Debates of Oct. 6th, 2006

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is driven by the ideology of the government. It has nothing to do with good, sound business practice; it is all about ideology. It is not fair trade. It is free trade, but it is not fair trade.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin where my colleague left off. It is fraught with hazards and pitfalls when we have a government that is driven by ideology more than reason and logic or a business case or some economic policy. If it is pure ideological zeal, the government is bound to make mistakes and it is bound to stumble into places it does not want to go.

I take my colleague's point that we are seeing a very worrisome pattern develop. In the first few months of this new Conservative government, we are seeing a trend of deep integration of not only foreign policy, defence and national security, but also this worrisome idea that we are expected to undermine, destroy and shred any competitive advantage that we might enjoy in any industry. For some reason, we are obligated to do away with any competitive advantage we might enjoy by virtue of the quality of our product, by virtue of our geography, or by virtue of the fact that we are blessed with certain natural resources. We are not allowed to enjoy that competitive advantage; we have to harmonize with the United States and give the Americans equal access even if it defies reason, logic, business sense, credibility, intelligence, or fair markets.

This is the irritating worrisome trend. The softwood sellout is perhaps the most graphic recent illustration that leads us to say this.

It worried me when The Vancouver Sun published the details of a leaked letter that the Bush administration sent to the U.S. lumber lobby. In it the American administration confirmed the objective of this deal was to hobble the Canadian industry for at least seven years. That was the stated objective published in The Vancouver Sun, a right-wing newspaper. Do not take it from me; this is not some pinko paranoia; this is common knowledge.

The second worrisome thing is that fully $450 million of the $1.3 billion in illegal duties will go to grease the re-election wheels of the protectionist Republican administration. Canada's timber industry will be forced to subsidize the ongoing illicit attack on itself.

I have never heard of anything like that. It borders on what I would call economic treason to fund our opponents, to fund the enemies of Canadian industry so that they can more effectively hobble us, hog-tie us and drag us down the hole that they are in, all of this with the explicit consent of the Canadian government, in fact driven by the Canadian government. The U.S. lumber industry has no better friend than the new Conservative Government of Canada, that much is clear. And there is more.

This softwood lumber deal is trade managed of, by and for the American lumber lobby, and get this. Here is the most mystifying thing. I do not know how the Bloc Québécois can hold its nose and support this deal. A supposedly sovereign nation has signed on to this unprecedented clause requiring provinces to first vet any changes in forestry policy through Washington, not through Ottawa but through Washington.

Those guys in the Bloc are sovereignists. Those guys supposedly can grasp the idea of a sovereign nation and the integrity and the freedom to chart their own course that that entails, but this deal, for the first time in history, obligates Canadian provinces to vet any changes in forestry policy, such as increasing cutting, reducing cutting, even stumpage and duty fees, with Washington.

People wonder why we are upset. Some of us are horrified. This is where it borders on economic treason. I hope they negotiated better than 30 pieces of silver for signing on to this. I hope they got 40, 50 or 60 pieces of silver. I hope they got a wheelbarrow full of dough for this sellout because that is how appalling it is.

We cannot talk about this softwood sellout in isolation because it is directly and integrally connected to another trade irritant. If this is a graphic illustration of the new Conservative government doing the dirty work of the American government and the American softwood lumber industry, there is another more graphic illustration before us. That is this mad crusade of the Conservative government to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, in spite of the overwhelming empirical evidence that a majority of Canadian farmers support the Wheat Board and that farm income is better off across the board because of the single desk Canadian Wheat Board.

There were 11 separate trade challenges by the American government against the Canadian Wheat Board and we won every one of them because we are right and the Americans are wrong. North Dakota farmers are asking if they can sell their wheat through our single desk because we get a better price. The dual marketing system being proposed by these guys on behalf of the American government so that they can handicap and cripple the Canadian grain industry, the single desk idea versus the dual desk idea, everyone who knows anything about the marketing of wheat knows that the dual desk idea is the demise of the Wheat Board; the voluntary Canadian Wheat Board is a dead, bankrupt Canadian Wheat Board.

Why? I will explain it in one simple sentence. If the initial offering price is higher than the market, there will be all kinds of deliveries but it will have to be sold at a loss. If the initial offering price is lower than the outside market, then there will not be any deliveries. There it is in a nutshell.

That is why dual marketing is not going to work. That is why the Conservatives, through some ideological zeal, are deliberately trying to dismantle the Wheat Board in spite of reason, logic, the business case, all the empirical evidence. Let us hope they are aware of the collateral damage they are going to cause to the port of Churchill, the port of Thunder Bay and the port of Prince Rupert because that Canadian grain is going to be shipped south and mixed with American grain and we will lose the identity of our superior product.

The reason we get better prices is that our product is superior. The world wants good Canadian grain. They do not want it mixed with the secondary quality grain and marketed that way.

