Brian Jean

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Madam Chair, I have one question for my friend. Obviously he is aware that Bill C-364, my private member's bill, was introduced in April and last week came before the House for second reading. Of course we were all caught unawares when we saw the deputy government House leader standing up and trying to rule that this particular bill would be out of order.

It is a trade compensation act, of course, which would provide exactly what we are seeking today and what would help industry. That is, of course, the repayment of legal fees, which I would suggest the government is obligated to pay anyway. The other part of the bill is the loan guarantees, which would keep our industry afloat and which are so desperately needed.

We have heard some speculation about why the government would not support this particular bill. The government is actually trying to stop it before it has any chance at all to get out of the gate, so to speak. I am curious to hear my friend's comments on that particular issue.

I have heard that there is a political motive to stop this bill, especially because of the impact it would have specifically in Quebec and northern Ontario, being a Conservative private member's bill, and there are the ramifications that may have for the Liberal Party. I would be interested in hearing his comments on that.

[Trade Compensation Act, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in this case, I did leave the avenue for trade disputes to be covered by individuals, organizations, associations or corporations. In this case, if the government would be prepared to let the bill go forward and not try to quash it, we would be able to provide help to those individuals who are involved in disputes. This involves any individual business, no matter what size. It is not for a multibillion corporation only. It is for every level of industry that trades internationally.

I can only speak to the Alberta scene itself. As a litigator for 11 years in northern Alberta, I can assure the member that legal aid is provided to all those people who have under a certain income and for whatever reason. I am not certain what the situation is where the gentleman comes from, but I can assure him that we have a very good legal aid system and that access to legal services are provided.

[Trade Compensation Act, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in this case we will have an hour of debate. Then we will need to have some pressure from outside this humble House. We will need to have some people lobby the particular members who object to the bill.

It was the government's obligation to do this in the first place. The government should be proposing this bill. It should not come from the opposition. It should come from our friends over there. It should have come from it and it should have come five years ago. It is too little, too late, and that is why the Liberal government, the Government of Canada, has to change.

I am familiar with the gentleman's treatment company that has $340 million held by the U.S. It is a clear supporter of the bill. As he said, that money coming back into the Canadian economy would only do well for Canada and Canadians in all parts of the country.

[Trade Compensation Act, October 19th, 2005]

moved that Bill C-364, An Act to provide compensation to Canadian industry associations and to Canadian exporters who incur financial losses as a result of unjustified restrictive trade actions by foreign governments which are signatories to trade agreements involving Canadian products, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I got the government's attention on this particular matter. It is about time it spent some attention on softwood lumber and other issues of trade disputes.

I am from a small city in northern Alberta, a city I am privileged to represent which, believe it or not, has over 98% of Canada's oil. It is a major contributor to the tax base of Canada. Unfortunately, our roads are falling apart. People in my riding, my friends and my family, cannot even afford to rent or own houses in the riding. Our hospital is going to operate with a $13 million deficit this year to provide quality health services to workers from every province in Canada. Indeed our national highway that leads into my community is referred to by those brave enough to travel on it as the national highway of death.

The citizens in my riding are actually responsible for more than $3 billion of money that goes to the federal government and we receive a pittance back from the Liberal government for the safety, health and comfort of our citizens. I would suggest in travelling this country that our infrastructure in that area and our quality of life is as bad, if not worse, than anywhere in the rest of Canada. This is not fair and the Liberal government should be ashamed of leaving our infrastructure in that shape.

What is even more unfair is the response the Liberal government has had to trade disputes with other nations. As we have seen again, it is trying to stop something that would actually help industry in this country and promote jobs. That is why today I am very proud to sponsor my private member's Bill C-364, the trade compensation act, which will hopefully not only support Canadian exporters, but will also put an end to Liberal incompetence and Canadian economic fears that take place in our marketplace.

