Bill Siksay

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could understand the motivation of Conservative and Liberal members from British Columbia when it comes to this deal.

In fact, the other day I was here in the House when the debate was going on and I heard a Conservative member from Vancouver Island recounting how people in Port Alberni were counting the number of trucks leaving that community with raw logs on the back of the trucks that had no post-logging production and no value added production on that lumber. They were counting those trucks leaving day after day and in the port of Port Alberni raw logs were being loaded on to ships to be exported out of Canada, again, with no further production of that wood into anything secondary.

It is unbelievable that the member could stand there and report this kind of activity when we know that is one of the flaws with this deal. It does nothing to stop the export of raw logs from British Columbia. That will be a huge--

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is making the lawyers for the lumber lobby in the United States happier. I have a feeling that it is probably the government, which gave them a bonus payment of $500 million, so that they can pursue their next plan and their next attack on Canadian industry. We have seen them do it time and time again. We have seen them do it with the forest industry. We have seen them do it with steel. We have seen them do it in the agriculture sector. So here we have given them $500 million to pursue their next campaign against our industry, against our jobs, against our communities, and against our families.

I will not take any criticism from that side of the House for making Americans happy about this because we know that the big smile on their faces came directly from the actions of the government on that issue and the big paycheque that came from the government when it caved in on this deal. We were on the verge of winning every step along the way and all of a sudden we up and caved in. We caved in and we sent them a big cheque along with it.

That is absolutely unacceptable in this corner of the House. Frankly, I do not think that anything we are doing is making much joy in the lumber industry in the United States.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 29th, 2006]

Yes. The member for Winnipeg Centre is right when he says that three minutes is bad enough. My colleague had only that much time to address each of these important issues he was raising with regard to this legislation.

Then the committee decided that the three minute amount of time was too long and should be reduced to one minute, but in one minute members can barely get the topic they are addressing out on the floor. A member cannot make a serious argument in one minute about what is important in an amendment and why that change needs to be made.

Even that was too long for the committee and the members moved to eliminate the ability to address any of the amendments all together. What a travesty of the parliamentary process. What a ham-fisted attempt to just shut down any discussion and any serious attempt to address the problems of this legislation.

I have very serious problems with what happened in that committee. A member, who was taking his responsibility seriously to represent the people of Canada, to represent people in forest communities, to represent workers in forest communities, to represent their families, to represent other industries affected by this agreement and this legislation, was shut down and did not have the opportunity to raise those concerns and speak for those Canadians and those communities.

I cannot imagine why that was done. What possible good did that serve, to shut down someone who had done that work and brought those concerns to the committee? In fact, in doing that, over half of the bill was not even considered by the committee in any serious way. The committee only heard from two witnesses in this process. Other witnesses were suggested by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. They were key witnesses and trade experts who could talk about the problems with this legislation, who could try to fix some of the very serious issues that have not been addressed in this legislation. They were shut down as well.

Between the time limits, the refusal to hear key witnesses, and the refusal of the committee earlier to travel the country, I think a real disservice has been done both to Parliament and to the people of Canada.

I am also very disappointed that at this stage of the debate in the House, which is the report stage, there was a limitation placed on the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and his ability to table amendments at this point in the process.

We know that many of his amendments were not considered seriously and were not considered at all in the committee process when the committee was doing the clause by clause review of this legislation. He attempted to have the House, as is his right, address those issues here during the report stage debate. Unfortunately, most of his amendments were ruled out of order.

I do not know how we in this place could say that an effective and complete debate took place in committee when many of those amendments were not considered. I would think that a standard would be that if a committee had a chance to have a reasonable discussion of an amendment then maybe there would not be a reason to have that discussion here in the House, but unfortunately that was not the decision that was made.

I think the problems with this debate, the problems with this process, and the problems that were made respecting the democratic process of this institution continue with this phase of the debate as we are looking at amendments at report stage in the House.

