Debates of Dec. 5th, 2006

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister very carefully today on his presentation at third reading on the softwood deal. It took me back a few years to a previous Conservative government that negotiated a free trade deal with the U.S. The government at that time told Canadians that the free trade deal would end all of these kinds of disputes with the U.S. on trade. Sadly, that certainly has not been the case, as has been pointed out with this softwood sellout to the U.S.

My question for the minister is specifically about how this deal he has negotiated with the Americans will impact on other trade sectors and other Canadian industrial sectors that trade with the U.S. What now is to prevent any American industry attacking Canadian trade in the same way that the lumber industry has in the U.S.?

What does that say about the trade deals we have negotiated and the dispute mechanisms that are in place, where we actually have won at every level? Yet we have negated any kind of faith in the trade deals we have signed with the U.S. How does the minister respond to that in terms of other industrial sectors and their vulnerability now to this kind of tactic from Americans?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say right off the bat that the NDP has always been critical of NAFTA. Indeed, I think that party is critical of free trade generally. I want to go on the record as stating very clearly and firmly that without trade liberalization, without NAFTA, Canada would be a very substantially poorer country today. Jobs depend on it. Our wealth creation depends on it. Our social programs depend on it. Our country depends on it. We are a small population economy spread across a massive land area. If we do not have good, liberal international trade, we are in serious trouble.

In terms of how this agreement affects other sectors, it is clear to me, and it was part of our thinking right through this piece, that the longer the softwood lumber dispute was prolonged the more it was contaminating our relationship with the United States across a host of issues. In fact, the environment was so badly poisoned that it could have led to much more serious cases developing.

Now that we have the softwood lumber case dealt with in a way that is very advantageous to Canada, we are in very good shape in terms of other sectors. We are also in very good shape in terms of a more positive pro-Canadian evolution of NAFTA that is beneficial to Canada .

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the softwood lumber products export charge act, 2006.

I appreciate the minister's forthright comments on my earlier questions. I must say that I was a big cheerleader when Canfor launched its chapter 11 claim under NAFTA to say that the assets of Canfor had been wrongly put at risk and jeopardized because of an unfair process in the United States to come up with the lumber tariff. The reality is, in a nutshell, that this is what a chapter 11 filing does. I appreciate the minister's remark that this was to keep pressure on the United States, but nonetheless I believe it is an illusion to think that this agreement is going to find us any sort of peace.

In 1996, for example, there was the softwood lumber III round of negotiations, in which we agreed on managed trade for a five year period. When that ended, the U.S. launched softwood lumber IV. I know the argument is that if we keep litigating they can keep launching a countervailing duty file, but frankly at some point it comes down to being on the right side, and it has been shown that the Canadian softwood lumber industry does not subsidize its softwood lumber.

If we go back to softwood lumber I, the U.S. may have had a case. Our lumber was not priced as well as it could have been in terms of the market, but governments caught on to that and made changes in their stumpage and royalties. We know that today it has nothing to do with subsidies and everything to do with market share. As soon as our market share gets beyond 30%, the U.S. launches another countervailing duty file.

In my judgment, the problem in this case is that while many in the forest industry have said they would rather accept this deal, I think they are doing it under duress because the Conservative government told them that if they did not agree to this deal it was not going to support them any longer. We know that the forest industry in Canada could not possibly continue the countervailing duty process and fight what has been proven time and time again to be a lie, the lie that our softwood lumber in Canada is subsidized.

The industry could not continue this fight without the support of the federal government. That is why our Liberal government had proposed a package to help the industry with bridge financing and a whole range of issues to get over this hurdle and to keep fighting. Why would we cut a deal when we are winning at every stage?

I beg to differ with the minister. This has set a terrible precedent. I do not think it positions us that well with respect to the U.S. market in other areas. If I were in the steel industry or any other industry in the United States, I would tell myself that if Canada had to cut a deal on softwood lumber when it was winning at every conceivable stage and when objective panels comprised of Americans and Canadians were saying that Canadian softwood lumber was not subsidized, then the Americans should have an easy time on other products. I do not think it positions us very well.

I am not suggesting that this is an easy file. This is a very difficult file, but on balance I believe very strongly that the government should not have negotiated a deal. I do not think it is going to work in our interests in the long run.

We even have had confirmed by the minister that the way softwood lumber pricing is going at $300 for 1,000 board feet, the effect today would be that Canadian softwood lumber producers would actually be paying more under this deal, so we are going to be voting on this deal, finally, to say that our industry should actually end up paying more in terms of an export tax than it is paying in U.S. tariffs. While I understand what the minister is saying in that there are other pressures to review the U.S. tariff, et cetera, it is not money in the bank where I come from. That is something that might have happened or could have happened. Right now we know the effect is that our Canadian lumber producers are going to be paying more.

The sliding scale, where the export tax goes up when the pricing comes down, works very advantageously for U.S. softwood lumber producers. When the pricing goes down, they want less competition in the market. I am not sure that helps the Canadian softwood lumber producers. When the pricing is tanked, they do not want to have to pay more in export taxes. They want to increase their market share.

The industry is under duress and needs the support of the federal government. It did that this might be a good deal, but when the alternative was they would not get any support from the federal government, I think they knew it was all over. They had to cave in like the government caved in and support the agreement, although not all companies or all associations in Canada have said that. I believe they see the longer term implications of this deal.

We need to understand that the U.S. lumber producers are essentially saying this. Because they have a different system in the United States where the vast majority of their forest land is privately held, where in Canada it is just the reverse and most of our forest land is owned by the Crown, and because they auction a lot of their timber and we auction only a small percentage, their system is right and our system is wrong. I dispute that. We do have a different system. Our system of pricing timber has evolved over many decades in Canada.

I would like to know this from the minister. What happens if we move to this softwood lumber deal and many of the provinces move more aggressively to auctioning timber and the price becomes lower than the Crown pricing? That is a possibility. I have talked to many companies. I have also seen companies in the Prince George region where they have a mix of private timber and Crown timber. The private timber they get through the small business auctions is priced lower than the stumpage that is charged by the British Columbia government.

