Debates of Nov. 24th, 2005

Trade Compensation Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has been consistently clear in its message to the United States on softwood lumber: revoke the duty orders, refund the deposits and respect the NAFTA obligations.

Ever since the United States imposed crippling duties on Canadian softwood lumber in 2002, this government has worked tirelessly to have those duties overturned. Canadians know that we have fought and fought in the international arena and we have won and won, but our overriding concern in this dispute is to find a durable, long term solution. As such, the government has always been willing to negotiate a long term solution, but Canada suspended negotiations after the United States refused to abide by the NAFTA extraordinary challenge committee decision.

On August 10 the ECC unanimously affirmed that Canada's softwood lumber posed no threat of injury to the U.S. producers. This means that the United States is legally obligated to revoke duties and refund deposits. Nevertheless, the U.S. government dismissed the decision and claimed that on the basis of a legal technicality, it would continue to apply duties to Canadian softwood lumber.

We have raised the issue with the United States at the highest political levels. The Prime Minister made it very clear to President Bush that we expect the United States to respect its international trade obligations. In fact, as members know, very recently he did so courageously, not only in private with the President, but in the public international trade forum.

The Minister of International Trade has spoken with his counterparts numerous times to express Canada's strong concern over U.S. inaction on the lumber file. Ambassador McKenna and our consuls general in the United States are engaged in enhanced advocacy activities. The government is moving full speed ahead with lumber litigation before the U.S. Court of International Trade, the NAFTA and the WTO. We recently won another great victory in a NAFTA subsidy case, and Canadians were celebrating when the Department of Commerce finally complied with NAFTA panel instructions.

The government has taken strong action to support the industry while this has been occurring. In 2002-03 we funded FPAC advocacy. We funded $3 million for our Washington embassy advocacy work, the industry associations' litigation and worker assistance. We funded the Canada export program, R and D, value added research, mountain pine beetle work, the centre of excellence for pulp and paper, the boreal forest research consortium and the softwood industry community economic adjustment initiative for a total of $356 million.

In the next two years we funded the industry associations for litigation. We allocated in the four years I have been talking about, the following: forestry, $20 million; forest research, $325,000; mountain pine beetle, another $100 million; and community support in Quebec, $50 million. A total of $526 million was allocated.

I have to congratulate the forestry caucus in the Liberal Party because they worked for months. We agree with other parties on loan guarantees, but that is not all. We put in many more ideas. We put in money so there are long term, lasting solutions for competitiveness. We put money in for bioenergy, for accelerated capital cost allowances, for forestry innovations and value added to expand our markets around the world, for skills training including hiring youth and under-represented groups, for helping communities to adjust, and industry support for small businesses.

The government's message is clear to the United States. The United States must abide by international obligations. We are sending the message to the United States administration and the American people that the Americans can no longer be under the illusion about what this government wants on softwood lumber. We want an end to the illegal U.S. duties and a refund of the duties that have been collected.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise me when we hear a litany of dollar values thrown at the industry. I do not think that is the point. Government members can stand up and bluster all they want but it has not been effective.

What I observed was our Prime Minister waiting two months to even phone the President to raise the issue. It was long, long overdue.

I have never found it very effective to negotiate or to even talk about an issue when one cannot even pick up the phone and call the person with whom one is having the disagreement. It is most unfortunate that our Prime Minister has never actually had a formal meeting with the President to discuss softwood lumber. Why--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, what has been most embarrassing in this debate is not that the NDP, the Conservatives and the Bloc were doing nothing while the government was doing a whole list of items for 2003-04, including all our negotiations and all our efforts.

What is most embarrassing is that their party critics did not even know about all the activities that I have outlined today. We have had a number of emergency debates. Those members do not accept the fact that any of these things were going on. They do not even realize what is being done. How could they have a good debate?

