Debates of Oct. 17th, 2006

Divorce Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-252, an act to amend the Divorce Act (access for spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition).

The NDP supported the amendment that the member for Lethbridge brought to his private member's bill. NDP members had some concerns about the original private member's bill, but we are pleased to see that in his amendment he took into consideration many of the concerns that were raised in the first hour of debate and in discussions with other members of the House.

It is a much better proposal in its current form and I look forward to it going to the justice committee for further discussion and perhaps improvement there, although I share the concerns of the member for Hochelaga about the workload of the justice committee. It is extremely significant at the moment and I hope the bill gets the attention that it deserves when it goes to committee. I hope it has that opportunity.

NDP members had some serious concerns with the original bill. Our concerns stemmed mainly around the fact that it seemed to mandate a visit of a child and a terminally or critically ill parent. The language “to ensure that a spouse who was terminally ill or in critical condition is granted access to a child” was of great concern to us. That language flies in the face of the experience of Canadian jurisprudence and families who have faced the situation of divorce and visitation rights over the last many years. Children were not forced in those circumstances to make those kinds of visits, even in that circumstance.

I had concerns with the original wording, but there is some improvement now in the amendment. It clearly recognizes the importance of the best interests of the child in consideration of arranging such a visit when there is a terminal illness or a critical condition.

I am not sure the bill, as amended, really changes the practice of our system now. I am sure that critical or terminal illness could be considered a change of circumstance and would amount to a court hearing arguments around a change in visitation rights. I do not think there is a significant change in the practice and would hope that any court confronted with that situation and the serious concerns about someone whose life is coming to an end might consider this an important reason to revisit the issue of visitation rights. I am sure in most instances that would be the case.

I am not sure this significantly changes the current practice, but if it clarifies it and draws attention to the importance of that circumstance, then perhaps there is no harm in doing this. The key in all of this is that whatever decision is made it be made in the child's best interest. This has been the long established practice and importance of these considerations in the system.

There are concerns about defining the age of a child with regard to this legislation. We have seen in the past that courts have absolutely refused to order a child 12 years or older to visit a parent when that child has refused to do so. That is a rough rule of thumb for the court, according to my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, but is something that we need to take into consideration.

I believe there has been an established precedent that children should have some say in the requirement to visit a parent and that probably applies in any circumstance, including one where there is terminal or critical illness. To move to a situation of requiring such a visit of a child would be a serious problem. Children over 12 certainly have the maturity to decide if they are willing to visit a parent or not. In further discussion of the bill, we have to ensure that this is one of the things that is a serious consideration.

It is very clear that visitation rights in Canada are rights of the child, not of the parent. The key factor is that the best interests of the child must guide the court in making a determination. When those visitation rights are enforced or ordered, this still needs to be the key consideration. The rights of the child and what is in the best interest of the child in the circumstances need to be taken into account. That has to have a prime place in the considerations here, even in these difficult circumstances.

I think it is fair to say that all of us would like to see terminally ill people have the ability to perhaps have a last visit with their child. We can all understand why that might be important to someone. However, I do not think there should be a compulsion on a child, especially an older child, to do that nor do I think the need of a terminally ill person to have that final visit should necessarily trump the best interests of the child in this case.

Unfortunately, we know, even at the time of terminal or critical illness, that often people can be as manipulative as they have been at other points in their lives. It is not always a completely altruistic moment in our lives. To make an exception in the case of that circumstance around visitation rights would be a serious problem. This is something that still merits the attention of the committee and members as the bill is discussed further at committee.

It is important that the discretion of the court is maintained in these circumstances. This is why I would argue against the use of words like “ensure” or other words that access is granted. This kind of hard and fast language may impede the ability of the court to take into consideration all the factors that may come into play in a circumstance like this. We want to ensure that every possible circumstance and issue is brought to the attention of the court and discussed in the circumstance of the child, the family and the parents.

It is very important that we maintain the discretion of the courts to deal with these circumstances. While we might offer guidance in the Divorce Act around this circumstance, this needs to be worded in a way that maintains the ability of the court to ultimately make the decision based on the best interest of the child, according to the information the court has at hand at the time.

I am happy to have had the chance to speak to the bill as amended. I think a better version of it is now being discussed. Hopefully it will go forward to the committee where it may have a chance to improve it further and send it back to the House. At that time, we can make a further judgment on private member's Bill C-252. We can see whether it goes forward and allows a more appropriate way to address the circumstances of visitation rights of a critically or terminally ill person.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-252.