Therefore, there is no guarantee whatsoever that if we move to more of an auction based system, the delivered cost of wood will be lower. In fact, the pricing could increase and go the other way.

What will the U.S. lumber producers do then when they find that the delivered wood costs in Canada are declining because of more auctioned timber? Will that be the panacea they look for then?

A study was done a few years ago by an independent consulting group. It came to the conclusion that Canada's forest industry was 40% more productive than the U.S. forest industry. That was on the basis of total factor productivity. Admittedly that cuts across different parts of the forest industry, pulp and paper, lumber, panels, et cetera. In fairness the lumber sector was not quite as productive as the rest, but on average it still did very well. It was more productive than the U.S. sawmilling industry. On a total factor productivity basis, the Canadian forest industry is 40% more productive than the United States. That total factor productivity is a way of looking at how the industry applies labour, technology, person power, et cetera.

All one has to do is go to Prince George, British Columbia and see some of the sawmills there. They are some of the most efficient sawmills in the world. In fact, U.S. sawmill owners and operators come to Canada and they are given tours of these sawmills in the Prince George area. They are some of the best and most productive sawmills in the world. Therefore, it is not surprising that we can sell a lot of softwood lumber into the United States.

We also have a great resource. We have a colder climate that produces a better product. There are more rings. The wood does not warp or wane as much as on some of these southern plantations in the United States. If one goes to the southern United States to a construction site and asks a carpenter or building contractor what he prefers, U.S. southern yellow pine or spruce pine fir from British Columbia, he will say that he prefers the SPF from B.C. because it is a better quality product.

We know we have a comparative advantage in softwood lumber, yet we are caving in and making a deal. We are acknowledging the lie that softwood lumber in Canada is subsidized. That was the term used by the Free Trade Lumber Council, and it is an absolute truth. We have a very productive industry.

If senators or congressmen or congresswomen in Montana, or Washington state, or Oregon state or Wyoming have sawmills in their areas that might go bankrupt, what do they do? They will pull out all the stops. They will not allow the sawmills to go down because the market is being penetrated by Canadian softwood lumber, which is a better quality product and is priced the same because it is a commodity market. If the margins are good in Canada, more lumber will go there. That just makes economic sense.

This is not a matter for the Canadian government or Canadian producers. Something else should be found for those sawmills that are not as competitive as Canada's sawmills. Pittsburgh was converted into a high tech centre because its commodity based steel mills could not compete on the same scale with the Japanese and the Taiwanese. It became a niche player in the steel industry. That may not be possible with the few sawmills scattered around Montana, or Washington state or Oregon.

Why push the problems up to us? Can we not acknowledge that Canada has a comparative advantage in softwood lumber? I am prepared to concede that perhaps the U.S. has a comparative advantage over us in high tech and some other sectors. Can the U.S. not accept the fact that we have a comparative advantage in softwood lumber? The U.S. industry either cannot or will not accept this fact because U.S. senators and congressmen and congresswomen are trying to prop up inefficient mills. They have the power through Congress and through the Senate to start these protectionist movements. We need a better way to resolve disputes.

The minister has had a long history and a distinguished career in the forest products industry. He knows if someone wants to put up a sawmill, or an OSB mill, or an MDF mill, or a plywood plant, or a pulp mill or a newsprint operation in the U.S. south, that the individual will be offered just about everything to make the deal come true. State and local governments will offer sales tax abatements, tax holidays, property tax abatements and deals on energy. The capital costs of putting up a mill in the United States are about 20% less than the cost of putting up a comparable mill in Canada. Why? I have listed some of the incentives or subsidies, but there are others such as tax free bonds, cheap industrial land, cogeneration agreements, et cetera.

These deals are not limited to the forest products sector. The minister would know full well from his days in the industry portfolio that U.S. state and local governments offered somewhere in the range of 40% to 50% in subsidies for the capital costs of starting up or expanding an auto plant.

I am talking now about the hypocrisy of the United States producers and government supporting those producers when it comes to dealing with subsidies. As I said, people can get almost any kind of subsidy they want if they want to put a new mill in the United States, if they wanted to put up an auto plant or expand.

What about agricultural subsidies? My colleagues in rural sectors will know all about that. The Americans are probably one of the champions of agricultural subsidies, maybe a close second to Europe. They even call them subsidies.

The USDA Forest Service auctions off land and forestry resources. In the past some of those sales were done through auction. In some cases companies bid on that timber and years later they were unable to complete the deal because the price of 2x4 lumber had gone down. If they harvested the wood at that price, it would have been a very difficult economic situation for them. I think they have to go the White House to get this rescinded, and it has been done. The U.S. government notes that the price was bid 10 years ago, but since the economics have changed, it lets them off the hook. That is not an auction system when someone is let off the hook.

We know in the United States, particularly the Pacific northwest, that a lot of the pricing is speculative in nature. We read about the issues around the spotted owl. We read about many of the trends that were causing huge amounts of commercial forestry land to be taken out of production, and it may have been for very legitimate reasons. I am not arguing about the spotted owl. Maybe it needs to be protected. Maybe huge swaths of commercial timberland need to be taken out of production to protect it, but we know there is a scarcity.

In other words, the demand for timber in the U.S. Pacific northwest exceeds the supply. Therefore, if companies are in an auction system, they bid the price up because they want to have access to those timber resources in 15 years to feed their sawmills. We have never heard anyone argue that maybe the price of timber is too high in the United States. Maybe it is pricing itself out of the market. Maybe our pricing is the right.

However, the countervailing duty process does not allow us to get into questions like that. We cannot ask why in some cases the USDA Forest Service, which is a public agency, sells the rights to harvest timber at prices that are less than its costs. Under the countervailing duty process, all we can do is defend our system.

We cannot ask the U.S. government about all the subsidies it throws at U.S. producers because quite conveniently the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress have defined the countervailing duty process in a different way. They allege that we are subsidizing timber. It is up to us to show that we do not. We cannot tell them that they are subsidizing their softwood lumber and forest products. They do not talk about things like that. The process is quite flawed.