The member suggested that the congressmen did not know. The president of the Canada-U.S. parliamentary association is a member of the Conservative Party. If U.S. congressmen do not know, then that member should speak to that president, who is a member of his party.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I notice on the agenda that my adjournment topic is stated as the National Parole Board. That is not really what my concern is, but if we want to talk about the parole board that is fine with me.

My concern is that a convicted pedophile, convicted 42 times, was released back into society, moved to a community called Merritt, not far from mine, was forced to leave there by the people of Merritt and came to Kamloops instead.

He has 42 convictions. We do not have a list of all the times he has been arrested for many misdeeds, but he has been convicted 42 times. That is simply convictions. He has destroyed the lives of more children than I would care to think about. He has also destroyed the lives of their parents and other members of their family.

I cannot for the life of me understand how a government would see fit to release into society someone who has refused to undergo rehabilitation every time it has been offered. The onus is now on my local RCMP detachment to watch this man 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to make certain he does not commit another crime. We all know that it is only a matter of time until he commits another crime. He is a walking time bomb.

Someone who refuses treatment should not be allowed to be at large in a community. I understand that he served his time. I respect that. The law says we must release him. But the law should also say that if someone refuses to take treatment, and in fact refuses to even admit that he has done anything wrong, there has to be some sort of caveat attached to his release. This is not happening.

This man, David Caza, is currently living in a halfway house in the City of Kamloops. He is living three blocks away from no less than three elementary schools. If members think that parents in the city of Kamloops are not very concerned about this man's presence, they can think again. A day does not go by that I do not get telephone calls from concerned parents asking me what I can do about this. Frustrated, I have to tell them there is nothing I can do because that is the law. The law is wrong, but it is nonetheless the law.

An RCMP officer has been assigned to watch this man at all times, so our RCMP detachment is unable to have the assigned officer perform other very necessary tasks in our community. I do not understand how this works. I have one serious concern. This man has no relatives in my area. He has no prospects for a job in my area. Why did he come to our area? How is that allowed?

The government has had 12 years to put something into effect that would protect children and families in this country. It has failed miserably to do so. The response I received from the Deputy Prime Minister was inadequate. At one point in your life as a Liberal, you are going to have to take responsibility for your actions and your party's inaction. I fail to see that happening so far. I look forward to the minister's response.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I have to assume that the hon. member was directing her comments to the Chair, but in her last minute, she can correct that.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for her attention to this matter. Privacy concerns would usually constrain me from directly discussing the specifics of any individual offender's case. In this instance, however, we know through the media that the offender in question served a 10 month sentence in a provincial institution and was thereafter released, as required by law.

I must point out that the administration of justice through the police, crown attorneys and the courts, as well as the custody of offenders serving sentences of less than two years, is a provincial responsibility.

As I have said, we are aware of the recent release that disturbed several communities in British Columbia. It is recognized also that such occurrences can be traumatic and we particularly extend our sympathy to the victims and their families who have been directly affected by this offender's criminal activities.

As the hon. opposition member surely realizes, preventing recidivism among sexual offenders requires a multidimensional approach.

Over the past several years, the federal government has introduced several legislative and policy initiatives to deal with sexual and other violent offenders.

An offender can be declared a long term offender at the time of sentencing, meaning that the offender can receive up to 10 years' community supervision in addition to a prison term of at least two years. An offender can also be declared a dangerous offender at the time of sentencing, meaning that the offender can be held in prison indefinitely and be subject to lifetime supervision. Sexual and other violent offenders can be detained, i.e. not released from custody, until the end of their sentences.

Where the Correctional Service of Canada has reasonable grounds to believe that an inmate who is about to be released will pose a threat to any person, the Correctional Service of Canada is required to give the police, prior to release, all information that is relevant to that perceived threat. A national flagging system is in place that can be used by prosecutors to flag on CPIC individuals who are potential future dangerous offenders.