I am simply a small-town Alberta Conservative and like my Conservative colleagues who are beside and around me today, I am anxious to stand and fight for softwood producers from Quebec, cattle exporters from Manitoba and all Canadian workers, industry and exporters, which have been so often ignored by the Liberal government.

Canada is a trading nation. We are a nation of traders and have been for centuries. Our success is dependent on trade and the success of our trade agreements with other nations. Days, months and even years are spent negotiating trade agreements with other nations and finalizing these agreements. Millions of Canadian tax dollars are spent on doing this, but what is the use of all this work by the people doing it and all this investment of tax dollars if nothing is done by the government to enforce the terms of those trade agreements? What happens when those agreements are not worth the paper they are written on? What kind of investment is that if the Liberal government does not enforce the terms of those agreements? How can we ask Canadians involved with international trade to have any confidence in the government if the government will not stand up for trade?

The gross lack of support is felt at every level of our economy throughout Canada from the producer to the manufacturer, to the mom and pop shops, to the retail stores, to every sector of our communities. No one is exempt from the negative effect of having our international trade agreements not adhered to.

We are a trading nation. The question is, does the Liberal government have any credibility domestically to protect Canadian industry? Obviously by looking at our trade record over the last 10 years and the government's performance, the answer to that is no. We do not have any credibility and no belief in the government's protecting our industry.

The dire need for the trade compensation act, this particular bill, was obviously necessary in April and the government could have brought up any objection it had at that time, but it did not. It waited until the 12th hour, as usual, to come up with any objection. Now we are in an emergency situation. Our industries are collapsing and something must be done.

On August 10 an extraordinary challenge committee, convened under NAFTA at the request of the United States, formally and unanimously rejected the U.S. challenge of an earlier NAFTA decision which ruled for Canada, giving Canada the final victory in the softwood lumber dispute. Almost immediately the United States government said that it did not intend to comply with this ruling. This was a final unappealable NAFTA decision.

What is the government's response when industry asks for even a little help to even out the playing field? I have a letter from the Minister of International Trade to Tembec Inc., a Montreal based company, and I quote from paragraph 2:

We have reviewed your request for recognition of the duty cash deposits as receivables. The government is of the view that, in order for such sums to be considered receivables, they must involve a contractual obligation by one party to pay another party.

Maybe the minister should read the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is an agreement. The panel was clear. The decision was clear. The money is owed and it is owed to Canadian industries.

Clearly, enforcement of the terms and conditions of NAFTA must be argued persuasively, vigorously and consistently at every level. This is where the purpose of this bill, the trade compensation act, comes into play. The government, obviously in this case especially, must be forced to take aggressive action to defend and protect our industries.

I would submit today that the Canadian government has a clear duty, I would even submit it has a fiduciary duty, to take every step available in law to protect our export industries and our trade. We should never again see the trade harassment that we have seen over the last years in our cattle industry, in our wheat industry, and of course in our softwood lumber industry.

NAFTA provides specifically for trade disputes to be resolved within a maximum of 315 days from start to finish, less than a year. Had the Canadian government pursued the softwood trade dispute vigorously, we would now have it settled and Canadians would have back in their pockets the $5 billion that is currently being held by the U.S. The government has not been doing enough. In fact, I would suggest the Liberal government has been doing nothing.

Let me give an example of how this lack of caring and lack of action from the Liberal government affects an average softwood producer in Canada. The province of Quebec is the second largest exporter of softwood lumber. For every $1 million of wood sold, the exporters have not received up to $270,000. Twenty-seven per cent of their sales are held by the United States, collected in illegal tariffs. What has the government done? Nothing.

While this money sits in a bank account in the U.S., companies in all parts of Canada are going out of business. Workers, the very backbone of the Canadian economy, are out of work and whole towns are suffering unnecessarily. Shame. Workers in Quebec, British Columbia, the Maritimes and Alberta are losing jobs and money. Businesses are closing their doors because of high legal bills, and up to 27% of all their sales to the United States are being kept and are not coming back to Canada to create more jobs to support the families of those workers.

