Bill Siksay

[Citizenship Week, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this Citizenship Week there is much to celebrate, but today many Canadians are fighting for their citizenship rights.

Canadians, especially war brides, children of Canadians who served in the armed forces in World War II, the children of Canadians born overseas to those who served in the armed forces and the diplomatic corps in the period 1947 to 1977, and lost Canadians who, because of gaps and biases in legislation, have been told they are no longer Canadian: these Canadians all face bureaucratic and legal nightmares to fully claiming their citizenship.

Some, like Joe Taylor, the son of a British war bride and a Canadian who served in World War II, are forced to press for their citizenship in court. Mr. Taylor won but, sadly, the Conservatives decided to appeal. Maher Arar and others see their citizenship written off and wait for an apology and just compensation. Dual citizens see their loyalty questioned, even in the midst of war.

The best way to celebrate Citizenship Week would be for the government to make it possible for these Canadians to fully claim their citizenship without delay.

[Divorce Act, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-252, an act to amend the Divorce Act (access for spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition).

The NDP supported the amendment that the member for Lethbridge brought to his private member's bill. NDP members had some concerns about the original private member's bill, but we are pleased to see that in his amendment he took into consideration many of the concerns that were raised in the first hour of debate and in discussions with other members of the House.

It is a much better proposal in its current form and I look forward to it going to the justice committee for further discussion and perhaps improvement there, although I share the concerns of the member for Hochelaga about the workload of the justice committee. It is extremely significant at the moment and I hope the bill gets the attention that it deserves when it goes to committee. I hope it has that opportunity.

NDP members had some serious concerns with the original bill. Our concerns stemmed mainly around the fact that it seemed to mandate a visit of a child and a terminally or critically ill parent. The language “to ensure that a spouse who was terminally ill or in critical condition is granted access to a child” was of great concern to us. That language flies in the face of the experience of Canadian jurisprudence and families who have faced the situation of divorce and visitation rights over the last many years. Children were not forced in those circumstances to make those kinds of visits, even in that circumstance.

I had concerns with the original wording, but there is some improvement now in the amendment. It clearly recognizes the importance of the best interests of the child in consideration of arranging such a visit when there is a terminal illness or a critical condition.

I am not sure the bill, as amended, really changes the practice of our system now. I am sure that critical or terminal illness could be considered a change of circumstance and would amount to a court hearing arguments around a change in visitation rights. I do not think there is a significant change in the practice and would hope that any court confronted with that situation and the serious concerns about someone whose life is coming to an end might consider this an important reason to revisit the issue of visitation rights. I am sure in most instances that would be the case.

I am not sure this significantly changes the current practice, but if it clarifies it and draws attention to the importance of that circumstance, then perhaps there is no harm in doing this. The key in all of this is that whatever decision is made it be made in the child's best interest. This has been the long established practice and importance of these considerations in the system.

There are concerns about defining the age of a child with regard to this legislation. We have seen in the past that courts have absolutely refused to order a child 12 years or older to visit a parent when that child has refused to do so. That is a rough rule of thumb for the court, according to my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, but is something that we need to take into consideration.

I believe there has been an established precedent that children should have some say in the requirement to visit a parent and that probably applies in any circumstance, including one where there is terminal or critical illness. To move to a situation of requiring such a visit of a child would be a serious problem. Children over 12 certainly have the maturity to decide if they are willing to visit a parent or not. In further discussion of the bill, we have to ensure that this is one of the things that is a serious consideration.

It is very clear that visitation rights in Canada are rights of the child, not of the parent. The key factor is that the best interests of the child must guide the court in making a determination. When those visitation rights are enforced or ordered, this still needs to be the key consideration. The rights of the child and what is in the best interest of the child in the circumstances need to be taken into account. That has to have a prime place in the considerations here, even in these difficult circumstances.

I think it is fair to say that all of us would like to see terminally ill people have the ability to perhaps have a last visit with their child. We can all understand why that might be important to someone. However, I do not think there should be a compulsion on a child, especially an older child, to do that nor do I think the need of a terminally ill person to have that final visit should necessarily trump the best interests of the child in this case.

