Debates of Oct. 19th, 2009

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure my colleague that it is essential for us to keep our access to the U.S. market. It is essential for the Canadian industry that we keep our access to the U.S. market because that is where the future and long-term growth of our forestry sector lies. I want to assure him that on this side of the House, we will not compromise the future of the forestry industry by taking measures that could have harmful consequences.

That being said, I was alarmed today to hear the official opposition say that it would have continued with the litigation and the delays and that the forestry industry would have been deprived of the courageous action taken by our government to sign a softwood lumber agreement. Indeed, I am very proud of that agreement. All the companies in my riding and across Canada are benefiting from it.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative government has taken several initiatives to support the entire forestry industry.

I would like my colleague to explain exactly why it is that the Fonds de solidarité FTQ, which supports the Bloc, decided not to give money to the forestry industry including AbitibiBowater.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member has 30 seconds to respond.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would like to remind him that, a while back, the Bloc Québécois considered federal investments in Quebec to be a waste of money and effort. That was in their 2000 platform.

We should not be surprised. In fact, André Boisclair told Tout le monde en parle that when you do not have the responsibility that goes with—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, for sharing his time with me.

The current economic situation and its impacts upon our nation are well-known. Our government has taken a number of short-term and long-term actions and investments to support the forestry sector through tough economic times and, more important, to help communities and workers who depend on the forestry industry.

In the short-term, we provided a total of $2 billion to support communities facing transition and those affected by the economic downturn. The $1 billion community development trust announced in 2007 and the $1 billion community adjustment fund announced in the economic action plan provide support to create jobs and maintain employment in affected communities, such as the forest-dependent communities.

I had a great experience last summer where I made an announcement of the community adjustment fund in Grand Forks in the southern interior of British Columbia. That is a community that lost its mills and was more than happy to see that investment in its community.

In addition, we have taken measures to secure a more sustainable forestry industry by supporting forestry industries develop new products, processes, and take advantage of emerging opportunities in the international marketplace. Building on the $127.5 million forestry industry long-term competitiveness initiative announced in 2007, Canada's economic action plan provides $170 million to support the transformation of Canada's forestry sector.

However, to fully take advantage of emerging opportunities, Canadian forestry companies need to have access to credit. Through Canada's economic action plan, the government has taken bold and unprecedented measures to improve access to credit for Canadians and Canadian businesses, as we work closely together through these challenging times.

Access to credit is key for all businesses and sectors of the economy. This is especially the case in industries that are capital-intensive and export-oriented, such as the forestry and the mining sectors.

A key measure taken in the economic action plan of 2009 to address issues in credit markets was to provide Export Development Canada with more financial flexibility to support businesses during the current economic downturn. Export Development Canada has working relationships with more than 90% of the Canadian forestry industry and has new flexibility for firms in the forestry sector and across the economy to address financing gaps in the credit markets.

In 2008, EDC provided financial services with a total value of $85.8 billion to over 8,300 Canadians businesses. Forestry industries received serviced worth $14 billion.

During the first eight months of this year, EDC provided an additional $50.84 billion to businesses in Canada, more than $9.6 billion of which went to forestry industries across Canada. Forestry industry clients have grown from being less than 7% of EDC's total portfolio, in 2008, to being nearly 20% now in 2009.

Finally, the Business Development Bank of Canada provided support, over the same period, to more than 1,100 small and medium-sized businesses in Canada operating in the forestry sector.

We have also taken a number other measures in the economic action plan, including investments in infrastructure that will benefit the forestry industry across Canada.

For example, the economic action plan provides $4 billion in new funding for local and regional projects; $2 billion for urgently needed repairs to our universities and colleges; and $1 billion for a green infrastructure fund to support projects such as sustainable energy.

This is in addition to the $33 billion for longer-term projects our government has already committed to under the building Canada fund.

The new home renovation tax credit is also good for the forestry sector as it provides eligibility for up to $1,300 in tax relief for Canadians undertaking home renovations. Each time Canadians undertake a home renovation project, they are helping to create jobs in construction and building supplies in their communities.

In fact, the economic action plan provides as much as $7.8 billion to help build high-quality housing and to promote construction in home renovation, two areas that will directly help stimulate demand for Canadian wood products.

To provide economic opportunities to first nation communities, our plan provides $400 million over the next two years to support on-reserve housing dedicated to new social housing projects, to remediate existing social housing stock and complement housing activities.

Given the importance of wood in construction and renovation, these actions will stimulate additional domestic demand, perhaps more than one billion board feet of lumber and hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of wood panels for Canadian wood and wood products.

