House of Commons Hansard #90 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.

Topics

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:25 p.m.

Independent

André Arthur Independent Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favour of this motion.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #87

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare Motion No. 18 carried. I therefore declare Motion No. 75 carried.

The next question is on Motion No. 19.

(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #88

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare Motion No. 19 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 28.

(The House divided on Motion No. 28, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #89

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare Motion No. 28 lost.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:40 p.m.

Vancouver Kingsway B.C.

Conservative

David Emerson ConservativeMinister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

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

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order for one last time tonight. I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on the motion previously before the House to this vote presently before the House, with Conservatives voting yes.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will vote against this motion.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:45 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this motion.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:45 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will be voting no.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:45 p.m.

Independent

André Arthur Independent Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favour of this motion.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am voting yes.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting in favour.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #90

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006Government Orders

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare the motion carried.

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

7:45 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the adjournment debate. I had a number of questions to ask the minister regarding an exchange we had, but unfortunately, the minister has chosen not to respond to me. I would say I am let down by that, but I am not surprised. The minister has pretty much established a reputation as an absentee landlord on most cultural issues since she was appointed to the portfolio.

The question I had raised was about the minister choosing to go to Charlotte Bell, a key member of the CanWest Global team, to flog tickets for her fundraiser. To refresh everyone's memory, Charlotte Bell is also a key person for broadcasters on the eve of a major broadcast review that is being planned.

We need to be very clear about what we are talking about here. This is not a matter of snooping through the election donations of a member to see who gave money. Certainly, members are going to receive money from all sources, and that is perfectly understandable. What is happening here is an ethical lapse in judgment. This is the question that I had for the minister, and of course she is not here to respond to that lapse in judgment, but the minister did not see anything wrong in asking a broadcast executive who has a mandate to influence government policy to promote a fundraiser at the same time as the same industry is pushing for major regulatory changes.

If we recall in Hansard the response from the minister at the time, she did not think there was anything wrong. She said she did not break any laws. In fact, it was the Treasury Board president who had to intervene. He stood and said that he would not allow big money to intervene in the political process. Right after that the fundraiser was squashed.

The question still remains, being that the minister had this lapse in judgment, how is it affecting her decisions on key issues?

There is another question that has to be asked and to which I would like to get a response from the Conservative Party. Were the cheques cashed?

The minister who has been absent on major issues in terms of her portfolio in fact has, I would say, become pretty much a fireside liquidation specialist for cultural issues. What has she done?

She has taken $160 million out of the aboriginal languages fund. Certainly the Cree and the Dogrib are not going to the fundraiser.

She shut down 12 out of the 16 status of women centres. Certainly the battered women were not being invited out by Charlotte Bell.

She made a 25% cut to the museums assistance program. We understand that the new plan brought forward is that the portrait gallery, our national heritage, will be given to the oil industry to be set up in its boardrooms. There were fundraisers in boardrooms; now national heritage is being put into the boardrooms.

There has been no move to renew the Canadian television fund. There has been no move to renew the media fund. There has been no move to renew the independent video fund. There has been no action on a plan for the CBC. Yet, major issues are being brought forward by broadcasters.

I would like to sum up by saying the government has made it clear it does not have a hands-off policy with the CRTC. The industry minister has already overturned the CRTC decision.

I would like to end by quoting a statement that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage made very clear in a recent hearing with CRTC president Charles Dauphin, that the minister was the captain of the good ship CRTC. He said, “I think we are in agreement that you take direction from the government. The CRTC takes direction from the government, from the minister and from the government overall and your submission says that the commission reports to Parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage. That's the way it is”.

The question is, why did the minister have such an ethical lapse in judgment in allowing a major television executive to host her fundraiser? Again, why has the minister been dodging a clear answer to the people of the cultural sector and to this House of Parliament?

7:50 p.m.

Kootenay—Columbia B.C.

Conservative

Jim Abbott ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I think the real question is why the member would decide that he is going to denigrate the reputation of a woman in this House who is the most qualified minister in a very long time to have the privilege of having the title of Minister of Canadian Heritage. I am honoured to speak on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage regarding this issue. It really puzzles me why the hon. member cannot take yes for answer.

In response, let me start by saying, as I stated earlier, that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is perhaps the most qualified Minister of Canadian Heritage that this country has ever seen. She had a distinguished career in the broadcasting industry for some 30 years and has a keen appreciation for Canada's various cultural industries, the important role they play in telling the Canadian story, and their contribution to the economy.

As a well respected figure in the broadcasting industry, the minister has developed many close personal and professional relationships with people in the industry. She is well liked and supported by those people because she is a professional woman who has a wonderful reputation as a decent human being, which is why I deeply resent that member's innuendo.

She is well liked. She is well respected, notwithstanding his comments. Her supporters in the broadcast industry support the minister because of who she is and her abilities as a person, not simply as a Minister of Canadian Heritage. It is interesting that they supported her when she was a private citizen who planned to run in the next election in 2004. They supported her when she was an opposition MP in 2005.

Today they continue to support her for the same reasons they had in 2004 and 2005, but to the surprise of the member, I am sure, she was not a minister at the time. The minister clearly was not selling access to her portfolio in 2004 and 2005 in those events, nor was she doing it in 2006. Rather, she was being supported by those same people.

It is of particular note that what the minister did, because there was an appearance and an appearance only and a perception and a perception only, was to immediately cancel the event, because of the appearance and because of the perception. I recognize that this was not common practice by the Liberals when they were in power, but this minister is a person of great, high personal repute, and therefore she is not going to do anything that is going to be negative to that. This is why I particularly and deeply resent the comments and the innuendo brought forth by this member. I think that is beneath him.

Let me be clear. No one can, and no one needs to, purchase access to this minister, because in fact they cannot. Perhaps the member opposite will appreciate one particular meeting. Canadian Music Creators Coalition and Barenaked Ladies band member Steve Page, who is a high-profile supporter of the member's party, the NDP, wished to meet the minister and express his concerns to her on an issue of importance to them and immediately was given access. She is a minister who is very pleased to permit access. The minister met with them. That is not shocking or unusual, as the minister meets with concerned stakeholders all the time.

The only thing tawdry here is the obsession of the member opposite with my minister's performance when she has acted with a level of accountability and ethics that makes me, the Prime Minister and this government proud.

7:55 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, it deeply hurts me that I have hurt his feelings. I have no intention of hurting anyone's feelings here. I would also like to make it clear for the record that there is no innuendo here. There was not an appearance of conflict. Charlotte Bell from CanWest Global was handing out on the letterhead of the Conservative Party on the eve of a major television review.

I was hoping that the parliamentary secretary would be able to rebut many of my charges by giving us some facts, by showing us where the minister stood up and fought for culture, because I cannot find it. I would love to find that she stood up for culture. I had great respect for the minister when she was the parliamentary critic. She spoke out on many cultural issues. She spoke out about needing funding for CBC. I have not seen her do that since she became minister. She talked about how unfair it was that the cultural sector was not getting proper funding. She has not done that.

I have come here hoping that she would be here to defend herself, that she would stand up and tell this House that she is speaking up and fighting for the cultural sector. Instead we have the record: $160 million pulled out of aboriginal languages, the women's centres shut down, and no commitments on television, video, the CBC or any other sector. If we talk to the museums across this country, they are going to tell us that the minister has been absent on key issues where she has been needed. We need a champion of culture and--