Helena Guergis

[Pancreatic Cancer, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in June 2004, a constituent from my riding of Simcoe—Grey, Dick Aldridge, sadly passed away from pancreatic cancer. His wife, Betty Aldridge, formed the Dick Aldridge Pancreatic Charity.

I stood in the House in June of this year, two years after his passing, to bring attention to this tragic disease and in an effort to designate November, as it is in the United States, a federally recognized awareness month for the disease.

Pancreatic cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death, killing more people than breast cancer. As such, it is critical that the disease have a higher profile than it does right now.

By designating a month to an awareness campaign, the victims of this disease will be properly remembered and further awareness on this issue will only increase fundraising efforts in a desperate search for a cure.

I call upon the leaders of all parties to unanimously support my call for November to officially be recognized as pancreatic cancer awareness month.

Through awareness, we will work toward a cure.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing the usual rhetoric coming from that hon. member. I find it very disappointing, especially because he continues to deliberately mislead Canadians and this House when we are talking about job losses within the softwood lumber industry.

We acknowledge that there has been some job losses but it has nothing to do with this agreement whatsoever. It definitely has everything to do with the previous Liberal government's inability to secure a deal and its inability to stand up for the softwood lumber industry and do something. In fact, it did absolutely nothing.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that he and I agreed yesterday to meet today at 11 a.m. so I could take him through those amendments to assure him that this, of course, was not the case. In fact, the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley is in the middle of a briefing right now to take himself through those amendments to have a full understanding. He also realizes that the clarifications are very technical in nature.

However, there is one exclusion that was amended at committee. When clause 26 was actually approved by committee members, we made an error. The way the clause is worded right now, it would actually affect the industry all across the country. All the industry would be required to go through the Maritime Lumber Bureau. Unfortunately, all industry across the country just cannot go through the Maritime Lumber Bureau and provide their information to them. We do need to change that amendment so that it follows what the softwood lumber agreement has to say.

The softwood lumber agreement talks about the Maritime Lumber Bureau and it provides for the historic exclusion, which we as a government support, but the one very important part of it is that we have a domestic tax policy in Canada and we cannot have an international treaty overriding our domestic tax policy. Many times throughout the agreement there are sections where our domestic tax law applies that actually has not been put into words or even spoken about in the softwood lumber agreement.

I assure the hon. member that we are not doing anything.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today to report on the deliberations in the Standing Committee on International Trade on Bill C-24 to implement Canada's obligations under the softwood lumber agreement.

I would like to start by thanking the committee for its close study of the bill. The members worked hard across all party lines to put forward amendments that took into account the concerns of industry and the pressing need to implement the bill in a very timely fashion. It was truly a team effort. I know I speak for all members on this side of the House when I express our gratitude for the energy and ideas brought to bear on the bill. I am confident that their collective contributions and amendments have helped to clarify important elements of the bill.

Today I would like to update the House on the amendments approved by the committee.

The first amendment stems directly from a request from the Maritime Lumber Bureau. The bureau represents lumber companies throughout Atlantic Canada. As members know, the softwood lumber agreement already excludes Atlantic provinces from an export charge. This reflects a long-standing history whereby these provinces have been excluded from U.S. trade action.

Bill C-24 included provisions respecting the exclusion of the Atlantic provinces. However, the bureau wanted to ensure that this exclusion was further clarified in the bill. Therefore, led by the government and in particular the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, the committee discussed and passed this important amendment.

This clarification leaves no doubt that exports from the Atlantic provinces are excluded from the export charge and that a charge will only be imposed if there is a circumvention of the agreement. It also brings other exclusions, those of the territories and the included companies into the same clause. To ensure the proper functioning of the Atlantic Canada exclusion, the government will be proposing a few technical amendments to the bill at report stage.

Our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments that stemmed from concerns expressed by the Quebec Forest Industry Council. The first is a proposed amendment to clarify the timing with respect to the date of shipment for exports sent by rail to the U.S. Second is a proposed amendment to further clarify the definition of FOB value, which is the freight on board cargo, in the legislation. As with the Atlantic exclusions, these amendments directly address the concerns of the lumber industry.