Hon. members have well covered the mechanics of what is involved here, but I have some points that I want to make. Whenever I hear of an issue on the floor of the House of Commons that has to do with families and children, I want to be part of it. One of the first bills that I had as a member was to provide income splitting between spouses so that one spouse could stay at home and care for preschool children.

I started to get involved in family and children issues and in fact, I have penned a number of small books on the subject. One of the books I wrote is called Divorce--The Bold Facts. It deals with a significant issue called parental alienation syndrome. This is one of the problems when there is a family breakdown and there is a custody issue and it is a nasty one or a confrontational split-up.

One of the things I learned in doing research for that book was that children who witness abuse of their parents are as affected as if the children themselves had been abused. I also found that children who were used as pawns, as it were, in this parental alienation syndrome were also very much affected by the fact that one parent was pitting the children against another parent.

Through all the research and work that I have done, the truism for me is that both mothers and fathers have an important role to play in the lives of their children, even if the parents hate each other. That is important and that is the principle that this bill has raised.

Having said that, the bill itself, as we know, has now been amended. It was a one clause bill. That clause has been deleted and replaced by another clause. It basically addressed the substantive concerns that people had with regard to the bill and that was that it appeared to be putting a greater reliance on a principle that the spouse had a right that may have impinged on the whole concept of the best interests of the child.

About 10 years ago a joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate issued an excellent report called “For the Sake of the Children”. I participated in some of the dialogue. One of the things that came out is that in these custody and access dispute issues the child was the only one in the proceedings that did not have a representative. The mother had a lawyer, the father had a lawyer, but who was taking care of the child? In fact, the child was being used as a pawn. Parental alienation syndrome was part of it. In fact, domestic violence was part of it. It was a number of these issues.

That report contained some excellent recommendations. I am sorry to say that the Divorce Act still has not been amended to take into account some of the important recommendations that were made by the special joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate in its report, “For the Sake of the Children”.

The items in the report deal very frontally with the kinds of things that the hon. member for Lethbridge has raised in his bill.

The bill in its original form was in some difficulty and likely would have not been successful at second reading. I understand that was the reason it was necessary to respond to the points that were raised during the first hour of debate some 30 sitting days ago.

Even with the current wording, and I think the member for Burnaby—Douglas also has expressed some concern, there are a couple of things that do not quite work. We are at second reading debate on the bill where we debate the fundamental principles of the bill, the intent. We can deal at committee and at report stage with ensuring that the words are correct. I am not going to mince words that this bill does not technically work in the end result for me and so I am not going to support it; I will support it in principle and I will be recommending that my caucus support the bill in principle and that it be sent to the justice committee.

I should also say that I share the concern that others have. The member for Hochelaga indicated that the justice committee is totally bogged down. It is unfortunate, because it means that good legislation may have some difficulty getting through before there is another election after all the work that parliamentarians have done. It is a possibility. The Minister of Finance will concede it is a possibility, unless he comes up with a darned good budget.

The problem with minority governments is they have a quirkiness in that the legislative process by and large takes a substantial period of time. If a bill does not get introduced early enough in a minority Parliament, it will likely die on the order paper and that is a shame. Let me be specific for the members' purposes and for the committee that will look at it and I hope it will have a chance.

The issue that they will be granted access appears to require to be defined, because in saying they shall be granted access, there are no dimensions. Could it be a day? Could it be a week? Who controls the timing of that? The mechanics of how it works is not in the existing legislation. This bill does not define it. We may have to deal with that in committee and I will urge the committee to make a definition about what it means and how it ties in consistently with the whole family of issues related to custody and access orders.

The second item has to do with children. Children are persons 18 years of age and under. We have to ask ourselves whether or not the provisions of the Divorce Act amended by the bill would actually coerce a 12 to 17 year old to actually visit with a parent when a court may not order that and the child may not want to visit that parent. We have age of reason issues as well. There may be a conflict that has to be dealt with. What if a child of the age of reason does not want to visit that parent? This cannot be black and white. It is like most of our laws in that we have to deal with it on a case by case basis. There may have to be some proviso, for example, where possible, in accordance with orders or what are the rights of the child.