We are here to serve notice that the Conservatives are in for the fight of their lives if they intend to dismantle our Canadian Wheat Board without a fight. I tell them they are in for it. We are gearing up steam and the Canadian prairie farmer will win this fight and the new Conservative government will lose. I guarantee it.

It is a pattern that Margaret Atwood spoke to when she said that a beaver bites off its testicles when it is threatened. If this is true, then the beaver is certainly an apt symbol, if not for Canada then certainly for a succession of governments which, when faced with the ceaseless bullying of the Americans, carve off big chunks of the Canadian identity and offer it to their attacker. What kind of bargaining stance is that? That is not even a bargaining strategy. It is a disgrace.

I do not know who the government sends down there to bargain on our behalf but they come back with a pretty poor package. I have done some negotiating in my life as leader of the carpenters union. I would be ashamed of myself if that were the best I could do with all the resources the Government of Canada has to send down a bargaining team. It is like trading in the family cow for three beans, none of which actually sprout.

In this worrisome trend to do the Americans' dirty work, the government is forgetting one thing. It is forgetting that by statute it cannot dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board without a plebiscite, without a free vote of the member farmers. That is what the government is trying to sidestep, basic democratic protections that were built into the statute because they knew the enemies of the Wheat Board are legion and they are not going to go away.

The Conservatives and the Americans hate the Canadian Wheat Board, just like they hate public auto insurance, just like they hate medicare, just like they hate any collective action that might cooperatively advance its members. They are ideologically opposed to the little guys coming together and in unity gaining strength so they can protect themselves. It is anathema to Conservatives and to Americans. They are attacking a common sense solution.

Let us look back to the 1930s, before the Canadian Wheat Board, when some poor farmers were at the mercy of the robber barons, the grain barons. That is why--

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Before the member gets back to the Regina manifesto, it is my understanding that we are here on the softwood lumber agreement, on an ill-advised amendment by the Liberal Party, and yet the hon. member is going on about the Wheat Board.

I just ask the hon. member to please direct his comments to the issue at hand.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Ken Epp]

Thank you for that point of order. I think it is well taken. The hon. member from Winnipeg will have to really hurry to get back to the point of the bill because he only has 40 seconds left.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to connect the two into a pattern.

I will end with a simple quote to illustrate how Canada's timber industry is now forced to subsidize an illicit attack on itself. It is an article in the Globe and Mail quoting a senior government official warning that opponents should prepare themselves for the consequences of rejecting it.

In other words, suggesting that if anybody rejects this the government will no longer help them in their court challenges. It will no longer defend the Canadian industry. It is a matter of take it or leave it. That is the kind of bullying tactics that have been raised by members on our side before, which is why we resent this deal. We condemn the government for failing to protect the interests of Canadians by agreeing to this deal. We condemn the Bloc Québécois for its 30 pieces of silver deal to support this thing. I hope it received a pretty good package for it because it sure sold out its own sovereign interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed by the logic or illogic of the New Democrat Party.

First, the hon. member, instead of talking about the softwood lumber agreement, went on at length about the Wheat Board. What surprises me about that is why the hon. member does not want western farmers to have the same freedom of marketing that we have in Ontario. I cannot justify that. I am an Ontario member of Parliament and I cannot justify not giving the same freedom to western farmers as farmers have in Ontario. There is no reason for that whatsoever. I am surprised he is not doing that.

With respect to the softwood lumber agreement, these are the facts. We have two countries that have come to an agreement on this, and it is not just Canada and the United States. I know the NDP members do not like the United States and they do not like to have anything to do with the United States. Nonetheless, it is our major trading partner and trade relationships between the two countries are very important to Canadians.

The two countries have agreed to the deal but we need to look at who else has agreed to it: the three largest provinces in this country which do not have Conservative governments. There are Liberal governments in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The three largest provinces with a softwood lumber industry all support this deal and the industry itself overwhelmingly supports it. Of course they support it in Atlantic Canada, they received an exemption.

Why is it that the NDP members think they are the only ones right and everybody else is wrong? Have they not figured out that this is what has to be done?

The hon. member said that he was a negotiator with the union. He must know, even if his colleagues do not understand, that every time an agreement gets made there has to be give and take on both sides. It cannot be all on one side, everything for everybody and nothing on the other side, because that is not how agreements are made. The hon. member should know that if he has been in negotiations. I appreciate that most of his colleagues have never had to make an agreement, but he should point out to them that there has to be that give and take.

Why does the NDP stand alone against everyone else on this great deal for Canada?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out the inexplicable bargaining stance that Canada adopted when it set out to negotiate this deal. I will show members its bargaining stance because I know a bit about negotiating.

The Conservatives' bargaining stance was on their knees. They were saying, “Please, please, leave us with our dignity. Leave us with something intact, please”. That was their bargaining stance. I am embarrassed as a Canadian that they came back with such a lousy package.