Legal bills to date, believe it or not, are $350 million and are escalating by $100 million a year. These are paid for by Canadian companies. The U.S. is currently holding $5 billion paid for by Canadian companies. This is all because the Liberal government refuses to act to protect Canadians and their families. This is where the money ultimately goes, back to the families.

I believe that Bill C-364 would provide needed support for such industries as softwood lumber, agriculture, textiles, and yes, even oil and gas. Most important, Bill C-364 would also send a powerful signal to the United States and any other government that is going to impose unjust restrictions on our trade. It would send a clear message that Canada is finally getting serious about supporting our industry when it is subjected to unwarranted and repeated attacks on legitimate trade pursuant to international agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.

This is not just a fight about softwood lumber. It is a fight to protect chapter 19 of NAFTA and the NAFTA itself. The burden of this fight up to now has not been borne by the government. It has been borne by the softwood producers across Canada. It is shameful. Make no mistake about it, if we do nothing and we continue to allow foreign countries to ignore their own laws such as in this case and to ignore NAFTA, then chapter 19 and the NAFTA will be lost forever.

The North American Free Trade Agreement is the single best trade agreement ever signed in the world. Every advantage is Canada's and Canada's workers, but that is only if this agreement is respected and obeyed in law and in spirit by the United States, Canada and Mexico. Why would it be obeyed if the government does nothing to enforce the terms of this agreement?

The bill would do two things. First, if the federal government is not prepared to fight for Canadian industry and enforce the terms of an international agreement that it previously negotiated and, quite frankly, should support, then the federal government would have to reimburse industry for any reasonable legal expenses incurred by that industry or business in litigating an unjust trade restriction by a foreign power. Second, the government would provide loan guarantees to industries that were being unjustly taxed by foreign countries in the amount of the tariff held by that foreign power.

It is real money that is held somewhere else. This is simply a guarantee on those loans.Take for example the Quebec corporation that I used previously. Since the United States is holding $270,000 of that $1 million in sales, this company under this bill could borrow money against that accounts receivable. It could continue its operations, pay its employees and perhaps expand its operations in some places which have been so hurt over the last 10 years in softwood.

In the case of the softwood dispute with the United States, $5 billion immediately would come back into the Canadian economy. That is where it should have been in the first place if the federal government were doing its job.

Currently, there are companies in Quebec, not 1,000 miles from where I stand today, that may or may not be in business in six months and may or may not be able to continue to employ Canadians and keep towns alive. If the government and the Prime Minister continue to dither and do nothing, this is exactly what will happen. Here is the government's chance to support the bill, to support the trade compensation act.

Who supports the bill? My fax has not stopped. I have a letter supporting the principles of Bill C-364 signed by the BC Lumber Trade Council, the Ontario Forest Industry Association, the Alberta Forest Products Association, the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association, the Free Trade Lumber Council and the Quebec Forest Industry Council.

I have a letters from the office of the mayor from the township of Chapeau, Ontario, from Northern Wood of Thunder Bay, Ontario, from Tembec of Bolton, Ontario, from La Crete Sawmills Ltd. of Alberta, from Marathon Pulp Inc. of Ontario, from the city of Thunder Bay, from Downie Timber Ltd. of British Columbia, from I.S. Wight & Sons, a trucking company of British Columbia and even from employees of wood companies, all supporting my bill.

What does the government do? It tries to throw it out before it even has a chance to get on its feet. The Liberal pattern of doing nothing has been more than 10 years in the making and it has now come to a head.

We are no longer seeing a fight to regain free access for Canadian lumber to the U.S. market. Rather it is whether the Canadian government will allow the U.S. government to renege on commitments it made during the free trade negotiations more than 20 years ago.

I am told, and I have no doubt about it after reading the NAFTA agreement, that without the provisions of chapter 19 Canada would not have signed the NAFTA agreement, and the government does nothing to enforce those terms. It is shameful.

