Debates of April 26th, 2007

Criminal Code

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having rise:

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 2, 2007, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I have been following what has just transpired in the last few moments correctly, according to procedure we have to go immediately to adjournment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I was tempted to do something that I would not like to do, which is to suspend until the hour of adjournment.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park is rising on a point of order.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while we regret very much that the members opposite did not recognize that this was report stage of a private member's bill and we could have proceeded to debate on third reading, I guess we have to forgive the Liberals for not being on the bit today.

Therefore, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you seek unanimous consent now to see the clock as 6:30 p.m., so that we can go forward to adjournment proceedings.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, with all due respect to my learned colleague from Edmonton—Sherwood Park, I believe if we follow correct House procedures, we do not need unanimous consent to see the clock as 6:30 p.m., we immediately go to adjournment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I appreciate the contributions of both hon. members and of course the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is right.

It was with pleasure that I listened to the hon. member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park, especially that in order to achieve our aim we needed to have the specific members involved in the House, and I know that they are in the House now.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, during question period on March 21, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development neglected to answer my question on aboriginal poverty. His responses were a deflection whereby he falsely claimed that I had committed to certain positions that in fact I had not committed to, and he neglected to speak to the issue of aboriginal poverty.

At one time though the same minister called aboriginal poverty the most pressing social issue that we faced as a nation. I too agree with the minister's comment, but I am dismayed that this meanspirited government has failed to take action to combat this very pressing issue.

First nations people experience horrific poverty across the country and it is not disputed by anyone. One in four first nations children live in poverty. This is compared to one in six children of the non-aboriginal population. Twenty-seven thousand first nations children are in care, most often because of the impoverished circumstances in which they live. One in eight are disabled, double that of the non-aboriginal population of Canadian children. Suicide rates are incredibly high, accounting for 38% of all deaths of first nation youth.

Their homes are unbelievably over-crowded. In some instances, 28 people live in a two bedroom home. This is in large part due to the lack of social housing in first nations communities and a lack of commitment by the government to remedy this issue. Many of their homes are contaminated with mould.

Many first nations people have to boil their water. Responses to a water strategy only comes about when there is a diversion of funds from other capital projects, such as education.

First nations people are more susceptible to disease. We know that diabetes and tuberculosis in particular are rampant. We heard earlier today and this week about tuberculosis in residential schools in the past century. I hope the day does not come when aboriginal peoples will come to us to ask for an apology for the neglect that has been imposed on them by not dealing with tuberculosis at the moment.

Eighty per cent of first nations people have personal incomes below $30,000 and more than half are unemployed.

These living conditions are unacceptable. This is a country that the minister likes to speak of as being a compassionate country, but it is a compassion that the government certainly lacks as it has failed aboriginal Canadians. It has not done enough.

It says that it has spent $10.2 billion, but it has miscalculated because it includes legal obligations. It will not apologize for the residential schools legacy and has totally ignored the Kelowna accord, which we know from aboriginal people across the country provided an opportunity for hope.

Aboriginal people across the country area starting to speak out in peaceful protest. Collaboration and consultation seem to not be available with the government. The role seems to be one of intimidation, and peaceful protest seems to be the only way of responding.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend speaks of aboriginal poverty, but I am proud to point out that since assuming office, Canada's new government has made significant progress in a number of areas that address the root causes of poverty, issues concerning housing, employment and skills development, and family supports. Budget 2007 is supporting this progress with real resources.

Unlike the Liberals who left Canada's aboriginal people with nothing but empty promises, we are moving forward with real action to improve the lives of all aboriginal Canadians.

For instance, in keeping with a commitment in budget 2007, on April 20 Canada's new government announced a $300 million fund dedicated to the development of a housing market in first nation communities, including innovative approaches to support the development of individual home ownership on reserve. This represents an estimated 25,000 homes over the next 10 years.

What is more, budget 2007 commits $105 million over five years to the aboriginal skills and employment partnership. As a result of this investment, an additional 9,000 aboriginal individuals will receive skills training and an additional 6,500 will secure sustainable skilled jobs.

Furthermore, in order to identify an effective legislative solution to the difficult issue of on reserve matrimonial real property, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada conducted consultations across the country in the fall of 2006. These are now complete and Ms. Wendy Grant-John, the ministerial representative for this initiative, has produced a report that was tabled in the House on April 20. We welcomed Ms. Grant-John's recommendations and are looking forward to introducing legislation this spring.

