Debates of Oct. 17th, 2006

Aboriginal Affairs

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, while we appreciate the work done by the Correctional Investigator, we do not accept the fact that there is systemic discrimination in the corrections system. As a matter of fact, a considerable amount of investment and resources have gone into programs that are specifically designed for aboriginals.

In terms of their higher recidivism rates, that is a question that needs to be looked at and all members of society should look at that question.

In terms of programs themselves within the corrections systems, I can assure the House that there is no discrimination.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about decades of neglect here.

The Assembly of First Nations said yesterday that poverty breeds hopelessness and despair and without comprehensive programs for education and language and a re-energized focus on aboriginal people, the incarceration statistics will only get worse.

Forty one per cent of people under the age of 25 are part of that prison population, a lost generation.

The government has been long on promises and short on delivery. When and how will it develop a real plan to tackle the poverty gap in aboriginal communities?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I have already said and I maintain that there are some valid questions related to why certain populations have high numbers in certain areas, and that is something that needs to be looked at.

However, in terms of the corrections system itself, there is a considerable list of programs that are a tailor made design for the aboriginal population within the system. I have met individually with many of them, and some of the programs that are out there, recently developed, are having very encouraging results in terms of recidivism.

It is not a matter of discrimination. It is a matter of personal responsibility being taken.

Transport

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on September 11, the Journal de Montréal published an article by its investigative reporter, Fabrice de Pierrebourg, on the security deficiencies at the Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport in Montreal. This reporter, who has never compromised the security of the site and who should have been applauded for serving public interest, is now being investigated as a suspect by Transport Canada. He is even being fined $5,000 per offence. It is shameful.

Will the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities order an end to this unacceptable intimidation and protect the freedom of the press in our country? He has the authority to do so and he knows it. What will he do?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question, although he is a little late since this question was asked last week by the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois.

As I said then, this is not a witch hunt. The report is finished and we will be able to draw the appropriate conclusions in this matter.

International Cooperation

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, October 8 marked the first anniversary of the earthquake that hit south Asia and particularly Pakistan.

Canada was quick and successful in responding to relief efforts. We gave support for health care and emergency shelters that saved lives by preventing the spread of disease and protecting people from winter conditions.

The Minister of International Cooperation met with the Chairman of the Senate of Pakistan this morning and showed once again Canada's compassion toward the people of Pakistan.

Would the minister outline Canada's new contribution to the people of Pakistan?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

This morning during my meeting with the Chairman of the Senate of Pakistan I informed him that CIDA will provide additional aid of $40 million to his country for reconstruction activities. These funds will be used to rebuild schools.

This is our government's way of illustrating its commitment to fighting poverty and working with its partners for the long term. CIDA will closely monitor the progress of the situation on the ground and will ensure that these funds are used properly.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Mrs. Maria Eagle, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Rodney MacDonald, Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia and the Hon. Angus MacIsaac, Deputy Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Ms. Silken Laumann, winner of three Olympic medals and four World Championships in the sport of rowing.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Motion No. 8

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

moved that a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from October 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before the debate was interrupted for question period, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake had the floor.

There are six minutes left in the time allotted for the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake to make his submissions to the House and I now call on the hon. member to resume his speech.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before we broke for question period I was talking about the softwood lumber agreement and how proud I am of it.

I said that it was practical and flexible, and that it was ending this long standing dispute. Moreover, it directly responds to the civic issues and concerns raised by industry and provinces. For instance, it recognizes provincial market based reforms and preserves provincial authorities to manage their forest resources as they see fit. It also excludes from border measures the Atlantic provinces and the territories and 32 companies, including Quebec border mills that were found by the U.S. department of commerce not to be subsidized.

It ensures that independent lumber remanufacturers do not have to pay an extra charge on the value added component of their products. It establishes a process for Canada and the U.S., in consultation with the provinces, to determine the steps regions can take to qualify for exemption from the border measures.

The agreement has the support of two national governments and all of the key lumber producing provinces, as well as an overwhelming majority of industry players. All it needs now is the support of parliamentarians.

Bill C-24 will implement Canada's commitments under this agreement. It gives the provinces the flexibility they need to choose the right border option for their economic situations. The bill also seeks to amend parts of the Export and Import Permits Act to bring into operation the mechanisms we need to meet our commitments under the agreement.

I am happy to be part of a government that has done, in very short order, in less than six months, what no other government could. It has put an end to this dispute and has started to direct our full attention to building a stronger, more competitive Canadian lumber industry.

It is absolutely essential that we bring our lumber towns and this industry back to life by putting this unproductive dispute behind us and getting on with this new deal that will bring prosperity and stability to the softwood lumber industry.

I would ask all members of the House to join me in supporting the bill and putting this dispute behind us once and for all.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will salute the courage of only the second Conservative member to step forward and actually speak on this issue because we know that this sellout has been badly botched and that the Conservative sheep are basically refusing to speak in the House.

We also know that the Conservatives are invoking closure, shutting down debate in the House because they are ashamed themselves of what has been such a poorly botched negotiation and such an appallingly bad agreement.

As the member knows, since the agreement was forced into place after the companies were bullied last week, we have seen almost 3,000 Canadians lose their jobs in softwood communities in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. It has been a mess and a catastrophe, as we know.

We also know from the decision that was made last Friday in the Court of International Trade, the final decision, that Canadians are entitled to every single cent back. We have a badly botched agreement, one that is not commercially viable and we have double taxation of companies taking place right now. There is chaos at the border because of the poor implementation of the deal that should never should have been brought in, in the first place, when we have won at the Court of International Trade.

Very simply I would ask, why are the Conservatives so intent on bullying through this bad deal when the Court of International Trade has said that we are entitled to every single cent back? Why did they not take the care to at least be responsible in implementing this, so we would not see the chaos that we have seen at the border over the last few days, and the loss of thousands of jobs in the softwood sector in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec? It is a catastrophe and the Conservatives are responsible for it.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we do have to ask the question, how serious is that member? Last night he even forgot to vote for the bill when it was in the House. We really have to wonder where he is at on this issue. It just shows that the NDP is becoming very irrelevant.

If we look at what the Quebec Federation of Labour is doing, it is supporting this agreement. The NDP is out of lockstep on this issue with its labour buddies in Quebec. Quebec labour sees this as a good deal. It knows it means the future of its industry and of its jobs. The NDP does not get it.

The NDP members want ongoing litigation. They want to see this kept in the courts into perpetuity. They want to see lawyers getting rich and people losing their jobs, companies shutting down and lumber communities becoming ghost towns.

We do not want that to happen. We are being extremely responsible. We are going ahead to ensure that this deal is put into play and we want to ensure that those communities are protected.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, for his knowledge and support for all the lumber producers and logging companies in his riding.

I heard earlier today my colleague from the Renfrew-Pembroke area who made comments in the House on the bill. It really showed the kind of support that some of the members of the House have for the lumber producers and the people who are on the ground who rely on the forestry industry to make a living.

The hon. member mentioned the relevance of the NDP. I do not want to comment on that, but if its members do not vote on anything that could be.

I would like to ask the member a question. Just exactly what makes members like the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River really not care about the lumber producers in their area? Is it partisan politics? What is it? What is the member's opinion on that?