The Prime Minister, during his U.S. visit, was clear enough in his speech to the Economic Club two weeks ago, but he clearly failed to sway President Bush during their brief telephone conversation last Friday. That is no surprise. It is too little, too late.

This should be the campaign slogan for the Liberal Party during the next election: too little, too late. It is standard practice.

We all know actions speak louder than words. Bill C-364, which today the government tried to quash before it started, proves to Canadians, from Quebec to British Columbia, that the Conservative Party cares and that we are prepared to put taxpayer money where our mouth is. We are prepared to fight for Canadian exporters to keep Canadian jobs in Canada.

The bill is not a subsidy. It likely will not cost the taxpayers any money at all, either in the short term or the long term. It is even likely that the government would break even. This is Parliament's responsibility. We here in the House have a responsibility to see that no matter what government is in power it will represent Canadians and Canadian industries and will provide industry with real support, not a fast phone call, not cheap talk and not political grandstanding five years after it was necessary.

The Government of Canada has a clear duty, in fact, a fiduciary duty to step in and provide loan guarantees for these companies and repay the legal fees that they had a responsibility to incur in the first place.

It is time to show the world that Canadian parliamentarians, we in the House, will stand up for Canadian industry. We will fight to protect Canadian sovereignty, which in the end Canadian sovereignty is what is ultimately at stake if our government continues to dither and continues to live by the motto “Too little, too late”.

Please support Bill C-364, the Canadian Trade Compensation Act, and help Canadian industry help Canadian workers

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to thank my colleague, who was the former member of Parliament for my area of Fort McMurray--Athabasca, for the great effort he has taken to be here today.

Since he has not had an opportunity to be here and since I was a member of the Bill C-38 committee, would he comment on some of the procedures that were taken by the committee? In its meetings of less than two months, it heard only 55 witnesses on this crucial issue to Canadians. Many of the witnesses complained that they received less than 24 hours notice to come to the meetings and many received less than seven days. In fact, seven witnesses could not appear because of conflicts and other issues.

We only received three or four of the briefs of the experts before the committee meetings. Many of those still have not been translated. I have not received many of them. We will be voting on this very issue tonight and we cannot even hear from the experts and cross-examine their testimony.

Could he comment on that?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Those are your comments.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I never saw the member at any of the committee meetings listening to any of the experts. I doubt very much that he has read any of the material that has come forward from these experts. Psychologists and people in the field have been listening to this.

The point is that we did not have the time to analyze and investigate the information but it is there. Should we not take the time to step back, take a breath of fresh air and properly and appropriately analyze the material that was brought forward by the experts, even government experts, to see what the impact will be on children? Should we not take a look at the science and analyze it to make proper decisions?

My colleague across the floor should have opened the book on the Conservative agenda and he would have seen that civil union would have been enough to satisfy his concerns.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the answer, in short, is no, I was not part of that decision making process. No, I did not agree to having those witnesses shoved through committee so quickly and the procedural unfairness that went forward.

I would like to read a letter from the clerk of the committee as a result of that decision. The letter reads:

As a result of this decision, I had to contact 57 witnesses for the hearings, right after the end of the May 30th meeting. Based on that final list, I called the witnesses to invite them to appear on May 31st and the subsequent meetings and because of the committee's decision to hear those 57 witnesses in a short period of time, some of the witnesses had less time to prepare, especially those who appeared on May 31st, June 1st and June 2nd.

How many witnesses were not able to appear before the committee that were invited to testify?

On the final list, 7 persons or organizations declined our invitation....

They could not appear because they did not have time to prepare. It was procedurally a joke. I would use the example of Bill C-48 last week. We knew it was on the agenda but all of a sudden a fast one was pulled and we were called in from airports and everywhere else around the country in order to vote on something with half an hour or an hour's notice.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that I believed the legislative process was a farce.

With respect to the hon. member who ran the committee, he did an excellent job. However, this is no valid way to study it.

