Debates of Oct. 17th, 2006

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Some of us are.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes, some of us are. This $1 billion that is in the hands of the United States now, I am sure will be used for purposes that are not favourable to Canada. If this deal goes ahead, that is the reality of it, and that reality is an unfortunate reality.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Western Arctic for his intervention. He is very passionate about justice in the House of Commons.

I wanted to specifically ask him about the lack of process around this bill. One of the things that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster had been calling for, for a number of weeks now, was a process around hearings in this country.

The idea was to take the committee out to key communities in Quebec, northern Ontario and British Columbia to actually meet with people to talk about what the impact this would have on their communities, their industries, their municipalities, their workers and first nations.

I wonder if the member could comment about the fact that this has not been done. What will the impacts be in terms of the validity of this bill?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity for a number of years to sit on the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board where we looked at projects and conducted public hearings on a variety of issues.

In the north, which is quite a colonial state still, the federal government took the recommendations we had and basically ignored them. Apart from that, it is really vital that the public interest in each province and in the territories in economics is understood by the population. The population has the ability, whether it is small business, aboriginal people, or whoever it is, to understand the kinds of decisions that we are making and how they impact on their lives. That is a fundamental aspect of the democratic system.

Interestingly enough, often when we do environmental assessments, we move into economics and find out some of the answers. Therefore, the public hearing process would have helped the government gain a backbone and it would have also helped Canadians.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak again about my concerns and the concerns that have been expressed to me in the riding of Vancouver Island North about how this softwood lumber deal is bad for Canada.

I want to reiterate that the Conservatives campaigned on getting tough with the Americans and standing up for Canada and Canadian interests, but instead they got tough with the Canadian lumber companies. With the signing of this deal, the Conservatives have negotiated away all of Canada's wins at the NAFTA tribunals and put workers and communities in jeopardy. So many of those communities are in my riding and are suffering because of this deal.

After five years of legal battles under NAFTA and the U.S. Court of International Trade, the CIT ruled that Canada was entitled to the return of every penny of the $5.3 billion owed, every penny. That is the amount of illegally imposed duties of our softwood exports over the years. Again, we won.

Why would the government sellout Canadian manufacturers and communities, and capitulate to the pressure of the U.S. government and the lumber lobbyists? Why did the government snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

The fact is that the recent court ruling, which I might add came only last Friday, is rendered a moot point due to this bad softwood lumber agreement. This agreement should go down in the history of Canada as one very shameful moment for the government. We just gave away $1 billion. I guess it is just one more way the government trims the fat. It seems to like to do that. Its rush to appease the U.S. lumber lobbyists has sold out ordinary Canadians, especially those who live and work in forest dependent communities.

The other irony about all of this is that about $500 million of Canadian money will go to the U.S. That is $.5 billion to the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports. This money will most likely be used to rekindle the coalition, which is failing, and at some point in the future we will have to fight the U.S. again and it will be with our money.

It will be using our money to fight us. It is a sad irony. What a sellout. Why would anyone agree to this when it is our duty as members of Parliament to stand up for our constituencies and communities, all of whom happen to be Canadian? They are in our ridings.

Let me provide a few other reasons why this is a bad deal, besides the fact that it is based on a falsehood that Canadian softwood lumber industries are subsidized. This falsehood was exposed and rejected in every NAFTA and U.S. commercial court ruling that clearly sided with Canadian industry.

Another reason this is a bad deal is that it can be cancelled unilaterally at any time. It does not go on for seven years. It could last only two years or even 18 months and does not provided stability and predictability to the Canadian softwood lumber industry. This deal constrains trade unreasonably by applying punitive tariffs and quotas that hinder the flexibility of the Canadian softwood industry.

I want to talk about a small flooring manufacturing company in my riding that is devastated by this agreement. It has told me it is going to be losing over $300,000 a year in revenues because it cannot find a way under this deal as it stands to do business with the U.S. It is going to be shut out. It is a small company and is going to lose out because of this deal.

It will be the dozen or so people who work in small businesses in my community who will probably lose their jobs if this deal goes ahead. Small businesses are very concerned about their future. It is a bad deal because it does not respect small businesses.

The deal kills the credibility of the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism. Canada won in the courts but by negotiating away all of those wins we have put the dispute mechanism in jeopardy. We might as well say that we did not need it. We capitulate in a heartbeat.

