Roy Cullen

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

If that does not qualify as a tax cut, I do not know what does.

The second point has to do with indexation. That party on the other side of the House argued for years and years that we should re-index the exemptions and the whole Income Tax Act. Let us guess what happened. We did that. We re-indexed the income tax system to the cost of inflation. Then those members said, “That's fine, but that's not a tax cut”.

Let me say this. What if we were going to be paying x plus 10% on our tax bill and the government were to say, “By the way, it is not going to be x plus 10% because we are going to reintroduce indexation.” What would we say? If that is not a tax cut, I do not know what is.

Let me say to the group on the other side that we have said we have not finished the government's business with respect to cutting taxes. I think the member raised a couple of important points in terms of disposable income and in terms of productivity, but to stand on that side of the House and say what they have been saying for years means that they have not come to grips with the fact that it was the largest tax cut in Canadian history.

I am wondering if the member would reconsider and recognize that it was the largest tax cut in Canadian history. There is more to be done, but as for saying that the Canada child tax benefit was not a tax cut or that reintroducing indexation was not a tax cut, I wonder if he recognizes the folly of his arguments.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank you and the members of the House for this opportunity.

I listened intently to the speech of the member for Medicine Hat. There were some parts of it that I would agree with, but I think it would be useful to clarify some points he made.

I do not know how representative his sample was when he wandered around Medicine Hat and surrounding areas. I know that there have been some serious issues with respect to the cattle industry in that area, but if we look at it overall, the economy of Alberta in particular has been doing enormously well and in fact the economy of Canada has been doing enormously well. But we certainly can do better and that is what our government has committed to.

I think it is unfortunate that the member would misquote Don Drummond from TD Canada Trust. He knows Don Drummond and I know Don Drummond and I know that Don Drummond knows the difference between a tax and an investment.

Perhaps where the member gets confused is that there is an issue around take-home pay. I think we still have some work to do in terms of the disposable income of Canadians. I think we also have some work to do with respect to the productivity gap. I do not think there is any confusion around that on this side of the House.

The member talked about tax cuts and about Don Drummond mentioning the CPP going up. Of course the CPP affects one's take-home pay, but the CPP is an investment in one's retirement future. It is not a tax. It is not akin to a tax. It never was a tax. Don Drummond knows that. If the member for Medicine Hat were candid with this House he would recognize that as well.

The other point I would like to bring up is the $100 billion tax cut. As the member pointed out, I had the great opportunity and honour to work with the then minister of finance on the $100 billion tax cut, which actually was a $100 billion tax cut. The problem is that members of the Conservative Party were so astounded that the government would move so aggressively on tax cuts that they have tried for years and months since then to argue that it was not a tax cut.

Let me clarify two very important points. The first is the Canada child tax credit. The members of that party over there, the Conservative Party--I cannot remember if it was the Reform Party at the time or the Alliance--do not see the Canada child benefit as a tax cut. It is true that it is not going to big business and it is not going to high income Canadians, but it is true that it is reducing the taxes that otherwise would be payable by low income Canadians with families, and in a big way nowadays, even bigger now than back in budget 2000.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am asking for a 10 minute question and comment period with respect to this particular speech and then we could go back to the normal cycle. The member has raised some important questions that I feel many members would like to comment on.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for questions and comments.

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Madam Chair, we are again getting confused between defining a problem, and the extent and scope of a problem, and having a plan. I am looking forward to seeing his plan tomorrow morning. If there is a plan and the two members opposite have seen it, tell us, what is in the plan? What is the role for the federal government? I will be sitting with bated breath waiting to hear about that.

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Madam Chair, I would contend that our government has shown leadership on this issue. When we talk about leadership, we need to be very specific. This is a salvage logging operation. What is the role for the federal government? I still do not understand what it would be.

If we clear cut certain areas, there must be a plan to replant or to reforest. There has to be a civil-cultural solution. There has to be a whole range of planning in terms of the long term sustainable supply and yield in the forest. That is a long term horizon at which it has to be looked.

We are dealing with a very specific thing where little critters are chewing away at the trees every day because it is not cold enough. When it is not cold enough, they start infecting other trees.

We can talk about all these long term plans, and we need them, but we need to define what role the federal government will play in terms of clear cutting these areas to deal with the mountain pine beetle. For the life of me, I am not sure what the federal role is. I will wait eagerly, as I am sure the minister and the parliamentary secretary will, to see this plan and to see what the federal role should be, according to the province of British Columbia. I am baffled by it.

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Madam Chair, I do not know where the plan is, but if the member could get a copy of it delivered to the minister, I would like to see it.

