Stockwell Day

[Softwood Lumber, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, yesterday the London Court of International Arbitration tribunal issued its final decision with respect to use of the adjustment factor in the calculation of the volume of exports to the United States.

In March 2009, the tribunal had ruled that Canada had breached the adjustment factor of the softwood lumber agreement. Canada applied the adjustment factor to some provinces beginning in July 2007, but the tribunal ruled that it should have been applied since January 2007.

In April 2009, Canada offered the United States a payment of $46.7 million to cure the breach. This payment was rejected by the United States, at which point Canada requested that the tribunal rule on whether the proposed payment in fact would cure the breach.

Yesterday, Canada's proposed lump sum payment was rejected by the tribunal and Canada was ordered to impose compensatory adjustments to Canada's export charges, in effect to collect that back tax.

The tribunal sent a strong message that the export charge should be collected on a first-to-ship basis, and should be applied to Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan until the amount of $68.26 million has been collected.

As members are no doubt aware, the United States is currently imposing an import tax of 10% at the border. In order for this tax to be removed, Canada must comply with the tribunal's ruling.

The Government of Canada is disappointed that the tribunal did not accept Canada's proposed solution to cure the breach. We continue to believe that our offer to pay $46.7 million was fair. However, there is no further route for appeal.

I have consulted with the provinces and have received their support to comply with the tribunal's decision.

We remain committed to the success of the softwood lumber agreement. This agreement has brought stability and has returned nearly $5 billion to the industry.

[Softwood Lumber, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals stood by for years while the forestry industry was wracked with lawsuits from the United States, with incredible countervail taxes from coast to coast. There was upheaval; there was turmoil and loss of money to the United States.

We signed this agreement. It returned $5 billion to the Canadian industry which would have been left in the United States if the Liberals had their way.

We fought hard on this particular ruling about back taxes. Now the final ruling has come out. The back taxes are owing. The money will be going to the provinces. If it were up to the Liberals, that money would still be staying in the United States.

[Softwood Lumber, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this is just representative of how out of touch the Liberals are. I have talked with the ministers responsible for the forestry industry in the provinces today. I have talked with the minister from Quebec. We have talked with all of the participants in the forestry industry within the last 24 hours.

None of us are happy with the ruling but they are all in agreement with the direction we have gone. They are all appreciative of the fact that we fought, we appealed and now we have a decision. Every one of them is for this. Only the Liberals are against it. They should get in tune with what is going on.

[Softwood Lumber, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Bloc Québécois supported this agreement in the past, but it is clear that when the Liberals were in power, the forestry industry still had major problems.

Now, we have an agreement. We will abide by the decision rendered, and the money will be collected by the provinces.

[Softwood Lumber, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let us remember that under the previous Liberal government, before we had this softwood lumber agreement in place, there were huge and ongoing increases in taxes being imposed all the time. Court cases were going on non-stop.

We appealed this particular ruling and the ruling now stands. However, it is very important to recognize that the money from the back taxes that are now owed goes back to the provinces. If it were done the Liberals' way, they would let the Americans continue to collect that money and have the money in the United States. We want the money to go back to the provinces and that is where it is going.

[Forestry Industry, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting idea, but this is an international court ruling. I suggest that the hon. member take a look at the ruling because the Province of Ontario is subject to exactly the same ruling.

[Forestry Industry, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the international tribunal has given us a very clear ruling. We are not very happy about it, but we have to abide by it and that is what we plan to do. It is very important to note that the revenues will be recovered by the Province of Quebec.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what is bad is when the doors are closed and there are no opportunities. It is very important for our workers and investors to have opportunities to submit bids for public works projects in the United States. That is why the mayors agree with us about the solution. Maybe the member should talk to those mayors.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our municipalities were the ones who said they wanted to keep the doors open. So we presented a solution. Some Canadian municipalities disagreed and said that they wanted some regions to remain under their authority. That is what some Quebec municipalities did. We also have the support of Quebec's Premier Charest, who was a leader in developing the program.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, it is very important that we strike a balance. That is why Canada's municipalities want to keep the doors open and also want reciprocity. Thus, they could have American representation and their companies, their businesses, could also present their infrastructure programs to the United States.