All of that really upsets me, but look at the anti-circumvention clause in the softwood lumber agreement. If the House supports this, then we agree that this clause is just fine. The clause says that if the U.S. feels actions are being taken, actions that might run counter to the agreement, by the Government of Canada, or the provincial or territorial governments, it can say that it is against the agreement and call for action. That could cover the whole range of forest policy initiatives of the federal and provincial and territorial governments. That is a very dangerous precedent.

The producers are being told they have to drop their lawsuits. If they drop them, in two or three years the U.S. producers can say that they do not think the softwood lumber deal works for them and that they want to scrap it. What do the companies that have dropped their lawsuits do then?

I know there is a lot of pressure from local companies in some cases to sign this deal but it is a terrible precedent. It really does not work for Canada and it does not work for our forest industry. I urge members in this House to study this carefully and defeat this bill when it comes forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I have taken part in every stage of the softwood lumber negotiations.

Let us think back to the first negotiations. A number of years ago, the then Minister of International Trade, Pierre Pettigrew, said: “We have a very good legal case. We will win this battle against the Americans and then we will truly have free trade on softwood lumber again”. However, a major problem came up along the way. The softwood lumber industry realized that the government was not prepared to support it in a satisfactory manner by providing loan guarantees. We ended up falling into the Americans' trap of dragging out the negotiations as long as possible. Even though we were winning every legal battle, the forestry industry was on its last legs. The companies asked us to support the agreement to get their money back so that they could continue to survive on the market and not disappear. It was becoming a rather paradoxical situation. We may have won a legal victory on our position, but there would be no one left in Quebec or Canada to celebrate.

Earlier my colleague made reference to the Free Trade Lumber Council, where Mr. Grenier gave some very serious advice. The weak point of the negotiation was the fact that the Liberal government at the time failed—like the current Conservative government—to adequately support these companies when it was time to do so and, in the end, we were forced to accept this very bad agreement. In any case, it is not very advantageous to Quebec and Canada.

Are we not sending a very negative message to our American neighbours and to the rest of the world that might is right? If the companies had received help through loan guarantees at the right time, today we would not be in this position of weakness where we have to support this motion. I understand that the industry asked us to do so. I believe that the way things unfolded this was the only solution. Nonetheless, could we not draw some lessons from this for the future? Before launching such offensives, we have to make sure we have the financial means to support the industrial sector concerned.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for his questions and comments However, I do not agree with him when he says that at this time we do not have a choice and we must support this bill. In my opinion, it is wrong to think that way. As for our Liberal government, our support for the forestry industry is long-standing.

We supported the industry through every countervailing duty action, which took a tremendous amount of work by our embassy in Washington and the department and through consultations with the industries. We had worked up a package that would support the industry with respect to loan guarantees and with respect to other initiatives, such as the need for the industry to convert their energy sources and use their biomass to develop electricity, because one of the big problems with the forest industry today is its high cost of energy.

We also put a number of initiatives in our package to help the forest industry to diversify their markets because markets are developing quite aggressively in China and India. While they have different cultures and different building codes and standards, we can make progress in selling our forest products into those markets and relieve some of the reliance on the U.S. softwood lumber market.

My colleague from the Bloc is mistaken when he says that the Liberal government did not support the forest industry. The Conservative government certainly has not. It told the industry that it had to either sign and support the softwood lumber deal or the government would cut off all support. The government put a gun to the head of the forest industry in Canada, which is why some of the companies are now saying that they do not have much choice because they cannot carry on without the support of the federal government. It was the Conservative government, not the Liberal government, that let the industry down.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising the issues of agricultural and manufacturing subsidies and the difficulty of raising substantive issues in these trade agreements. It seems that they are meant to tie the hands of government much more and to simply allow corporations a free rein.

Earlier, the minister said that the NDP was against free trade. What we are for is fair trade. This agreement seems to impose tariffs on logs processed in any way, whereas raw logs will continue to be exported to mills and processed out of the country.

I wonder if the member agrees with the minister's earlier comments that it is an agreement that would help value added industry in our communities. I have observed the opposite. I would be interested in the thoughts of the member opposite on that.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points on that and the first one has to do with raw logs. It is a sad commentary when right now, as we speak, roughly four to five sawmills in Washington state and Oregon are being fed with raw logs from British Columbia. Even though there is a protocol with the B.C. government and it takes the advice from the B.C. government as to what percentage and how raw logs should be exported, we know that the federal government has the final decision. It can decline to send any raw logs to the United States.

In fact, in one of the countervailing duty actions taken by the United States, the United States had the audacity to argue that because we restrict the export of raw logs that constituted a subsidy because it essentially, in its case, lowered the domestic price for logs. Whereas we know that the reason we want to restrict the export of raw logs is that we want to see more value added in Canada. I would like to see the federal government get much more aggressive with respect to limiting the export of raw logs.

With respect to the other question, I do not see how this particular agreement encourages more value added in Canada. There are some exemptions for the manufacturers but it really does not deal with those issues. It deals with 2x4s, dimension lumber, and I do not see there being any incentive. In fact, it could work the other way. Under the anti-circumvention clause, if there are any moves made to support and encourage the value added it might be attacked by the U.S. producers.

The Canadian industry has always been quite creative in trying to move up the value added chain to get exempted from the softwood lumber agreement. At one time, companies drilled holes into 2x4s to get them exempted from the softwood lumber agreement. Therefore, if they can be more creative and more imaginative to get outside of the softwood lumber agreement maybe it provides that, but I think that is very indirect incentive that was not designed but it might have some limited impact.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have reached the last step: we are beginning debate on third reading of the bill.

Today we are discussing Bill C-24 regarding the softwood lumber agreement settling the dispute between Canada and the United States. In practice, this bill leads us straight to the agreement between the United States and Canada.

We cannot talk about Bill C-24, particularly at this last stage, without referring to the agreement and the situation that has almost always characterized the softwood lumber sector. The softwood lumber trade with the United States can be traced back 150 years. There have been problems and disputes with the United States for a very long time. We opted for free trade even before that. Free trade would normally have covered all goods and services between the two countries so that they could trade freely with one another. However, once again, the United States complained five years ago. They began legal proceedings and imposed huge tariffs on Canadian and Quebec lumber crossing the border, claiming that it was subsidized and that dumping was occurring. They demanded countervailing and anti-dumping duties.