I was plopped in there. We did not receive any reports beforehand. Many of the witnesses complained they had received only 24 hours notice to testify. They received 24 hours notice to prepare a presentation to a committee that was supposed to study the ramifications of Bill C-38, which could be astronomical for our social policy in the future.

There was no timeframe. The committee heard from 55 witnesses. I still have not received some of the reports. I have only read two or three of them because that is all I received before questioning. We had four days in a row of six hours of committee work, working through supper and through different meetings. There was not enough time to study the ramifications of it.

I believe the committee itself was a farce. It was a put on. I do not think anyone, except for maybe some of the members of this side of the House, even read most of the briefs and presentations put forward. They certainly did so with an open mind, compared to other members of the committee.

As far as the member's second question, I cannot speak specifically to those people on the other side of the House. I think it is a situation where they have had the ability to topple the government and stop Bill C-38 if that were he wish of their constituents.

I believe, no matter what happens here today, that we should follow as a House and as members of the House the will of our constituents. I believe the will of Canada overall is to not have Bill C-38 go forward and to have it stopped today. It should stop today.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with pleasure to support the concerns of my constituents and to take their position in speaking in opposition to Bill C-38. I would like to encourage my friend from Hochelaga to take a closer look at the Conservative position on this issue because it deals directly with his concerns. I would suggest that if he were to look closer at it, he would be prepared to adopt our position.

I stand in surprise that I am in agreement with two Liberal members, specifically from Mississauga South and Scarborough Southwest. I would suggest that my friend from Fundy—Royal, who is also on the committee that studied Bill C-38, did an excellent job today in summing up the findings of the committee, in fact speaking about some of the procedural difficulties with that committee.

The institution of marriage was created for the purpose of procreation and nurturing children of the union. After listening to many of the experts who came forward at committee, I am greatly concerned that the committee has not had a thorough analysis of the issues and has not drawn enough attention to what I consider to be the voice that has no voice, and that is the children of future generations of Canadians. I am greatly concerned about the children of our future, as they must be protected.

A stable home with a mother and father is the foundation of our civilization. Although it cannot in today's age always be attainable, it is something that we should work toward and maintain and keep secure.

I would like to begin by summarizing my position and state emphatically that the bill is about social policy. It is not about charter rights and in no way can it be expressed that the definition of marriage itself is an inalienable human right. I have argued constitutional and charter cases protecting minority rights in northern Alberta. I have immediate family members who are members of visible minorities, including the homosexual community, Métis and treaty communities. This is why I will not support any legislation that infringes upon the rights of any Canadian. I believe Bill C-38 will do so.

I believe in this case the Government of Canada is taking one group's position over another group's position and is therefore infringing upon the rights of that other group. I believe strongly that the Charter of Rights must be respected and the rights of all minorities must be protected, not just the rights of the homosexual community but also the rights of the heterosexual community, especially religious groups, and the rights of children, which must be of paramount concern in this case. That is why I support the traditional definition of marriage.

I have risen in the House before and given this same argument, but I like the argument so I will give it again. I believe words have three parts: the first is the word itself; the second is the meaning that describes the word; and the third are the rights and obligations that flow from the word. I believe the word “marriage” is no different from that and it is no exception. It identifies a group of individuals within our society. In this case the group that it describes is the relationship between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others in a state-recognized contract, nothing more, nothing less.

It is my position that the rights and obligations that flow from this word need to be extended to other groups that have not even been a part of this discussion, other minority groups that are not protected. I would submit those other groups should receive not only the rights of married couples, but also the obligations of married couples which are so obviously and continuously ignored.

As the leader of the official opposition has stated time after time, we must respect all Canadians regardless of sexual orientation. All couples who apply for solemnization of their relationship should receive that respect and the rights and obligations of married couples. However, this can be done without changing the definition of marriage.

I also believe we should send a clear message of protecting minority rights to another minority, and that is the minority of common-law couples who have been in cohabitation for a certain period of time. Some provinces in Canada currently do this, but this is a place where we as legislators should move forward and protect the rights of individuals which are at this stage taken for granted.