The next amendment concerns independent remanufacturers. As the House knows, the softwood lumber agreement ensures that independent lumber remanufacturers will not have to pay an export charge on the value added component of their products. In fact, this was an essential component of Canada's position throughout the negotiations and in direct response to industry requests. However, the industry asked for further clarity. Therefore, the bill, with the government's amendments at report stage, will make clear how the independent remanufacturer will be treated and certified.

The government also put forward a number of amendments to reflect the agreement's entry into force date of October 12, 2006.

These proposed amendments, while relatively minor in nature, will give our lumber exporters an added measure of certainty and predictability to go forward and plan for the future. Indeed, time is of the essence for the bill. Canada's lumber industry is facing a number of challenges. Lumber prices are at the low end of their cycle and production costs are rising. Combine these challenges with the continued strength of our dollar and we can begin to understand what our industry is up against.

That is why, as the amended bill makes it through the House, we should remind ourselves of the importance of moving it through in a timely manner. Our lumber companies need the stability, predictability and cash that the agreement provides.

The agreement eliminates punitive U.S. duties. It ends the costly litigation, which has gone on for far too long. Under the agreement, the U.S. will immediately dismiss all trade actions against our companies. It takes our lumber producers out of the courts and puts them back where they belong, in communities across the country, growing their enterprises and contributing to Canada's economy. It provides stability for industry hit hard by years of trade action and drawn out litigation.

For the next seven to nine years, no border measures will be imposed when lumber prices are above $355 per thousand board feet. When prices drop below this threshold, the agreement gives provinces flexibility to choose the border measures that most benefit their economic situation. I should add that all export charge revenues collected by the Government of Canada through these border measures will stay in Canada and not end up in the U.S. treasury, which was the case before.

The agreement returns more than $5 billion Canadian to companies, a significant infusion of capital for the lumber industry and the workers in more than 300 communities across Canada who depend upon it.

I am happy to report that the Export Development Canada duty refund mechanism, which we developed to expedite refunds to companies, is ahead of schedule. More than $1.8 billion has already been dispersed to companies, and Export Development Canada will continue to make expedited refunds over the coming weeks.

While the money is good news in itself, we must also consider what this money represents for the forest workers and the communities. The badly needed cash provided by the agreement will help our lumber producers reinvest in their enterprises, improve efficiency and weather the current downturn in lumber prices. Most important, it will let them do so in a stable and predictable trade environment.

We cannot overestimate the importance of this kind of stable environment to our lumber industry. Along with the refunded cash, the stability and predictable environment created by the agreement will allow lumber companies to make long term plans and grow. It will also put us on the right path toward fostering further development and integration of a stronger North American lumber market, one where Canadian companies can play an essential and leading role.

Contrast this positive new environment with what life was like before the agreement. Our lumber producers have spent the better part of the last two decades engaged in a number of drawn out legal battles with the United States. They know that just because we win one battle, it does not mean we win the war.

Our victories in a number of trade courts, including NAFTA and the WTO, were simply appealed by the U.S., costing millions in legal fees and creating much uncertainty for the industry. In fact, some estimates pegged the total cost of fighting these battles for governments and individual lumber companies alike at over $300 million since 2002. The enormity of these fees stands as a testament to the high price of continuing with the strategy built entirely around litigation.

When I hear calls to continue litigation, I remind people of the steep price of taking this path and the extremely uncertain outcome waiting at the other end. This is a case where there is simply no trade peace waiting for us. There is only continued litigation, crushing legal fees and punishing U.S. duties.

Therefore, I would ask all members to carefully consider the cost of turning our backs on this agreement. Ask the lumber companies that are getting over $5 billion Canadian back to reinvest in their enterprises and weather the tough economic times in which they find themselves. Ask the major lumber producing provinces that join the overwhelming majority of industry in supporting the agreement. Finally, ask the hundreds of thousands of people in lumber producing provinces across the country who rely upon a stable and predictable trade environment for their livelihoods. Ask them if they would like to turn back the clocks to a time when this agreement did not exist.

The government believes our lumber communities have suffered long enough. We believe they need the stability and resources that the agreement provides. We believe the agreement is the single best way forward for our softwood lumber industry and the over 300,000 Canadians who rely upon it.

