House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was million.

Topics

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those opposed will please say nay.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the amendment stands deferred.

Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to Standing Order 98 the divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, March 5, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I urge you to seek the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 6:30 p.m., even though it really is not.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Is that agreed?

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, today, in the natural resources committee we learned that the world price for pulp had reached a record high. Yet over the past two years pulp plants, newsprint plants, sawmills and lumber plants of all types have closed and thousands of workers have lost their jobs. Tens of thousands of people have been disastrously affected. Families, suppliers, transporters and entire communities have been hit hard.

At today's committee meeting, we heard from witnesses who outlined the need for strong federal leadership in driving forest resource policy. We know the margins of Canadians industries have become wafer-thin. We know labour has certainly done its part to help. Yet there are still competitors in Asia and Scandinavia that out-produce us by several times. For example, if a 60-year-old Canadian plant produces 700 tonnes a day, a modern plant in India produces 3,500 tonnes a day.

Industry and labour both know what must be done. Indeed, the many calls for a national forestry summit have only been addressed by the liberal leader, who had agreed to do this immediately upon becoming prime minister. Liberal members would also be more than happy to participate if such a summit would be convened as early as next week.

I have been to symposiums that have brought together key players. Believe me, we have all been at the table and we all have to be at the table to find consensus.

In its current study, the natural resources committee has received viable and reasonable solutions from rational and professional forestry industry organizations and individuals. There is a role for the federal government in designing a national strategy.

Indeed, those countries that have displaced us in production have achieved these remarkable results by having a plan. The last time Canada had such a thorough approach was when the hon. member for Kenora helped to devise a forest competitiveness plan of $1.5 billion. That plan was thrown out by the Conservative minority government. Thousands of people and dozens of plants could still be working had such a worthy plan not been recklessly tossed aside.

Canada could leapfrog the technological gap by advancing such positive ideas as biofibre. We can get our position as a world leader in the forest industry back.

The forest industry is not a sunset industry. It is only the attitude of the government that is holding it back. The inadequate and poorly planned community development trust does not even have any guidelines on the use of its funds.

The forest industry does not want money thrown at it. It will only restructure positively with federal, provincial and territorial government cooperation to mesh their energy and resources policies.

The forest industry file has been ignored in a callous and uncaring manner by the Conservative government for over 25 months. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the unemployed workers, it is 25 months too long.

6:25 p.m.

Macleod Alberta

Conservative

Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the accusations of my hon. friend from Thunder Bay—Rainy River that the community development trust will not be effective in helping his constituents and many others.

Canada's forest industry is a key component of our economy, and our Conservative government's actions through budget 2008 demonstrates our support for it. While Canada's overall economy remains robust, we acknowledge rising challenges facing certain sectors, ranging from global economic turbulence to a weakening American dollar.

Budget 2008 builds on an aggressive pre-emptive action taken both in the 2007 fall economic update to reduce the tax burden for businesses and earlier this year to support struggling communities and workers.

Since forming government, we have brought forward significant broad-based tax reductions that will deliver over $9 billion in tax relief for manufacturers and processors by 2012-13, including the extended capital cost allowance for new manufacturing equipment announced in budget 2008.

Budget 2008 further provided greater accessibility to the enhanced scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program and additional funding to improve the administration of the program.

In addition, we are providing $1 billion for the community development trust to help provinces and territories assist one industry towns facing major downturns, communities plagued by chronic high unemployment or regions hit by layoffs across a region of sectors such as manufacturing and forestry, especially in northwestern Ontario.

We introduced Bill C-41 to quickly implement the important initiative, and I am pleased that it received unanimous all party support for royal assent.

Budget 2008 also announced $10 million in funding to promote Canada's forestry sector in the international markets as a model of environmental innovation and sustainability. The Forest Products Association of Canada applauded this measure noting that the budget:

—recognized that Canada is a world leader in the manufacturing of high-quality, environmentally sustainable forest products, which will be in high demand as the middle classes in Asia grow and consumers insist on planet-friendly products.

Also of interest to northern Ontario is the provision in budget 2008 to extend the mineral exploration tax credit, an incentive available to individuals who invest in flow-through shares that are used to finance mining exploration, intended to assist companies raise capital for exploration.

