the argument is always made that a committee is a master of its own destiny, a master of its own decisions, and it can make those decisions in committee. However, when a committee clearly limits debate or fails to consider amendments, I believe that opportunity should exist here in the House for a member who did not get that chance in committee. I am disappointed by that decision as well.

Some 4,000 jobs have now been lost because of this agreement, because of the way this agreement was negotiated, and the botched nature of this agreement. That has affected people all across Canada. It was a bad agreement because Canada was on the verge of a victory. We know that the appeals were coming to an end. We know the decisions that were made all along the process were favourable to Canada. There was no need for Canada to cave in, to put our tail between our legs and run from this process to try and get justice for the softwood lumber industry in Canada and for the Canadians who work in that industry in those communities.

There was also no reason to give away $1 billion of illegally collected tariffs by the Americans. We know that half of that went directly to the White House and the other half went to the American lumber industry to mount its next campaign against the Canadian industry. That is just unacceptable.

In my own region recently there were almost 300 layoffs at Western Forest Products in New Westminster. Yet another forest community, another softwood lumber community, is affected by this bad deal and by this bad legislation. Another 300 people are out of work because of this bad deal and this bad legislation. There is no excuse for that. This has been happening time and time again across the country.

This is a botched deal. It is botched because even the government had to introduce an amendment because it forgot to deal with the maritime exclusion appropriately. It is botched because of the punitive taxes that are in it. It is botched because of the oversight it gives the Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech and I have been watching the debate unfold for weeks now in the House of Commons. The NDP continues to spread the gospel message from the U.S. lobbyists. I just do not understand why the NDP is working with the U.S. lawyers and the U.S. labour groups who are opposed to this deal.

The reality is that this is a great deal. This is a deal that will put litigation behind us once and for all. The U.S. lawyers are of course upset about this and they have got into the minds of the NDP members, which is not that difficult to do, and have them being their puppets up here in Canada.

All the NDP cares about is keeping this in the courts, never coming to a deal, and keeping our communities and our lumber industry up in the air without any final result. The NDP has a lot of explaining to do when jobs are at stake here in Canada. The lumber companies in Canada want this deal. They want it finalized. They do not want any more politics and games being played by the NDP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is making the lawyers for the lumber lobby in the United States happier. I have a feeling that it is probably the government, which gave them a bonus payment of $500 million, so that they can pursue their next plan and their next attack on Canadian industry. We have seen them do it time and time again. We have seen them do it with the forest industry. We have seen them do it with steel. We have seen them do it in the agriculture sector. So here we have given them $500 million to pursue their next campaign against our industry, against our jobs, against our communities, and against our families.

I will not take any criticism from that side of the House for making Americans happy about this because we know that the big smile on their faces came directly from the actions of the government on that issue and the big paycheque that came from the government when it caved in on this deal. We were on the verge of winning every step along the way and all of a sudden we up and caved in. We caved in and we sent them a big cheque along with it.

That is absolutely unacceptable in this corner of the House. Frankly, I do not think that anything we are doing is making much joy in the lumber industry in the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the presentation from the member for Burnaby—Douglas. Like so many of his colleagues, our colleagues, this corner of the House is the only corner of the House that is making sense on the softwood sellout.

What we have is a court judgment. On October 13 it said that the United States had to pay back every single dollar of the illegally taken tariffs. We have the Conservatives giving a birthday gift to George Bush of half a billion dollars and a birthday gift to the lawyers for the American softwood industry of another half a billion. A billion dollars in total was given away frivolously, shovelled off the back of a truck because the Conservatives just did not understand what was at stake.

I have a question for the member for Burnaby—Douglas. We had Conservatives and Liberals combining to force this bad deal through, including Conservatives and Liberals from British Columbia. B.C. has been the most impacted by this bad deal, this softwood sellout, and in fact, we have seen hundreds of lost jobs as a result in the last five weeks when it was put in place provisionally. Why does the member think Liberals and Conservatives in British Columbia were so willing to sell out the B.C. softwood industry and softwood community, and when did these Liberals and Conservatives stop representing B.C. and start representing their political leaders from Ottawa in British Columbia?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could understand the motivation of Conservative and Liberal members from British Columbia when it comes to this deal.

