Debates of June 1st, 2006

Softwood Lumber

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber agreement reached by this government with the Americans is undoubtedly more advantageous for American producers than for Canadian producers. The Prime Minister may call it a historic agreement—it is historic for Americans. But Canadian producers do not see it that way. Several reports by industry experts have now shown this.

Will this government finally acknowledge that it has placed the entire forest industry, and all our exporters, in a difficult position with this ill-fated agreement?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government there was $5 billion of our money in American pockets. Now, there will be $4 billion in ours. This is why the majority of Canadian and Quebec producers support this agreement. It is a victory for Canada, but a loss for the Liberal party.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will keep asking questions about the softwood lumber deal.

However, it has been brought to my attention today that at the public accounts committee the member for Prince Albert actually stated that aboriginal Canadians live in a Marxist paradise. Members of the House will no doubt recall that Karl Marx famously said, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”.

Where is the ability of this hon. member and what are the real needs of our aboriginal peoples if they are to be treated thus? Given the Prime Minister's distaste for the Kelowna accord, can he tell us what his party means by a Marxist paradise for--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite knows full well the very difficult circumstances that the former Liberal government has left to Canadians and left to this administration.

He knows full well the circumstances that relate to social services on reserves: housing and education. This is a legacy of 13 years of Liberal ineptitude and mismanagement. It is something which this government intends to deal with, and we will deal with it in consultation with aboriginal peoples.

Softwood Lumber

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister referred to the $5 billion in Americans' pockets. Experts say that this money will stay in Americans' pockets for at least another year before Canadian producers see one cent of it.

Is the Minister of Industry willing to concede that, in the meantime, we need a program of loan guarantees because, otherwise, producers will go bankrupt?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to tell all Canadians that in 80 days, the new government did more than the former government had done in 13 long years. Yes, this is a historic agreement. It was approved by the majority of producers and by all consumers, and it ensures that the forestry industry will have a future under this government.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the minister say that all is well. He just has to go into all the communities that depend on the forestry sector to see that nothing is working. This agreement has not put a single cent into company coffers and will not until a year from now.

Does the minister think that the companies can wait that long?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite my hon. colleague to come to Beauce, where our forest industry is working very well and is very productive. The people in Beauce, like all forest producers in Canada, are very happy with this agreement.

Why are they happy? Because we have guaranteed all Canadian producers access to a free market with no duties or quotas. We have guaranteed a prosperous future for all forest industry workers.

Price of Gasoline

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, the oil industry as a whole made net profits of $28 billion, which is an increase of 59% compared to 2003. Between 2005 and 2008, the oil companies will have their taxes reduced by 65% thanks to the tax benefits offered by the former government that were enhanced by the current government.

Can the Prime Minister explain why he felt the need to reduce taxes for the oil companies, like the Liberals did, when they are enjoying exorbitant surpluses and do not need such a generous gift?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is not accurate. This government has not approved a reduction in special subsidies for the oil industry. We have cut taxes for all Canadians and for all the industries, including consumers who have to deal with the challenge of the price of gasoline. That is why we reduced the GST.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a 1% cut for taxpayers and a 65% cut for the oil companies.

The government's position is rather contradictory. On one hand it refuses to help bicycle manufacturers that are being threatened by competition from China, saying consumers should benefit from the best market price. On the other hand, the government is subsidizing oil companies that do not need any help.

Since the government is so concerned about the consumer when it comes to the price of bicycles, why not be equally concerned when it comes to the price of gasoline?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. This government established the same tax rates for all industries in Canada. There is no exception.

The Bloc Québécois is making an issue of it in order to hold a debate pitting one region against another. That is what the Bloc Québécois does here.

What we do here is govern the country in the interest of all Canadians and all Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is certain and what is hurting Canadian consumers most are the profits made by the petroleum companies thanks to the refining margins. And refining has nothing to do with international pricing; it has everything to do with the government's incompetence.

Will the government admit that the profits the petroleum companies make on the refining margins are responsible for more than 50% of the recent increases in gas prices? That is simply unacceptable.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague must know that the price of gas is set on international markets and that is what is important. It is the free market that causes prices to fluctuate.

In fact, the price of gas is a little higher today than it was a few days ago. However, according to historic data, in the 1980s, the price of gas in today's dollars was even higher than it is today.

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

Mr. Speaker, the petroleum companies' profits are made on refining margins, and the federal government is responsible for this because it has not amended the Competition Act.

The government must understand that its failure to act and its lenience toward petroleum companies allow them free rein to rake in billions of dollars in profits at the expense of consumers. Why are the petroleum companies not concerned? Because the government is doing nothing and does not care about consumers, leaving them hostage to the petroleum companies.

Will this government have the courage to admit this is true?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that, on two occasions in 2003 and 2005, the same parliamentarians voted in committee to the effect that there was no collusion in gas pricing in Canada and that the free market was functioning well. On six occasions, the Competition Bureau also decided, upon investigation, that the free market was working well in the Canadian petroleum sector.

The Environment

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a groundbreaking study released today shows that the Government of Canada is failing to protect Canadians from toxic compounds. The diseases caused include cancer, developmental disorders and respiratory disease. The most alarming thing in this study is to find that the children very often have higher levels of contamination in their bodies than their parents. We should all be concerned about this.

Will the government continue the Liberal practice of allowing our children to be poisoned or will it take strong action?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that this government will not continue on with the Liberal practice.

My office has been working closely with Dr. Rick Smith from Environmental Defence. The House might be interested to know that the Minister of Health and myself have offered to participate in a study to raise the profile of the toxins in our children's blood and to take some measures to address those.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister and his government cared so much about this issue why did they vote against an NDP motion to ban toxic pesticides just two weeks ago? Actions speak louder than words.

These parents volunteered for this study and they are horrified at the level of toxicity in their children's bodies.

The Prime Minister has an obligation to make industry accountable, to establish timelines and to regulate the toxic chemicals and eliminate them. Will he or will he not do it?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it was this Prime Minister who agreed to open up the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for review by the environment committee which the Liberals held off doing for over a year. This is the act that environmental groups want to see amendments brought forward on to ensure we address these important issues. It is actually the NDP members who are collaborating with the Liberals to hold up that review in committee.

Softwood Lumber

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Commons standing committee heard alarming testimony from softwood lumber representatives this week regarding the softwood lumber deal with the U.S. Lumber producers and manufacturers expressed serious misgivings about the wayward deal. They say that it will put them in the wood chipper. In fact, they say that their input was ignored by the Conservatives.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why was this deal pushed through by threats and intimidation? Why is the Conservative government selling out our softwood lumber industry?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, memories are short over on that side of the House because it was not very long ago when members of that party were prepared to accept a deal that was significantly inferior to the one we established in the recent negotiations.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. The deal the government made will only protect producers for one month. At today's prices this sweetheart deal means our producers will pay a 10% duty and, if prices fall further, a 15% duty will come in along with volume caps. This is not free trade and it is not fair trade.

Will the minister consult properly with the stakeholders before the ink is dry on this bad deal for Canada?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member, who is from Atlantic Canada, realizes that Atlantic Canada is completely exempt from any protectionist measures going forward. He will have a very good time defending his position if this deal falls through.

Consultations are ongoing. We are exchanging documents with the United States. We are consulting with industry. We are going to get this deal right. This is not a make work program for lawyers, which is what those guys seem to want.