The importance of the bill is that it provides an opportunity to take the first step at making a critical appraisal of the condition of the current Divorce Act and the recommendation of the joint committee that did the report, “For the Sake of the Children”, to open up these issues to dialogue and discussion.

I am supportive of the intent. I am a big fan of private members' business. I have had some success, but I can tell the member and all hon. members, in my view the best outcome of a private member's bill is to have the government adopt it as its own so that it can get fast tracked through the appropriate minister. There is nothing better.

For instance, there was a private member's item which provided that if there was a situation of domestic abuse, the penalty related to that would be more than common assault because a trust relationship was being violated. In fact, in the Criminal Code today there are stiffer sentences for those who are convicted of spousal abuse. That happened not as a result of the ultimate discussion and debate and going through the whole private members' business process, but because the minister took it upon himself to do it.

The extension of maternity and paternal leave under EI from six months to a full year was the subject of a private member's bill. I do not even think it had second reading, but it appeared in the very next budget of the minister. The Minister of Finance is here. Maybe there are some opportunities here to do that.

The bill is at second reading in principle and I believe the member was motivated with all the best intentions. I think he has the support of the House and I recommend that the House pass the bill at second reading.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this bill. I would like to congratulate the member for Lethbridge for this excellent amendment to the act and I commend him for this being his third private member's bill that involves children. We can see that children are very near and dear to his heart, as they are to mine.

I heard a previous member say that she has been married for 30 years. My wife and I have been married for 31 years and this year the last two of our eight children were married so we are very well acquainted with marriage. However, we also recognize that sometimes in life things do not go the way we planned and divorce is a sad reality.

I am thankful and proud that the member for Lethbridge saw a flaw in the act and saw an opportunity to correct it. It is to this that I rise today to speak to this private member's bill, Bill C-252, an act to amend the Divorce Act which would allow access to the spouse, the divorced parent, who is terminally ill or in critical condition.

We cannot imagine what that would be like. I was speaking to one of my colleagues just a minute ago and we were talking about past experiences. When my father passed away about 12 years ago I remember my whole family being around him and I remember that precious time we had together. I think my father also enjoyed having his children around him. It is hard to think that in this day and age that access could be denied. I believe that providing divorced parents who are terminally ill or in critical condition access to their child or children is important for several reasons.

First, we ensure that a spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition has access to a child or children during his or her time of suffering. Let us think about how important it would be for a divorced parent, who is lying in a hospital bed or at home suffering, to have the presence of their child or children.

Second, we protect the child or children by considering access if it is in the best interests of the child or children of the marriage. The second part of this is the child. I am glad the member saw fit and, in his wisdom, took it upon himself to ensure that we always remember that it is in the best interests of the children as well.

Third, we allow the child or children to be involved in the overall process of dealing with the impending loss of their parent and the grieving that follows.

Again, we had opportunity to speak as colleagues just a few minutes ago and one of my colleagues was telling us about how his wife, who is an adopted child, had the opportunity to see her adoptive mother on her deathbed but who does not have that opportunity with her birth mother. Of course this is a different matter and it is something that we may want to introduce in another bill, but it strikes home to the reality of closure. If we offer that closure to the child or the children, it is in the best interest of the child and it is a good thing.

After listening to all those who have spoken on this matter, I was pleased to hear that we all agree that this is a bill that must move forward. As parliamentarians, we should be considering ways to allow families to continue to function after a breakdown. Again, these are good things. These are things that the people who elect us to this great House expect us to do.

This amendment should be supported because it demonstrates an understanding toward the strain on the spouses when a divorced parent is terminally ill or in critical condition and the responsibility to involve the child or children in the lives of their parents. Again, that bond that we share with our parents is something that is never broken.

Here again we are moving in a direction which is going to ensure that those things continue on for future generations. If Parliament accepts this amendment to the Divorce Act, it will give parents who divorce the legally entrenched avenues necessary to have access to their child or children only if access does not run contrary to the best interests of the child or children involved.

Again, this is a good amendment, because we recognize that there are times when it is not in the best interests of children, but when it is, we want to be sure they have access. It will allow the court that considers giving access to the parent the right to determine by reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child or children that access is in their best interests. The courts would have the ability through the law to determine what is good and what is right.

For these reasons I support this amendment, because due consideration has been given to these issues faced by families in these circumstances. This amendment has a balanced approach, one which I support, as it provides parents who are terminally ill or in critical condition access to their children, while also ensuring that such access is granted by the court according to the best interests of the child or children involved. That sums it up.