I am confident that the majority of parliamentarians agree with this assessment. Therefore, I ask for their support of the amended Bill C-24, and I thank them very much.

[Softwood Lumber, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question but of course I do not agree with him.

Our party and our government have been focused on delivering to the softwood lumber industry because it has been devastated due to the lack of attention and inability of the previous Liberal government to reach a settlement agreement that would benefit the softwood lumber industry.

What we are seeing is a return of over five billion Canadian dollars to the softwood lumber industry, which is something it will use to reinvest and keep its head above water, something the Liberal Party was unable to accomplish.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, if the hon. member had been listening to my remarks today, most of my focus was on the sexual offences. He is absolutely wrong if he was trying to explain to the House that perhaps an economic situation of someone would perhaps be more inclined to be sexually offended. One of the biggest myths out there, with respect to sexual assault and sexual violence, it is geared to only one person in society or one group. It actually happens to anyone and everyone and it is very unreported, so we also need to address that.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, after seven and a half years, I have a great deal of experience, some things I wish perhaps I had not had the opportunity to experience. Nonetheless I value the experience and the education I gained from my volunteer work at the rape crisis centre.

It was very much a learning experience for me. I will explain one specific situation to try to get my point across as to why I am specifically supporting this legislation from my personal experiences, unlike listening to the Liberals who are suggesting we are doing this based on slogans or trying to create fear that goes beyond reality.

I have seen too much of the reality. Part of my responsibility as a rape crisis volunteer was to provide support in the courtroom for victims who were survivors. All the volunteers in the centre became very close and very supportive of each other.

I remember a volunteer who was working with one of the survivors in court. She was a survivor herself. She sat there for two weeks, listening to testimony and supporting the survivor. She listened to what the victim had to say about what happened to her. Then this woman, who became a good friend of mine, broke into a cold sweat. It was at that very moment during the trial when she saw the accused that she realized the person was the exact same person who committed the crime on her. It was a very violent crime.

It is for those reasons that I support this legislation.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the hon. member and I sense some support for what we are attempting to do here. However, he is in fact incorrect. I think he is referring more to the “three strikes you're out” law in the United States. With this legislation, it is not an automatic sentence on a third conviction. People need to have the convictions before a crown can go forward to seek dangerous offender status. Once they have been convicted of a third crime, afterwards a crown can seek the dangerous offender status.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for St. Catharines.

I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-27, an act to amend part XXIV of the Criminal Code, dangerous offenders, and sections 810.1 and 810.2, peace bonds.

Few issues trigger more emotion than how the government treats our most dangerous criminals, especially when it comes to sex offences against children. While it is one thing to be convicted of such a crime, it is quite another to see someone commit a child sexual offence who has been convicted three, four, five times or more and is back out reoffending.

As such, I support this legislation. I urge every member of this chamber to do the same. It is time to move forward with tougher legislation that protects Canadians and their families.

Quite simply, the current provisions are not working as well as they should. It saddens me to think of the Canadians whose lives have been changed forever because of a hardened repeat offender. We can and we should do something about this now.

I have looked over the bill and I wonder how anyone can stand against these reforms. I look at the requirement for a crown to stand in open court and declare whether, on a third serious violent conviction where the prior offences received a two year sentence, a dangerous offender designation would be sought, and I ask “why not?” Why we should not require a crown to specifically consider this issue and declare his intention?

I see the proposal to reverse the burden of proof onto the offender convicted for a third time of a third serious sexual offence in a dangerous offender hearing. I look at the reform of the peace bond provisions that seek to extend the duration from 12 months to 24 months for convicted offenders in the community. I note that judges will be called upon to consider more vigorous conditions to ensure the public safety. Again, the question should not be why, but why not.

So far the only real reason given by members opposite as to why the bill should not be supported has been that the rights of the offender have been compromised. I find myself greatly disturbed by the claims of the opposition. In my opinion, the opposition members, who cite the rights of offenders being that more important than the rights of victims and survivors, should be ashamed of themselves.

I listened to the comments of the Minister of Justice. He indicated that these provisions were carefully crafted to ensure constitutionality. He has indicated, for example, that the provision imposing a reverse onus on the offender where there has been a third violent or sexual offence conviction is constitutional.