Each of these groups, though, should be defined individually. Let us face it, the relationship is different between a man and a man, a man and a woman and a woman and a woman. All these groups should have the same rights and obligations under the law and should be respected equally.

In terms of protecting rights, it is also my belief that as members of this House we must protect the rights of those who have already entered into marriage, believing that it is a contract between them with specific terms. We must protect the rights of those people who have no voice, who have no vote here today and have no vote even to elect us as members. They are the future generations of children who have been ignored by the legislation and will be the cost of our society.

Protecting rights is a dual obligation though. Just as with every right comes a corresponding obligation, receiving a right can sometimes infringe upon other people's rights and expectations. Respect works both ways. If Bill C-38 is passed, there is no question that we will infringe dramatically on the rights of people and groups within our society.

If we want our beliefs respected, then we should respect others, but it is reciprocal and they should respect our beliefs as well. With mutual respect comes the end of bigotry, hate and prejudice, and this is what I seek: a utopia where we can all get along, not just in Canada but in the entire world.

The Conservative Party is calling for a free vote. I would challenge the members opposite to allow their members, even the members of the government, to have a free vote so they can express and take the ramifications of their decisions on that final day, election day, when it does come.

We in the Conservative Party respect the supremacy of Parliament. I believe we should respect the will of Canadians and vote that way while at the same time protect minorities. With the agenda and policy that Conservatives have put forward, that can be done.

In my constituency of Fort McMurray--Athabasca in northern Alberta, I had less than 12 responses in favour of same sex marriages. I had almost 2,000 responses wanting the traditional definition of marriage maintained but at the same time protecting the rights of all society and all groups in society.

We have taken a reasonable compromise position that should be more thoroughly analyzed. I believe and would suggest that it would protect the rights of minorities. At the same time, it would be consistent with the views of a vast majority of Canadians. We want to recognize the traditional definition of marriage without detracting from the rights and obligations of people in same sex relationships.

Here is a reminder. After hearing evidence at committee, it is obvious that 99% of the world's population continues to honour the traditional definition of marriage. That means 99% of the world, except for Canada, possibly and a few other nations in the world, take the position of the Conservative Party.

We want to create the status of civil union. I would suggest to the party opposite that it is not too late to recognize civil unions but at the same time give identical rights to all groups. With Bill C-38 passing, I foresee serious threat to religious freedoms, more serious than I thought originally before I sat in the committee. I believe charitable statuses will be taken away, that it will affect the ability to preach sacred text and ultimately force the change to the text itself, including the Bible and the Quran. I can see that in the near future being part and parcel of passing Bill C-38. It will simply not protect religious freedoms or religious institutions.

Finally, the Conservative Party represents the only middle ground, the only compromise position on the debate from any political party. Canada's law should reflect the priorities of Canadian society while protecting the rights of all minorities. We should be following the will of Canadians. We are elected and we are answerable to them, so why are we not following the will of Canadians?

The Conservative Party has proved that we will respect both sides of the debate and all Canadians equally. Now it is time for other members of the House and other Canadians to do the same. In 25 or 50 years, when Canada reaps what it sows from this Liberal same sex social experiment, Canada and Canadians will be able to look back and see that we in the Conservative Party had the best interests of Canada in our hearts, our minds and our words.

My opinion is the terms of reference of the Bill C-38 legislative committee were a farce. With respect to how it was run, I believe the timeframes were ridiculous, the witnesses and the research materials were impossible to logically study. The time and the witnesses were quite frankly disrespected because they did not have time to prepare and provide proper analyses.

It is obvious to me that although the rule of law and due process are requirements of all Canadians, the courts and tribunals, it is not necessary in this House of Commons and it is shameful. The House is supposed to represent the people of Canada. Those Liberals in control of this agenda should be absolutely ashamed of how it was run.