Also related to the mining industry was the $34 million provided for geological mapping to support economic development.

It is little wonder that the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada thanked the Conservative government for such measures, measures which will “Canada remains a world leader in mineral exploration”.

Even the member from Thunder Bay—Rainy River liked the aforementioned aspects of budget 2008, noting that he “likes that there is positive news for the mining sector in the region”.

I accordingly would hope that the Liberal member would stand up and vote in favour of budget 2008 and its positive news for the Thunder Bay—Rainy River region.

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would hope the hon. member would never think that if there were a good thing the government would do, that I would not recognize it.

I want him to know that the natural resources committee was instrumental in advancing the community development trust fund from next July to now. When members of the committee met with the deputy minister of natural resources at the hearings, she did not know any of the details. It was then that we found out the money was coming from intergovernmental affairs and Treasury Board.

Today, the members determined that the fund would be inadequate and not just for forestry. We would hope the money would go to more than just certain communities. We feel it should be allocated only for forestry. The fact that the provincial governments and territories only have one month to come up with some ideas as to how they would utilize this is also rather short.

When I offer these criticisms, they are meant for the government to take them to heart so it can come back and be reasonable, positive and generous to the forest industry.

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, while budget 2008 provided significant support for the forestry sector, since taking office, we have already provided numerous instances of initiatives directly benefiting the sector, including: concluding a softwood lumber agreement, restoring access to the U.S. market and resulting in the return of over $5 billion in duty deposits to Canadian producers; investing $127.5 million in the forest industry long term competitiveness initiative to support innovation and assist the forestry sector to shift toward higher value products to tap into new markets; and, establishing a $25 million forest communities program that will assist forest based communities to make informed decision making on the forest land base.

Clearly, through those actions and budget 2008, this Conservative government is signalling its support for Canada's forestry sector.

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I asked the Minister for Democratic Reform about the demand for court costs currently being sought in a case taking place this week in Fredericton, New Brunswick, in front of a Federal Court trial judge.

That case, for anybody who has been around the official languages scene for some time, challenges the government's decision with respect to the elimination of the programme de contestation judiciaire, or the court challenges program.

At first instance, people might wonder why we would not demand costs in a litigious situation from parties if they were not to be successful. In terms of outlining how these things work, it is very clear that in civil litigation that is the rule. However, in public interest litigation, which is where the cause is being presented before the court, the practice is that the government does not ask for its costs in a case where a true policy argument is being presented, such as in most of the constitutional cases.

We know that some $15,000 to $20,000 could be at stake should the parties be unsuccessful. We pray on this side that they will not be unsuccessful but that is for the courts to determine. However, the $15,000 to $20,000 will be borne by the francophone groups, the minority linguistic groups, who are bringing this case. The lawyers are working on a pro bono basis in this public interest matter.

Just so members know that I am not making this up, I want the parliamentary secretary to know that in the case of Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island, the court costs were not asked for by the government. That was a very important case brought under the rubric of the programme de contestation judiciaire. It was very instrumental in enforcing the section 23 charter rights of the community in and around Summerside, Prince Edward Island, to have a French language school in their community, as is guaranteed by the charter. The case was successful, but what is important is that the government did not ask for its court costs.

There are a number of other court cost situations involving the federal government going back to Operation Dismantle involving the interpretation of section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has been the practice.

The simple question I put to the Minister for Democratic Reform was why he was ignoring the custom of the Canadian government, the Department of Justice and, in fact, the people's representatives before the courts. Why should the court costs be sucked like blood out of the pro bono groups trying to promote public interest cases? Why are they ignoring the case of Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia? Why are they ignoring the case of Société des acadiens et acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc., et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, et al. 2006? Also, why is it that they seem to be so hurt by the programme de contestation judiciaire?

We know this program was cut in the Mulroney years. That seems to be a name that is bandied around the House a bit more often these days. The Conservatives do not like the program and they are doing through the back door what they are also trying to do through the front door, which is to eliminate the program. Anybody who says that it is a good program, may I say Montfort, Montfort, Montfort.

It may be a bad thing in the Conservative psyche, but it does not change the practice of the Department of Justice and the Government of Canada in not seeking court costs in public interest cases. Why did the government do this?