He indicated it was constitutional because it was narrowly designed, that it reflected the types of convictions that commonly led to a dangerous offender designation. He said that these offences were violent and harmful by their very nature and that they all required intent to harm another person. He spoke of how these qualifying offences were restricted to instances that carried a two year or more sentence. It appears to me, therefore, that the criteria to trigger the reverse onus were not simply drawn from a hat. These were not randomly chosen offences, nor should they be.

As I understand it, the inclusion of any offence on the primary list of offences is based on the following criteria: that there is at least a 10 year maximum sentence allowed; the nature of the offence is such that there is a sufficient element of brutality and harm intended; there is a common occurrence of the offence in the historical application of dangerous offender applications: and, the offence is not so overly broad by its nature so as to possibly allow an absurd result by its inclusion in the primary list of offences.

I looked closely at these offences. I wanted to know what would justify triggering the reverse elements. After checking, I completely support the Minister of Justice.

In the first place, I note that of the 12 primary designated offences that trigger reverse onus, 7 are sexual offences, divided between sexual offences committed against adults and offences against children.

It was 15 years ago that I entered into the rape crisis centre and received training in crisis intervention. I volunteered there for seven and a half years. I want every member of the House to know that the statistics, which were so alarming back then, have not changed. I suggest to the opposition parties that are so opposed to the bill that what we have been doing for the past decade has done nothing. It has not worked. It is time to change the strategy.

I note that according to analysis from Correctional Services Canada, over 80% of all dangerous offenders were designated as a result of a predicate conviction for one or more of the seven listed primary offences. About half of these offenders committed their offences against adults and half against children. Of the remaining 15% to 20% of offenders who were designated as dangerous offenders for other offences, about three-quarters of them were so designated as the result of a conviction for one of the five remaining listed primary offences. The remaining handful of offenders were convicted of a wide variety of offences including, for example, arson and fraud.

This seems to illustrate that there is a clear and precise logic behind the design of the primary offence list. For example, I look at the kidnapping offence. Interestingly, a quick look at existing case law indicates that a large number of non-sexual dangerous offender designations had one or more kidnapping convictions, but also many of them had sexual assault offence histories prior to the dangerous offender application.

A review of case law indicated that a total of 15 individuals were subject to a dangerous offender application since 1997 based on a kidnapping offence. Fourteen were designated as dangerous offenders and one was a long term offender. Again, this illustrates that kidnapping belongs on the list.

Then I looked at the same period for the offence of forcible confinement. I could see only five incidents of a dangerous offender application being sought in those cases. In four of those cases there were one or more of the other primary offences also listed. In addition to the low incidence of such an offence triggering a dangerous offender application, I noted that in half of these cases the dangerous offender designation was denied.

Finally, I note that while there are typically about 1,500 convictions each year for forcible confinement according to Statistics Canada, there are less than 100 per year on average for kidnapping. While forcible confinement offenders receive an average sentence of about six months, the average conviction for kidnapping is about three years. What this tells me is that the offence of kidnapping should be a triggering offence for the reverse onus, but forceable confinement should not. Kidnapping meets the criteria; forceable confinement does not.

The bottom line is the list of triggering offences makes sense. While I am sure there will be much discussion in the chamber and at committee about which offences should be in or out, at least it is clear to me that there has been some consideration in the development of the list.

I have the utmost confidence that these reforms will accomplish what the Minister of Justice has set out to do. A lot of concerns have been expressed by police, by victims, by many volunteers in crisis centres and by provincial ministers of justice that in too many cases individuals were being set loose in the community even though they were clearly uncontrollable.

There was a broad consensus that since 2003 the dangerous offender provisions had become difficult to use even as the shield of last resort against predators who were bound to reoffend if released. I believe these reforms address those problems, but I also belive they do so in a very measured and balanced way that fully respects fundamental principles of justice and human rights.

As such, I fully support these measures that seek to restore to a reasonable level the protection that Canadians want and need against the very worst sexual and violent offenders in the country.

[Decorum, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member yet again that you have made a ruling on this, that you and your staff have very clearly listened to the recordings and looked at Hansard and found that there was nothing to the effect.