In fact, the other day I was here in the House when the debate was going on and I heard a Conservative member from Vancouver Island recounting how people in Port Alberni were counting the number of trucks leaving that community with raw logs on the back of the trucks that had no post-logging production and no value added production on that lumber. They were counting those trucks leaving day after day and in the port of Port Alberni raw logs were being loaded on to ships to be exported out of Canada, again, with no further production of that wood into anything secondary.

It is unbelievable that the member could stand there and report this kind of activity when we know that is one of the flaws with this deal. It does nothing to stop the export of raw logs from British Columbia. That will be a huge--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Liberal colleague talk about a deal that his party was not able to secure. When we became the new government and secured this deal, we found out that the Liberals were willing to sign on for only $3 billion to be returned to the Canadian industry. We arranged for over $5 billion being returned back.

The hon. member is bragging about something that he and his Liberal Party were unable to achieve. After 13 years, they were unable to do anything for the industry to the point where the industry is now in a desperate state. That is why we needed this deal. That is why we see so much support from the industry, from all the provinces and from the Bloc. I appreciate the comments of members of the Bloc when they talk about the inability of the previous Liberal government.

I also point out that we heard from a very important witness, Gordon Ritchie. He told us that in the very beginning when NAFTA was negotiated, softwood lumber was carved out in a memorandum of understanding because the Americans did not want it included. It would not work within a dispute mechanism system. There is a new dispute mechanism within this deal that will work. It is taking it out of U.S. trial law and bringing it into international trade law.

Would the hon. member perhaps comment as to what he thinks about this process which the industry very much supports?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

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

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

You did nothing. You should apologize.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Lemmings.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Time.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I do not know why the Bloc wants me to stop talking, but it actually leads me to want to carry on talking because a little respect is in order in the House of Commons sometimes. Respect is what makes the world go round.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments? Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Ninety-eight amendments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the presentation by the member for Winnipeg North, particularly with respect to provincial forestry practices. She outlined how some provincial governments have capitulated on this deal and it is something that Canadians should take notice of.

She mentioned British Columbia where a Liberal government obviously took the money it was getting out of the export tax and which leads to massive job losses in British Columbia as more important than actually standing up for softwood communities. We have seen the same thing occur with the Alberta Conservative government. It took the money rather than follow the wishes of the softwood lumber industry, which very clearly expressed the view this summer that this would lead to job losses in Alberta. In Ontario we have seen the same thing. There have been massive job losses in northern Ontario. The Ontario Liberal government supports the deal.

But two provincial governments stand out, and they are Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They have actually raised serious concerns about the softwood sellout. They have raised concerns about the fact that now the Bush administration in Washington has control over any changes to provincial forestry practices. It is the same in Quebec and British Columbia. What it means is provincial governments have to go cap in hand to Washington to get approval for forestry practice changes here in Canada.

My question for the member for Winnipeg North is very simple. Why are governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan understanding the problems with this deal when the other provincial governments seem to just want to take the money and run?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is rather obvious. In fact, if one looks at the responsible governments in this day and age, one would quickly come to the conclusion that it is the NDP governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba that have been the most fiscally responsible. That is something that has been acknowledged by the Minister of Finance's own department in a study done of all provinces. It was concluded that Manitoba and Saskatchewan were the only two governments that ensured balanced budgets, responsible expenditures and careful planning. They are NDP governments.

On an issue such as this one on softwood lumber, it is clear that the approach by the governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba is one of not bending or kowtowing to big money interests for starters and certainly not to the United States for the answers to all of our problems. We are dealing with a question of responsible government that operates in the best interests of the people it serves. That is what we are talking about today: putting people's interests ahead of corporate interests. It is putting Canadian interests ahead of American interests.