I know that the argument is always made that a committee is a master of its own destiny, a master of its own decisions, and it can make those decisions in committee. However, when a committee clearly limits debate or fails to consider amendments, I believe that opportunity should exist here in the House for a member who did not get that chance in committee. I am disappointed by that decision as well.

Some 4,000 jobs have now been lost because of this agreement, because of the way this agreement was negotiated, and the botched nature of this agreement. That has affected people all across Canada. It was a bad agreement because Canada was on the verge of a victory. We know that the appeals were coming to an end. We know the decisions that were made all along the process were favourable to Canada. There was no need for Canada to cave in, to put our tail between our legs and run from this process to try and get justice for the softwood lumber industry in Canada and for the Canadians who work in that industry in those communities.

There was also no reason to give away $1 billion of illegally collected tariffs by the Americans. We know that half of that went directly to the White House and the other half went to the American lumber industry to mount its next campaign against the Canadian industry. That is just unacceptable.

In my own region recently there were almost 300 layoffs at Western Forest Products in New Westminster. Yet another forest community, another softwood lumber community, is affected by this bad deal and by this bad legislation. Another 300 people are out of work because of this bad deal and this bad legislation. There is no excuse for that. This has been happening time and time again across the country.

This is a botched deal. It is botched because even the government had to introduce an amendment because it forgot to deal with the maritime exclusion appropriately. It is botched because of the punitive taxes that are in it. It is botched because of the oversight it gives the Americans.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement. I have done so on several occasions this session because this is very important legislation. It is very important to people in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas. It is very important to the people of British Columbia, as indeed it is to people all across Canada.

I have to say that this is a very badly botched deal. It is a very badly botched deal and this is a very badly botched piece of legislation to enact that deal. There is always more to be said about the ineffective nature of this bill and its discrepancies and the problems with this piece of legislation and this deal.

I want to begin by paying tribute to my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, for the outstanding work he has done on this legislation and this deal, which includes his hard work, the hours he has put in and the dedication he has shown to getting the best possible deal for the people of Canada, for the lumber producing communities in this country and for the people who work in the lumber industry.

He has put in the hours. He has done the work to get a decent deal for Canadians and to then have a piece of legislation that actually was effective and worked. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, we have ended up with neither of these, because the government botched the negotiations to begin with and because the legislation has been so badly prepared.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster was the one who fought to have summer hearings. He was the one who was prepared to come back from his summer vacation, to come back to Ottawa in the summer, which is no joy, as I am sure hon. members will know. We are from British Columbia and we enjoy the cool summer weather, while here in Ottawa there is none of that. To work through an Ottawa summer is giving up a lot when one is from British Columbia. It was something that he was prepared to do to take on this important work. Those hearings did go ahead. We were able to hear from people who had concerns about this legislation.

As well, during those hearings in the summer there was a further promise to have hearings in the regions. There was a promise to have hearings in Quebec, in northern Ontario and in B.C. A promise was made to go to the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region, to Thunder Bay and to Vancouver to hear from communities that were directly affected. We were to hear from the people who were directly affected, the elected officials who represent those communities locally, the companies located in those communities, and the other businesses affected by this deal and this dispute.

Unfortunately, those hearings were cancelled. After the member for Burnaby—New Westminster worked so hard to get those hearings for the people in the regions of Canada that are directly affected by this legislation, after he got it on the agenda, the committee later turned around and cancelled those hearings.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster fought so hard to get those hearings and I think that was a despicable turn of events. Those people needed to have the opportunity to sit face to face with members of Parliament working on this issue and tell them about the problems they were having with the deal and this legislation. That opportunity was snatched away from them. There is no excuse for having backed out on that promise that was made by the committee.

I also have to say that I think the process the standing committee undertook when it was looking at this legislation, the process that shut down debate on the legislation in committee, is one that I think is particularly reprehensible.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, over the course of his hard work on this legislation, came up with 98 proposals on how this legislation could be improved and clarified. He worked hard to develop those 98 amendments and get them on the agenda of the committee.