With what little time he has allowed me to keep, I would like to point out that we inexplicably threw away victories that were pending in the courts, not just in the free trade agreement panels but in the U.S. Court of International Trade. On April 7, it ruled that U.S. duties on Canadian softwood were illegal, just about the time those guys were down there rolling over, giving up and on their knees saying, “Well, we won the ruling, but we'll accept your last offer anyway”.

They announced publicly in the House of Commons the deadline by which they had to accept the deal. What kind of a negotiating strategy is that? Are they crazy?

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

Mr.Speaker, what we have is a court decision that these tariffs were illegal and this government comes into this House and asks the members of Parliament to stand and vote on a new tariff to replace an illegal tariff that would add even more to that tariff. The government then puts in a predatory clause to go after the companies that continue to stand up for their legal rights and collect even more tariffs.

As well, we are being asked as members of Parliament to support the fact that the government has given away provincial resource rights to the United States.

As well, it has brought in clauses that would allow the government to go after individual companies for the finances if they stand up.

Has the member ever seen a deal that is so bad? Not only did the government sell us out but it is acting in a predatory fashion against our own companies?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The amazing thing, Mr. Speaker, is this is the second time a Conservative government has sold us out on this deal. In 1986 the GATT, the World Trade Organization's predecessor, issued a preliminary finding in Canada's favour on the legality of U.S. lumber duties, but the prime minister of the day, Brian Mulroney, chucked that out. He was so eager to sign the free trade agreement he threw that ruling out and aborted the appeal.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with some concern about our sovereignty, not just on this deal but many other issues and files. Many people have talked about the softwood lumber industry only affecting the hinterland, but Bytown was built and formed on the lumber industry. I hate to think what my ancestors might be thinking if they were to see this deal. They would see we have sold our sovereignty down the river. We used to have a country, but we have sold it.

We have won every time we have challenged the Americans and they have challenged us. The government is using accusations of Liberal lawyers, which is tantamount to selling out by way of fighting. I do not understand the logic when we have won at every trade deal dispute panel.

Another was NAFTA. There were aspects of that agreement with which we disagreed, but the most contentious and hardest fought part was the dispute settlement mechanism. If this deal goes through, we will be saying it is worth nothing, nada, rien. What we have shown by our acquiescence is that we do not have the fight in us any more. The dispute settlement mechanism and all the pieces in the trade agreement, with which the NDP had large problems, even the little pieces that would allow us to exert our sovereignty, are gone. They are blowing in the prairie wind. We need to take a look at this deal in light of that. We need support for our communities.

I was recently in Thunder Bay and I spoke to the people. I did not speak only to people who were supportive of the New Democratic Party. I spoke to mayors and councillors and to people living in the communities as well. These people basically were giving away their homes. They asked why the government was not there for them. They see the government giving $500 million to the other side to sharpen the guillotine. They see us putting our necks on the line. They are shocked, appalled and very angry. They hear the government say, on one hand, that it will stand up for Canada. On the other hand, they see it go to Washington and sell us out.

Canadians do not need members standing in this place saying that they are standing up for Canada. Canadians need another voice. They need to hear that we are here for their communities, that we are here to ensure that the people who built the country, communities and places like Ottawa and Gatineau will be honoured and that we will not sell them out. With this deal, we are selling out our ancestors. We are selling out the whole idea of what it was to have a sovereign country.

Let us talk about some of the problems in this deal. I will not have time to go over all of them because there are too many.

The deal is based on the falsehood that the Canadian softwood lumber industry is subsidized, and we fought that in court. That was the argument of the Americans. That was thrown out not only from our side but from the American side as well. What does the government do? It basically says that the Americans are right, that we are subsidizing our industry. What is even worse it is giving the Americans money to fight us again.

The agenda is to take away our management system, which ensures we have a sustainable industry, unlike that in the United States where there is no sustainable industry. We are going to integrate our management system with theirs. That is the agenda, let us be real about this. That is the elephant in the room. The Americans would like us to adopt their management practices. Then we can take the whole industry, move it south and forget about having an independent voice vis-à-vis softwood lumber.

This deal gives away the $500 million. It provides $450 million in funds to Washington, which will turn around and use those funds at its own discretion. If that is not absurd, then I do not know what is. This deal puts unreasonable constraints on trade by applying punitive tariffs and quotas that hinder the flexibility of our industry.

We need to be nimble, responsive and ensure that we have a sustainable economy, but that is gone because of this deal. When I go to Thunder Bay again, people are going to have a lot of questions about who is standing up for them.

What is happening in these communities? People are putting for sale signs on their homes, asking for the best offer. They are moving, some out west to get jobs and some to Toronto. This is ripping communities apart and they are looking for help. This deal will not help them at all. In fact, it will make more communities fall apart.