There is a difference. Defining a problem and the scope of a problem is not a plan. There has to be a plan to deal with a problem. I do not know what the plan is. In my daily responsibilities here, I do not imagine I would be expected to know what the plan is for the Prince George region. There are others here who would be very interested.

The member said that I should know what has to be done. I know what has to be done. We have to clear cut the trees. I do not know where the federal government fits in there in terms of why B.C. needs a cheque? If it clear cuts, takes the logs to the mills, saws them up and then ships them, unless people will be faced with losses.

Ages ago the province could have declared this a disaster or an emergency, but it did not. It was worried that it would face some opposition from people who did not like clear cut logging. It is a shame, but that is the reality. Everyone wants the federal government to cut a cheque. What would it use that money for if it is going to cut down a bunch of trees?

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Madam Chair, I have been listening to this debate with much interest. I think we should put this in some context.

The northern interior of British Columbia is approximately 50% of the land mass of the province. The softwood lumber that comes from this area represents about 21% of Canada's softwood lumber production. I have seen estimates that the infestation has affected $6 billion worth of timber. This is a huge problem.

Some might ask what my interest would be, as I am the member for Etobicoke North. There are a couple of reasons. I lived in British Columbia for 12 years and got quite involved in forestry, and ironically this past year my own riding of Etobicoke North was threatened by the Asian longhorned beetle. Fortunately it did not turn out to be as bad as we thought but it can be devastating for communities. The Asian longhorned beetle problem in my riding does not come close to the devastation that the pine beetle is wreaking on the residents of northern British Columbia and on the total economy of British Columbia.

The reasoning of the member for Nanaimo--Cowichan is the same kind of reasoning that kept the British Columbia provincial government from going ahead and declaring an emergency, which would have called for clear-cut logging. Let us cut to the chase. Doing these interventions at this point in time, going after the host trees or the blue trees, the felling and the burning in a selective way, the only way to deal with a huge infestation like this one is with salvage logging, with clear-cut logging.

That brings me to the point about which I am a little confused, because I am not quite sure what role the federal government can play in a salvage logging operation. The delineation of responsibilities, federal and provincial, is quite clear. Surely they are not asking the Canadian Forest Service to go in there and do some clear-cut logging. There might be a plan. I would like to see the plan. I was just chatting with the Minister of Natural Resources. He has not seen the plan. The parliamentary secretary has not seen the plan. If there is no plan and if we have not seen the plan, how can we react to a plan?

I certainly have not seen the plan but I would like to know what role the plan envisages for the federal government. Clearly the Canadian Forest Service has a role to play when it comes to research. It has a role to play in terms of the export policies as they relate to international trade, as it deals with the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. Its jurisdiction is quite clear.

In fact it was only a few years ago that the federal government partnered with a number of the provinces with the forest resource development agreements, the old FRDAs. Those were cost shared agreements to replant forests. They were all eliminated, actually at the urging of many of the provinces. They said they did not want the federal government planting trees, that this was a provincial jurisdiction.

I empathize with the members for Cariboo--Prince George and Prince George--Peace River. They live and breathe this every day of their lives.

I had the good pleasure many times to visit Prince George, to visit forestry operations. In fact the company I was involved with in Toronto owned 50% of a big operation out there, Northwood Pulp and Timber. I think it has since been sold.

There are so many different forestry operations in that region, areas like Burns Lake, Chetwynd, Dawson Creek, Fort Nelson, Fort St. James, Fort St. John, Houston, Mackenzie, McBride, Smithers, Valemount, and Vanderhoof. When I see those names I am reminded of my many trips probably to every one of them. They are forestry communities and there are many other forestry communities as well.

This is a huge problem. When we look at the interventions, how we can deal with this, the best way would be to have a cold snap of -40°C right at the beginning of the winter. That would pretty much deal with the mountain pine beetle. We all know that B.C. has not had that kind of climate. In fact I would hope that it causes the members opposite to look at the effect of climate change and global warming. Surely that is one of the impacts it is having in northern B.C. We are not getting those cold winters that kill the beetles immediately. We do not have the cold and there is no real prospect that B.C. is going to get that kind of cold weather. Therefore what do we do when the beetle starts expanding its sphere of influence every day and takes over huge swaths of forests?

What happens to this timber? I have had the disturbing experience of flying over many of these areas. What we see are the red tops of trees. We know those trees are infested with beetles. In terms of their ultimate value, there is a way to log these trees at a certain point in time and still get good value from them. However, even with the passage of time, their commercial value becomes very limited because they rot and discolour. That is a huge problem.