During that period, $5.4 billion in duties was paid to the United States. Imagine what that money could have done had it been invested in bringing procedures and processes up to date and modernizing equipment. Imagine how innovative a healthy forest industry would have enabled us to be in terms of remanufacturing. We know that Quebeckers and Canadians have great imaginations and can act fast to produce just about the best product at the best possible price for export to the United States. But the United States decided to collect crippling duties from the forest industry: $5.4 billion.

The Bloc Québécois recognized the problem years ago. It even tabled proposals and recommendations for programs in this House and in committee.

It made sense for us to ask the Liberal Party, which was in power at the time, to offer the industry loan guarantees. The United States was siphoning money away from companies, and their litigation did not hold water; it made no sense and was not logical. We knew that we were headed for a court victory. It was only a matter of time.

However, being robbed of $5.4 billion makes time move very slowly. There were tangible losses—job losses almost all over Canada. Some regions and provinces were hit harder than others—even Quebec, in some sectors. The situation demanded the effective application of loan guarantees so that companies could continue to survive in the first place, and maybe even grow despite this setback.

In fact we knew very well that they would win in court and that, one way or another, the United States would have to reimburse Quebeckers and Canadians, and the entire forestry industry.

When they were in power, the Liberals refused to assist the forestry industry and grant loan guarantees. During the election campaign—nearly a year ago, when it was in full flight—the Conservatives promised to help the forestry industry and were prepared to give loan guarantees in the event that they were elected. Some Canadians—a minority overall, if we consider the absolute number of people who voted—decided to place their trust in the Conservatives. They were soon disappointed, given the fact that the Conservatives have not kept their campaign promises, their campaign commitments.

There followed negotiations about which the House was not necessarily informed. The outcome of those negotiations was an agreement that they tried to present to us as the deal of the century, but it was the deal of the century only for one of the two parties, which is going to save a billion dollars. I am under the impression that the ideal outcome of an economic transaction is in fact that both parties be completely satisfied. We have to remember one important factor here. When we are talking about parties, we are talking about people, people who work in the industry. We are talking about the industry itself, companies, company owners, workers, everyone who works in the forestry industry. That is who the party was here in Canada and Quebec.

The same thing was true in the United States, but the people who were representing the entire forestry industry in Canada claimed that this was a huge win. Well the real winner is the United States, which bagged the billion dollars that stayed in the United States. That is big money. That is in fact a sweet deal for them, after illegally collecting $5.4 billion. They come out of it with a billion dollars. Mr. Speaker, if you were 100% in the right and I owed you $5.4 billion, you would not be content with $4.4 billion. You would ask me for all of the money owing.

That is what the forestry industry would have wanted. But given the time that had passed, given that the Conservatives did not want to offer loan guarantees and the Liberals had also not wanted to offer loan guarantees, those people were being strangled in their day-to-day lives, and they were not able to make any progress at all at that point. It was all they could do to keep their operations going, and especially to keep their businesses afloat. That could have meant that thousands, tens of thousands of people could have lived with their families, in their communities, in their regions, and that the economy would have functioned.

We were presented with this agreement, Certainly, to start with, everyone was unanimous in saying that it made no sense at all. What were we going to have to do? We knew very well that the government had the prerogative of signing and implementing the agreement. It did so. And then, we can be sure that discussions took place and a number of companies that were still denouncing that agreement felt obliged to accept it at a certain point.

I know that conditions are not the same in all regions. My colleague from the NDP, who is a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, has described quite a different situation in the region he represents, British Columbia. Clearly the situation there is in no way similar to the conditions facing the people of Quebec.

I respect him, of course, when he says that the Bloc Québécois is going against nature. The Bloc Québécois feels no great enthusiasm in supporting Bill C-24. Everyone knows that because we have said so. All of my colleagues who have spoken since the start of debate on Bill C-24 have said and repeated that they are not eager to support Bill C-24. Indeed, the bill is a carbon copy of an agreement that no one really accepts. We have been forced to accept it.

Consultations and representations took place and Quebeckers, like people in other parts of Canada, recognized that it was necessary to move forward in order to—

[Diane Bourgeois]

Save what was left.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

As my dear colleague says, clearly, it was necessary to save what was left because there was not necessarily very much left.

For that reason people were obliged to accept the agreement almost by force. Today, for several hours in the Standing Committee on International Trade, we saw my colleague from the NDP arguing like a Liberal in holy water to uphold the interests of his region. During that time the committee was full of controversy. Nevertheless, I obviously respected my colleague’s enthusiasm in wanting to move the matter forward.

The bill in its present form leaves many gaps that will probably cause problems in the implementation of the agreement. Those aspects could have been anticipated and corrected in order to allow the Canadian forest industry to develop adequately, or even better than that, because we have to make up for what has been lost.

Of course, there are still potential irritants in the bill. However, we must accept it because people have told us to do so and are asking us what we are waiting for.

I repeat also, for the benefit of my colleague from the NDP, that we give our support to Bill C-24 without enthusiasm and with some reluctance.

The downward negotiations by the minority Conservative government have clearly served to place the forest industry in danger, especially in Quebec. In addition, refunding the illegally collected money, contrary to what the Minister of Industry actually seemed to believe at one time, is neither a miraculous injection of cash nor a gift from the government. In fact, the industry’s own money is being returned to the industry, and we must never forget that, because the communities will not forget it.

It is forgivable, I think, to talk politics a little in this House, and in my opinion the Conservative Party will have to answer for this bill, this act and this agreement all across Canada in the next election. And that election is not far off. That is why we must settle this matter. It will always be possible to make improvements later.

As we all know, several committees will have to work on enacting this legislation and promoting the industry. Moreover, the modest sum of $50 million will come out of the $1 billion and be allocated for promotion. That is not much, except that the United States will have the benefit of a larger sum to develop their industry.

Once again, we would have preferred that the softwood lumber industry be part of a real free trade agreement with the United States.

Certain individuals claim that the softwood lumber issue is now settled for the next nine years. Can we really count on any promises made by the Americans? After all, they are the ones who came along and imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on Canada. Can we really hope that when it no longer suits them, they will sit down and negotiate to improve the situation and conditions for both sides? I doubt it. Anytime the Americans change their tune about the softwood lumber file, Canada and Quebec ate the ones that automatically suffer the consequences.