Judges may also, under certain circumstances--for example, violent offences--delay parole eligibility until one-half of the sentence. Police or any other person, on reasonable grounds, can ask the courts to apply a peace bond to sexual and other violent offenders in the community with a wide range of conditions to restrict their movements, report to police, or reside at a particular location, for example.

A national screening system is in place that allows the criminal record history to be used to screen for persons seeking child-sensitive positions or positions of trust.

These measures are an efficient and comprehensive approach to deal with high risk sexual offenders.

This being said, public safety remains our number one priority. This government will continue to look at innovative measures to enhance the correctional and parole system.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying to the parliamentary secretary there is no doubt in my mind that for everyone along the way, from the parole board to all of the people who have to hear all of these cases, to the courts and to the lawyers, I believe with all my heart that they followed the rules that are in place and did not skip any steps. That is exactly the point I am trying to make.

The rules are a federal responsibility, Once again, the member across the way said at the very beginning of his statement that it is a provincial responsibility. That is exactly what I was referring to. It is time you stood in your place and took responsibility as the federal government--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I will remind the hon. member again of how to address her remarks.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I beg your pardon. I am used to debate.

Let me remind the hon. member across the way that we must take responsibility when we hold a position of trust, which is what we do here as members of Parliament. We must take responsibility for putting in place laws that can be followed and will protect people. This law is not and the--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo probably knows that the Deputy Prime Minister and this government are also concerned about sentencing and parole. The Deputy Prime Minister has asked the justice committee to do a review of sentencing and parole. In fact, the committee has agreed to set up a subcommittee to do exactly that.

Unfortunately, we are going into an election and that subcommittee was scheduled to start in mid-December. Now it will have to begin following the election, but the government is committed to reviewing sentencing and parole. Now it will have to happen after the election.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month I asked some questions about a tragedy that happened off our shores earlier this year when the fishing boat, the Melina and Keith II , sank with a loss of four lives. The amount of time it took search and rescue to get to the site was thoroughly unacceptable.

I know the parliamentary secretary is going to get up soon and read the prepared script, but before he does, I want him to listen to some of the facts, which I usually do not read into the record.

It took over four hours for search and rescue to reach the Melina and Keith . The beacon was released at approximately 3:26 p.m. Search and rescue was aware of that, but had to determine the validity of the distress call. It took them approximately 40 minutes. They had to call around to different people to try to find out whether or not this was legitimate, including family members of the crew. That was unnecessary, as I will mention in a moment.

Why was the crew, which was on duty at 3:26 p.m. and would not leave until 4, allowed to leave when it was known that there was distress at sea?

The position was determined shortly after 4, shortly after the crew was allowed to go home. Search and rescue, as I mentioned, had called around, trying to determine whether or not the Melina and Keith was at sea and roughly where it was so that the distress call could be validated. Family members, as I mentioned, were called.

Each boat at sea in that class has a black box. It is required. This lets DFO, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, know the location at all times. The position is updated every hour. The Melina and Keith was fishing fixed gear, gill nets. It moved less than a mile in the three hour period and DFO knew exactly where it was. During all the time search and rescue was calling around, spending 40 minutes to determine the location, DFO could have told them in seconds where the Melina and Keith was if these departments had been coordinated.

To add insult to injury, the DFO surveillance plane was in the air at that time, flying in or near the Bonavista corridor. The operators heard about the incident. They asked permission to fly over the distress area not once but twice. They were told, “It's in hand. It's covered. You don't have to go there”.

The plane could have drawn attention to nearby boats and a rescue could have been effected hours earlier. Fifteen minutes of time saved would have saved one life. Twenty-five minutes would have saved at least two lives.

Meanwhile, back on shore, once the 40 minutes had elapsed and position had been determined, it took the search and rescue crew one hour and 55 minutes after the location had been determined, for a total of over two and a half hours, to get a chopper off the ground. This is unacceptable.