Through these measures, Canada will mitigate the effects of the global economic downturn on business, workers and communities. At the same time, measures in the economic action plan lay a strong foundation for our forestry products and mining sectors, and the communities that depend on them to emerge from this period of economic turmoil more prosperous and sustainable than ever.

Despite global economic turbulence, Canada's resource industries continue to make significant contributions to our economy. Given their importance to Canada's wealth and Canadians' well-being, the economic action plan provides additional help specifically to encourage industry to upgrade and retool its equipment. Through the extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance until the year 2011, we continue to improve Canada's tax advantage in order to help attract investments in the forestry industry, as well as other resource and manufacturing sectors.

We also intend to permanently eliminate tariffs on a range of machinery and equipment. This measure is expected to save Canadian industry, including the forestry sector, about $440 million over the next five years.

Our government is determined to help forestry communities through difficult times while enabling the forestry sector to renew itself and lay the foundations for a more prosperous future. This is why the economic action plan provides $8.3 billion in Canada's skills and transition strategy to help Canadian workers and their families in the forestry sector and across the economy in a variety of ways: by strengthening benefits, by enhancing the availability of training, and by keeping employment insurance rates low for 2009-10.

In conclusion, all members know that today's economic challenges are significant. Even before the global recession, Canada's forestry sector was in a difficult period of transition and our government was responding.

Many of our forestry sector initiatives began well before the current economic downturn. We can be confident that our forestry sector will be well equipped to lead as competitors as the world emerges from this recession and the measures included in Canada's economic action plan will help support and advance Canada's recovery.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

It being 6:23 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and the recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and deferred until Tuesday, October 20, 2009, at the end of government orders.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that you seek the consent of the House to see the clock as 6:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock as 6:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, in May I rose in the House to ask the government with regard to the issue of a special envoy for Pakistan-Afghanistan.

The United States, Great Britain, France and the EU have all assigned a special envoy to the region. Given the importance of Pakistan, particularly with regard to the Taliban and the current situation in Waziristan, et cetera, it is important that we have an envoy on the ground and certainly subject to our resolution.

One of the government priorities, priority number 4, talks about the need to deal with Pakistan and Afghanistan much more effectively, and that we have a special representative who can report back, not only to government but to Parliament to enhance the relationship, to understand what is going on the ground. We want to build better institutions there with the EU and the United States. Because of the changing strategies that President Obama announced back in March, this needs to be done.

The government failed to respond, other than saying it has a high commissioner in Pakistan and an ambassador in Afghanistan. That is fine, but it does not go far enough in terms of the realities. We have 2,500 troops on the ground. We have committed those men and women to the struggle in Afghanistan, and we need to ensure that we emphasize as much on the diplomatic front as possible.

Unfortunately, the government has not seemed to do so. Even in General McChrystal's assessment recently, that was done in August for the president, he indicated very clearly the need for this type of strategy, the fact that the Taliban are in Pakistan, that there is a porous border and they go across.

I am sure that my hon. colleague across the way understands that this diplomatic push for a special envoy is in Canada's best interest, it is in Afghanistan's best interest and of course it is in Pakistan's best interest. Besides that, we need to engage India and China. China, of course, is concerned about issues in its western territory, the fact that fundamentalism, particularly linkages with al-Qaeda, is clear and evident. The government could be doing more if we had a special envoy to engage the Chinese in this regard. We should certainly engage the Indians as well.

There is no question that there is a new phase in the situation on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are linked very strongly and we need to ensure that we have all the best diplomatic efforts possible put forth, both in Islamabad and Pakistan.

The special envoy, as I say, is something others have clearly done. They recognized the need. The EU does not even have any troops, obviously, because it is a political organization, yet it found that this was necessary. Certainly the British, the French and the United States have found it necessary. We need to be there to be a major player.

In terms of this diplomatic engagement, we need to ensure that we have the best intelligence possible. We need to be able to share that. We also need to ensure that as a participant in the war on terrorism and certainly the situation in Afghanistan, that we are able to communicate directly what it is we are saying to all capitals in the region and with the same voice. Unfortunately, at the present time, we do not have that.

The government's response in May was basically to slough it off. However, the government, I am sure, recognizes today that with the change in strategy and with General McChrystal's report to the president, this is a reality that needs to be addressed now. I would hope that when I hear from my friends on the other side, they will be more open to the need for this type of diplomatic engagement, because again, it is in our national interest to do so.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand in the House and capitalize on this opportunity to discuss the government's approach to Afghanistan.

First, allow me to review the nature of Canada's commitment to Afghanistan and our government's effective priorities, namely diplomatic, development and reconstruction.

