Catherine Bell

[Petitions, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to present a petition that is signed by many people from across this country.

This petition recognizes the quality production in Canadian automotive assembly facilities that are threatened as a result of expanding imports from Asia and Europe. It asks the Conservative government to protect Canadian jobs and workers by cancelling negotiations for a free trade agreement with Korea. It calls on the government to develop a new automotive trade policy that would require Korea and other offshore markets to purchase equivalent volumes of finished vehicles and auto parts from North America as a condition of their continued access to our market.

[Committees of the House, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in rural British Columbia, where I come from, we have many museums which have been asking for funding for a number of years. They are feeling left out and are struggling to maintain their artifacts in order to build a sense of community.

I heard some hon. members mention that we need to keep our streets safe and we should be talking that. One way to do that is to have viable museums in our communities that children can attend and learn about their heritage, build that sense of community, and learn who they are in the world. That is a small thing that we can do.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned that $245 million is going into museums. That is about $9,800 per museum if we divide that by 2,500 museums across this country, which is really not very much to maintain those small struggling museums and to build infrastructures to maintain their buildings.

Does the hon. member believe that our tax dollars, that we pay to take care of one another, and to look after our communities and our families is wasted? Is it a waste of money to invest in our museums and our heritage?

[Committees of the House, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister is looking for a number of museums that have been impacted by the cuts and by the lack of funding over the years, I have probably 11 municipalities in my riding on about six little islands and each has a museum that has been struggling for many years maintaining, collecting and storing artifacts in barns and garages. They were very hopeful that funding would be forthcoming.

Would my colleague agree with me that our rural rich heritage is in jeopardy of being lost if the funding is cut for rural museums?

[Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear in the hon. member's speech mention of credit unions, the implications for small institutions and the impact it would have on their budgets.

What does the hon. member think about that and could she maybe comment on the negative situations these credit unions and small institutions could find themselves in?

[Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, small branch credit unions, of which I am a member in my riding, have difficulty with administration costs and making ends meet because they do not have the resources of large banks and larger institutions.

What does the member think of the issue of credit unions having to monitor and carry the burden of the investigation process with respect to criminal activities and the hardship of that for them?

[Rural Mail Delivery, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this motion and talk about the importance of the rural mail delivery system in my riding, especially in the southern part of my riding, the Comox Valley. This is the area where I grew up, a very rural area, where we had the experience of having our mail delivered every day by a rural mail carrier. It is something that I reflect on today, and I speak from the heart on this issue.

I have heard from Canada Post and it admits that its main mandate is to serve Canadians. In so doing, rural mail serves Canadians in areas where there may not be access to public transit or people with vehicles. It is important to maintain this service for these areas. Where I grew up, everyone had a mailbox on the side of the road. Everyone looked forward to the mail carrier passing by, when we would all go out and collect our mail.

As the times changed, transportation became better and cars became more plentiful as people were able to buy them. The rural mail system changed somewhat. People then accessed the smaller towns and villages. The mail service changed in that we were able to pick up our mail and packages at a more central location. That was still an inconvenience for people who relied on the rural mail being delivered. I am glad to see that it was maintained. Mail delivery is still maintained today in the area between Cumberland and Royston, which is a very rural area in my riding. I know that many of my constituents there still receive their mail every day by rural mail.

Also, with some of the changes, people got group mailboxes at the end of their road. It had become a safety issue for the mail carriers to stop at all the little mailboxes as more traffic came onto our rural roads. These group mailboxes are still accessible, but it is a bit of a hardship for people with disabilities and for seniors. Some other issues have arisen from that, but I know that Canada Post was working very hard to make sure there was safety for people accessing rural mail.

Another safety issue is the safety of workers. I know that the NDP had a private member's bill and worked very hard toward making sure that rural mail carriers were able to organize and to join unions. I am very proud of my party for the work it did on that issue. The NDP wanted to end the exploitation of workers that deliver our rural mail because we felt that was important and we wanted to maintain that service for individuals living in those rural areas.

What happens when people are able to join a union and have a say in their working conditions is that the working conditions generally improve. The workers who are delivering the mail know what the safety issues are. I think it is important to remember that just because there is a safety issue it does not mean that we should end the service. It means we should make it better. I think there are a lot of ways that we can work with those workers to improve mail service.

There are other issues affecting rural mail delivery. I know that in my area, as well as others, Canada Post started closing some of the smaller post offices in the smaller villages. People then were able to collect their mail at the local grocery store. It is a kind of creeping privatization of this service. I think it was a big concern to a lot of people because they saw a service disappearing. Also a concern was that the small grocery store was a small business in a very small town.

