Brent St. Denis

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in January the government inherited the best set of books ever, but it has still decided to cut important programs. Many of those cuts affect the most vulnerable in Canada.

With a $13 billion surplus, could the minister explain why the government feels the need to pick on our aboriginal communities by refusing to honour the signed Kelowna accord and by freezing funding for capital, operations and band elections for Ontario first nations?

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I have a couple of questions on the very point about going in without an invitation. I am a supporter of the UN. The world has spoken through a UN resolution. We protect our own society when it comes to domestic disputes in private homes. Under the right to protect, the time has come for the world to take a stand. Notwithstanding the president of Sudan's position that the UN is not welcome, the time has come to go in.

How would the parliamentary secretary square the imperatives to protect people as we would in our own country with his position that we have to wait to be invited? That is a very difficult position to defend given the imperatives of the situation.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to clear the record. In fact, it was in the days before the NDP and the Bloc helped the Conservatives cause an election that the former Liberal government put on the table a substantial package including loan guarantees to provide funds to companies against dollars held illegally by the U.S. government. That program, that opportunity, was lost with the election, so I hope the hon. member understands that his party is partly to blame for the predicament facing the forestry sector in this country right now.

I will also say that it is now our position as the Liberal opposition that there be loan guarantees right now to help the industry through a very, very difficult patch. There have always been supports in one form or another to help with the implementation of new technologies, whether it was TPC or other Industry Canada programs like FedNor the case of northern Ontario, to help with the modernization of mills.To use an example, a pulp and paper mill in my riding got some assistance with technology improvement some years ago.

I do not want to speak for the hon. member, but I suggest that this is not really the issue he should be focusing on. In the forestry sector, the government says, some 90% of the people have signed on, but they have been forced to sign on. There are some major players who have not signed on. They will be penalized greatly if they do not sign on. They will have to come up with 19% of the money that is going to stay in the U.S. They will have to come up with their share of 19%.

The record of the former Liberal government when it comes to forestry is clear. We cannot do the provincial government's job when it comes to the forestry sector. The provinces have the principal role in managing the forests, but the federal government has always been there. This is the first time in a long, long time, I believe, maybe going back to the previous Conservative government prior to 1993, that so little has been made available except “take it or leave it”, as we are seeing right now.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate with my colleagues in the debate on Bill C-24, a bill which has very steep consequences for many forest communities across the country.

In my large riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, the forest industry is located along highway 11, whether they are sawmills, pulp and paper mills or panel board plants in Hearst, Kapuskasing or Smooth Rock Falls or workers who live in the small villages in between. On highway 17, there is a pulp and paper plant in Espanola, a sawmill in Nairn or Thessalon, forestry workers and logging companies between Thessalon and Espanola, including Elliot Lake, Iron Bridge and Blind River.

These are communities like others across the country that are facing very difficult times, as some of my colleagues have talked about, with energy costs, exchange rates, even government regulation, and the competing demands for the forests and competition from other countries where forest fibres are very inexpensive. All these things and other factors combine to make it very difficult to operate, to be a worker, small business or contractor in the forestry sector. That is why it has been a real challenge for me to try to understand why the government came up with the deal that it did with the U.S.

The Liberals were in office until January for some 12 and a half years and were actually making considerable progress on that file. It is my understanding that in November, prior to the election being called with the help of the Bloc and NDP supporting the Conservatives, it was possible to have an agreement with the U.S. Whether it was better or worse I am not sure, but a deal was possible at that time and would not have been satisfactory to our communities and to the industry, so the government declined to proceed.

Instead, it took the advice of stakeholders. When people were asked if they wanted to settle with the U.S. industry, if they wanted to compromise the gains they had made, if they wanted to give away progress under the free trade agreements or, rather, pursue their legal rights in the courts, under the NAFTA trade panels or the WTO and negotiate, almost exclusively stakeholders, workers and companies said no. They did not want to negotiate, give away what they had gained in their efforts to find softwood trade peace with the U.S. They wanted a solution which was based in the law and due process.

We were getting there and in fact decisions, even since the government came to office, have proven the correctness of that position to follow due process and get what is right under the law and according to trade agreements. The government, sadly, has rushed to find something maybe to make the Americans happy.