I would like to take a moment and remind the House and the members currently present that on March 13, 2008, in this very chamber we voted on a motion of the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, which stipulated that our government's contribution to Afghanistan would:

—be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between our military efforts and our development efforts in Afghanistan;

Following the motion, this government carried out an extensive review, an assessment process to define Canadian priorities and programming for Afghanistan. As a result of the work of many on this side of the House, Canada's mission in Afghanistan now has a greater emphasis on reconstruction, development and diplomacy.

The government identified six key strategic priorities for Canada's engagement in Afghanistan for the 2008-2011 period, namely: first, enable the Afghan National Security Forces in Kandahar to sustain a more secure environment and promote law and order; second, strengthen Afghan institutional capacity to deliver basic services and promote job-oriented economic growth, enhancing the confidence of Kandaharis in their government; third, provide humanitarian assistance for vulnerable people, including refugees, returnees and internally displaced persons; fourth, enhance border security through facilitation of bilateral dialogue between Afghan and Pakistan authorities; fifth, build national institutions that are central to our Kandahar priorities and support democratic processes, such as elections; and sixth, facilitate Afghan-led efforts toward political reconciliation.

Helping our government to deliver on these priorities and commitments over the last year our civilian presence in Afghanistan doubled. Today over 100 Canadian civilians are working in Afghanistan, including personnel from DFAIT, CIDA, the RCMP and Correctional Service Canada.

This coordinated effort is an excellent example of our Conservative government's whole of government approach to the mission in Afghanistan. Our civilian partners work in a very challenging environment. These individuals exemplify the ideals of the Canadian mission and our government's streamlined priorities.

On the question of envoys, the fact is different countries have different approaches and mechanisms in place. We on the government side are less concerned with the actual title our officials carry than we are with the actual work they carry out and the quality of our assistance in Afghanistan.

The key is the Canadians working for Afghanistan, both on the ground in Afghanistan and here in Canada, are among the best and the brightest the world has to offer.

The hon. member asked for leadership. Allow me to clearly state, here it is, we have it. We are delivering real results. The results are far more important than the semantics and the titles. On this side of the House, we know this. It is time for the opposition to figure it out, too.

Our government clearly indicated its commitment by putting a senior ambassador in Afghanistan. Our ambassador to Afghanistan, William Crosbie, and our High Commissioner in Pakistan, Randolph Mank, worked very closely together coordinating our government's efforts at the regional level.

The work of the government also focuses on broader issues. We see no necessity for a special envoy.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague very carefully.

First, I am a bit disappointed in the partisanship in his comments, given the fact that the resolution which this House adopted, and which I and my colleagues were part of, was a non-political resolution. It was for Canada's interest, not for the Conservative Party's interest.

There is an integrated strategy that is going on with Afghanistan, Pakistan, et cetera. The issue is not about semantics. The issue is not about titles. The issue about this. Are we adopting and are we adapting quickly enough to these new strategies? Are we prepared to in fact have the integrated approach that is needed in responding to what is going on across the border involving India, China, et cetera?

Clearly we can take different paths, as the member said. There seems to be a common thread here. The British who have the second largest contingent in Afghanistan, the Americans who have the largest, the French who are there and even the EU, as I pointed out, all believe this integrated strategy requires a special envoy who can get the kind of information and be able to disseminate it in a way which is very effective. Again, in his report General McChrystal praises this approach as well.

I would suggest that this issue is integrated strategy. The envoy is part of an integrated strategy. I would hope all members in the House, not just on the government side, and I mean the vice-chair of the defence committee, et cetera, can see the non-partisanship that goes on there.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that at the political level, I believe within the G8 we have a cabinet committee comprising senior members whose sole purpose is to focus on, guide, and provide political leadership to oversee Canada's engagement in Afghanistan.

Without any question, our government is fully engaged in this issue and is doing what needs to be done, notwithstanding the titles that the member may or may not wish to have. Titles are easy to apply. For us to get the job done is more difficult, and that is exactly what we are doing.

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question that I raised in May to do with the Auditor General's report from 2008 on first nations child and family services. I had asked the minister a question about when the government would live up its responsibility to consult first nations and appropriately fund the child and family services program.

To put it into context, I want to briefly refer to the Auditor General's report in which she indicates the severity of the problem, as shown by the INAC data, in that about 5% of first nations children living on-reserve are in care. This is almost eight times the number of children in care residing off-reserve. She also points out that according to a parallel audit that was done, 51% of children in care in British Columbia are aboriginal. These are pretty shocking numbers.