Thus, I do not belive that the softwood lumber sector will be left undisturbed for as long as seven or nine years. I think the next issue will arise much sooner than that. We must therefore negotiate an agreement within NAFTA, calling on the Americans to stop their protectionist activities in whichever areas and industries they like.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-24, in the hope that the forest industry and softwood lumber industry can use the money illegally taken from them and now returned to them to get back on track, become more modern, more competitive and more innovative in secondary and tertiary processing. The resulting value added, the surplus value, must be profitable to those industries once and for all, and must be paid back to the people who worked in the industry and the businesses themselves.

In closing, I hope we can improve the forest industry as quickly as possible for the benefit of the people who have dedicated their efforts, their energy and, in some cases even their lives, to the industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the presentation by the member for Sherbrooke, my colleague on the Standing Committee on International Trade. However, he did not explain why the Bloc Québécois continues to support the agreement. We are well aware that the situation was different in September. At that time, perhaps because of the opinion polls, the leader of the Bloc Québécois did not want to call an election. However, let us examine what has happened since September. The United States Court of International Trade ruled that all the money was to be returned to Canada. That was on October 13. We now know that we won in the American court and that the United States must return every last cent.

We also know that jobs were lost in Quebec: 2,000 jobs were lost in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and on the North Shore. The job losses resulting from this catastrophic agreement have disastrous consequences.

Furthermore, the member explained clearly, as usual, that it is important for the Quebec forestry industry to produce value-added goods to create jobs. We know very well from all the analyses of this agreement that we cannot produce value-added goods. Encouraging Quebec to produce roundwood actually creates jobs in the United States. In addition, because of the anti-circumvention clause, Quebec's forestry policy is now subject to an American veto.

In view of all these factors, I understand why the Bloc Québécois could have been tempted to vote for the bill in September. However, I do not understand why, in December, they do not just pull back. At third reading, they could vote against the agreement. We could thus recover the 2,000 jobs lost in Quebec and give back to Quebec the right to determine its own forestry policy.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague through you. I believe I mentioned earlier why we are doing this unenthusiastically and why we are accepting this despite everything.

The Quebec Forest Industry Council represents a fair amount of people in the industry. An experienced person, Guy Chevrette, also found that the agreement was not necessarily the discovery of the century. However, given the state they were in, there was no doubt that they had to accept this agreement.

As I was saying earlier, some aspects of the bill definitely need to be improved, adjusted and refined to allow the forestry industry to develop even more in the years to come.

If we ended this agreement, as the hon. member from the NDP is suggesting, we would not be ending the agreement directly. We would be voting against a bill to create legislation and regulations to allow the application of the agreement regarding Canada's management and internal affairs. Thus, Canada will collect duties on behalf of the industry, and they will, of course, be redistributed.

A number of committees are working on Bill C-24. They will discuss the application of the agreement and identify any problems in order to iron them out and even make them disappear altogether.

In this context, the forestry industry will get a second wind after the loss of so many jobs. Once the money is reimbursed, I do not think the industry will decline, given the relations with the United States. If there is any difficulty, economically speaking, it will be because of an economic slowdown and less demand for softwood lumber.

I want to reiterate to my colleague that consultations were held in Quebec. I would hope that there were some in British Columbia. This is another slight difference between us and the West. My colleague claims that the entire industry was against the agreement and asked him to vote accordingly. As far as we are concerned, we are not just claiming, but confirming that the people of Quebec asked us to support the agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke, I really appreciate his work on the Standing Committee on International Trade. But I do not understand what he has just told us.

This summer in fact the Quebec industry voted 35 to 12 in favour of the agreement. And Mr. Chevrette appeared before our committee to say that the industry had no choice but to accept this agreement.

Since the Court of International Trade judgment on October 13, the American government has had to pay the Quebec industry. The Quebec industry is currently receiving money. The Bloc has always demanded—as have we—loan guarantees. Now the money is already reaching its destination. The industry has got its money. The decisions are in our favour.

However, if we adopt Bill C-24 on third reading, what are we going to do? We will be putting the Quebec industry out of business for good. The loss of 2,000 jobs is just the beginning of what will take place, since we cannot have value-added products. We are being forced to export roundwood to create jobs in the United States. The situation is the same in Quebec and in British Columbia.

Now throughout the country people are wondering why Parliament, that is, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois are eagerly voting in favour of this agreement that will result in the loss of permanent jobs in the softwood lumber industry. That is why I am asking the member these questions.

If 2,000 jobs were lost in Quebec because of this agreement, is it not time for the Bloc Québécois to reconsider its support for the agreement? The industry already has its money, but Quebec’s right to determine its own forestry policy will be lost for the next seven or eight years if this agreement is implemented.

Why does the Bloc not think about it and change its position now, on third reading of the bill?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood properly, my hon. colleague wants the Bloc Québécois to support his position and vote against Bill C-24, therefore change our minds in mid-stream because we saw the light all of a sudden.

We have been studying the agreement since the very beginning, as well as the bill of course. If I continue my hon. colleague’s line of thought, he wants us to withdraw our support and the industry to keep the money it has already received. Of course there have been judicial rulings to the effect that Canada was right and the United States was wrong. But there is more to it than that. We had an agreement that the United States would reimburse our money if we signed. The Conservative Party did say, of course, that they were leaving a billion dollars in the pockets of the Americans. We should certainly ask why. What were the Conservative Party’s reasons for leaving a billion dollars in the pockets of the Americans? It was probably for future considerations. What are these considerations? We will one day find out.

I do not think, though, that we can simply withdraw at the last minute when money has already been returned. Things have to be done properly and with a certain amount—and I do mean just a certain amount—of mutual trust. The situation has progressed to the point of no return. The companies have received most of their money. They are already getting ready to carry on with their development and, in contrast to what my hon. colleague seems to think, not to lose jobs but to improve them and also improve the industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed to have to stand and speak at third reading of Bill C-24. I am dismayed because here is a case where clearly due diligence and responsibility of parliamentarians was lacking when there is legislation that touches in such a direct way the lives of Canadians across the country from coast to coast. When that due diligence is not paid, we end up with legislation such as we have before the House now at third reading. This is what is so deplorable.