Therefore, what can we do? If we go in with massive logging operations, we end up with a huge supply of timber on the market. What do we do with that? Timber that is salvageable is put through the sawmills, then more lumber is shipped into the U.S. market and prices are affected negatively. I am not talking about a small area. A huge amount of lumber would be created from this type of devastated forest.

I am not sure what the answer is. I wish I could stand here and say that there would be a huge federal role. Maybe there is one, and I would like to see what it is. However, it is not up to the federal government to go in and do clear cut logging, that is for sure.

The minister and colleagues have talked about the $41 million initiative, the mountain pine beetle initiative. I suppose that is to help with doing some research and trying to envisage the world post the beetle. The real answer is to stop the growth and spread of the beetle. The only way to do that is to log it.

There are some people in British Columbia and across Canada who would say that it would be terrible to clear cut those forests. As the member for Cariboo—Prince George noted, they will be gone anyway. We might as well deal with the spread of this beetle because one way or the other that timber will be ruined.

I did some work in the private sector. We looked at the Canadian Forestry Service and at different models for the delivery of its programs and considered whether they should be decentralized or centralized. There is the Pacific Forestry Centre in Victoria. We actually recommended that it decentralize some of the research to Prince George. I think the government did that for a while. I do not know if the Canadian Forestry Service still has a research capability in Prince George. The argument we put forward at the time was that we could not deal with the forest industry in British Columbia without focusing on Prince George and the Prince George region. Too much is going on there and it is too important for the livelihood of many people.

I will throw out some statistics. Located in the northern interior of British Columbia are 141 production facilities. They provide about 25,000 direct jobs and 55,000 to 75,000 indirect jobs. I have already commented on the percentage of the softwood lumber exports that come from the northern part of British Columbia, and it is enormous. The region produces more than five billion board feet of lumber annually. That is enough for 640,000 new single family homes. When the mountain pine beetle comes in and creates this kind of devastation, that has a huge impact for the local economy and the economy of British as a whole.

We can talk about all the other types of interventions in an academic sense, but they will not work. We have to get rid of the trees that are infested and we have to stop the growth of the infestation. The only way to do that it to do some control or prescribed burns into these areas or we salvage it, log it and clear cut it. Anything else I think is just missing the point.

The citizenry in British Columbia has to accept the fact that they need to get in there and clear cut these areas. No one likes the idea of clear cutting forest, but when the alternatives are much worse, then that is something to which we have to face.

[Canada Border Services Agency Act, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on two particular points my colleague raised.

First, the department strives for perfection, but I do not think Bill C-26 is perfect. That is why bills come before Parliament. I am sure my colleague understands that the decisions of December last were made because the government could not wait around for the endorsement of the House when the security of Canadians was at stake. The government took action to bring these various agencies and groups together under one roof so it could have better coordination and ready access to information, as the member cited.

We are not creating any new powers or authorities under the new department or agency. Some efficiencies could be obtained. An immigration officer could call up information that otherwise might be awkward to pull up. There will be some efficiency, some synergy. The whole reason for this is so various groups can share information respecting fully, as the member cited, the need for privacy. The legislation would not change anything with respect to those authorities.

Having talked about the need for coordination, the member should be inclined to support the bill. I hope his colleagues will as well. Bringing these government functions under one roof is an important step for our government to take. It will result in a more coordinated and a more strategic focus on that.

If the member glanced through the 9/11 report that came out of the United States, he would find that this is a challenge governments face worldwide. We have to ensure that various agencies and departments talk to each other. The member cited inter-operability, as did other members. We are striving to ensure that radio systems can communicate with each other and that those protocols are standardized. We still have work to do, but much progress has already been made.

[Canada Border Services Agency Act, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges for her comments.

In my speech, I described the Government of Canada's position on certain points. I would like to repeat them, because the hon. member has described something that does not exactly match the government's position.

The Canada Border Services Agency was created in order to provide integrated services at the border. The CBSA facilitates legitimate cross-border traffic of travellers and goods while stopping people and goods that pose a potential risk to Canada.

The Government of Canada is committed to protecting refugees and welcoming immigrants. This remains one of its highest priorities.

Moreover, transferring port of entry functions will not have any negative effect on the protection of immigrants and refugees. The duties of officers at ports of entry will remain the same.

I wanted to make that point and also underline the point I made in my remarks. We come from the premise that 90% or the vast majority of Canadians, whether they be individuals or businesses, want to comply with the law. However, we do have to deal with a small minority of those people who would like to take advantage of our generosity.