I do not want to be too cynical, so I will not go beyond saying that much, but in a rush to find a solution, any solution it seemed, it was prepared to give away all the progress that was made. That is among the many difficulties in this agreement and one of the hardest things to take. Why give away so much progress?

Let me comment further by saying that I have talked to a lot of people in my riding. One person was Guy Bourgouin, president of the Steelworkers local 12995 in Kapuskasing, who wrote in a letter to me in late August:

However, despite this continuing success,--

The success I referred to:

--Canada appears to have capitulated to American demands. Under the proposed deal we are still faced with restrictions on our access to the US market in the form of a tax and/or quota, we are agreeing to allow American oversight of our provincial forest policies, and we are leaving a billion dollars of illegally collected tariffs south of the border. To top it all off, there is nothing in the agreement to ensure the stability of employment in the forest sector or the ongoing viability of forest dependent communities.

Guy Bourguoin in Kapuskasing, president of that local, has summarized it very well. As well, I have talked to René Fontaine, the former Liberal cabinet minister in Ontario, who is so passionate about our forestry sector needing a good deal with the Americans, not this bad deal.

When we consider this deal, if there is one thing among the many measures that we would put at the top of the list of things required, it is stability, at least stability. It is the idea that the deal is bad, but if businesses at least could count on the bad deal for seven to nine years, maybe they could survive. The fact is that this deal can be cancelled by either side, Canada or the U.S., after 23 months. That is not stability. That is not what the industry needs as a top priority.

Yes, we have heard about some U.S. assurances in a letter, assurances that the U.S. will not just casually cancel a deal after roughly two years. What does a commitment like that mean? Our friends to the south went to war in Iraq claiming weapons of mass destruction. They had no evidence for that. So how do we accept some assurance, based on the letter, that they will not cancel this deal after two years? I am sorry with respect to our neighbours to the south who are our friends and our allies, but as neighbours we do expect to be treated fairly. Sadly, we are not.

Let me pick out a few other points that Guy Bourgouin raised in his letter. Let us talk about the over $1 billion that has been left south of the border and which, as some of my colleagues have already pointed out, is being shared. Half of it will go to the industry.

We can be sure that at least some of it will find its way into a legal trust fund for some future challenge once this deal unravels. Those who challenge this deal will be well prepared when it comes to paying for lawyers, court fees, research and so on, whereas our industry has been told by the new government, so new that it is possibly too inexperienced to really understand when it has negotiated a bad deal, that our industry will not be prepared financially to fight back when the other side has a part or all of half a billion dollars to fight with.

The other half-billion is going to be administered through the White House, ostensibly delivering programs, maybe housing, and promoting the use of lumber.

How many among us would actually believe that any of that promotion is going to be of much use to the Canadian industry? I doubt very much that any of it will be of benefit. We are told that the Prime Minister's Office will be consulted on the programs. I will wait to learn if that is actually the case, but I doubt it very much.

There are mid-term elections coming up in the U.S. I suspect that the money will find its way into districts where the Republicans need some help. There is no interest on the side of the U.S. in using that money to help Canadian industry produce lumber here and sell it in the U.S.

I wonder if the stability of this deal depends upon one side or the other determining after two years whether it should abrogate the deal or not. Who is going to make the decision to abrogate the deal? It is not going to be this side. It is going to be the U.S. side. Our side wants stability. Our industry members are fair traders and they are not subsidized.

My colleague from Etobicoke North mentioned the natural advantage. Do we challenge the U.S. because it has more sunlight in a year due to the climate? No, that is its natural advantage.

We have a natural advantage that we are proud of. We have great workers in the industry and great communities, and we deserve a much better deal than we have been shown here.

[Afghanistan, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deepest sorrow on the death of two soldiers from my northern Ontario riding.

Private David Byers of Espanola, who served with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry based in Shilo, Manitoba and, in a tragic coincidence, Corporal Glen Arnold of the nearby village of McKerrow, who served in 2nd Field Ambulance based in Petawawa, Ontario.

They were two of the four soldiers who lost their lives a few days ago when their patrol was attacked by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan. These two men were brave individuals who have given their lives working for a safer and better world, promoting the rights and freedoms that Canadians enjoy.

On behalf of the constituents of our riding and all Canadians, we honour them and say to the members of their families that the loss of David and Glen is not in vain and we shall remember them.

