Debates of Oct. 6th, 2006

Criminal Code

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 15th report later this day.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day now be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

Age of Consent

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Sarnia—Lambton. The petitioners ask the government assembled in Parliament to take all necessary measures to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today. The first is signed by nearly 700 constituents of mine requesting that Parliament raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. These petitioners support Bill C-22, the new Conservative government's age of sexual protection bill.

The constituents are all from Alberta, including: Acme, Big Lake, Beiseker, Calgary, Camrose, Castor, Coronation, Consort, Craigmyle, Edberg, Erskine, Irricana, Hanna, Linden, Stettler, Three Hills and Trochu. I am sure I missed some towns.

Falun Gong

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from constituents of mine from Camrose, Ferintosh and Kelsey, Alberta.

The petitioners call on Parliament to investigate the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China, and specifically for Parliament to work toward the goal of convincing the Chinese government to allow the coalition to investigate the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

Marriage

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to present a petition representing dozens of residents in Essex and Windsor. The petitioners call on the House to reopen the issue of marriage in Parliament and to repeal or amend the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act in order to promote and defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman.

Pedophiles

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am moved with the concern expressed by members of my community, Whitewood and area, including Kipling, Oxbow, Alameda, Carnduff, Redvers, Frobisher, Lake Alma, Glenavon, Kenosee Lake, Glen Ewen and North Portal with respect to the issues they raise in their petition.

They would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that Canadians enjoy living in safe and secure communities, and believe that the safety of their children is a basic right. It is well known that from time to time young children are abducted by known repeat sex offenders and Canadians desire that we take steps to prevent such incidents from occurring.

The petitioners call on the government to proceed with changes to the justice system and legislation that would result in harsher penalties to convicted pedophiles, make mandatory compulsory electronic or other forms of monitoring pedophiles upon release from custody, ensure compulsory public notification and movements of convicted pedophiles, and ensure that repeat offenders be designated as dangerous offenders.

Privacy Act

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is from my constituents in Northumberland—Quinte West. They call upon the federal Minister of Justice to amend the privacy act to allow more discretion in the release of information to families of deceased persons.

Age of Consent

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on behalf of my constituents. They pray that the government assembled in Parliament take all measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

Rail Transportation

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the municipality of Crowsnest Pass. This petition, signed by some 885 people, which is 14% of the population of the Crowsnest Pass, requests that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the Minister of the Environment reconsider the construction of a rail siding within the community of the Crowsnest Pass, and that the proposed new railway siding be relocated to an area outside of the populated communities of the Crowsnest Pass and away from existing wetlands and the Crowsnest River.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Citizenship Act--Bill C-14

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has a point of order he wishes to raise. I will hear him now.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption). It is the government's view that an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to add a new clause to the bill should have been found out of order by the chair of the committee. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find that the amendment is indeed out of order.

As Marleau and Montpetit note on page 661-2:

The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage.

The amendment in question added a new subsection to clause 2 of Bill C-14. It reads:

Any decision of the Minister under this section may be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

This amendment we suggest is inadmissible for three reasons. First, the amendment goes beyond the principle of the bill adopted by this House at second reading. As noted by Marleau and Montpetit at page 645:

If the bill has already received second reading, the committee is bound by the decision of the House and may not amend the bill contrary to its principle.

Speaker Fraser clarified this in a ruling on April 28, 1992. He said:

The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.

The amendment would provide new powers and a new mandate to the Immigration and Refugee Board beyond what is provided in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which creates the board and limits the board's role to immigration and refugee matters but would not involve citizenship.

The principle of Bill C-14, as adopted by the House, was to allow for a grant of citizenship to foreign adopted children without first requiring them to be permanent residents. It was not to provide a new role for the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Second, the amendment is incomplete. As Marleau and Montpetit note on page 656:

As well, an amendment is out of order if it refers to, or is not intelligible without, subsequent amendments or schedules of which notice has not been given, or if it is otherwise incomplete.

The Immigration and Refugee Board, to which the amendment proposes appeals be made, operates under the statutory authority of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, not the Citizenship Act.

Even though I believe the amendment to be outside the scope of the bill, the sponsor neglected to include further amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are necessary to make this amendment intelligible and operational, perhaps in attempting to move an amendment that would not be seen to be out of order on those grounds.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act does not provide for, and the amendment does not address, providing the Immigration and Refugee Board with the power to hear citizenship appeals, establishing potential grounds for appeals, specifying the relationship between appeals to the board and existing rights to judicial review, providing the board with the power to rule on the appeal, for example, by granting citizenship which the amendment's reference to an appeal process is meaningless.

These critical authorities are established in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for other types of appeals heard by the board and its divisions. Similar legislative provisions would be required for the board to identify its mandate and be able to make orders to resolve appeals of a citizenship decision.