In a moment I will go into the process that led to this illegitimate birth based on a complete and utter deception by the Conservative government. What is astounding, certainly to people in softwood communities across this country, is the role that the Liberals and the Bloc have played in getting this deplorable legislation through now to the point where we are at third reading, despite the fact that we have seen 4,000 direct jobs lost in the softwood industry since this deal was provisionally rammed through based on whether or not Parliament would actually adopt Bill C-24. Of course, if we do not adopt it, then we can actually start to get those jobs back.

These are 4,000 direct jobs and according to the steelworkers we are looking at 10,000 direct and indirect job losses. This is in a matter of only a few weeks.

It is no wonder that the Conservatives are not standing up in the House to defend this badly botched negotiation, this badly botched deal. What will be left for Canadians to consider, if indeed this week the House votes to proceed, is the role that the Liberals have played in actually bringing Bill C-24 to the floor of the House of Commons.

Without the support of the Liberal Party we would not be at third reading now. Without the support of the Liberal Party Bill C-24 would still be in committee. Members would still be addressing the egregious errors that have been made in drafting this piece of legislation. We would still be hearing what many organizations and representatives from softwood communities asked for. We would still be hearing testimony from these organizations from across the country that wanted to speak to Bill C-24. I will come back to that in a moment.

Basically, we started at the end of April with the framework agreement that was announced in the House. The NDP saw problems with the agreement right away. We raised serious concerns about where the government was going. One of the aspects of the framework agreement in April was the fact that we would suspend litigation.

At that point we were a few softwood board feet short of winning final victory. Canada had only two pieces of the legal process to go through. One was the ECC challenge that would have taken off the tariffs once and for all in August. The second was the Court of International Trade judgment. It is unbelievable that despite efforts by the Conservative government to intervene in court to stop Canada from winning a final victory on softwood lumber, we won on October 13. The American government is already repaying the industry because of the court judgment on October 13.

The first alarm bell at the end of April was that the Conservative government was intervening to stop us from winning those final victories that would establish the fair trade that Canadians were seeking in softwood lumber.

We then came to an agreement that quickly ran off the rails. We have the Minister of International Trade, the illegitimate member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, someone who could not get re-elected in that riding no matter how much he tried. This is his last mandate there after having switched parties.

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

He can't even walk in his riding.

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

He cannot even walk in his riding. He cannot even appear publicly in his riding as the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam reminds me and she is absolutely right.

We have someone with no political legitimacy whatsoever, who could not run in his riding if he tried even to be dog catcher, steering this through, seeing the industry opposition, and putting forward the softwood proposals and having the industry react. We saw on July 1--

[Dave Batters]

That's pretty mean, Peter. That's pretty meanspirited.

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

The Conservatives are speaking now. I hope they will have the guts to actually stand up shortly in the House and defend this bad agreement. We know that they will not because they understand and they are ashamed of this deal too. They just will not admit it.

After members of the industry from across the country had said to not sign this draft agreement because it was absolutely horrible for them, using their typical bullying techniques the Conservatives rammed it through on July 1. They announced it on a Saturday. I found out at a Canada Day celebration at Heritage Village in Burnaby, B.C. It was unbelievable that they had signed what many people described this summer as the worst agreement that Canada has ever initialled. July 1 was a sad day for Canada.

Summer hearings were immediately set up to hear back from the industry. There actually was consultation. The trade minister refused to consult because he heard back from the industry that the deal was absolutely atrocious, but the committee decided to hear from the industry, softwood workers and softwood communities. What it heard was not only that this was the worst deal ever initialled by a Canadian government, but we also found out that it was commercially non-viable. That is what was attested to by witness after witness.

The Quebec industry voted against the agreement 35 to 12. Witness after witness this summer clearly indicated that this was an absolutely horrible deal. What is more, the Conservative government, in its incredibly youthful and one might say juvenile zest to try to rehabilitate the sordid reputation of the Minister of International Trade, in a desperate measure, pulled out all the stops to ram this thing through regardless of the testimony.

One notable example was Stephen Atkinson from BMO who said that this was a guaranteed way of assuring that Canadian logs would create jobs in American mills because it would stimulate raw log exports, but I will come back to that in a moment.

We heard testimony throughout the summer. Obviously, the industry and softwood workers were opposed and then the bullying started. We saw the government pulling out all the stops to push the industry to accept this deal no matter what the cost. That is what the government did. It pushed it.

What it received, grudgingly, from the industry were conditional letters of support, which the government has never released. The conditional letters of support were based on the Conservative government achieving 95% support from the industry. It never achieved that. In fact, it never even achieved close to that. The conditional letters that the Minister of International Trade was running around with, holding up, and refusing to show to the media or to anybody else, which is a public responsibility, showed very clearly that unless it had 95% support it did not have the support of those companies.

What did the government do? It bullied a certain percentage of the industry. Whether it was 50% or 60% we will never know, though access to information requests have been made. We are sure that the Conservative government will try to cover up just as much as the previous Liberal government tried to cover up with ad scam and other various scandals.

The Conservatives promised to be more transparent and that was their very first broken promise. They have not been transparent about this at all because they know it is embarrassing. They badly botched the negotiations. The industry reacted and they tried to bludgeon the industry into submission. What they got were very tepid letters of conditional support that were never operative because they did not get the 95%.

Then they said they would simply change the agreement behind closed doors and that is what they did. They rewrote portions of the agreement. It was unbelievable. They did not have the required level of industry support, so they simply rewrote it. They told industry that there was no way that they could rewrite or renegotiate any of this badly botched negotiation. That turned out not to be true, just another mistruth.

Then we come forward to this fall and Bill C-24 was before the international trade committee. The first thing the NDP said was that there were folks who expressed interest in being witnesses and should be allowed to testify. The NDP proposed two witnesses who testified and raised serious concerns about Bill C-24. It was inadvertent, I am sure, and the trade minister only does things in a very political and haphazard way, but there was a double tax written in to Bill C-24.

