Roy Cullen

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute scandal that the separatists have chosen for their next galvanizing point the idea of tax points. This is the issue they feel will coalesce Quebecers against the federal government because they know the federal government would not move in that direction.

Why would the federal government not move in that direction? First, cash transfers are a way for the federal government to hold the provinces accountable under the Canada Health Act and other acts of parliament. Without the cash points, it would not have the leverage, and the Bloc Quebecois and the separatists know that.

The second reason is that in 1977 the federal government transferred tax points to the provinces, 13.5 percentage points of its personal income tax. It was therefore totally transparent to the tax paying public. The taxation power went to the province of Quebec, for example, and other provinces. The federal government relinquished that. It was totally in the context of health care and education. However, guess what, Mr. Speaker? The federal government does not get credit for that anymore because the provinces conveniently forget to include that in the transfers when they talk about federal transfers to the provinces for health care, education and social services.

Does the member think the federal government will make that mistake again? I think it was a mistake in 1977. We transferred all these tax points to be more responsive and to allow the provinces, which are closer to health care and education, to manage their affairs more directly. However the provinces conveniently forgot and continue to forget to include that in the transfers the federal government makes to the provinces, which now amount to about $15 billion a year.

I wonder whether the member opposite will confess and be honest with the House and Canadians that this is a separatist strategy, to coalesce around tax points which he knows the federal government will not relinquish again.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-36. I believe many members like myself will support the bill, reluctantly in one sense because we find it offensive, but in my opinion this is a necessary response to some extraordinary circumstances that call for an extraordinary response.

The bill will show that it reflects and meets the demands of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government has been very responsive in the amendments that it introduced. The five areas of amendment will go a long way to make the bill more palatable to Canadians and because of that I will be supporting it.

What would the bill do? It would ensure tougher sentences for terrorist acts and make it a crime to support, help or harbour terrorists. It would make it easier for police and security agencies to investigate terrorists and their supporters. It would make it a crime to collect funds for terrorism and would make it easier to deny or remove charitable status for organizations that are fronts for terrorism.

It would keep terrorists from getting across our borders and would make it easier to freeze the assets of terrorists. It would establish stronger penalties for hate crimes and would show Canada's solidarity with other countries fighting terrorism by ratifying the UN anti-terrorism conventions.

What would the amendments do? The amendments are in five key areas. First, sunset clauses would be added to the preventive arrest and investigative hearing provisions in addition to the three year parliamentary review of the act so that they expire in five years. Second, the Attorney General of Canada, Solicitor General of Canada, provincial attorneys general and ministers responsible for policing would be required to report annually to the public on the use of the preventive arrest and investigative hearing provisions of Bill C-36.

Third, the word lawful would be deleted from the definition of a terrorist activity. Fourth, an interpretative clause would be added to the bill clarifying that the expression of political, religious or ideological beliefs is not a terrorist activity. Finally, the provisions concerning facilitation of a terrorist activity would be reordered so that they clearly state that in order to be guilty of an offence an individual must know or intend that his or her act would help a terrorist activity to occur. These amendments would go a long way to making the bill a good bill.

I have a very large Muslim community in my riding. I visited the mosques and the people are concerned that there might be reactions against the Muslim community; in other words blaming the many for the actions of a few. I am glad that the bill establishes stronger penalties for hate crimes as this type of activity is not to be tolerated.

I also have a large number of Tamils in my riding. Their organization, FACT, has been attacked by members opposite as being a terrorist front. This organization is a cultural organization and its members are concerned that their organization will be swept up in the definitions of terrorist activities. I have spoken to the solicitor general and I would like to make it a matter of public record that any such move should be strongly supported by facts and not by innuendo that might come from other sources. I am sure our agencies, departments and ministers will make sure that is the case.

I have many Somali Canadian refugees in my riding who transferred money to Somalia. They used the al-Barakaat agency which was a money transfer operation. It was effectively barred and that is unfortunate. Al-Barakaat was seen on the one hand to finance terrorist activities. There were many Somali Canadian refugees in my riding who sent small amounts of money to Somalia. These were amounts that were supporting relatives and friends in Somalia in very remote locations and al-Barakaat was the agency that had the broadest reach and was most credible.

I have addressed this with the ministers to see if there would be a way to have legitimate money transfer operations continue. However, I do understand that it is complex and it is difficult to do that.

With respect to those organizations that could be added to the list of terrorists, I am pleased that the process of adding a group to the list of terrorists incorporates a number of protections, including the provision for removal, judicial review and safeguards to address cases of mistaken identity. As well, the list must be reviewed every two years by the solicitor general.

The question of refugee claimants is a very important issue. In Canada we have a very tolerant and progressive policy. We welcome those people who deserve the protection of Canada. Unfortunately, there has been some abuse.