When larger grocery stores took their business away, the little stores closed and we lost part of our mail service. I do not want to see any more of that happen. I would support keeping rural mail services, improving them and ensuring they are safe for workers and for the people who pick up their mail.

Even with the advances in technology we still see an importance in having rural mail delivery. Some people say that they do not write letters any more or they do not send mail in the same way as they used to. Even with the Internet and faster communications I think people are still using the mail services. When we order things online, as I have done in the past and as others in the House probably have, those things still need to be shipped. When people live in rural areas they often have their packages delivered to the door by a rural mail carrier. It is important to maintain that service even in the face of the increase in technology and the availability of the Internet in many households.

There are other reasons as well. It is so nice on holidays, birthdays and special occasions to receive a card in the mail. I think it is something many people look forward to. Even in this day and age, we still look forward to those types of things. I know the mail system is much busier at Christmas time when all of us will be sending out cards to our constituents, friends and families. I know that everyone will be looking forward to receiving that mail but if people live in a rural area and they do not have access to mail delivery then it would not be as easy to get that.

There are many reasons for maintaining a system that is part of the traditional culture of rural Canada. I picture people on farms and in small communities going out to the mailbox to collect their mail and the importance of that for them so they do not have to go into town. In many rural communities, especially where I live on Vancouver Island, the transit system does not go out the very long back roads. It is just about impossible for someone, especially farmers whose jobs are at their homes and on their farms, to get into town on a daily basis to get their mail. It is important to have that mail brought to those people because it is just about impossible for them to get into town to get it.

There is also the issue of seniors. In my riding, many seniors still live in the rural areas and may not have the ability to drive into town or to drive at all. It is important for them to access their mail and to be able to put a piece of mail into the box and have it picked up so they do not need to go into town all the time.

It is important that we maintain this service. It is important for young families as well for seniors because young families are very busy people and may not have the ability to get into town, especially when there is a lack of transit.

I would support the initiative to maintain the rural postal system. It is important on a number of levels. It seems to be something that is important to Canada Post because, as it says, it is its mandate to serve Canadians and, in so doing, the rural mail system is an important service that must be maintained.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced that his government will eliminate what it calls the race based fishery.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans says that its policies are clear cut. Yesterday, he asked other members to talk to first nations chiefs about his performance on this issue.

I have spoken to many first nations chiefs in my riding as well as members of the First Nations Summit. They are clear in their rejection. They denounce the government's provocative assertions that will do nothing but drive a wedge between aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen.

In a recent press release, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs were unanimous in calling this performance an affront to first nations in B.C. and a direct challenge to the courts. It said:

Let us be clear, there are no ‘race-based’ fisheries–there are Aboriginal rights-based fisheries which are judicially recognized...The [Conservative] government should honour court decisions.

That is how we will move ahead in this country.

[Status of Women, October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today is the anniversary of the day that women became persons in this country.

Today, women across Canada are holding vigils and celebrations, including tea with the Famous Five, to mark this historic occasion and I celebrate with them.

However, only nine months after committing to take concrete and immediate action to increase women's equality in this country, the Conservative government slashed the budget of the Status of Women, removed any reference to the word “equality” from its mandate and disallowed advocacy on the part of groups who receive federal funds through the department.

This giant leap backward effectively silences the voices of the most vulnerable women in our society.

Today, the Governor General is honouring women for their great work in the struggle for women's equality but, ironically, one of these groups receiving the award has had its funding gutted by the government.

One can only conclude that the attitude of the government is “You've come far enough baby”.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that the hearings, which the committee agreed to, have not gone ahead. It is quite annoying that the kibosh was put on them because we should have heard from Canadians in all communities about how bad this deal was and how it was affecting them.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak again about my concerns and the concerns that have been expressed to me in the riding of Vancouver Island North about how this softwood lumber deal is bad for Canada.

I want to reiterate that the Conservatives campaigned on getting tough with the Americans and standing up for Canada and Canadian interests, but instead they got tough with the Canadian lumber companies. With the signing of this deal, the Conservatives have negotiated away all of Canada's wins at the NAFTA tribunals and put workers and communities in jeopardy. So many of those communities are in my riding and are suffering because of this deal.

After five years of legal battles under NAFTA and the U.S. Court of International Trade, the CIT ruled that Canada was entitled to the return of every penny of the $5.3 billion owed, every penny. That is the amount of illegally imposed duties of our softwood exports over the years. Again, we won.

