Evidence of meeting #36 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
On Bill C-24, clause 11, what we have is a series of rates and punitive charges that are applied to softwood companies. On October 13, the United States Court of International Trade ruled on the softwood dispute. It was something, of course, Mr. Chair, that the Canadian government endeavoured to prevent, unbelievably. It endeavoured to intervene in a court of law to stop Canada from winning. Here is the judgment that was delivered on October 13 by Justice Restani, Justice Barzilay, and Justice Eaton in the Court of International Trade in New York City.
Accordingly, all of Plaintiffs’
--that's Canadians--
unliquidated entries, including those entered before, on, and after November 4, 2004, must be liquidated in accordance with the final negative decision of the NAFTA panel. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
Mr. Chair, what we have is a final victory in the Court of International Trade. It is an enforceable decision, and we have seen, Mr. Chair, that U.S. Customs and Border Protection are now paying out 100% dollars to Canadian softwood companies. We have the judgment that completely obliterates any need, if ever there was one, to capitulate as we did this summer in the softwood lumber agreement, reflected in Bill C-24. We have a legal case that is binding and is allowing those moneys to come back into Canada now, and what we are considering here is the imposition of punitive taxes. It's absolutely unbelievable, Mr. Chair, that we would impose on our softwood industry punitive tariffs when we know that we have won in the Court of International Trade and we know that Customs and Border Protection in the United States, despite the government's pretensions that it would take two years to make those payments, is actually making the payments now. It started last Friday. Those first cheques went out.
Why are we penalizing our softwood industry? Why are we insisting that somehow they have to pay these punitive self-imposed tariffs when we know very well that we do not have to do this? We have seen massive job losses, Mr. Chair, in the last few weeks--nearly 4,000 jobs have been lost across this country--because these punitive tariffs mean lost jobs. This was a badly botched negotiation. It was unnecessary. We won in a court despite the fact that the Canadian government intervened to stop us from getting the remedy. We have no reason to impose this penalty and we should act accordingly.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Your time is up on this.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on Mr. Julian's amendment, that is, NDP-5?
Ms. Guergis.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to label this amendment as a “waste of our time” amendment. This actually goes against the core of the agreement. We do not support it. It would eliminate the export charge, which of course is one of Canada's obligations under the agreement.
If the officials have anything to add to that, they can.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
No, it doesn't look like they do.
Let's go to the recorded division then on Mr. Julian's amendment, NDP-5, on page 14 of the amendment booklet.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian's amendment NDP-5 is defeated. We now go to NDP-6, on page 15.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
So we won. We won on October 13. We do not need to impose these penalties. We do not need to give away a billion dollars, and this is where I would disagree with the parliamentary secretary.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We're dealing with the motion. Have you moved your motion? Go ahead and do that, please.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you for clarifying that. This is an issue of the giveaway that does not need to happen. It is a giveaway that, because of the government's botching of this particular agreement, taxpayers will have to pick up. Essentially we have a situation in which only 25% of companies have signed on to this badly botched deal. It's incredible, Mr. Chair. And yet we are penalizing them for reference prices. We are penalizing them at the border. We are imposing export taxes that mean lost jobs and value-added production, not in Canada but in the United States.
Every single clause here, as it stands, means lost jobs: in northern British Columbia; in the interior and on the coast of B.C.; in northern Alberta; in northern Saskatchewan; as we've seen with the closures that have occurred already, in northern Manitoba, where I'll be going next week to speak to softwood workers; in northern Ontario, where I was last week speaking to softwood workers in softwood communities, as well as to the mayor of Thunder Bay, about the implications of this atrociously bad bill, the result of an incredibly botched negotiation.
People in Northern Quebec, the Abitibi, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region and on the North Shore have lost jobs because of this Agreement. The Government of Quebec cannot intervene. If it did, anti-circumvention provisions would mean that it would be sued by the Coalition.
Here we have an amendment that would allow us to reduce all the costs, the tariffs that are being levied against our softwood lumber industry. If members vote in favour of this amendment, we will save the jobs that we are currently losing in Northern Quebec, in Ontario and British Columbia, as well as across the Prairies — in Saskatchewan. for example. Job losses due to this Agreement are considerable.
Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to take action and put an end to the government's irresponsible behaviour. It seeks to impose a tariff on our own industry which is worse than the illegal tariff. That one was 10.8 per cent. Now we're talking about a 15 per cent tariff. It's absolutely disgusting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, your time is up.
Would anybody else like to speak to NDP amendment 6?
Yes, Mr. Breitkreuz.
Conservative
Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Chair, I have to correct one of the inaccuracies here, a blatant error on the part of the previous speaker,Mr. Julian. In the northern part of my riding, the mill has in fact now been purchased by another company because they see the opportunities. So I think you should keep up to speed on what's happening in the industry. They see the new opportunities, and what you have just said is totally inaccurate.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you. We will now go to the vote, to the recorded division on NDP-6, page 15 of the amendment package.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
We have put aside votes and debate on 10.1 and on clause 14. Now we are coming back to clause 11, and instead of standing the debate and adoption of the clause--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, I'll clarify what you just said. We did in fact vote on clause 10.1. In fact, we have the recorded division on clause 10.1.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, as I explained before, we do not vote on clause 10.1, because the full content of clause 10.1 was the amendment, as amended. That is correct, and we have done that, Mr. Julian.
We're going to vote on clause 14 when we arrive at that point. We're doing them in order.
We are now going to the recorded division on clause 11. Do you want to debate clause 11, or should we go directly to the recorded division, Mr. Julian?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we have not had the debate and adoption of clause 10.1. We did that on clause 10. We have not had the debate and adoption of clause 14 either.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, I've explained that. if you want to challenge the chair, let's get it over with and let's move on. We have done it.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I am suggesting, Mr. Chair, that we have to be consistent about how we're approaching these amendments.
November 7th, 2006 / 11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
On the advice of the clerks, Mr. Julian, we have been and that is done with.
We are now going to a recorded division on clause 11.