Debates of Sept. 29th, 2009

Guaranteed Income Supplement

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, we have made significant improvements to the guaranteed income supplement system since we took office. We made sure that seniors would not have to apply year after year.

As long as they file their income tax return and they have applied once, they will automatically receive the GIS if they are eligible. After they file their income taxe return, their eligibility is determined as well as any change in what they are eligible for.

There is also an automatic trigger for an adjustment in the cost of living. Recently we have not had an increase in the cost of living, so there have not been adjustments. People must file their income tax returns in a timely manner to get the benefits they deserve.

Industry

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today the industry minister admitted there is a problem in the auto repair market. I thank him for finally coming to that realization, years later. That is not bad for his track record, to be quite frank.

However, he accepted a non-binding manufacturers agreement that will not protect consumers, does not ensure competition, and it is completely unenforceable. It is not worth the paper it is written on.

The House voted overwhelmingly for a legislative solution like there is in Europe and the United States. Could the minister explain why Canadians are not going to get the same consumer, environmental and public safety protections as the citizens of those other countries? Why does he think Canadians are second rate?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we were able to work with the automobile manufacturers, both foreign and domestic. We worked with those representing the after market and garages that seek to do this work, and we came up with a voluntary agreement that has mediation in it; it has a price structure in it.

It has all the details that are necessary to make sure that when people take their cars to a place other than their dealer for servicing, they can get the advantages of the repairs in that particular place. That is good news for Canadian consumers and it is good news for the Canadian auto industry.

Jeux de la Francophonie

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some 300 young athletes and artists from Canada are currently in Beirut proudly defending our country's colours in top-level competitions.

Three delegations, from Canada, Canada-Quebec and Canada-New Brunswick will be competing over the next few days in various events.

Can the Minister for La Francophonie tell us what the Government of Canada is doing to contribute to the success of this event?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kenora for his question.

I recently had the pleasure of announcing that our government was giving $1 million to the International Organization of la Francophonie to help organize the sixth edition of these games in Beirut. More than 3,000 young athletes and artists from five continents are currently in Beirut, Lebanon, in one of the largest gatherings in the history of the Francophonie games.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the judo team for already winning four medals. I am sure that our athletes and artists will all do as well in the coming days.

Oral Questions

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the minister admitted he attended a barbecue with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, but he must have selective hearing because what I heard was not what he said. I heard concerns about these provisions and the--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

--difference with this one is that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association held the barbecue and the minister was not allowed to set up a photo op like he did at the Canada Pork Council barbecue in which he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and Agriculture and Agri-Food time to put on a photo op, and he was worried about how he looked rather than address the crisis.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I could not hear much of that, but I am not sure it was a point of order.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is rising on the same point of order?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there is much more than a lot of loud baloney. We had good beef over there, so I am not sure where all that baloney came from.

Having said that, we are working extremely hard with the livestock sector, with the pork sector, on country boards and labelling. As the member opposite should know, we actually won the first challenge during the consultation phase last fall. Now the new administration decided to retroactively make some changes and put that into play. We are working with our industry. I actually made a comment from the podium today that I am expecting a report from the Canadian cattlemen within the next few days to add to our arguments to take south with us.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Having not been able to hear much of the point of order, it sounded like a supplementary question to me, especially when I heard the answer, so we will move on.

The hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and consultations between all the parties. If you seek it, you may find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Orders or usual practices of the House, the House immediately revert to Statements by Ministers, provided that Standing Order 33(2) does not apply.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

Softwood Lumber

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, yesterday the London Court of International Arbitration tribunal issued its final decision with respect to use of the adjustment factor in the calculation of the volume of exports to the United States.

In March 2009, the tribunal had ruled that Canada had breached the adjustment factor of the softwood lumber agreement. Canada applied the adjustment factor to some provinces beginning in July 2007, but the tribunal ruled that it should have been applied since January 2007.

In April 2009, Canada offered the United States a payment of $46.7 million to cure the breach. This payment was rejected by the United States, at which point Canada requested that the tribunal rule on whether the proposed payment in fact would cure the breach.

Yesterday, Canada's proposed lump sum payment was rejected by the tribunal and Canada was ordered to impose compensatory adjustments to Canada's export charges, in effect to collect that back tax.

The tribunal sent a strong message that the export charge should be collected on a first-to-ship basis, and should be applied to Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan until the amount of $68.26 million has been collected.

As members are no doubt aware, the United States is currently imposing an import tax of 10% at the border. In order for this tax to be removed, Canada must comply with the tribunal's ruling.

The Government of Canada is disappointed that the tribunal did not accept Canada's proposed solution to cure the breach. We continue to believe that our offer to pay $46.7 million was fair. However, there is no further route for appeal.

I have consulted with the provinces and have received their support to comply with the tribunal's decision.

We remain committed to the success of the softwood lumber agreement. This agreement has brought stability and has returned nearly $5 billion to the industry.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that the Conservatives violated their own softwood lumber agreement back in 2007. The minister actually made things worse when he tried to buy a solution back in April, and in doing so, we now know that the Conservatives further violated their own agreement.