It sets a bad precedent, not only for the softwood lumber industry, but also for other industrial sectors in this country. If the government can capitulate to the Americans on softwood, what can it do in other sectors that are governed by NAFTA? Will we see this again in other industries? It is a bad deal.

The deal does nothing for the thousands of workers who have lost their livelihoods over the past five years. My colleagues and I in the NDP called for loan guarantees from the government so that the industries in our communities could get through this and maintain some of the workers. However, that did not happen. Many of the industries had to lay off workers and many are now gone because of this deal. We also see a further job loss through consolidation caused by the quotas and export taxes.

I have another reason for talking about this agreement. This softwood lumber agreement creates an incentive for exporting raw logs. I live on Vancouver Island and I when I drive up and down the Island highway I see truckload after truckload of raw logs leaving the Island and going to a log dump. We used to have a lot of small mills, mills that were the backbone and the lifeblood of so many small communities. These mills kept those communities going because the logs were tied to the communities. This is not happening any more. This deal does nothing to stop these logs from being exported out of our communities and out of the country. The logs are being processed offshore and in the U.S. Those are family supporting jobs that we have lost in our communities. That is not standing up for our communities.

This continued export of raw logs has to stop. I have spoken about this in my communities and everywhere I go people agree that this is something that has to end. For that reason alone, I would think that people would not support this deal.

This deal does not provide effective protection for Atlantic Canada. The softwood lumber agreement has a fundamental and irreversible impact on the ability of Canada to defend itself within NAFTA and the United States commercial court system. The agreement makes everyone substantially more vulnerable, notwithstanding the Atlantic exemption. The renewal of the exemption is not a guarantee against failure in the future. The Atlantic provinces are still vulnerable to subsidy allegations. There will be nothing to stop the U.S. from alleging that Atlantic Canadians are not living up to this deal.

This is a bad deal because I know much of the industry was not on side. It was pressured into supporting this deal and a lot of bullying tactics went on. Many industries felt forced into signing on to this deal. A lot of them actually did not sign on, but were pressured anyway. I am really standing up for those people in those industries, for the workers in our communities and for the communities in my riding and across this country that will be devastated by this deal.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the committee looked at this legislation this past summer it agreed that there should be public hearings in Quebec, in northern Ontario and in British Columbia but those hearings are not going ahead.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that there have not been public hearings on this deal or on this legislation.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that the hearings, which the committee agreed to, have not gone ahead. It is quite annoying that the kibosh was put on them because we should have heard from Canadians in all communities about how bad this deal was and how it was affecting them.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Accordingly, the vote stands deferred until tomorrow at the end of government orders.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (access for spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Divorce Act

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions regarding amendments to my private member's bill and I believe if you seek it you shall find unanimous consent in the House for the following amendment. I move:

That Bill C-252 be amended by replacing clause 1 with the following:

1. Section 17 of the Divorce Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (5):

(5.1) For the purposes of subsection (5), a former spouse's terminal illness or critical condition shall be considered a change of circumstances of the child of the marriage, and the court shall then ensure that the former spouse is granted access to the child as long as it is consistent with the best interests of that child.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House has heard the terms of the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Amendment agreed to)

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Divorce Act introduced by the member of Parliament for Lethbridge.

Before I continue with my remarks, I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the member for his continued advocacy for the protection of society's most vulnerable, our children. Since his initial election to the House of Commons in 1997, the member has been persistent and vigilant in ensuring issues surrounding the welfare of Canada's children remain on Parliament's agenda.

One highlight of his ongoing advocacy includes his private member's bill, Bill C-313, from the 38th Parliament. That bill would have amended the Criminal Code to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. Although that particular legislation was unsuccessful, chiefly due to the previous government's opposition, it helped draw national attention to the age of consent issue and it also crystallized in the minds of many Canadians the need for a new approach in Ottawa toward criminal justice, especially where our children are concerned.

I am proud to report that, unlike the previous government, this Conservative government and this Prime Minister are committed to comprehensive criminal justice reform, including raising the age of consent between children and adults from 14 to 16 years of age. As we move forward in implementing this necessary change, I would like to recognize the member for Lethbridge for his laudable contribution and, on behalf of Canada's children and their parents, thank him.

That brings us to the matter under debate here today, legislation which again deals with an issue important to the welfare of children. It involves difficult and emotional matters. It deals with those parts of life we do not necessarily bring up in casual conversations. When we talk about these matters we tend to do so in hushed tones, with long pauses and guarded expressions: Death and divorce.