Unfortunately, the committee decided to limit his ability to put them forward, to limit the debate in the committee, and to put time limitations on how long he had to address his proposals before the committee. The first limitation was a three minute limitation on each amendment.

[Petitions, November 29th, 2006]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from quite a few people in the Windsor and southwestern Ontario area. They call on the Government of Canada to cancel negotiations for a free trade agreement with Korea which would worsen the one-way flood of automotive products into our market. They call 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.

[Petitions, November 29th, 2006]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is again from residents of the lower mainland of British Columbia, including some from Burnaby--Douglas, who call on the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to recognize that human and environmental health should take precedence in legislative decision making as well as in the product approval process in every jurisdiction in Canada.

The petitioners call on us to enact legislation banning the use of chemical pesticides for cosmetic purposes until rigorous independent, scientific and medical testing of chemical pesticides and a parliamentary review of the results are conducted for both existing and new products and to apply the precautionary principle in regard to restricting future allowable usage.

[Petitions, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table three petitions today. One is signed by people in the lower mainland of British Columbia, including some from Burnaby--Douglas, who call on the government to achieve multi-year funding to ensure that publicly operated child care programs are sustainable for the long term, to protect child care by enshrining it in legislation with a national child care act to be a cornerstone of Canada like the Canada Health Act, and to help end child poverty by using the $1,200 allowance to enhance the child tax benefit without taxes and clawbacks.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question about some of the things that did not get addressed in the accountability act. I know she talked briefly about that. She talked about the work of our former colleague, Ed Broadbent, in the area of accountability.

One of the places where I think Canadians think that we are not being held accountable to their wishes when they vote in elections is around the whole question of representation in the House, the whole question of proportional representation.

I know that in British Columbia we have had in recent years a lengthy process looking at the question of how we might change our electoral system to be more accountable to the wishes of voters. I know that it did not make it on the agenda of the last Parliament. It has not made it on the agenda of this Parliament. Many people in my constituency still feel that we need to make those kinds of changes to bring real accountability to this place, real accountability to the people who elect us and send us here to represent them.

Would the member comment on the whole question of proportional representation and some of the things that are not in the legislation that we are debating today?

[Trans Day of Remembrance, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today, around the world, members of the transgender and transsexual communities and their allies are marking the Trans Day of Remembrance. This annual event remembers the victims of transphobic violence, hate and prejudice, those who have died, those who have been beaten and those who face daily discrimination.

Canada must take a leading role in ending violence against members of the trans community. Discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression must be prohibited. Trans Canadians must enjoy the direct, full protection of the charter and the Human Rights Act and have full and fair access to health care, to housing and to employment.

We must challenge our assumptions and behaviours that put unacceptable limits on the lives of trans Canadians. We must ensure that opportunities exist for trans Canadians to tell their stories and for us all to learn from their life experience.

Trans Canadians, who are members of our families, our friends, our neighbours and our co-workers, must be supported as they take their place in Canadian society. Today we commit to that transformation as we stand in solidarity and as we remember.

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the bluster from the member is quite something when we all know that right now it is possible to declare somebody a dangerous offender the first time they commit a heinous crime of the kind he is describing. The bill does not really add anything to protect Canadians. If someone is a dangerous offender, that is possible.

In my riding there is a group of dedicated, grass roots organizers and volunteers who believe in restorative justice programs. They have organized a youth restorative justice program. They are called the Burnaby Restorative Action Group, BRAG. They cannot get money from any level of government to assist them in that important work.

We all know that restorative justice programs work, that they reduce crime, that they bring offenders and victims together, that they resolve the problems and that they take the responsibility of solving the kinds of problems that led to crime in our cities, communities and neighbours very seriously. Here is a group of dedicated volunteers that cannot get one penny of assistance from the federal government to set that kind of program up, to run it and operate it effectively. I would ask the member if that is appropriate.