I am glad to see that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is receiving $17 million. I think more will be needed and I hope that will be addressed on December 10. A more thorough review will be given of the background of refugee claimants to ensure they do not have terrorist activities in their background and also to make sure of their identity. The fact that a refugee who arrives here in Canada has no documentation by and of itself should not be tremendous cause for concern. Many refugees arrive in Canada with just the shirts on their backs if they are lucky. We need to be careful about broad-brushing those people who arrive without documentation as being automatically suspect. It behooves us all to make a very special check.

I have been arguing for some time that we need to make sure refugee claimants are brought before the Immigration and Refugee Board and tribunals more quickly so that a determination can be made. If there is a concern that they will not appear at their hearing, they should be detained. We have that ability now under the current legislation and the bill reinforces that. That is an important step we are taking.

There is the whole question of border issues. Some popular press says that the Americans are looking to us to tighten up our borders and if we do that, then we can move our goods back and forth more freely. I do not think that is the case at all. I do not think the Americans are looking for this so-called perimeter harmonization, integration and all those buzzwords.

The American ambassador used a term the other day with which I feel more comfortable. He called it a comfort zone. Yes, we need to ensure that we have a comfort zone. In 90% of the cases we may agree with the Americans on what is appropriate policy at the border, but in 10% of the cases we may not. We need to have that flexibility as a sovereign nation to decide for example that we do not welcome handguns in Canada. I could name other situations where we need to exercise our sovereignty.

Having said that, I believe that reasonable people, which I think we are as a government and the Americans are as a government, will agree on 90% of what is needed to make our borders more secure and to allow the free flow of goods. In fact, this parliament approved a bill not too long ago which modernizes the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and allows for the lower risk volume of traffic to move more freely with sanctions if they do not live up to the expectations.

I would like to see U.S. customs adopt pre-clearance and pre-authorization so our goods can start moving in that direction. I was very happy that our Minister of Finance and our Minister of National Revenue reached some compact with the U.S. secretary of commerce to fast track these border issues, to deal with infrastructure, to deal with policy and to ensure that our goods move back and forth, because trade between Canada and the United States is so vitally important to all our citizens.

To wrap up, let me say that the bill with the amendments is a necessary piece of legislation. There are sunset clauses to ensure that some of the more difficult provisions are lapsed. However, we will honour our national conventions when it comes to terrorism. We will make sure that the charter of rights and freedoms, which we value so much as Canadians, is respected. We will move on border issues. We will move on immigration issues. The government, I am sure, will address the terrorist elements that are here in Canada and the movement of funds. Overall we will achieve our objectives with this legislation.

[The G-20, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend Canada hosted meetings of the G-20, of the international monetary and financial committee and also the development committee, in Ottawa.

Could the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions tell us what was accomplished at these meetings?

[Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the member for North Vancouver was describing it as though it is good enough to fail.

There are so many countries around the world that provide this kind of support because the risk is too great in the market or because of other compensating factors the governments support local companies.

I hope that the companies in his riding of North Vancouver were not listening. I am sure that to them failure is not good enough and “Oh, well, too bad” is not good enough. It is not good enough for the companies in my riding and I am sure it is not good enough for the companies in his either.

[Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member for North Vancouver wanted to offer some constructive suggestions but I am afraid he missed the point. Canadian Commercial Corporation serves a very useful purpose in Canada's economy. I will give a specific example.

There is a company in my riding by the name of Soheil Mosun Limited. It is a small company that is noted for its excellence in what is called architectural decorative work. It bid on a project in the United States through a general contractor. It was a subcontractor. It was successful but it had to come up with a performance bond that was quite elaborate. It went to the private marketplace and could not find the performance bonding requirements that it needed. It had discussions with the Export Development Corporation. Finally, the Canadian Commercial Corporation provided the performance bond.

This company has gone from strength to strength to strength. It is now an international player. It has developed a credibility in the U.S. marketplace. It has been asked to bid on projects throughout the United States. Now one of its challenges is working capital, to make sure it has the working capital to keep pace with the growth in its business. It brought in some expertise.

The company is growing from strength to strength. It is a small company, a father and two sons. They have grown this business as a result of the support of the Canadian Commercial Corporation into an amazingly dynamic and successful business. It is creating jobs in my riding of Etobicoke North. Again the CCC helped create another company with an amazing reputation as a world leader in this particular niche.

Perhaps the experience of the hon. member for North Vancouver is somewhat different. Or maybe he just is not aware of the needs in that community and the way the Canadian Commercial Corporation can fill the very important gaps that the private sector for whatever reason is not able to fill. That is the very purpose and the reason we have these crown corporations, to move into those areas where the markets cannot meet the demand.