What was very clear was the intent of the government in the draconian nature of Bill C-24 regarding the penalties. People would get 18 months in jail if they countered the intention of the Minister of International Trade. There were special penalties.There was the ability of the government, not only to go after softwood companies, mom and pop operations in northern British Columbia, northern Saskatchewan, northern Ontario and northern Manitoba but to go after their commercial clients.

If there was any discrepancy between what the Minister of International Trade said the softwood companies owed and what the companies said they would actually owe under these punitive taxes and draconian measures, the minister had the right to go after commercial clients and go after trust funds, even if they were set up 10 years before. The government basically had, through Bill C-24, a total blank cheque with our softwood industry.

We raised this issue at the committee of international trade. We said that these witnesses, who had identified themselves from British Columbia and from right across the country, should be allowed to come forward and testify. They were not witnesses that the NDP recruited. These were witnesses who said they wanted to testify and went to the clerk of the committee.

What happened, unbelievably, was that the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc said that there would be no testimony. They would not hear from anybody else. They heard from two witnesses who raised serious concerns about the draconian measures, about the poor drafting, and about the effects of this legislation. They did not want to hear from anybody else. They just wanted to get the thing through.

The NDP, unfortunately, in this Parliament, has only one seat on the committee. Hopefully in the next Parliament we will have many more and the NDP will have a greater role to play. This kind of shoddy, slipshod, and irresponsible approach to governing is something that certainly Canadians rejected on January 23 and now they have seen the Conservatives at work. They know they are just as bad. Canadians will be looking at, I think, other alternatives, and I believe the NDP will be one of them in the next election.

Essentially, we proposed 98 amendments to try to fix some of the most egregious parts of this bill and we tried to save the Conservatives from themselves. We were also trying to save softwood jobs.

We were opposed to this agreement, but we did our due diligence. There were 98 sections of this bill that should have been redrafted. However, the Liberals and Conservatives were working together at the international trade committee with the support of the Bloc, and unfortunately said that they were not going to actually treat these amendments in any rigorous fashion. They were not going to deal with the issue of double taxation and companies being penalized twice. No, sir, they were not going to fix this at all, and they rammed it through in just a day and a half. They rammed it through without due consideration.

In fact, most sections of this bill have not been scrutinized anywhere. What they did was simply adopt it. In fact, it was difficult for members to keep up with the voting. There was no debate and no discussion on over half of this bill. There was no debate and no discussion on the Draconian measures of putting people in prison for 18 months. It was a simple show of hands.

Conservatives and Liberals said that if mom and pop operations made a mistake, and the Minister of International Trade did not like it, well, hell, they would be put in prison for 18 months. No due diligence was done. There was absolutely no due diligence. It was unbelievable.

So, we now have in front of us a badly drafted bill, pushed forward by the Liberals and Conservatives principally. And last night, in trying to eliminate some of these clauses, such as the double taxation clause, again, Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc were all voting to keep those provisions in the bill. That is what we have now. We have Bill C-24, a shoddily, hastily crafted piece of legislation with serious errors in it, even from a Conservative perspective, not receiving due diligence at committee, not receiving due diligence in this House, and now the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc want to ram through.

Well, 4,000 lost jobs in the last few weeks, I think, begs the question: What is this House doing, ramming through this legislation when 4,000 jobs have been lost directly, and 10,000 jobs directly and indirectly? It has been a hemorrhage across this country, particularly in western Canada, particularly in British Columbia, and Quebec of course, where we have seen almost 2,000 jobs lost.

What is in this softwood sellout? We talked about some of the references in the bill. First, the most important point is that on October 13 we won in the Court of International Trade. The money has to be paid back. The American government is already paying back to the companies which did not sign on through EDC and that is most companies which showed very clearly that the industry did not have confidence in this deal. The Minister of International Trade is hiding the facts from the public because he knows it is embarrassing that most companies did not sign on to the Export Development Corporation.

Second, and this has been well documented. We are giving a billion dollars to the United States that we did not have to. We won and every penny should be coming back. The Conservatives, because they are, to say the least, financially irresponsible, just shovelled that billion dollars right over to the United States, but half a billion of it goes to the American softwood industry that has been attacking our softwood industry now for years.

They were at the end of their rope. They had no longer any ability or capacity financially to go after our softwood sector. It was the end of the road for them this year. Now, again, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, we have a government that is giving half a billion dollars to them for the next stage of assaults on the Canadian softwood industry and companies.

Another aspect of this deal is that we are imposing tariffs on ourselves that are higher than the illegal American tariffs that preceded them. We actually saw tariffs in October going up when we have won those victories and the only thing that was stopping the tariffs from being taken off completely was the ECC judgment that the government should have put in place for August. Unbelievably we are now paying more.

Why have we lost 10,000 jobs directly and indirectly? It is simple math. When the tariffs go up, it becomes financially non-viable and that is what we are seeing now: jobs lost in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and northern Ontario. I am quite sure we are going to see a lot of Conservatives losing their seats because of their irresponsibility and Liberals too. In northern Ontario there are Liberal MPs who have been pushing this deal. That is absolutely irresponsible.

It is important to note that for Canadians who are listening right now, they actually had to pay the refund. Until we won on October 13, when the American government started paying back the money to the companies that did not sign on to the Conservative government's bad deal, the government's plan was to use the EDC and have Canadian taxpayers pay the rebates. If we had not won in the Court of International Trade on October 13, Canadian taxpayers would be paying through EDC, so it is important for Canadians to know that they would have been picking up the tab for this badly botched deal.

It is also interesting to note that there is a clause within the agreement which allows the Americans to terminate it any time. All they have to do is allege non-compliance. This is important for our Quebec friends, but also for people right across the country. This means that if a provincial government, British Columbia or Quebec, were to make any changes to forestry practices, the Americans could simply allege non-compliance and terminate the agreement. They could keep the billion dollars and run. What could be more irresponsible than that? We are talking about a government that has completely abrogated any sense of responsibility, and any sense of due diligence for softwood workers and communities across the country. That is absolutely appalling.