Why would the government sellout Canadian manufacturers and communities, and capitulate to the pressure of the U.S. government and the lumber lobbyists? Why did the government snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

The fact is that the recent court ruling, which I might add came only last Friday, is rendered a moot point due to this bad softwood lumber agreement. This agreement should go down in the history of Canada as one very shameful moment for the government. We just gave away $1 billion. I guess it is just one more way the government trims the fat. It seems to like to do that. Its rush to appease the U.S. lumber lobbyists has sold out ordinary Canadians, especially those who live and work in forest dependent communities.

The other irony about all of this is that about $500 million of Canadian money will go to the U.S. That is $.5 billion to the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports. This money will most likely be used to rekindle the coalition, which is failing, and at some point in the future we will have to fight the U.S. again and it will be with our money.

It will be using our money to fight us. It is a sad irony. What a sellout. Why would anyone agree to this when it is our duty as members of Parliament to stand up for our constituencies and communities, all of whom happen to be Canadian? They are in our ridings.

Let me provide a few other reasons why this is a bad deal, besides the fact that it is based on a falsehood that Canadian softwood lumber industries are subsidized. This falsehood was exposed and rejected in every NAFTA and U.S. commercial court ruling that clearly sided with Canadian industry.

Another reason this is a bad deal is that it can be cancelled unilaterally at any time. It does not go on for seven years. It could last only two years or even 18 months and does not provided stability and predictability to the Canadian softwood lumber industry. This deal constrains trade unreasonably by applying punitive tariffs and quotas that hinder the flexibility of the Canadian softwood industry.

I want to talk about a small flooring manufacturing company in my riding that is devastated by this agreement. It has told me it is going to be losing over $300,000 a year in revenues because it cannot find a way under this deal as it stands to do business with the U.S. It is going to be shut out. It is a small company and is going to lose out because of this deal.

It will be the dozen or so people who work in small businesses in my community who will probably lose their jobs if this deal goes ahead. Small businesses are very concerned about their future. It is a bad deal because it does not respect small businesses.

The deal kills the credibility of the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism. Canada won in the courts but by negotiating away all of those wins we have put the dispute mechanism in jeopardy. We might as well say that we did not need it. We capitulate in a heartbeat.

It sets a bad precedent, not only for the softwood lumber industry, but also for other industrial sectors in this country. If the government can capitulate to the Americans on softwood, what can it do in other sectors that are governed by NAFTA? Will we see this again in other industries? It is a bad deal.

The deal does nothing for the thousands of workers who have lost their livelihoods over the past five years. My colleagues and I in the NDP called for loan guarantees from the government so that the industries in our communities could get through this and maintain some of the workers. However, that did not happen. Many of the industries had to lay off workers and many are now gone because of this deal. We also see a further job loss through consolidation caused by the quotas and export taxes.

I have another reason for talking about this agreement. This softwood lumber agreement creates an incentive for exporting raw logs. I live on Vancouver Island and I when I drive up and down the Island highway I see truckload after truckload of raw logs leaving the Island and going to a log dump. We used to have a lot of small mills, mills that were the backbone and the lifeblood of so many small communities. These mills kept those communities going because the logs were tied to the communities. This is not happening any more. This deal does nothing to stop these logs from being exported out of our communities and out of the country. The logs are being processed offshore and in the U.S. Those are family supporting jobs that we have lost in our communities. That is not standing up for our communities.

This continued export of raw logs has to stop. I have spoken about this in my communities and everywhere I go people agree that this is something that has to end. For that reason alone, I would think that people would not support this deal.

This deal does not provide effective protection for Atlantic Canada. The softwood lumber agreement has a fundamental and irreversible impact on the ability of Canada to defend itself within NAFTA and the United States commercial court system. The agreement makes everyone substantially more vulnerable, notwithstanding the Atlantic exemption. The renewal of the exemption is not a guarantee against failure in the future. The Atlantic provinces are still vulnerable to subsidy allegations. There will be nothing to stop the U.S. from alleging that Atlantic Canadians are not living up to this deal.

This is a bad deal because I know much of the industry was not on side. It was pressured into supporting this deal and a lot of bullying tactics went on. Many industries felt forced into signing on to this deal. A lot of them actually did not sign on, but were pressured anyway. I am really standing up for those people in those industries, for the workers in our communities and for the communities in my riding and across this country that will be devastated by this deal.