House of Commons Hansard #84 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was communities.

Topics

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative 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?

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

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

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those opposed will please say nay.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative 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.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

moved:

Motion No. 6

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

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

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.”

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

moved:

Motion No. 14

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

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

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”

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

moved:

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

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.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative 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.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

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.”

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

moved:

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

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;”

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

moved:

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

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,”

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

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.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

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?

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

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.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

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?

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

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.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

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--