Both soldiers leave behind proud and loving families who will miss them greatly. We should acknowledge and remember the sacrifices of all the brave men and women in Canada's armed services.

We should support them and be proud of their work as they go about, on our behalf, protecting our country and promoting Canadian democratic values abroad, a role that requires a great deal of sacrifice and commitment.

[Heritage Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Protection Act, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-222. As the proponent has clearly indicated, it is a bill to recognize that recreational hunting and fishing have played an important role in Canada's social, cultural and economic heritage and indeed are very much intertwined in the history of our country. Those activities are a mainstay of tourism in ridings like my own in northern Ontario, whether it is recreational hunting, trapping, fishing or angling, as some know it. I commend the member for bringing the bill forward. It gives us a chance to consider what it is to have a right to hunt and fish.

I certainly do not disagree that everyone who is willing to obey the laws of the province or jurisdiction relevant to where they are hunting or fishing, has a right to legally participate in fishing and hunting and other outdoor recreational pursuits.

When I first saw the bill I wondered whether it was actually necessary, because it is within the right of citizens now, and of course tourists and visitors from other countries if they get the right permit, to hunt and fish. I was not really sure what additional guarantees a bill like this might actually provide. However, I will, at the end of my presentation and future vote on the bill, agree to send it to committee, because I think it is worthy of further investigation and further study. It certainly has my support in that vein, but I will ask the question later on as well to my colleagues when it goes to committee, what new authorities does a citizen have as a result of a bill such as this?

My colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, the proponent of the bill, has said that he thought it might--and maybe I misunderstood him, but he will get the chance to clarify. He is aware that it does not change the Constitution. It does not provide a constitutional right to hunt and fish. It would be in law. He thought that maybe this would somehow guarantee something for hunters and sports fishers in the future. He is correct, but he also said that a future government could change this or any other law, so it is no permanent guarantee. That relates to my concern about what new authority does an individual citizen have with the bill.

All that being said, I certainly support the intent. I am a member--I hope a paid-up member; I am not sure yet--of the all-party outdoor caucus. I certainly appreciate the chairman's efforts to bring us all together, those of us who wish to express our non-partisan support for the outdoor pursuits that relate to hunting, fishing and trapping. Trapping, by the way, is still very, very important to my area of northern Ontario. A week does not go by that I do not bump into constituents who, in the off season if they are seasonal workers, in the winter season, are not involved in trapping.

I would like to raise a few points that will no doubt come up in committee if the House agrees that the bill should go to committee. Where does the federal jurisdiction in all of this overlap, if it indeed does, with the provincial jurisdiction? For example, in Ontario, the province for my riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, it is governed by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1997 and no doubt other related acts.

Our party does support the right of citizens to hunt and fish. All of this, of course, and nobody would disagree. I suspect we must always do this out of respect for the environment and private property. For example, on Manitoulin Island, which is a large tourist draw during deer hunting season, private property is where people do their hunting. Hunters there are accustomed to getting permission from property owners. Property owners' rights are important as well. Also, where we are dealing with first nations and their territories, of course, we must respect that as well.

I want to be careful that we do not intrude on provincial jurisdiction. We may sometimes, at the federal level, covet responsibilities that long ago were handed over to the provinces. An example is education. We would all love to have something to say about national standards in education.

I do not know if we will ever have authority over that concern without some kind of an agreement with the provinces. This might lead us to have to come to terms with some kind of intraprovincial and interprovincial concern vis-à-vis the federal government.

The bill suggests that the federal government has jurisdiction over inland fisheries. In my riding, which borders Lake Superior and Lake Huron, there are large fisheries. There are countries in the world that do not have fishing waters as big as the inland waters of Lake Huron, Lake Superior and the other Great Lakes. Clearly, it is the province of Ontario that has jurisdiction, shared of course with the U.S. states that border on the U.S. side.

All that said, this is worthy of further study. I am only guessing, but I would be very surprised if the House did not agree that it should go to committee.

When I travel through my large riding, which is 110,000 square kilometres by the way, and the meetings that I have had with the local angler and hunters clubs, with local tourist operators, those who run the local ATV clubs or the snowmobile clubs, these are folks who in the main in one season or another are also involved in hunting and fishing.