The Auditor General also indicates in the report that under federal and provincial policies, aboriginal children including first nations children should have equitable access to services comparable in level and quality to those provided to other children.

Subsequently the department came before the public accounts committee and reported on some of its action plan, but part of the heart of this matter is the fact that there is a differential between what the provinces pay for off-reserve children and what on-reserve children are entitled to.

In a letter that came out on August 19, 2009 the department states that

...INAC cannot commit to conducting such a comprehensive review nor can it be done for all jurisdictions by the timelines required by the Committee. INAC would be able to provide a basic comparison of jurisdictions that are currently under the Enhanced Prevention [program] and where INAC has basic information on salary rates...

and it goes on to indicate that it would have some of its preliminary work done by December 31, 2009.

However, in the Auditor General's report, she points out that the funding program that she was talking about in 2008 was designed in 1988 and has not been significantly modified since. The government participated in a couple of different reports. There were the two policy reviews, one of which was a national policy review in 2000 and then there was the Wende report in 2005, in which there was significant work done around identifying the fact that there needed to be this provincial review.

In 2008 the Auditor General identified the fact that there were gaps in service. It is not just the current government's responsibility. This has been going on for a long time. Previous governments were fully aware of the fact that there was this enormous gap in funding.

Yet now we are being told to wait longer. In fact in the public accounts report, under recommendation No. 4, where there is talk about modifying directive 20-1, which concerns the funding that first nations child and family service agencies get, it is indicated that the hope and objective are that all remaining jurisdictions will be ready for transition by 2013.

Therefore there are a couple of issues that come up. Since this is a long-standing piece of information, I wonder why the government does not look at putting in place interim funding to close that 22% gap between federal and provincial services, and put in interim funding until it can get accurate and comparable data from coast to coast to coast.

I would agree that there need to be different models across this country recognizing regional differences. However, we should not simply tell first nations that they have to wait another four, five or six years since if that report comes out in 2013 we actually will not have the new funding.

Why can the government not put in place interim funding?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in response to the question from the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I would like to add that tomorrow we will be dealing in depth with this issue at the aboriginal affairs committee. The member for Nanaimo—Cowichan has done good work on this. I am sure there will be many questions asked and answered tomorrow.

Our government is moving forward with ready and willing partners. We are committed to making changes to child and family services and we want to build stronger and healthier first nation families. We do not work alone. Provinces have jurisdiction over child welfare both on and off reserve and, in some cases, the provinces have delegated this authority to first nations child welfare agencies and first nations staff.

The move of the child and family services program to a more enhanced and prevention based approach began with the Alberta framework in June 2007. This involves Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Treaty First Nations and the Province of Alberta. We are continuing to work with other provinces and first nations on frameworks that will result in better outcomes for first nations children. We have worked, created and entered into partnerships with Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and first nations agencies in those provinces.

Our commitment is clearly demonstrated by the funds allocated in Canada's economic action plan. We have provided a further $20 million over the next two years to ensure further progress through frameworks in Prince Edward Island and Quebec and we are working hard on these prevention based approaches that now cover five provinces and nearly half the first nation children in Canada. We are working hard to put in place similar partnerships across Canada.

We are getting the job done. Our government is committed to working together with these partners and we will not move forward without a tripartite approach. Child welfare requires the active involvement of all partners, the family and the first nation child welfare agencies on reserve, as well as the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

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

Madam Speaker, I would agree that the government has taken some important steps. I also agree that we need all three parties at the table, the federal, provincial and first nations governments, particularly since many of the child welfare services are being delivered by first nations communities. I also agree that other work needs to be done.

However, I still wonder why we cannot look at some interim funding. We know that first nation governments across the country have been handicapped over a number of years by the 2% funding cap that was imposed in 1995. It seems that we are acknowledging that there is a funding differential.

Why would we not put interim funding in to at least alleviate some of the pressures on these communities? Many of them have poor, inadequate housing and poor water. Remote communities do not have access to the same kinds of services as more urban communities.

Again I would ask the government why it does not put interim funding in while the rest of this work unfolds.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member does recognize that we have made significant progress on this issue.

However, I would like to reinforce the fact that a lot of people are delivering these services and if we do not enter into a tripartite agreement we could end up not knowing where to best allocate the moneys that we are talking about.

The funding in the five jurisdictions that we are already talking about comes to $61 million a year when fully implemented. That could probably be almost doubled when we enter into further agreements. This is a significant commitment.

We have demonstrated a new and practical approach to working with aboriginal governments, aboriginal organizations, provinces and territories to address these clear priorities throughout Canada. This is paying off and we are seeing results.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The motion to adjourn the House is 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 6:43 p.m.)