Jobs, housing and stable, healthy communities are the elements that will ensure the eradication of poverty for aboriginal people and provide them with the tools they need to build prosperous communities for the present and a brighter more promising future for their children. Working with our aboriginal, provincial and territorial partners, and backed by the resources of budget 2007, we have and we will work to build on the progress we have made in these areas.

Our commitment is firm. We have and we will make headway on addressing the issues that plague far too many aboriginal people and communities. Our approach is moving us steadily forward, and we will continue this progress.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, those may be fine words, but it is empty rhetoric.

The member spoke of the $300 million for housing on reserve. It is the same $300 million that was announced last year and not acted upon. He talked about the housing market and the 25,000 homes. We have to ensure people have sufficient income to take advantage of market opportunities. We know from the numbers I have cited that this is not the case.

The member has neglected to mention the water situation that many people are living with and the fact that his government has chosen to divert money from education projects in order to respond to it.

I want to read to the House something that I received from a gentleman from Winnipeg, talking about poverty. He said, “I'm talking about the evil of poverty that—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform for filling in on my behalf.

I again point out that the member opposite and her party had a number of years throughout the nineties to address so many of the issues with which aboriginal people throughout Canada are faced. We can look back to their attempts to bring changes to governance, but unfortunately it was neglected by the previous prime minister when he had the opportunity to bring that back.

This government has moved forward with the residential school compensation. We were able to finalize that agreement, and we are delivering on it right now, with initial payments being brought forward to the claimants.

The member mentioned drinking water. In fact, the minister has brought forward remediation of the terrible situation that was left at our feet. The minister has brought forward drinking water standards.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on April 18 I had the opportunity to ask a question to the Minister of International Trade, and I will do it again here tonight.

In September the government announced its version of the softwood lumber deal. In reality, the deal was little more than a sellout to the United States, leaving $1 billion of Canadian company money in the hands of the United States.

The forest industry in Canada is in crisis and instead of recognizing the insecurity of thousands of families across Canada and fighting to protect their jobs, the government would rather appease its American counterparts.

Thousands of jobs have been lost in northern Ontario alone and countless mills have been closed down. Communities have been devastated by these mill closures. In 2005 Abitibi announced the closure of their operation in Kenora, 500-plus jobs gone. A week later in Dryden 100 or more jobs were gone. Last year, just one week before Christmas, the Ignace sawmill went down and 50 jobs were lost. This was a direct result of the softwood lumber deal and the quotas that the Ontario government was forced to accept.

Our communities in northern Ontario are dependent on an integrated forest industry. We need a federal government that is taking an active role in protecting and supporting our communities, not one that is protecting our competitor's industry.

It is not only the municipalities that have been abandoned by the Conservative government, but many first nations communities have been adversely affected by this shoddy deal. Many aboriginal people and aboriginal businesses are being hurt by this. Mckenzie Forest Products Inc. in Hudson just lost 90 jobs last month. Many of those workers were from first nations.

Across Canada 17,000 aboriginal people are employed in the forestry sector and 1,400 aboriginal businesses are impacted by this industry. We need to support these types of initiatives, not abandon them.

It is not my intention this evening to debate the merits of the deal, which are very few. It is however my intention to question the minister on the false sense of security the Conservative government tried to provide to the industry. Nearly seven months later, after the Minister of International Trade announced that he had achieved in this so-called deal, the Americans are back criticizing the operations of our industry. The letter sent by President Bush's trade representative on March 30 to the minister requests formal consultations regarding several programs in Ontario with which they are not happy.

The minister promised peace and now the United States is back with concerns over programs ranging from loan guarantees, which are essential to our industry, to initiatives meant to assist companies with construction and maintenance of access roads, and the list is long.

The Americans are questioning the safety of some of the roads we use and they are not allowing the $75 million that Ontario put toward making these roads safe and usable for the companies.

The letter also mentions a request for consultations on programs intended to strengthen our industry and ensure its sustainability, such as value added manufacturing. Essentially, the United States has taken issue with the Canadian industry ensuring its competitiveness in the world market, and our government is letting it. The extent of the sellout is becoming only too clear: forest sector loans; prosperity fund; $75 million for access roads; northern Ontario grow bonds; and Ontario wood promotion.

Everything that the Ontario government has done to try to help the forest industry and the people who live in our communities is now back on the table.