Unfortunately, we know, even at the time of terminal or critical illness, that often people can be as manipulative as they have been at other points in their lives. It is not always a completely altruistic moment in our lives. To make an exception in the case of that circumstance around visitation rights would be a serious problem. This is something that still merits the attention of the committee and members as the bill is discussed further at committee.

It is important that the discretion of the court is maintained in these circumstances. This is why I would argue against the use of words like “ensure” or other words that access is granted. This kind of hard and fast language may impede the ability of the court to take into consideration all the factors that may come into play in a circumstance like this. We want to ensure that every possible circumstance and issue is brought to the attention of the court and discussed in the circumstance of the child, the family and the parents.

It is very important that we maintain the discretion of the courts to deal with these circumstances. While we might offer guidance in the Divorce Act around this circumstance, this needs to be worded in a way that maintains the ability of the court to ultimately make the decision based on the best interest of the child, according to the information the court has at hand at the time.

I am happy to have had the chance to speak to the bill as amended. I think a better version of it is now being discussed. Hopefully it will go forward to the committee where it may have a chance to improve it further and send it back to the House. At that time, we can make a further judgment on private member's Bill C-252. We can see whether it goes forward and allows a more appropriate way to address the circumstances of visitation rights of a critically or terminally ill person.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the committee looked at this legislation this past summer it agreed that there should be public hearings in Quebec, in northern Ontario and in British Columbia but those hearings are not going ahead.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that there have not been public hearings on this deal or on this legislation.

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

Some of us are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Western Arctic for his speech this afternoon. I know that, as someone from a resource area of Canada, he understands the importance of a deal like this and how bad this deal is for Canada.

I wanted to ask him about the $1 billion in illegally collected levies that we give up under the provisions of this deal, that we pass on to the Americans for their use. We have already talked earlier this afternoon about the money that goes to the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports to pursue its protectionist ways, but the other half of that $1 billion goes directly to the White House.

Ostensibly, it is for educational and charitable causes in timber-reliant communities, initiatives related to low income housing and disaster relief, and education and public interest projects addressing forest management issues, but it has been reported widely, and many of us I think agree, that this is really just a slush fund for electing more republican protectionists to Congress in the United States.

It is rather ironic that Canada would agree to establishing that kind of slush fund for the Bush White House, to elect more members to Congress who believe in the things that they believe in. I wonder if the member for Western Arctic might comment on that.

I also think it is rather ironic, and I have used that word a number of times this afternoon, that in the course of this deal there is half a billion dollars for support to American forestry communities, apparently, but there is absolutely nothing in here for support to Canadian communities that have been so devastated by this agreement and by this attack on our industry.

I wonder if he might comment on those issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to comment on something I find very ironic about this deal, about the timing of this deal and about other actions of the Conservative government.

We know that almost half of the $1 billion that Canada is giving up to the American protectionists as a result of this deal is going directly to the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports. They are the folks who initiated the campaign against the Canadian softwood lumber industry and who have pursued the attack from the very beginning. We are funding their future activities. We are giving them this money so they can pursue their protectionist ways and other ways down the road.

The irony for me is that at the same time the government is providing this money to the very people who attacked our industry, it cancelled the Canadian court challenges program which allowed minority Canadians to take on the government where questions of Canadian charter rights were involved. Here we have a government that is setting up a court challenges program for American industry while at the same time it is getting rid of a very small but important Canadian program to assist minority Canadians with their charter rights.

I wonder if she could comment on the irony of the juxtaposition of those two items.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the lack of enthusiasm for the deal that I have often heard around the House. We hear that it is the best deal possible under the circumstances. He hear that we will be subject to endless litigation for years and years. We hear that we have to accept this because we cannot do any better. I do not accept that for one second.