The deal kills the credibility of NAFTA. It sets a bad precedent. It is really important for all Canadians to understand this. The deal is based on precedent. All the dispute settlement mechanisms have been built into agreement. We have put forward arguments, indicating that we are right and our arguments have been okayed by both sides. Internationally, Canada has been seen as being right. If we acquiesce to the other side, we are setting a precedent and sending a signal that we are not going to stand up for Canada.

We need to talk about the thousands of workers who have lost their jobs. One of the first files I dealt with when I was elected involved lumber workers who had been thrown out of work. Those workers did not go to other jobs in the industry. Many of them had nowhere to land. Sadly, that is the story across the country.

This deal discriminates against Canadian companies. It also affects communities. Communities will not trust the government any more after it gave a blank cheque to Washington. People will probably look within their own communities for help because they cannot depend on the federal government. It has sold them down the river.They will try to find other ways to get help, and that is a real sad commentary.

We have talked about the consultation process before. It was held in a closed shop. Consultations were not held from coast to coast to coast to find out how this deal would affect communities. Instead, it was done held behind closed doors where only certain people were invited. Even in that process, duct tape was affixed to people's mouths. They were told not to talk about anything and if they did, they would pay the price. That is really pathetic. Even then, some are not abiding by the Conservative Party line.

We are left with a real dilemma for Canadians. They see a government that ran on the ticket of standing up for Canadians, but what they ended up with was a sellout. They have ended up with a softwood sellout that essentially shows the government has acquiesced. We used to have a country, but we are selling it down the river. This is a sad day for Canada.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the comments in debate of the member for Ottawa Centre on the softwood lumber deal. I think the facts should be put on the table.

The fact is that the country was facing a situation whereby the United States was continuing to collect duties on softwood lumber and other products. The United States government had actually amassed and collected over $5 billion in duties. This is not money we had. This was in the country south of the border. The United States government had collected these duties. The fact is that litigation was continuing. The litigation was continuing to go on. There was no end in sight for that litigation. Those are the facts.

This government took leadership. The government sat down with the Americans to try to negotiate an end to this. We have been successful.

The options in front of the government were twofold. The first option was to continue litigation. There was no guarantee that we would win that litigation. As a matter of fact, while that litigation was going on, which could very well have taken years, the government of the United States would have continued to collect these duties, getting hundreds of millions of dollars more in duties. There was no guarantee that in the end we would have won that litigation.

The other option was for the Government of Canada to sit down with the United States government. That is what we did. We negotiated a great agreement. As a matter of fact, it is so good that three of the major softwood lumber producing provinces supported this deal: the province of British Columbia, which has a provincial Liberal government; the province of Ontario, which has a provincial Liberal government; and the province of Quebec, which has a provincial Liberal government. The agreement is supported by the vast majority of softwood lumber companies in the industry. It has broad support across a variety of stakeholders and a variety of groups across the country.

My question for the hon. member is this: why are he and his party using the rhetoric of anti-Americanism to oppose this deal?

I have to say something else before I end my remarks. As a member of this House and a proud member of this government and this party, I take offence when members of the NDP stand up in this House and question my loyalty and that of my party and question my commitment to this country and that of my party.

My parents were immigrants to this country. They worked hard when they got here. They built for themselves and their family a life of opportunity and hope. I do not need to take any instructions from the NDP as to the commitment I have and my government and my party have.

Will the member cut out the anti-Americanism?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when we have a government like this. The member asked about why should we keep going. It is because on this side we are not quitters. We have a government that says it cannot do better, but we were doing better.

I am very taken by my hon. friend's story, but we are all descendants of immigrants, with the exception of some of our aboriginal friends in this place. In my case, it was Scottish immigrants. My ancestors came here with common sense and determination and wanted to make a difference. They were not quitters.

If only they could see what is happening today. We actually won the decision on April 7. We won, so why are we cutting deals and giving away money? People do not give up when they win. That is when people dig deep, like our ancestors did when they built this country. We do not give it away. We sign a deal, fine, but we have to make sure it is a deal that is good for all of us. We do not give away the store.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his calm, level-headed recitation. I will apologize. I may have overstated things in my zeal and enthusiasm. This is why I rely on my level-headed colleague from Ottawa Centre to temper remarks with reason and balance and to make the same compelling argument that there was no business case for giving up when the government did.

The government was on the road to success. The U.S. Court of International Trade actually ruled in our favour on April 7, at the same time that our minister and his minions were down in--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my father helped negotiate the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and I will say one thing: he never ever would have come back to his minister and said that this deal was a good deal. He would have said to keep up the fight and make sure it is good for Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 16, at the hour of adjournment.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine on a point of order.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking clarification. When you say that the vote is deferred until Monday, October 16, did I understand you correctly to say at the end of government orders at 6:30 in the evening?