We all agree that we need to put through this bill, to go through due process, and we all agree that this bill should be enacted quickly. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this private member's bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate.

There being no one rising on debate, I recognize the hon. member for Lethbridge, who has five minutes for rebuttal.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members who spoke in the first two hours of debate: the member for Burnaby—Douglas, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, the member for Vancouver Quadra, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, and the member for Charlottetown, as well as the member for Mississauga South, who spoke today. From the Bloc, I thank the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant and tonight the member for Hochelaga, and from my own party, I thank the member for Fundy Royal, the member for Blackstrap and tonight the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex.

I would also like to thank the table clerks, Mr. Speaker, and you. I had asked for an amendment and some procedural things that happened. I appreciate the support that is here for members when the need arises.

I would like to thank those back in my riding who brought this issue to my attention. As someone mentioned earlier, it was an issue that was brought to my attention. I looked not just at the particular instance, but at the whole issue of access to critically ill or terminally ill parents. I thought it was something worth bringing forward.

I would like to thank the Minister of Justice and his people. They helped a lot. They helped guide me through this. I appreciate their support. Of course, I thank the staff in both my Ottawa and my Lethbridge offices for their hard work. Hopefully that hard work will continue, and I hope they are listening tonight. I must express my thanks to the Library of Parliament for its work in the legal research and writing.

The spirit of this amendment is to deal with the children and the right of a child to be able to have one last visit. It is for the children. All other things aside, that was the scope of what I was trying to get at here. It is consistent with a couple of other private members' bills. It is interesting that the member for Mississauga South said that the best way to get a bill forward is to get the government to pick it up and put it into law. I agree with that.

That actually happened with one of the first private members' bills I brought through. It dealt with the Criminal Code. I brought forward an amendment so that courts could seize materials used to produce child pornography upon a conviction. It was not in the code. The bill did not actually pass the House, but it is law now. It was picked up by the government of the time and put into law, so I feel pretty good about that.

Then, of course, there is the issue of raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. That was another bill I worked on, with the member for Calgary Northeast, the member for Wild Rose and others, and that too now is in a bill that has been presented in the House.

Hopefully with this intervention tonight it looks like this is going to be supported and we can move it on to committee, but before I do that, earlier today we amended the bill, so I would like to make one more request of the House today.

In light of the fact that Bill C-252 was amended earlier today by unanimous consent of the House, it would be useful for the record if the bill could be reprinted with the new text. Therefore, I would ask the consent of the House to order a reprint of Bill C-252 as amended today.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Hochelaga on a point of order.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 6:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 6:30 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 38 a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore, the question is that this House do now adjourn.

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

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at various points it was nice to see the House of Commons get along and get something done.

The consideration we have before us is a question I put to the minister some weeks ago. I think all Canadians, once given the evidence, will also agree that there needs to be something done. Specifically, what we have before us is hypocrisy, which would be the more cynical term, but at the very least a contradiction of ideas.

Year in and year out we see governments providing a tax subsidy to an economic sector that is experiencing its greatest boom perhaps of all time. This is the oil and gas sector of northern Alberta, in particular the tar sands and the development around Fort McMurray. This started with the previous Liberal government, but the Conservative government has chosen to keep it.

There was a moment in last year's budget when there was a huge surplus. We knew there was some $13 billion extra sitting in the kitty. The government followed this surplus up by cutting another $1 billion of vital programs to Canadians, programs that people have wanted and used for years, programs to museums, programs to help adults learn to read and write and programs to help women finally achieve some status of equality, both in pay and in quality of life conditions. The government chose to cut programs because I guess it did not see them as a priority, or it did not feel they were important.

It also chose to cut the EnerGuide program, a program that had received credit for having thousands upon thousands of homes achieve better environmental conditions. All the while these cuts were going on, the government still found enough room in the budget to syphon off $1.5 billion to the oil and gas sector.

When I asked this question some weeks ago, the minister stood up and gave another ministerial response about how important it was to use taxpayer money wisely.

I know the parliamentary secretary will be answering my question. Hopefully he will make an announcement that this ludicrous subsidy is ended. It makes no more sense. There is no incentive needed for companies to go into the oil sector. They are there already. They have massive plans to do more. Yet the government seems committed to shuffling them off some corporate welfare while at the same time not supporting things that we know are important for Canadians.