I talked about the anti-circumvention clause and the fact that we now have to go to Washington. Any provincial forestry practice changes need to be vetted through Washington. That is incredible. We have running rules that are, to say the least, non-viable, retroactive, and after the fact. We sell our product and then at the end of the month we find out whether or not we made money or whether we have to close down.

The most egregious fact is that there is nothing for softwood workers. There is not a penny for softwood communities. This stimulates raw log exports and shuts down value added production.

What we should do is stop this agreement on third reading. If the Bloc Québécois is prepared to vote against it, the agreement can be stopped. The money is already in the hands of the industry. However, we cannot give the Americans the right to come and change our forestry policy. We cannot give them a billion dollars and we cannot allow the American industry to come and attack our softwood lumber industry.

We need a policy that works. I implore the hon. members to vote against this agreement on third reading, but if they fail to, it will be up to the other chamber to vote against it and stop this bad agreement.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster. Canadian businesses need certainty. They need certainty about the economic rules under which they operate and certainty about the trade rules under which they operate. Those are the most fundamental rules they need. Whether it is the softwood lumber industry or any other industry in Canada, they need to have certainty about the rules.

Over the last number of years the softwood lumber industry has had anything but certainty. It has gone through many years of litigation impasse on a whole range of trade issues with the United States. The general gist of the argument put forward by the member from the New Democratic Party is that we were almost over the hill, that one more round of litigation would have solved the problem, that one more round of litigation would have seen a complete and final victory for the Canadian softwood lumber industry. That is simply not the case. Even if we had another victory in the litigation, the U.S. industry could simply file another petition and request the imposition of new duty orders immediately thereafter. This could have gone on for years.

Almost six months ago the Minister of International Trade managed to negotiate a softwood lumber deal with the United States that would return the vast majority of duties it had imposed, close to $4.4 billion. This money will now flow back to Canadian companies so they can reinvest in their businesses and prepare for whatever may lay ahead.

This is not something that popped up yesterday. This has been ongoing for months. There has been plenty of time to debate and discuss this. The vast majority of softwood lumber producing companies support this deal. The industry supports this deal. All the major softwood lumber producing provinces, such as British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, support this deal.

Why can the New Democratic Party not get beyond its hyperbole and simply support a very good deal for the Canadian industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question. Hyperbole has been the domain of the Conservatives.

The Prime Minister said it was going to take seven years of litigation. I asked the trade minister and Michael Wilson about this appeal process that they had invented out of thin air that would allow seven years of appeals. Neither of them could answer me. They both agreed there were no appeals from the final two pieces of litigation that were forwarded this year. The issue of seven, 10 or 15 years, the wild figures thrown out by the very irresponsible Conservative government is just hyperbole. We won on October 13. That is why the companies that did not sign on, which are in a majority I may add, are getting 100¢ dollars.

The member also talked about certainty. I am not sure most Conservatives have read the agreement. Under article 20 we had 23 months and then the international trade minister negotiated an agreement and came up with 18 months of certainty. It has gone from 23 months to 18 months of certainty. Unbelievably, he seems to walk backward when he negotiates with the United States. He also allowed a clause to go in that the United States reserves the right to terminate the agreement if Canada is not applying the export measures. This comes without resort to dispute settlement or any other precondition for termination of this agreement. As I said earlier, the United States can terminate at any time on a simple allegation of non-compliance. That is article 20. There is no certainty there.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is related to the precedent this deal sets for international trade. Will other industry groups take advantage of this every time they lose an international ruling? Will they take advantage of the Canadian industry and get another deal which our industry would have to pay for?

If I heard correctly, I think he mentioned from sea to sea. I am constantly reminding people to say from sea to sea to sea. There is the north. People may think there are no trees but we have a great forest industry in the Yukon. Spruce trees grow for 300 years and are valuable trees. Unfortunately they are being hurt by the spruce beetle. The anti-surge part of this agreement is bad for that because we cannot use those particular trees.

I want to make it clear that the Liberals are against this deal. Our party has voted against it every time in the House. We are going to vote against it at third reading. From our perspective this is a terrible precedent for international trade and the rules of international trade. Could the member elaborate on the disaster that this precedent will have on other Canadian industries, not just the lumber industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the last point. The reason this agreement is on the floor of the House of Commons is that the Liberals worked with the Conservatives. It is not a question of we finally voted no at the end; it is why this bad deal is on the floor of the House of Commons. It is on the floor of the House of Commons because the Liberals refused to hear witnesses. The Liberals cancelled the hearings that were going to be held across the country. The Liberals supported the Conservatives ramming it through committee. That is why it is here. We cannot change the facts. That is the reality.

The Liberals can say they may vote against it at third reading, but that does not eliminate the fact that we are at third reading because the Liberals worked with the Conservatives to ram this bad deal through.

The member is absolutely right and this is why I am so perplexed by the Liberal support for this agreement. He is absolutely right that any other industrial sector could be targeted the same way. What we are doing is erasing the four and a half years of legal victories in such a way that steel or any other industrial sector could be next. It basically throws away dispute settlement. That is the appalling implications of ramming this deal through.

That is why the Bloc has to think twice. That is why the Liberals have to think twice. That is why we certainly hope that western Canadian MPs in the Conservative Party would think twice about undermining their own communities by voting for this badly botched deal. They should be representing their communities in Ottawa. They should not be representing Ottawa or the Prime Minister to their communities.

This is a bad deal for British Columbia. I will read from the report that was issued last week which states:

Make no mistake, this is a bad deal for BC. It discourages value-added output at a time when BC needs to improve on its sorry record in generating more jobs and higher prices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster on the effort that he has put forward to try to protect the workers in this industry, the communities that are affected and the industry itself. He has been undaunting in the work he has done.

I want to ask him specifically how this deal will increase raw log exports. All British Columbians are very concerned about this and I would like him to expand upon that part of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great question from the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

I will just read the end of the quotation:

BC needs to improve on its sorry record in generating more jobs and higher prices from the forest products we manufacture. And [this deal] encourages further shipments of raw, unprocessed logs from the province.

That is what all testimony showed this summer. What this does is ensures that Canadian logs mean American mills get the jobs. It is Canadian logs for American jobs.