Third and finally, the reason this amendment is out of order is that it requires a royal recommendation. On May 9, 2005 the Acting Speaker ruled that a new purpose for an existing appropriation requires a royal recommendation: He stated:

The royal recommendation is also required where a bill alters the appropriation of public revenue “under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out” in the bill.

What this means is that the royal recommendation is not only required in the case where more money is being appropriated, but also in a case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is being significantly altered. Furthermore, on February 8, 2005, the Chair ruled:

Where it is clear that the legislative objective of a bill cannot be accomplished without the dedication of public funds to that objective, the bill must be seen as the equivalent of a bill effecting an appropriation.

The same principle applies to amendments. Since the board does not currently deal with citizenship decisions, any existing royal recommendation for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act could not possibly cover this new purpose.

Moreover, the addition of a new type of appeal hearing could not be implemented without additional public funds, for example, for more board members to hear cases of new policy and administrative resources to support these hearings. The amendment, therefore, requires a royal recommendation.

Given those three reasons, I submit that the amendment is out of order.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that particular amendment, which was moved at committee, was moved by one of our NDP colleagues, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, who is not in the House today. We had no advance notice that this attempt on the part of the government would be forthcoming at this time.

I think it would only be fair to the member and, quite frankly, to the committee, Mr. Speaker, that you be given the opportunity to hear a contrary argument from what you just heard from the government. I would ask that you take no decision on this matter and that the member for Burnaby—Douglas be given the opportunity, when the House reconvenes after next week, to speak to this amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges on the same point?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would add to the arguments of my NDP colleague that an appeal mechanism for citizenship already exists in the Immigration Act. A protection already exists.

We are asking that a clause—a clause we drafted in committee—be added in the bill introduced by the government. We voted on it and opposition parties agreed that this appeal section is necessary. It allows parents to file an appeal in the lengthy international adoption process when an error occurs.

The government is proposing to remove this protection, which is necessary in citizenship cases. Given the way things are going these days—I am thinking about the Joe Taylor case and other citizenship cases currently before the tribunals—I think it is a fundamental right, particularly in an international adoption situation.

We can understand that parents are quite concerned about this situation. Parents' associations wanted this appeal provision.

I would like you to consider the NDP's request to wait until my colleague who presented this amendment is present in order that he too can take part in the debate so that we can hear all the arguments.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

It was my intention to hear the arguments.

There will be no problem arranging for the hon. member to make submissions on this, assuming he is here early on in the week we resume, because I will not be making a decision on this matter imminently. I will take it under advisement and I expect further submissions on the point in due course.

The House resumed 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, and of the amendment.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak on the amendment to Bill C-24 which would have the effect, if the amendment were adopted by this House, to prevent the government from taking action to, in effect, sell out the softwood lumber industry in this country.

The length of time that Canada and the United States have been dealing with this issue almost boggles the mind. It heated up over the last four or five years, resulting in some very offensive tariffs by the United States against Canada and against this industry, tariffs and trade actions that have unanimously been shot down in every tribunal that the U.S. has gone to in order to justify their actions. The rulings have consistently been against the Americans and, I must say, to my own surprise as a lawyer, in their own courts.

It was always thought that Canada's position was absolutely solid before the WTO and under NAFTA, which the U.S. government and the U.S. forestry industry were not prepared to accept. However, there was almost a solid belief that if it ended up before the domestic courts of the United States that the Americans would prevail and that they would use those decisions or decision to justify their ongoing unfair trading practices with regard to softwood lumber between the two countries.

However, it came as a surprise when in June of this year the court in the United States ruled in Canada's favour and stated that Canada was not performing any improper practices in the softwood lumber sector and that the United States had no basis on which to levy these tariffs, none whatsoever.

It is also interesting, from the information that we have at this point from experts in the field, that the decision made can only be appealed once and that it is mandatory that the appeal be dealt with within 12 months.

Therefore, by June 2007 there will be nothing left for the Americans to contest. We will have closed every avenue in the courts, including their domestic courts, and Canada will have won in every one of the tribunals and courts.

In spite of that, we see, quite frankly, the unconscionable conduct by the Canadian government to negotiate a trade arrangement on softwood lumber that would see Canada faced with a reduction in the amount of money the Americans need to return to us, which is over a billion dollars, and a new protocol that would be to Canada's great disadvantage as there is no certainty in the arrangement. Our trade experts, who have studied the agreement and know the area well, have strong feelings that the agreement encompassed by Bill C-24 would not protect the industry on an ongoing basis.

The agreement would allow the parties to pull out. Because of the money that we will be leaving in the United States, over a billion dollars, it is expected that a good half of that will go to the U.S. softwood lumber sector and be used against us to mount additional challenges in the very near future.

The agreement buys us nothing in the way of certainty. It provides no sense of stability in the industry, to the companies or to the workers, and it leaves wide open the ability of the Americans to come after us again if we sign this agreement with them.