6:35 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Official Languages

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the question of the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe regarding the court challenges program and the government's commitment to official language minority rights.

As we know, the court challenges program is in front of the courts right now. It would not be appropriate to comment on the court challenges program. The member's question pertaining to litigation costs will also be determined by the court. I think it is best to let the courts do their job, hear the case from both sides, provide a ruling and also rule on who should be responsible for which costs.

Regarding the government's commitment to official language minority rights, however, I would like to elaborate.

Our government has clearly and repeatedly shown its commitment to fostering the development of official language communities throughout Canada. Our government's objective is to tangibly and positively improve the lives of Canadians. This approach also applies to language rights.

A number of our government's initiatives enable official language minority communities to exercise their rights in their day-to-day lives. Examples of this are programs that ensure access to health care in French, as well as the great progress made in terms of education, from the elementary level to the post-secondary level, to allow members of our communities to study in their first language.

I would like to remind members that in our last budget, in 2007, our government invested an additional $30 million over two years to support francophone and anglophone minority communities across Canada and to promote linguistic duality. These additional resources are supporting very concrete projects that target areas such as youth, media, culture and education.

As well, in the Speech from the Throne that we delivered in October, we announced that we would propose a strategy to implement the next phase of the action plan on official languages.

Our government is committed to our official language minority communities.

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic when we talk about the official languages scenario in this country. The Official Languages Act has an action plan that in fact has the name of the Leader of the Opposition attached to it. It had commitments of $750 million committed to it. During many of the speeches made by our leader, it is very clear that he is committed to funding it.

The Conservative government has not funded it. In the new budget there is no money. The Conservatives recently have been panned, if the parliamentary secretary wants a copy of L'Acadie Nouvelle, by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, for not providing any money.

To go back to the point, the parliamentary secretary misunderstands the question. The question was, why did the government ask for costs? Clearly the courts can award costs if they wish. They are not likely to award costs if they are not asked to award costs. In this case, they were asked for the first time in a public interest case in the history of the Department of Justice--

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on some of the remarks my colleague made. Let us talk about funding for official language communities. When the Liberals were in power, they reduced funding for official language communities by $100 million between 1994 and 1999. In contrast, our government could have spent $750 million under the current action plan, but instead we are going to spend over $800 million in support of official language communities across Canada, an increase of over $50 million.

As I mentioned, in our budget 2007 we announced $30 million for our official language communities and how did that member vote? How did the Liberal Party vote when we announced this extra $30 million? They voted against this positive measure to support our official language communities.

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, my comments tonight have to do with the situation in Darfur. It is a situation that has been debated in the House many times. I am following up on a question I asked in the House regarding the government's commitment to the UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur.

The situation in Darfur is again getting worse. Since the beginning of this year, the United Nations has taken over the Darfur peace force, but within days of that Sudanese troops fired on a convoy of UNAMID, the African Union-UN hybrid mission. Sudanese government planes bombed rebel positions in West Darfur, turning some of those areas into no-go zones for aid workers.

Just days ago the commander of the UN-African Union peacekeepers in Darfur said more troops are urgently needed in West Darfur. The UN mission has begun after more than four years of devastation and desperation. It has taken over from a AU mission, whose limited mandate and resources failed to stabilize the situation in Sudan.

In order for the UN peacekeeping mission to successfully go ahead at its full capacity, it needs airlift and helicopters. The UN Secretary-General said the mission will be put at great risk if it does not receive the helicopters it needs. The head of the UN peacekeeping department told reporters the force needed 6 attack helicopters and 18 transport helicopters. He said, “I think it tells a sad story on the commitment for Darfur, frankly”.

I asked government officials in committee if Canada would be providing helicopters for the new UN mission. The answer was a flat no. To be precise, on November 27, 2007, I asked Mr. Edwards, then deputy minister of the Department of Foreign Affairs, “Are we providing helicopters for that mission?” He answered, “We will not be”.

So I asked the minister if he could tell the House and Canadians what the government would do for the new UN mission. He had no answer for me. On November 28 I asked the minister:

Could the minister tell the House and Canadians what the government is going to do for the new UN mission?