This is unbalanced because the government has also made its commitment that it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the government has agreed, in full, to the recommendations provided by the Auditor General's office under the Commissioner of the Environment. In those recommendations is the need to attack and aggressively go after the emissions in the tar sands because they will double in the next number of years. It is hypocrisy to suggest it will reduce the pollution while at the same time it subsidizes that pollution.

This is the parliamentary secretary's opportunity to come clean on the issue, to allow his government's plans to stand to the light of day and to suggest that this subsidy is simply no longer required. The industry is one of the healthiest industries in the entire country. To continue to push them down toward unsustainable development is unwise. Even the soon to be retiring Premier of Alberta has recognized that this is unwise. It is time for the government to stand up and agree with that statement, pull the subsidy back and put it into the energy projects that we actually need, the ones for which Canadians are looking.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley who is also my colleague on the environment committee for his questions.

I would like to comment on the $13 billion surplus. This government decided that we were going to pay down the debt because that was the promise we made. It was a good decision. It does not make everybody happy, but it was the right thing to do. We are going to be saving $650 million a year in interest that we would have had to pay, which saves a lot of money for hard-working Canadians.

Regarding the oil sands, our government recognizes that the oil sands are important to Canadians and the Canadian economy. This government also recognizes that any development in that area must take into consideration the environmental impacts. Our government is committed to providing real practical long term solutions to cleaning up our air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This week we will be introducing the clean air act. It will cover all industrial sectors, including the oil industry. These efforts will directly reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases. A national long term regulatory strategy will give industry, the provinces, and the Canadian people, certainty and confidence.

It will also provide flexibility and the opportunity to achieve real improvements to air quality, improve the health of Canadians, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Our government is working with the provinces and territories, the oil industry, first nations, environmental groups and other interested parties on this issue. Together we will find ways of reducing emissions.

Currently, this government is working with the Government of Alberta during its public consultation examining the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the oil sands to develop a vision and principles for oil sands development.

In addition, this government continues to be actively involved in the review of the environmental impact assessments for the oil sands development and the regional initiative dealing with the cumulative environmental assessments.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the point being missed here is that the government has already leaked out the fact that it is going to go after intensity rather than overall reductions in emissions.

What that means for people watching is that any efficiencies made by the sector which are naturally occurring, because industries tend to want to be more efficient with how much pollution they emit, will be counted as having contributed some significant amount to Canada's overall pollution emission. That will not be the case.

If this sector is doubling, why would the government continue to make a priority of subsidizing the sector to the tune of $1.5 billion? If set aside and put into green energy projects, this would actually work for Canadians and work for our international commitments. We can still meet those commitments if the government resets its priorities.

We look forward to the clean air act, but when action was called for, the government decided to introduce a bill that is going to take four or five years to implement with consultation. That is a bit disappointing.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's clean air act will be introduced on Thursday of this week. It will be part of an effective and efficient national framework. This will be key to ensuring predictability and certainty for industry while achieving long term reductions of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

The government intends to initiate action under the existing statutory authorities provided in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The hon. member has actually just moved to have the review of CEPA shelved and is now supporting going back to the Liberal plan which the Environmental Commissioner said does not work.

I encourage the hon. member to support this government and its clean air act which indeed will provide cleaner air for the health of Canadians and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on September 19, in this House, I questioned the Minister of Industry about whether or not he would implement our assistance plan for the forest industry, still the only plan proposed by a political party in this House to deal with the forest industry crisis.

Fortunately, the Prime Minister has admitted since then, and I quote from La Presse of Tuesday, October 17:

That is not enough,...and that is why funds for older workers as well as for the forest industry are included in our budget. We intend to announce our plans for these areas very soon.

The problem is that there has not yet been an announcement. The Minister of Industry continues to state that the refund of amounts due to producers under the agreement with the Americans is enough. For his part, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec says that environmentalists and environmental issues have caused the forest industry crisis.

Today, October 17, one month later, I am again asking the government whether it is prepared to go ahead and implement the program proposed by the Bloc Québécois. It is a program that would help communities diversify their economy, help the industry with concrete measures to regain the productivity it needs to compete, and help workers, especially older workers.

Today, we were treated to an alarming display by the Conservative government. We are asking the government to put in place a program for older workers who can no longer find jobs, and again today, the government is responding with a retraining program.