When we know we are behind the eight ball, when we know we have done a bad thing, we often lash out at absolutely the wrong people. Some of that has been going on around the House as people try to rationalize their support for a very bad deal. I am very disappointed in that kind of behaviour in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the beginning comments of the member go without a response. It is quite hilarious how the Liberals are still so heartbroken. It was the decision of Canadians to toss them out of office. It was not the NDP that ended their reign of power. It was the Canadian people who did that, and they did that rather resoundingly in some cases. They should never forget that Canadians made that decision, not the folks who sit in this corner of the House.

He asked if I know if that money will be delivered. I have no faith that the money will be seen by Canada. I find it hard to imagine the photo opportunity with the Prime Minister and the President of the United States standing there, with the handshake and the big smiles for the cameras as the big cheque for the illegally collected softwood lumber levy is handed over to Canada. I just do not think we will see that.

We know that the provisions of the deal mean we are giving $1 billion of that illegally collected money to the United States, $500 million which goes to the association that launched the attack on the Canadian industry. It is unbelievable that we would fund the people who brought us this crisis in the first place so they can plan their next attack on Canadian industry. I do not think there is anyone here who does not believe that the protectionists in the United States will make that move.

It is also ironic that we are giving $500 million to the White House to use as it will. It says it is for reconstruction for Hurricane Katrina victims, but we know that it is a slush fund to be used by the Republicans as their elections approach. There is no way we should be using that to fund the re-election of protectionist American legislators, but that is exactly what we are doing under the terms of the agreement. It is completely unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to again speak on the softwood lumber products export charge act. I did have the opportunity to address the House earlier in the debate, but needless to say there is a lot more that can be said about this bad deal.

When I ended my speech last month, I gave the final word to the Prime Minister and I would like to start there this time. I want to quote the Prime Minister who said in this House on October 25, 2005:

Most recently, the NAFTA extraordinary challenges panel ruled that there was no basis for these duties, but the United States has so far refused to accept the outcome and has asked Canada to negotiate a further settlement. Let me repeat what I have said before, and let me be as clear as I can. This is not a time for negotiation. It is a time for compliance.

Those were the words of the current Prime Minister here in this House almost a year ago. It seemed like he was making an argument for the United States to comply with the court decisions that were made in the softwood lumber dispute. He was making that argument very clearly.

Sadly, it seems he has reversed his position completely now. It seems he was actually calling for us to fall in line with the desires of the American industry, the American government and the American protectionists. It is a very sad turnabout and a very dramatic one. It is a capitulation to those interests that have been working so hard to destroy the Canadian industry and with it Canadian communities and Canadian jobs.

It is so ironic that the Prime Minister's reversal comes at a time when a just and fair victory for Canada was in sight. It has been said many times that this agreement and this legislation actually snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. That is exactly what is happening here.

Unfortunately, the victory that Canada was on the verge of has been lost because of this proposal and this legislation. That is why it is a bad deal for Canada, a bad deal for British Columbia, and certainly a bad deal for my home riding of Burnaby—Douglas.

The ironies continue. It was just last Friday afternoon that another court case was decided in Canada's favour. That case before the U.S. Court of International Trade, CIT, found in Canada's favour. That court said that every last penny of the $5.3 billion of illegally imposed duties on softwood lumber exports over the years had to be returned to Canada. That money was taken from Canadian companies, Canadian communities and Canadian workers. That court said every last cent had to be returned. This was just last Friday where there was yet another victory in the courts.

Indeed, we were running out of court opportunities. We were getting down to the wire on every last one of them. Incredibly, it was Canada's Ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson, when he was before committee this summer who said the opportunities for court action on this were coming to an end. We were absolutely on the verge of a wholesale victory on this issue in the courts. Unfortunately, that has all been thrown by the wayside by this agreement and this legislation.

I want to come back to the speech I had hoped to deliver the first time around and some of the points that I did not have time to talk about.

If this is such a great deal for Canada and for the Canadian industry, I have to wonder why page after page of this bill is devoted to punitive measures to punish Canadian businesses that do not comply or do not agree with this legislation. If this was such a great deal for Canada and for Canadian businesses and communities, why has such emphasis been placed on punitive measures in the legislation?