The minister replied:

Mr. Speaker, we are working together with the African Union and with the UN forces to ensure that this country can find the path to peace and democracy. We are working on it. The negotiations began on October 27 and we were there to promote our common values of democracy and peace.

This obviously did not address my question which was very precise and specific. I was asking if we were going to be providing more resources, specifically helicopters, to the new UN hybrid mission, the peacekeeping mission in Darfur.

I asked the minister yet again in my follow up question:

Could the minister tell the House and Canadians why the government is not going to provide support for the new UN mission? That is the question. What is the answer?

The reply from the minister was:

Mr. Speaker, we support the current activities in Africa.

I was talking about Sudan.

We are there with the other UN countries. We have a presence among the UN forces and we are working with the African Union forces to help--

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Order. It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs has the floor.

6:45 p.m.

Calgary East Alberta

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ottawa Centre for his question.

The Government of Canada remains deeply concerned about the situation in Sudan and Darfur.

Canada's approach toward Sudan is three pronged. First, we are using diplomatic channels to pursue sustainable political solutions to address the root causes of the conflict. Second, Canada provides humanitarian reconstruction and peaceful assistance to the affected population. Third, Canada supports both the United Nations peacekeeping missions in Sudan, UNMIS in southern Sudan and UNAMID, and a UN-EU hybrid peacekeeping force in Darfur. As part of a coordinated international effort, Canada's support to Sudan on the peacekeeping front has totalled over $440 million since 2004.

Specifically with respect to the member's question about helicopters and all these things, I would like to advise the member that in September of last year I attended a high level conference on Sudan at the United Nations, which was called by the Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon. It was to talk about the UN hybrid force and the UN mission in Sudan. There are 26 countries over there as well. All these countries were working together to ensure that this force could take off.

What my hon. colleague has to understand is that the UN peacekeeping force by itself is run by the UN. The UN has its own way of running the UN peacekeeping force. To do that, it is up to the UN to request from its member states what it wants to do.

We offered the UN the helicopters that we had already purchased or we had already leased which were given to the African Union. We offered to the UN the same helicopters to carry on and they accepted that during the period of transition while they were looking to other sources for what they needed. The UN has now advised us that they no longer need those helicopters and have thanked Canada for its contribution.

However, as it was explained in the committee today, under the UN all member state countries are assessed for peacekeeping operations. Canada will also be assessed. Canada will be there to provide that money to ensure that hybrid force carries on.

Additionally, there are 50 personnel currently working there supporting the UNMIS and UNAMID peacekeeping missions in an effort to bring security and stability to Sudan. In addition, there is the loan of 105 armoured personnel vehicles that were used by troop-contributing countries and will be used in UNAMID. Canada is there.

Canada believes that full implementation of the CPA agreement signed in 2005 represents the cornerstone of efforts to achieve a lasting peace for all of Sudan.

I do understand my colleague's concern. We are all concerned in Canada about the situation in Sudan. I can assure him that this government, with the help of the opposition as well, as discussed with me in the foreign affairs committee will continue to provide all the needed support for this peacekeeping mission in Sudan. However, we also will continue working toward bringing the parties to the table to talk about peace.

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his response, but I do not think he quite understood my question. It was about the new mission, the 1769. In committee I very specifically asked the deputy minister will we be supplying helicopters to the new mission. For his edification, the new mission to him was 1769. He said, “No, we will not be”. He is talking about the transition. I am talking about the new mission.

I would like to know from the government and from him, if the UN requested helicopters tomorrow, be it the ones we have here or perhaps ones we could lease, would the government acknowledge that and would the government supply the resources for that request?

Further to that, it is clear from everyone who is following the conflict in Darfur that we must not at any time give any indication to the government of Sudan that we are not going to resource and not going to fully implement 1769. As he knows right now there is not sufficient--

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs has the floor.

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to tell my hon. colleague that we are committed to supporting UN resolution 1769 and the UN hybrid force.

As I have stated, and he must understand this, the request to member states will come from the UN peacekeeping centre as to when and how it wants to do it. Therefore, when the request is made, at that given time, Canada will evaluate its situation to see how we can best supply what the UN is requesting, with the resources that are available in Canada.

The decision will be made when the request is made. However, I can assure him and Canadians that this government is fully supportive of the UN mission in Sudan.

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.)