When we see the negotiations that have gone on by the Minister of International Trade, it begs the question of what it means for other sectors. I want to spend a minute or two on that because it has become very troubling for the auto sector, which is a major industry in my hometown, to see what has happened with the government, and that particular minister supported by the government, in negotiating the softwood lumber deal with the United States.

Will we be faced with the same kind of treatment, the same kind of wimpishness in the negotiations with South Korea that are going on right now, as we are faced with on softwood lumber with the Americans, and a willingness on the part of the government and the minister to trade off Canada's interests and, in effect, get nothing in return?

Our fears were enhanced when we saw the minister refuse to divulge information on the negotiations because a study was done by his department and he consistently refused to release it. Finally, another study, commissioned by the sector and by the CAW, the union in particular, showed what would happen to the auto sector in Canada if we were to enter into this trading agreement with South Korea. The effect would be quite devastating with regard to employment and to the traditional companies that have been producing cars in Canada. It would be very devastating to the auto parts sector with massive losses in all areas occurring in a very short period of time.

When that study became public, all of a sudden the minister released his department's study and was extolling the virtues of the agreement based on the study. Although the study was very favourable, obviously couched in that way, it also showed that the auto sector would suffer in Canada. It would not be advanced at all and would, in fact, decline if we went ahead with the negotiations. If we were to sign a treaty with South Korea and put it into place we would begin to suffer.

The minister has been asked a number of times in the House why he would even consider continuing on with the negotiations? We have had nothing but blandishments and clichés about wanting trade but nothing about the merits of the agreement.

The reason the auto sector's fear of the government and the minister is so high is that when we look at the softwood lumber deal and at the negotiations that the minister led and carried on, we then see the results that are so damaging to the softwood lumber sector right across the country. However, there seems to be a willingness, almost an obsession with going ahead with what is a very bad deal for the country.

The NDP will be very strong on voting against Bill C-24 and supporting the amendment that would have the effect of turning this around and getting us out from under this agreement.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's dissertation and I share his concern about other industrial sectors across Canada being undermined by the government if we see the template for softwood being utilized.

What strikes me about this agreement was the necessity for haste. The fact is that the government wanted a quick and dirty deal with the photo op, the handshake and a political slogan at the end of the day. It needed it within the timeframe of what it thought would probably be a very short Parliament.

The long term interests of the entire country were put on the table. I will have to ask my colleague a question in terms of his experience with the auto sector. From what I know of the forestry sector, if a community like Red Rock looses its mill, what future is there in that community? It would be gone. It is the same with Ignace, Smooth Rock and Terrace Bay, the communities that have suffered. Their long term viability was put on the table and sold down the river and there are no alternatives.

I wonder if he has looked at the implications for this template of industrial relations with our biggest partner, which is simply to roll over and play dead anytime our biggest trading partner calls us from the Waco, Texas ranch and lays down the orders. Is he concerned about how this will play out in terms of the auto sector and other industries within our country?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to look at this in terms of the forestry sector because it tends to be the dominant industry in smaller communities. It is totally dominant.

I have the same experience in my community, which is a reasonably large city by Canadian standards, in terms of the dominance of the auto industry. Currently, because of this trend, because of the willingness of the government, not for sound, practical business reasons, but for ideological reasons to enter into these kinds of agreements that have such devastating impacts, we are extremely worried, because of NAFTA and the effect it has had on our community, about the loss of jobs.

The province of Ontario alone lost 200,000 jobs in the last five years in manufacturing. In my city there was a big meeting last Sunday with about 2,500 people. It was about the announcement of some more job losses form the Ford Motor Company. The fear is that because of these kinds of trade arrangements, we would lose somewhere around 2,000 very high paying jobs in the manufacturing sector, and at least five to six additional jobs for every one of those in the auto parts supplier section and in the community generally. That is just with that one announcement. We know another announcement will be coming a little bit later next year, and other ones could be coming. By 2010 to 2012, we could see a reduction of over 5,000 jobs just from Ford in my community. Multiply that number by five or seven and the total number is up to 25,000 to 35,000 jobs that we could lose, not to mention all of the families that go with those jobs.

In the forestry sector, a small community of maybe several thousand or a small town of 10,000 is affected. In my community, the effect is multiplied by those proportions. We have a great deal of fear, just as we have a great deal of fear of what the government will do to the Wheat Board and what the farming community will suffer as a result. We know what the government is doing with regard to not protecting the steel industry. It ripples through the entire economy.

It is time for us to stand up and take a position. That position is not to vote in favour of Bill C-24

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in what my colleague had to say pointing to what seems to be a worrisome trend. When we talk about the softwood lumber sellout, it is in the context of this broader pattern that seems to typify the Conservative government to date.