What took place yesterday in the London Court of International Arbitration tribunal came as a surprise to no one who has been studying this issue.

The Conservative strategy has been to do nothing but to delay. This past spring, the Conservatives literally tried to buy time with payments, paid for and offered by Canadian taxpayers. They perhaps hoped to punt this issue, to cover their mistakes, to punt the issue beyond the election, but these delays have meant economic uncertainty and job losses for Canada's forestry workers, a sector that has been pummeled time and time again under the Conservative government.

The softwood lumber agreement was supposed to stop this litigation. It was supposed to bring peace in our time. That was the promise from the Conservatives. That has not been the reality. The reality is that the litigation continues and the Conservative incompetence has worsened the situation.

The export duties on softwood lumber products continue. Meanwhile, the U.S. forestry industry has held onto and profited from $1 billion in export duties that was previously owed to Canada's forestry sector. It is amazing that the Conservatives would call giving $1 billion to our forestry competitors in the U.S. a victory for the Canadian forestry industry.

The Conservatives have failed Canada's forestry sector. Canadian forestry workers deserve better. How can Canadian forestry workers trust a government that does not even understand its own trade agreements? How can Canadian forestry workers trust a government that breaks its own trade agreements?

Canadian forestry workers deserve better.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over seven years ago, in May 2002, the forestry industry in Quebec was hit hard by the Americans' imposition of countervailing and anti-dumping duties. In the four years following the imposition of these measures, all the Liberal government did was throw crumbs to the forest industry in Quebec, which was dying.

So in 2006, at the request of the Quebec forestry sector, the Bloc Québécois supported the softwood lumber agreement, not because it was a perfect agreement—far from it—but because the inaction of the Liberal government of the day had pushed the Quebec forestry industry to the edge of the abyss. The softwood lumber agreement was not a long-term solution to the industry's problem. The proof is that the Quebec forestry industry remains in a state of crisis.

For this reason, the Bloc, like the forestry industry, has been calling since the start of the dispute for a program of loans and loan guarantees to help the industry, something the Liberal has always rejected and a promise the Prime Minister personally reneged on. The Liberals and Conservatives are tarred with the same brush.

The federal government prefers to give billions of dollars to the automobile industry in Ontario, gifts to the polluting oil companies in the west and special privileges to the ultra rich through tax havens, rather than to meet the needs of Quebec.

In the light of yesterday's decision by the tribunal in London, the federal government must ensure that the penalties imposed by the tribunal are allocated according to individual responsibilities. Quebec must not pay for Ontario's offences.

The minister has the duty to ensure Quebec pays only for the offences it is charged with and not those of Ontario, Manitoba or Saskatchewan. This is a matter of justice and fairness. It is a matter of respect for the Quebec nation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for softwood communities across this country, today is a sad day. It is just another case of a very clear, unmitigated and absolute defeat imposed by the Conservative government on softwood communities.

It is hard to underestimate the scope of the defeat that we have received because of the government's mismanagement. Nearly $70 million in punitive tariffs will now be taken out of softwood communities. The government defends itself by saying that at least under the softwood sellout, this money will somehow not go to the American lumber lobby but back to government.

However, the reality is that this money is taken out of softwood communities. This softwood sellout has contributed to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs across this country and the closures of dozens of softwood mills. In British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, we have seen a hemorrhaging of jobs as a result of this softwood sellout.

This defeat comes as a result of the government's mismanagement of the softwood file. It mismanaged export licences. It did not know how to count them. Through backroom deals, it tried to get out of the anti-circumvention clause that it signed with Liberal support. The anti-circumvention clause is like handcuffs on our softwood industry. We are paying tens of millions of dollars now, but just next month, hundreds of millions of dollars are on the table as the Americans come under another aspect of the anti-circumvention clause to come after the industry in Ontario and Quebec. That tribunal hearing starts next month.

The shame of this is that all of it was unnecessary. On October 13, 2006, we won a clear and final victory in the Court of International Trade and it was given away by the government with Liberal support. The minister should apologize to softwood lumber workers who have lost their jobs and he should apologize to Canadians.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member's time has expired. The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. I would be pleased to hear him now.

Economic Action Plan Presentation

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier this year, the Liberals ensured that the government would provide Canadians with regular updates on the state of the economy and progress with respect to stimulus spending. Yesterday, the government provided a form of report card in Saint John, New Brunswick, but as I discovered, not all Canadians were welcome.

As a parliamentarian from New Brunswick, I arrived to listen to the report only to be denied entry. Also stopped was Minister of Tourism Stuart Jamieson and local MLA Abel LeBlanc. Meanwhile, a number of local Conservatives, including former MP Elsie Wayne, the Conservative leader in the province and of course senators were allowed front row seats. This blatant partisanship was even criticized by the member for Saint John, who said that it was “an unfortunate incident” and that he felt “badly” about it.

These political games prevented me from performing my duties as a member of Parliament and the government must put the respect of Parliament ahead of political games.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I will examine the submissions made by the hon. member and come back to the House with a ruling as is appropriate. I am not sure how much jurisdiction the Speaker has in respect to activities that occur off the Hill, but I will examine the matter and come back to the House in due course.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.