These are not parts of life we anticipate in any great measure, only accept for we have no choice. While there is the rare exception, these events are saturated in the most wrenching of human emotions for all those involved. This is particularly true for young children. For it goes without saying that neither the break-up of a parent's marriage or the death of a parent are elements we associate with the carefree innocence of childhood. It is a cruel coincidence of fate that would visit both such events on a child, but the destiny of fate knows not of the sorrow it inflicts.

While death is inevitable, the end of a marriage is not, but it is today a distinct possibility. A divorce is not a flippant decision for most people. It represents the lamentable end of earlier promise. Some are mutual and amicable, others are bitter and acrimonious.

According to Statistics Canada, each year approximately 70,000 couples will get a divorce. Furthermore, today almost 40% of marriages will end in divorce by the 30th wedding anniversary. I would like to say that I beat that anniversary.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

How many?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Over 30 years with the same man.

With the end of marriage, the difficult questions surrounding custody of dependants have to be attended to.

Again the tender of such proceedings can vary, and sometimes custody arrangements will limit the access of one parent to a child. This is not exceptional in itself for it occurs daily in courtrooms throughout the country. The exceptional occurrence, what Bill C-252 seeks to address, is the conditions or privileges granted to a terminally ill or a critical condition parent. The bill before us today seeks to grant such a parent access to their child in this difficult period.

Adding subsection (11) to section 16, custody orders, of the Divorce Act, the proposed subsection reads:

Subject to subsection (8), in making an order under this section, the court shall ensure that a spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition is granted access to a child of the marriage.

I would like to draw attention to the House a key provision drafted in that amendment which has the effect of ensuring that such access is granted provided it is in the best interests of the child involved.

Proposed subsection (11) is subject to subsection (8), which reads, “In making an order under this section, the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child”. A child would consequently be shielded from possibly being returned to the custody of a parent who may have, or may again, inflict any harm upon the child.

I believe this provision speaks to the fact that the bill seeks to strike a proper balance between parental rights and child protection. Providing a legally entrenched avenue for a dying parent to have access to their child to say a last goodbye with the provision I just mentioned is the decent thing to do.

I cannot, nor do I wish to, imagine facing the prospect of being prevented from looking into the eyes of one's child the last time before the hour of death. More important, robbing a child of such a moment, that final reassurance everything will be all right, is not something that should be facilitated by the state.

The English poet Matthew Arnold wrote, “Truth sits upon the lips of dying men”. Most would hold this to be an intrinsic truth. As difficult as it may be to the parent and child, the period before one's expected death represents a final opportunity to impart what a mother or father holds to be true to their child.

The language of the dying is usually stripped of generalities and devoid of excess of words, especially when spoken from a parent to their child. There is typically an economy of words used, not because of a lack of things to say, but to ensure the impact of those few spoken are magnified to the fullest extent, often simply limited to three.

The anguish of a child following the death of a parent is inevitable and it is natural. As legislators we have no power or desire to avert that. However, ensuring the welfare of children is not simply limited to sheltering them from harm, but also allowing them the experiences of life.

Bill C-252 can assist in a small way by permitting recourse for parental access at this sensitive time.

In psychology the term “closure” refers to a state of experiencing an emotional conclusion to a difficult life event like the death of a loved one. Bill C-252 will not bring closure, for as the Canadian journalist Robert Fulford once argued that closure cannot be achieved consciously. One cannot arbitrarily shorten the length of time it takes to soften the edges of grief, and this is especially true for a child. But there is solace and comfort inherent to acts of finality, such as the solemn moments of farewell with a dying loved one which, with the passage of time, contribute to the process of closure.

On that basis, I ask my colleagues to support unanimously Bill C-252 proposed by the member for Lethbridge.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this second hour of debate on the bill introduced by our colleague from Lethbridge, namely Bill C-252.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill. We are not planning to make a habit of it, but when sensible and balanced bills come along, we are always happy to cooperate, especially where private members' bills are concerned. A member can really show the full extent of his or her talent with legislation like that. In my caucus, I have always maintained that debate on private members' bills should not be limited to one hour; instead, two hours a day should be allocated to debating these bills. I think that would be one way to enhance the role of MPs.