When will the minister admit that he has failed to protect the forest industry in Ontario? When will he stand up to the United States and stop selling out Canada's forest industry?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the question asked by the hon. member concerning the United States' reaction to certain provincial programs announced by Ontario. I would like to take this opportunity to once again remind my colleagues of the wide ranging benefits of this great agreement.

Key lumber producing provinces like British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, as well as a clear majority of the industry players signalled their strong support for the agreement from an early stage. We worked hard together with the provinces and industry to address a broad range of concerns.

The final agreement reflects this work. It revokes the U.S. duty orders and terminates all litigation. It provides at least seven years of stability to the Canadian softwood lumber industry. It includes a number of initiatives to make North America's lumber industry more competitive over the long term. And importantly, it safeguards the provinces' ability to manage their forests.

The softwood lumber agreement was and is the single best way forward for this industry and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians in communities that rely on it every single day.

I can assure my colleague, the hon. member for Kenora, that the agreement has not suffered any lack of attention from the Government of Canada. Our work certainly did not end on October 12, the day the agreement entered into force. The enabling legislation was passed on December 14, 2006. The government has continued to consult closely with provinces and industry as we work to implement the agreement. Federal officials are in regular contact through conference calls and face to face meetings with their provincial counterparts and continue to consult with industry stakeholders. For example, federal officials have held several consultation sessions with industry in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec during the last three months.

As provided for under the agreement, we have established a binational softwood lumber committee to supervise the administration of the agreement. Its inaugural meeting took place in Washington, D.C. on February 22 and 23, 2007.

This meeting was an opportunity for representatives from Canada and the United States to have a useful discussion on issues related to the softwood lumber agreement, issues of importance to Canada, such as setting up a process for determining regional exemptions from export measures and possible exclusions for softwood lumber products made from logs harvested from private lands.

The softwood lumber committee also established three technical working groups that began exchanging information and that will continue to facilitate communication between Canadian and American technical experts to assist in the smooth administration of the agreement.

As has been reported, the United States indicated prior to the meeting that it intended to raise some questions about certain programs implemented by the federal, Ontario and Quebec governments aimed at addressing certain challenges faced by the softwood lumber industry.

Ontario and Quebec government officials participated in the softwood lumber committee meeting and their respective programs were discussed with the United States. As my colleague the hon. Minister of International Trade already stated, this was a very cordial first meeting with positive, constructive dialogue taking place.

Following the softwood lumber committee meeting, the United States requested consultations under the agreement on a number of provincial programs as well as federal programs and Canada's interpretation of a provision of the agreement. As the government has pointed out before, consultations involve a more formal exchange of information and are designed to help resolve differences through a better understanding of the measures at issue.

The consultations occurred in Ottawa on April 19, 2007 between Canada and the American federal officials. Provincial officials from Ontario and Quebec attended the consultations for the portion of the discussion related to their respective provincial programs. The consultations were constructive and positive and provided a useful opportunity to clarify issues and concerns identified by the United States. U.S. officials are now reviewing the information that Canada provided and will contact us if they have any further questions or concerns.

As we have always maintained, both Canada and the United States have an interest in ensuring the agreement operates smoothly. Disagreements are inevitable in administering and implementing such a complex agreement. It was for this reason that we included in the agreement various provisions to allow for a full exchange--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Kenora.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that answer, but in his comments he promised seven years and we did not even get seven good months and they are back for formal consultations. They can use the excuse of the market in the United States, and there are lots of excuses they can use, but when an industry, one of the largest in Canada, is in crisis, the government has to respond. The government has to support and acknowledge the importance of this industry. It owes it to the forestry workers and their families not only in Ontario, but right across Canada.

When the going got tough, the Conservatives sold out to American lumber lobbyists and left $1 billion behind. That is Canadian company money and guess what? They are back now. There is no more money to take so now they are after the forestry jobs in Ontario. When will the Conservatives support every part of Canada and support us in our forest sector?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member that for 13 years the Liberals could not get this done.

The world is a competitive place. As trading partners and as a continent we are competing directly for business and investment dollars with places like Europe and Asia. The softwood lumber agreement is a good reminder of how Canada and the U.S. can work together through our own domestic challenges and turn our focus on creating a more competitive North American lumber industry.

I have to remind the member that he voted against this deal. He voted against security for the softwood lumber industry. He voted against return of duties to the industry. He voted against jobs for workers in the softwood industry. He voted against communities that rely on the softwood industry. While his party did nothing, our minister got the job done because the Liberals could not get it done.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

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 5:50 p.m.)