I do not know what it will take for the government to understand that when workers reach 56, 57, 58, they do everything they can to find another job. Unfortunately, though, because they do not have the necessary training—often because employers will not hire them, mainly because of their age—if they do not receive help, they slowly sink into misery and poverty and are forced to sell their assets and homes.

I think that people who have worked 25 or 30 years for a company, who have supported a family, deserve to have their government—which accumulated a $13 billion surplus last year—implement a program that would cost no more than $75 million a year to help workers, not only those in the forestry sector but in all industrial sectors as well.

That was the motion Parliament adopted yesterday. The three opposition parties, which form the majority in Parliament, told the minority government that Canada needs such a program.

Today, will the government tell us whether or not it intends to follow through with this program, with the Bloc Québécois' plan to help forestry workers in particular, but also industry and communities? There is a crisis in the forest industry and something must be done about it. The federal government has an important responsibility here, given how it negotiated the softwood lumber agreement with the American government.

More is needed. The Prime Minister acknowledged that it is not enough. Will the government take concrete action in the short term?

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

Mr. Speaker, during question period on September 19, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup questioned our commitment to workers and communities in the forestry sector. Make no mistake, the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of the forest products industry to the Canadian economy. Let me assure the member that Canada's new government is keenly aware and is sensitive to the challenges facing this industry.

From the outset, our government has been committed to the best interests of Canada, our provinces, the industry, forest workers and communities that depend on the forest sector. Resolution of the softwood lumber dispute is just one way the federal government has demonstrated its commitment to workers and the industry.

The softwood lumber agreement gives our producers stable and predictable access to the United States market. It ends years of costly litigation and repays over $5 billion Canadian in duty deposits to Canadian producers, a significant infusion of capital for the industry that will benefit workers and communities.

I must admit that I am rather puzzled by the hon. member's question. It was originally asked on September 19, the day after the Minister of International Trade tabled a ways and means motion to implement the agreement in this House on September 18.

The motion passed its first vote in the House of Commons with the support of the hon. member's party. The agreement has been in force since October 12. Canada's new government delivered a deal supported by two nations, all the lumber producing provinces and a clear majority of the lumber companies. This deal clearly shows that the government, which puts Canadians ahead of partisan politics, will always deliver what is in the best interests of Canada.

We all waited for the hon. member's party to figure out its position on the softwood lumber agreement. It consulted, strategized, mused and finally concluded what our government already knew: Quebeckers were in favour of the agreement. Lumber producers in Quebec supported the deal. Communities and workers whose livelihoods depended on the critical sector welcomed the agreement as an important step toward protecting jobs and promoting prosperity. All of Canada's key lumber producing provinces, including Quebec, have endorsed it.

Canadians asked this government to come up with a resolution that provided stability for the industry and protected the livelihoods of workers, communities and families, not only in Quebec but across the country. We have done that. We have delivered.

The resolution of the softwood lumber dispute is not the only way that this government has demonstrated its commitment to the forestry industry. As the hon. member will recall, we announced in budget 2006 a $400 million investment to encourage the long term competitiveness of the forest industry, to address the pine beetle infestation in western Canada, and to assist worker adjustment.

Just today, Canada's new government announced a program to address the needs of older workers who have lost their jobs in communities where the local economy is experiencing ongoing unemployment or industries affected by downsizing and closures, industries like forestry.

Let me conclude by stating that the end of the softwood lumber dispute has been a key priority and an accomplishment for our government. We can finally turn the page and direct our full attention to building a stronger and more competitive Canada.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that my hon. colleague recognizes that the Bloc Québécois is acting responsibly in voting for the agreement. The Bloc is not doing so because this is a good deal, but because it allows companies to get back money they cannot do without, if they want to survive.

I expect the government to act as responsibly in admitting that the deal is insufficient. An additional aid package is needed. The measures he mentioned, particularly those to address the tree disease in British Columbia, may have some positive impact in that regard, but the end result is huge inventories of unsold lumber. It does not resolve the crisis in Quebec or Ontario.

Here again an aid package is needed. The Bloc Québécois is the only party to have proposed one. We hope that the Conservative government will recognize that additional measures are required. The government has to put in place what the Prime Minister talked about. The only answer provided so far was that of the Minister of Industry. And that minister does not believe in government intervention, not at all; he is prepared to let the forest industry hit a brick wall.

Will the government follow through? Can we expect tangible measures to be announced within the next few days?