In all of this there is a real lesson for the present Conservative government. There certainly is a lesson for the B.C. Liberal government which, as the CCPA mentioned in its report, has a duty to the public to explain how it intends to maximize social benefits from publicly owned resources in the years ahead. That is an absolute requirement on the part of the B.C. government and another reason that we are very skeptical about the merits of this bill at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will make my question simple. I ask my colleague from the NDP why it is that when she talks about people being impacted by this legislation she and her party are in support of very high-priced trade litigation lawyers and the ongoing dispute. That is the alternative Canada is facing. For the men and women who depend on the lumber industry for their livelihoods, that is the alternative they are facing if this deal does not go ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, by way of an answer, I will simply read from a letter which was sent to our colleague on the Conservative side from the USW, which states, “We are writing on behalf of approximately 10,000 USW members in the central northern interior of B.C., most of them in the forestry industry. These members and their families do not support the proposed softwood lumber agreement and on their behalf we are writing to urge you to oppose the proposed legislation that would enact this agreement between Canada and the United States”.

[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 Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion 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 five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[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 yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 8, 15, 16 and 22.

The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion 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 yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion 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 five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion 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 five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 19. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion 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 five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 28. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion 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 five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 28 stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

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

Mr. Speaker, there is agreement that the vote be deferred until the ordinary hour of adjournment on Monday, December 4.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Accordingly, the vote is deferred until Monday, December 4.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find, if you seek it, unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m..

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, December 4, at 11:00 a.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, November 9.

(The House adjourned at 4:58 p.m.)

The House resumed from November 29 consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence, as reported with amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Groups Nos. 1 and 2.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

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

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The question is on Motion No. 4. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 25.

(The House divided on Motion No. 4 which was negatived on the following division: )

Vote #79

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motions Nos. 4 and 25 lost.

The question is on Motion No. 77.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just held to the motion currently before the House, with Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting no.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will be voting yes.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 77, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #80

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 77 lost.

The question is on Motion No. 83. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 84 and 94.

The hon. chief government whip on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I think that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House, with Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting no.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

The members of the Bloc Québécois will vote against this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will be voting yes.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I will be voting no.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also vote no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 83, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #81

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 83 lost. Therefore, Motions Nos. 84 and 94 are also lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 6.

(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division: )

Vote #82

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 6 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 7. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 8, 15, 16 and 22.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results on the vote just taken to the motion now before the House, with Conservatives present this evening voting yes.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting no.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will be in favour of this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will be voting yes.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of this motion.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I will be voting yes, Mr. Speaker.

(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #83

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 7 carried.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 8, 15, 16 and 22 carried. The next question is on Motion No. 13.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion now before the House.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #84

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 13 carried. The next question is on Motion No. 14.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion now before the House, with Conservatives present voting no.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting against the motion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bloc Québécois members will vote against this motion, as well as against the next one.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will be voting yes.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the motion.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I will be voting no, Mr. Speaker.

(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #85

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 14 lost. The next question is on motion No. 17.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to apply the results just taken on the motion previously taken to the motion before the House.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is it agreed to apply the vote on the previous motion to the one now before the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 17, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #86

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 17 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 18. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 75.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the motion previously before the House to this motion, with Conservative members present voting yes.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting against the motion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bloc Québécois members will vote in favour of this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will be voting yes.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favour of this motion.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #87

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 18 carried. I therefore declare Motion No. 75 carried.

The next question is on Motion No. 19.

(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #88

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 19 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 28.

(The House divided on Motion No. 28, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #89

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 28 lost.

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

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order for one last time tonight. I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on the motion previously before the House to this vote presently before the House, with Conservatives voting yes.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will vote against this motion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will be voting no.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favour of this motion.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting in favour.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #90

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.