That having been said, Bill C-252 deals with the Divorce Act. Members might remember that, for a long time, divorce was pretty unusual. There was even a time, long ago, when an application had to be made to the Senate or a private bill had to be introduced for a divorce to be granted. In time, divorce has become much more mainstream. In terms of division of powers, one could of course find it somewhat illogical that Quebec has jurisdiction over separation from bed and board and matters relating to civil law, but not divorce. In fact, every Quebec premier from Daniel Johnson to Jean Lesage, and from René Lévesque to Jean Charest has traditionally called for divorce to fall under the responsibility of the Government of Quebec, through its National Assembly. This way, we would have full and complete, integrated and consistent jurisdiction over family matters, even though divorce is admittedly something that is always painful for someone to go through.

What the bill introduced by our colleague from Lethbridge proposes is to amend section 16 of the Divorce Act, which provides for custody orders. Increasingly divorces take place by mutual agreement and the divorce process is not judicialized. There are nevertheless legal and administrative matters that require court intervention. The granting of custody is one of these matters.

Section 16 of the Divorce Act says that a court of competent jurisdiction—in Quebec, this is the Superior Court—may, on application by either or both spouses or any other person, make an order respecting the custody of or the access to, or the custody and access to, any or all children of the marriage. This is subsection 1 of section 16.

Subsection 2 also says that the court may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an interim order respecting the custody of or the access to, or the custody of and access to, any or all of the children of the marriage, pending determination of the application.

What is also important is that, in our divorce legislation, the issue of the children’s interests has always been extremely central. The wish is for the courts, when deciding on shared custody, access and visitation, to do so in the light of the child’s best interests.

There is extremely important jurisprudence defining what are the child’s interests with respect to his development, emotional stability, growth and education. That is why, contrary to what our fellow citizens think, custody of a child is never automatic. There is always a set of factors that must be assessed by the court. What is central are the child’s best interests.

A few years ago, this Parliament created a committee to review the whole issue of children. For the Bloc Québécois, it was the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher who sat on the committee. The committee again specified, confirmed and reconfirmed that the child’s interests, the child’s best interests with respect to his development, emotional stability, growth and education, must be central to the Divorce Act. Among the factors that a court of justice has to evaluate, this one must be paramount.

Subsection 16(10) of the Divorce Act states, and I believe it is worth quoting:

In making an order under this section, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.

We must therefore not assume that the courts will favour one parent over the other. It is established in our laws and set out in the legislation: we recognize that the child should maintain contact as much as possible with both parents, and that it is the responsibility of the parent who has primary custody to facilitate visiting with the other parent.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our colleague from Lethbridge on his new responsibilities, since he was elected chair of the sugar caucus. In fact, he and I both have refineries in our ridings. The sugar industry is extremely important and we see a threat on the horizon. The previous Liberal government wanted to negotiate an agreement with Central American countries to bring in even more sugar duty free. Obviously, that creates a problem in terms of competition, particularly concerning production costs for the large refineries in our regions. We will see if the current government also wants to pursue those negotiations.

So, the member for Lethbridge has new responsibilities and I would like to assure him that I will be at his side when the time comes to defend the sugar industry.

The hon. member for Lethbridge has proposed adding a subsection to section 16. This new provision, probably the result of representations made to him by some of his fellow citizens, would constitute subsection 16(11), and would read as follows:

Subject to subsection (8), in making an order under this section, the court shall ensure that a spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition is granted access to a child of the marriage.

The hon. member for Lethbridge must have received representations from parents living with an incurable or debilitating disease or a degenerative disorder that was an obstacle in the evaluation of their custody rights by a judge or the Superior Court in Quebec’s case.

We all know that a person should not be deprived of access to a child of his marriage because of a health problem. To the contrary, this should be a facilitating consideration. The provision suggested by the hon. member for Lethbridge leads us to support this amendment.

The best interests of the child must still be the core of all legal decisions. That is in section 16 of the act. This is how the law has evolved.

We know very well, though, that it would be sad. It is already difficult enough to have health problems and this should not be a reason. So long as other conditions are present in the family environment, the health setbacks of the child’s father or mother should not be a reason to stop encouraging contact with this parent, a fruitful relationship that might be an end-of-life relationship for one of the parents.

We know the comfort a child can provide.

We are going to support this bill in principle. If the House so desires, it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This committee has quite a bit on its plate right now because the Conservative government has introduced seven bills with very different prospects. Most deserve to be voted down, but the Bloc Québécois will give this one a lot of consideration.

I wish the hon. member for Lethbridge the best of luck.