I was surprised to hear in this House last month a Conservative member from Atlantic Canada say that the government would have to pursue an amendment to its own legislation because the wording of the maintenance of the Maritime lumber exemption was not strong enough or clear enough, and did not actually use the word “exemption”.

It is hard to believe that on a part of this whole controversy where there is absolute agreement in every corner of this House around the need to maintain the Atlantic Canada exemption, that the government could not even get the wording right in this legislation on that aspect of the bill. It could not even get it right when everyone agrees how important that is. It could not get it right when its representatives from Atlantic Canada were so involved to maintain this exemption.

I think that is another example of how bad this bill really is. If there is a point where there is no controversy, where there is a clear agreement and where the language has been accepted for some time, why that language could not even make it into this legislation is beyond me. If the government cannot do it on that front, what is happening on the other clauses that are more controversial and more complicated?

Another important flaw in this legislation is that it does nothing to address the serious issue of the export of raw logs. One observer of the forest industry in British Columbia, and someone who has carefully poured over the agreement and the 82 page appendices to the agreement, notes that this legislation goes out of its way to be specific about what is covered, about what aspects of the softwood lumber industry are covered. In fact, he says it is dizzying in its specificity. He also says:

Taxes will apply to “coniferous wood, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed, of a thickness exceeding six millimetres”. In similar minutiae, wood siding, flooring and fencing are discussed.

That is all very well, but not once in this agreement and in this legislation does the word “log” appear. We know that the export of raw logs is a serious issue facing the industry. It is certainly a serious issue for the industry in British Columbia.

To fail to close a loophole around the export of raw logs from private lands is a huge failure. It gives raw logs from private lands a competitive edge over logs processed, for instance, in British Columbia.

This will discourage value added production and jobs in B.C. and will stimulate more raw log exports to the United States where workers will process them. It robs Canada and Canadian workers of opportunities and jobs. Jim Sinclair, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, has pointed out that:

More than 3,300 jobs in the forest sector were lost to log exports in 2005 alone and an estimated 27 mills closed at a cost of 13,000 jobs between 1997 and 2004.

This is work that should have remained in Canada, with Canadian workers and in Canadian communities. It is an absolute travesty that this has been allowed to happen. It is further unbelievable that this opportunity to deal with this issue has slipped through our fingers and another reason why this is a bad deal.

When we add those jobs lost to raw log exports, as the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour pointed out, when we look at the fact that 3,000 jobs have been lost in the last week in the forest industry alone, we come to realize just how bad this legislation and this deal truly is.

Bill C-24 also subjects any change in provincial forest policy to approval by the United States. It is incredible that we would give up our sovereignty in that way.

I think that Steve Hunt, the United Steelworkers Western Canadian director, said something that is very instructive with regard to this. He said:

This deal doesn't need tweaking, it needs a complete rewrite. The proposed Agreement was part of a “sell-out strategy”. If this is what talks between [the President and the Prime Minister] have achieved, then we'd prefer continued litigation, rather than a Softwood Lumber Agreement that might only last a few years and gives up provincial sovereignty over forest policy.

I think it is very clear that this is a bad deal. It is a bad deal for Canada, for British Columbia and for Burnaby. What will happen with that $1 billion in illegally collected tariffs, which we will not get back because we will forfeit to the United States? It will go directly to the lumber industry to mount the next campaign against our industry. It is incredible that we should even be discussing the bill at this point in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member has raised the question of the Atlantic exemption.

I must say that I was very surprised when I was participating in the debate on this bill in the House at the end of the September to see another Conservative member from Atlantic Canada rise and say that the government had to amend its own bill because the language around the Atlantic exemption did not actually use the word “exemption”, that it was not strong enough, and the bill was so bad that the government was going to have to bring in an amendment to its own bill to include the actual word “exemption” when it came to the situation of the industry in Atlantic Canada.

I know the Atlantic exemption has support in every corner of the House, but how does the member respond to the fact that the bill is so bad in the way that it has been presented to the House that not even something where there was universal agreement could get worded properly in this piece of legislation?