We have a search and rescue unit operating eight hours a day, five days a week, with other crews on standby. Standby is no good in a place like Newfoundland.

As we speak this evening, we have been informed that another tragedy has occurred off the coast of Newfoundland. Whether search and rescue could have done anything or did do anything there is not the case. We are talking about a case here where the time it took to respond cost lives. It should never ever happen again.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for raising this issue not only so the public can be aware that the appropriate times were followed but also to put good ideas on the record. As we are modernizing search and rescue and looking at what that can be done, hopefully we can look at the suggestions he has made.

Due to its vast territorial waters, the world's longest coastline, and harsh climate, Canada has one of the most challenging environments in the world when it comes to search and rescue missions. Our personnel and aircraft resources allocated to search and rescue are positioned to provide the best possible levels of service with the resources available.

The national search and rescue policy states that the primary search and rescue aircraft, the Cormorant helicopter, the Hercules aircraft and the Buffalo aircraft, will normally maintain a state of readiness such that they can be airborne within 30 minutes during peak hours and within two hours during quiet times. In the vast majority of cases, search and rescue crews respond faster than those mandated response times.

The Canadian Forces search and rescue teams always respond as quickly as possible to any distress call. In this instance, the Cormorant crew responded in one hour and 20 minutes, well within the mandated response time. It took an additional one hour and 13 minutes for the Cormorant to fly from its base in Gander, Newfoundland to the site of the sinking. The search and rescue team arrived as quickly as it could but, unfortunately, even with its best efforts, the ship had sunk.

In this instance, tragically, the Cormorant helicopter search and rescue crew was unable to save four of the eight people aboard the Melina and Keith II . As good as they are and as much as they strive to, our search and rescue crews are not always able to save all persons in distress. Our thoughts are with the families of those who perished in this storm.

Canadians can be assured, however, that our personnel and aircraft resources dedicated to search and rescue missions are carefully distributed to ensure the best level of service with the resources available.

Canadian Forces search and rescue squadrons maintain a search and rescue readiness state in accordance with national policy, which is issued under the joint authority of the Deputy Minister of National Defence, the Chief of Defence Staff and the Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard.

Our search and rescue readiness times are based on many years of search and rescue experience. Search and rescue readiness times can be realigned to coincide with periods of greatest search and rescue activity. In addition, any Canadian Forces aircraft can be called upon to perform search and rescue missions if the circumstances warrant.

I am sure the member is aware and will appreciate that we are also looking at enhancing and studying the entire system, and providing new aircraft, so that it will be even better although it is currently within the guidelines as the record shows. I hope in fact that he will support my interest. As the member for Yukon, when that review is done, it will result in at least one plane that could be used for search and rescue and perhaps other things north of 60.

The Canadian Forces has more than 700 members dedicated to search and rescue. They perform an essential task as first responders in rescue missions coast to coast to coast. They are dedicated professionals and Canadians can take pride in the job that they do for our country.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of shooting the minister, nor do I have any intention of talking about the people who work in search and rescue. Every time they go to work, they put their lives at risk and do a great job.

My target is the Department of National Defence and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for the lack of management and coordination. It does not matter how many resources we have or where they are placed if they are not managed properly.

This is a prime example of complete and utter mismanagement of resources in an area where we cannot afford to mismanage them. Because of complete and utter incompetence in this case, lives were lost. It should never happen again and to ensure it does not, I am asking the minister, on the record, to have a judicial inquiry into this incident.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member's suggestions need to be looked at. It is not only in recent times that there have been problems in government when various departments are involved.

We must look for a better way, especially in critical situations such as areas of surveillance and search and rescue on the east coast and in the north. We have such huge areas there and so few resources that we need all government departments working with other governments and any other organizations that might have resources available. We must put them efficiently together in a network in order to save lives, such as in this case.

Certainly, I laud the member for bringing forth positive suggestions on how we might improve this situation. I hope that the people who have the power to make those changes will do that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.)