Would the member reflect on those comments, check his notes about companies in his riding and perhaps reconsider his views on this very important piece of legislation?

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I did not catch all the member's speech but I did hear the part where she talked about creative solutions.

It seems to me that in restructuring Air Canada, the unions, the pilots, the ground crews, the flight attendants and all the employees may have to put some water in their wine. They may have to make some concessions to make the airline viable. I am not privy to all the airline's business but it seems to me that is a possibility.

If they have to do that, why would Air Canada not allow its employees to participate in the ownership of Air Canada? We have the precedents of USAir Inc. and Delta Airlines Inc. This would give the employees of Air Canada an opportunity to participate in the success. It might allow those employees to become even more customer focused, even more service oriented than they are today. Frankly, I think they could use some encouragement in that area as probably all of us in the House have discovered from time to time.

Would the member opposite support an employee share ownership plan that would allow the employees to own shares in Air Canada?

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. The border harassment actions by the Americans have nothing to do with alleged subsidies and everything to do with market share. Whenever Canada's share of the U.S. softwood lumber market climbs over 30% the Americans launch another countervailing duty.

This year they launched an anti-dumping action at the same time. Each time they lose, and they have lost every softwood lumber action, they ignore the rulings by independent tribunals and change their trade rules to suit their own purpose.

The U.S. administration speaks of an integrated North American market. From a business perspective the energy and softwood lumber markets are integrated North American commodity markets. The main difference is that for softwood lumber the U.S. administration gives only lip service to the integrated North American market concept. If it were truly integrated the U.S. would use different approaches to the resolution of trade disputes. I will give three alternative approaches.

First, we could resolve Canada-U.S. softwood lumber trade disputes by looking at them through the prism of competition policy. This would mean the Americans would have to show that actions in Canada were anti-competitive in nature. Allegations of subsidies and dumping would be gone. If the Americans like competition why do they not look at trade disputes through the prism of competition policy?

Second, we could look at net subsidies. The U.S. countervail process does not allow Canada to attack U.S. subsidies to its own lumber producers. These subsidies are well entrenched, particularly at the state and local government levels. They include cheap industrial land, sales tax abatements, property tax holidays, cogeneration agreements and many more.

There is clear evidence that many U.S. forest service timber sales to loggers do not cover the agency's costs. Is Canada allowed to look at the U.S. system? No, it is not. We must defend our system by their trade rules. The net subsidy methodology would require the U.S. administration and agencies to show that subsidies in Canada were greater than those in the U.S.A., something they could not prove as things stand now.

Third, if we wanted to be creative we could use the concept of serious prejudice. However the net subsidy and competition policy approaches seem to offer the most potential. What we need is goodwill south of the border.

Another myth being generated in the United States is that forest management practices in Canada lag behind those of the U.S.A. This is not the case. While forest management practices in both Canada and the United States are evolving and in a state of continuous improvement, as they should be, Canada is an acknowledged world leader in forest stewardship. Our industry is second to none in silviculture, harvesting and reforestation practices.

American producers argue that Canadian producers pay too low a price in Canada. That is of course in relation to the price they pay. Maybe they are paying too much. That is a fair question. Has it ever been asked?

There is a lot of evidence to suggest the price U.S. producers pay is in many cases not economic. Lands taken out of active forestry production because of environmental pressures, particularly in U.S. states like Washington and Oregon, have resulted in an imbalance in supply and demand for timber. In other words there are too many loggers chasing too little timber.

Auction prices have been driven sky high and out of line with economic realities. When futures contracts mature loggers are often faced with prices for timber that could leave them devastated. The White House has intervened on a number of occasions to let logging companies off the hook. They say this is how the market works and that it is a market based auction system. I am sorry, but when we let people off the hook for auction prices we do not have an auction system.

Auction prices in the United States are in many cases uneconomic, particularly if we look at the state of some of their sawmills. They have not modernized their mills as we have in Canada. While I have a lot of respect for the power of the markets they are not in every case the proxy for economic value. All we need to do is look at the behaviour of Nasdaq in the last few years to see that the market sometimes gets it wrong.

When it comes to the pricing of timber the United States has it wrong. It should be looking at trying to improve its own system rather than coming across the border to Canada to look for a scapegoat.

What is at stake here is a matter of sovereignty; it is our ability to set our own forest policy, nationally and provincially.

The Americans basically argue that because their timber is on private lands and ours is principally on crown lands their system is right and ours is wrong. That is hogwash. It shows an amazing arrogance, if I may say so.

Let us look briefly at the economics of the forest products industry in Canada. If it is so subsidized, it must be doing very well. Sorry, but historically the returns on investment for the forest products industry in Canada have been in the range of 3% to 5%. Does that sound like a heavily subsidized industry, particularly when we acknowledge and understand that this is a very innovative and productive industry?

