Debates of May 15th, 2006

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

Mr. Speaker, on April 28, I asked a question in this House the day after the softwood lumber agreement was announced. There was already a great deal of uncertainty, and since then, the uncertainty has not diminished, but has increased.

For example, there is no final agreement, but an agreement in principle. The conflict between the parties goes on. We are anxious to see a real, tangible agreement come out of the negotiations. A great deal of uncertainty remains, and the lawsuits are still under way. The situation has not really changed, and no repayments are expected for many months.

Companies supported this agreement more or less under duress. They were forced to accept it because the Conservative government sent the message that if they did not, they would receive no further assistance. Today, they are in a tough spot because they will not receive any money for many months, five or six months in the case of the Free Trade Lumber Council. This means that companies are still waiting for the money the Americans took from us illegally. Canadian companies are paying the price for the proposed agreement reached by the Conservative government, which was very compliant with the Americans.

We will also need legislation in order to apply an export tax. We can tell the government that this legislation will have to be introduced once a real agreement is reached.

In fact, introducing legislation today would amount to telling the Americans that we are ready to sign an even more discounted deal than we did, and that we are prepared to pass the legislation without a real agreement. That would be like saying we have already stuck our arm in the works and are ready to let our shoulder and body follow, even though we do not know the contents of the final agreement.

All of these situations lead us to query the government whether there is to be a real agreement in the end. Will it benefit the entire softwood lumber industry in Quebec and Canada? We have to realize that the industry committed involuntarily to this agreement, and today there are a lot of difficulties with it.

There are differences between the preliminary and final versions. For example, regarding repayment, the words “with interest” have mysteriously disappeared. Does that mean that the federal government has agreed to sign an agreement with the United States whereby we will not recover the interest on the $4 billion that is supposed to come back to us?

There is still a major stumbling block in this regard, and we are eager to see how the Canadian government will negotiate this agreement so it ends up amounting to at least what the Prime Minister announced.

What we have at the moment is the Prime Minister's decision to sign pretty much anything with the Americans so he can say we have improved our relations with them. I do not think this is the right approach. We have not ended the softwood lumber dispute, we have established a truce and matters are suspended for seven to nine years. In this time, the Americans can use our money to increase their competitive advantage.

Is the government aware of the situation and of the urgency for businesses and for workers to conclude the agreement as soon as possible? We must also know exactly how much will be recovered to ensure that, in the end, we will not lose more than we are losing at the moment with the proposed agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the question asked by the hon. member.

As the hon. member knows, on April 27 the Prime Minister addressed the House to announce that Canada and the United States had reached an agreement in principle that will provide a basis for ending the long-standing softwood lumber dispute. This agreement meets all of Canada's objectives and will provide Canadian companies with a stable and predictable market access.

This government understands the difficulties and challenges facing our forest industry and has made resolving the softwood lumber dispute a priority. This government understands the impact the dispute is having on workers and communities across the country. This government understands that a resolution is required to turn the page on this dispute, so as to provide our lumber industry, workers and communities with the certainty and stability that they need.

That is the reason that Canada concluded this important agreement with the United States that will pave the way to a long term resolution on softwood lumber.

The effective resolution of this dispute was a result of a concerted effort by the government. The Prime Minister elevated this dispute to the highest levels of the U.S. government by raising softwood lumber directly and forcefully with the President of the United States. When the North American leaders met in Cancun, Mexico in March, softwood was a priority item on the agenda and the Prime Minister and the President agreed on the need to resolve this dispute. This agreement is a product of the cooperation and political will from the very top of the two countries. The government's determination has produced results.

Canada and the United States have agreed to a seven year framework agreement designed to ensure U.S. market access for Canadian softwood lumber. The deal protects Canadian market share, eliminates U.S. duties and ends the relentless trade actions brought on by the U.S. industry. Most important, it will return to Canadian exporters some $4 billion in duties.

Our obligation was to conclude a deal that is in Canada's best interest and we have done that.

This agreement maximizes market access for Canadian exporters. Under current market conditions, no restrictions would apply for Canadian softwood lumber entering into the United States.

The agreement is a dynamic framework that takes into account the different operating conditions in Canada from coast to coast to coast. The agreement provides provinces and industry with flexibility to respond to their specific circumstances, as well as exempting certain regions and products.

This agreement will ensure that Canadian companies will have the $4 billion returned to them so that they can invest in modernizing and making our industry more productive and competitive.

The agreement includes provisions for Canada and the United States, with the full participation of the provinces, to negotiate eventual exits from measures based on policy reforms.

This agreement includes an innovative measure that will respond to Canadian industry concerns about the possibility of other lumber producing countries increasing their exports to the United States at the expense of Canada.

As the hon. member can see, this is an agreement that addresses the interests and concerns of Canadian stakeholders, an agreement that is not static, but rather dynamic, and one that meets the needs of the country as a whole.

In conclusion, the government has delivered to Canadians what could not be delivered in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, how can she say there is a firm agreement when a tax will imposed when the price goes below $355 for 1,000 feet?

They reneged on the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is quite paradoxical of the Conservative Party, which was the author of this agreement, to be in denial in the softwood lumber issue.

The companies concerned by the situation were expecting to get from their lenders an advance on the money they expected to get back. The banks are saying they cannot guarantee loans because the content of the agreement is too uncertain.

Would the federal government not have been better off helping the companies and ensuring proper cooperation in order to win this battle on free trade and softwood lumber instead of coming to a compromise that disadvantages the entire economy?

The only companies that win are located along the border. For the rest, this contract is not profitable for Quebec or Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to be a little patient. It has been said many times that this agreement is in the process of final draft. When it is complete we will all have an opportunity to take a long hard look at it.

The member also mentioned that there was some uncertainty about this deal. I have to disagree with the hon. member, given the fact that the minister was so gracious and so willing to come to committee. In fact, he was at committee today for an hour. He addressed many of the hon. member's questions. He is committed to returning again at another date to address any other questions that may come up as this deal proceeds. Much of what the member commented on tonight was addressed at committee.

I remind the hon. member that this deal is supported by the province of Quebec. In fact, I even have a quote from the Quebec minister of economic development who said that it is a good deal and that it is the best deal we could get. I remind the hon. member that the province is on board. All provinces are on board. We look forward to working with the hon. member.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:48 p.m.)