The degree of respect that these people bring to the environment through their clubs and organizations and as individual hunters and fishers, whether they are aboriginal hunters and fishers or whether they are non-aboriginal hunters and fishers, would be a revelation to our urban cousins to realize that they hunt and fish responsibly. Yes, there is the occasional abuser, but that is unfortunately a fact of life. It does not matter what sphere is examined.

The vast majority of those who participate in sport angling, hunting and trapping are extremely responsible. I think it is important by making a declaration either through this bill or some other mechanism, whatever the conclusion of the committee of parliament is, the fact that we express that we value not only the tourism industry in the communities that depend on these sports, but that we value the attitude that these clubs and organizations and individuals bring to the outdoors, bring to all the volunteers that work to restock fish in the lakes. This is voluntary work. There may be a little bit of provincial money in a hatchery investment or in planting fish stocks, but there is a lot of volunteer work that goes on in replanting fish in our lakes.

When it comes to hunting, how many cases have we seen where species that have disappeared from a region are brought back in, whether it is turkeys or elk, and I know there is a debate in some areas about elk, but I use it as an example. I think that through some mechanism, either this one or another, it would be appropriate to recognize the importance of hunting and fishing to our past, to our present and to our future.

[National Peacekeepers' Day Act, May 16th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-287, An Act respecting a National Peacekeepers' Day.

Mr. Speaker, with my colleague, I am pleased to introduce a bill which, if passed, would create on August 9 of every year a National Peacekeepers' Day. It was some 32 years ago, on August 9, 1974, that nine Canadian Forces peacekeepers en route from Beirut to Damascus were killed by a surface to air missile. They represent the several hundred peacekeepers who have been killed serving Canada and the world in this capacity.

Inasmuch as my riding was once the riding of Lester B. Pearson, I think it is most appropriate that this bill be sponsored by the member from the riding, and it is especially appropriate at this time, as we discuss Canada's role in Afghanistan, to remind ourselves that Canada's place in the world is indeed that of peacekeeping.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Blind River, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, May 14, marked the 100th anniversary of the incorporation of Blind River as a town. For 100 years, locals and visitors have enjoyed Blind River's beautiful natural surroundings and legendary northern Ontario hospitality. Even Canadian singing start, Neil Young, has immortalized Blind River in one of his famous songs.

The community's history has included forestry, being on the cross-Canada Voyageur route, tourism and an excellent history of relations with the neighbouring Mississauga First Nation.

I was born in Blind River. As such, it holds a special place in my heart. Located on the north shore of Lake Huron between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie, Blind River picturesque and friendly. The town is famous for its community celebrations, which has included being named one of the top 50 festivals in Ontario. The committee, with a lot of volunteer help, plans many special activities for this summer.

On behalf of town council, Mayor Gallagher and the residents of Blind River,and all of the north shore who share this time, I invite all members, senators and Canadians to visit and celebrate with us. Please join me in saying, “Giv'er, Giv'er Blind River”.

[The Budget, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the notion that nothing has changed. I am proud of the fact that during our time in office the budget in support of aboriginal programs for first nations increased every year. The member makes the outrageous suggestion that the money disappeared and was not invested. I can tell the member that sure enough there never was enough for all the housing, but houses were built.

There are more young people from our first nations now going to college and university than we have ever seen. It is difficult to keep up with that. We are glad that there are more young aboriginal people going off to college and university, but more has to be done. That is what the Kelowna accord was all about. It was an acknowledgment that, in addition to the investments, more had to be done. That is what we have to agree on, with great respect to my friend from Wild Rose.

[The Budget, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, going back to 1993, with the exception of a few people, most people believe in protectionist free trade. Sadly, with the softwood lumber agreement, if he wants to call it that or a cave in, there is no free trade in softwood lumber. I believe in free trade; I also believe in fair trade. I believe in trade where both sides treat each other with respect and equality, and that we obey the laws that we have both signed on to.

The member refers to a changing economic or financial paradigm around 1993. I do not recall that things changed overnight. Conditions did not go from bad to good overnight. Presumably, the economy is good now. There were bad times. Presumably, the government, with the cooperation of Canadians, put in place the right policies which allowed for the sails of the country's ship to be filled and for this country to sail forward very quickly.

However, when it comes to child care, I am surprised by the number of people who have written to me in my riding complaining about this government's absolute rejection of any notion that a public--