For the year 2002, the following Canadian forest products companies are projected to be in loss positions, and this is before the dumping duty: Canfor, Abitibi, Doman, Interfor, Nexfor, Tembec, Slocan and Riverside. These are some of the world's leading forest products companies. Does this sound like a heavily subsidized industry? They are all world leaders and they are all losing money, and that is before the dumping duties. They are losing a lot of money.

A forest industry analyst recently reported that Canfor Corporation, Canada's largest lumber producer, spends about $260 U.S. to produce one thousand board feet of lumber. That is against a benchmark price for western Canadian 2x4s of about $220 U.S. per thousand board feet. It is no surprise that they are losing money. That is $40 U.S. a board foot. That is on cash only, and forget depreciation and other non-cash items. Does this sound like a subsidized company? Canfor has some of the best mills in the world.

Let us take the discussion of the forest industry economics a step further. What do forest products companies in Canada pay for the right to cut down trees? It is called stumpage, or royalties in some cases. As I understand it, stumpage is currently in the range of about $50 to $70 per thousand board feet. That represents, as a per cent of selling price, about 14% to 21% of the benchmark selling price for 2x4s. That represents solely the right to extract the timber. It does not include logging costs, transportation costs, milling costs, processing costs, packaging, transportation, marketing, selling, and distribution. By any rule of thumb, that is not an unreasonable amount.

Who benefits and who loses? The lawyers win. The U.S. lumber producers benefit. The Canadian lumber producers and workers lose. At a combined rate of 32%, many mills have and will shut down and many workers are and will be unemployed. U.S. consumers lose. It costs an additional $1,000 U.S. per home by keeping out Canadian softwood lumber. The U.S. contracting community prefers Canadian softwood because it has less warp and wane and it nails better. Contractors like to use it. They prefer it to southern yellow pine.

Is it not ironic that in a country that says the market should decide everything the consumers and the home builders cannot even buy the products they want?

What do we do next? I think we must fight with tenacity against these duties at the WTO, which will take some time. In the meantime our industry will be really hard hit and the workforce will be hard hit. Perhaps we will have to help them, I do not know, but the Americans have lost every countervailing duty case that they have brought on softwood lumber and we will show once again that these charges are trumped up and this will be demonstrated by an impartial, objective panel.

The forest industry and governments at all levels need to stay united and work together. I must say that our trade minister and the Prime Minister have done a great job of keeping everyone together and united.

We need to fight this very hard. We need to never forget that the forest industry is so important for Canada. Communities across Canada depend on the forest industry. We need to fight for those people and their families.

[Remembrance Day, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, few symbols carry as much meaning and emotion as the scarlet poppy. Since November 1921, Canadians have been wearing the poppy as a symbol of their remembrance of the sacrifice Canada made for peace.

Poppies are our way of paying tribute to the men and women who lost their lives in wars and in peacekeeping missions.

Throughout the world, countries and legions have adopted the poppy as the symbol of remembrance.

Each year the Royal Canadian Legion poppy campaign provides over 13 million poppies to Canadians. The money raised from donations helps to provide immediate assistance to ex-service men and women in need, often including food, shelter or medical support for them and their families.

I call upon all Canadians to show their support for those who have fallen by wearing a poppy.

[Rail Industry, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today, November 1, marks the rail industry's annual day on Parliament Hill.

How many times since September 11 have we said in this House and elsewhere that things have changed? What has not changed is the importance of our rail sector to our national economy.

If we speak directly to the implications for cross-border trade with our American partners, it is clear that border efficiencies will have a significant impact on both our economies.

The economic importance of improvements to allow for the free but secure movement of trains and trucks across the Canada-U.S. border cannot be overstated. The federal government will continue its role in initiatives that facilitate cross-border movements of freight and passengers in all modes.

In the words of Bill Rowat, president and CEO of the Railway Association of Canada, the Canadian rail sector is on track for the future to make an important contribution to Canada's prosperity.

[Citizenship Week, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to remind my colleagues that this week is Canada's Citizenship Week. Canada's Citizenship Week is a time to reflect on what it means to be Canadian and celebrate the values that draw us together; values like equality, tolerance and respect for law and order.

However citizenship also involves responsibilities. As Canadians we are all responsible for ensuring our children continue to live in a nation that is both environmentally responsible and economically viable. Moreover, we must remind ourselves of the importance of working together and helping one another in times of need.

In my riding of Etobicoke North I am constantly reminded of how important and valuable our citizenship is. These reminders come both from new Canadians and those who have lived in the riding for generations. For some new Canadians citizenship means the fulfillment of a dream and the beginning of a new life.

Canada is acknowledged as one of the best countries in the world in which to live. It is therefore with pride that I reiterate this week's theme: Canada: We all belong.