Mark Eyking

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the floor for bringing this issue forward. Whether he thinks it is in a flux or he thinks we should slow down for a short period of time, we are going to continue to work hard on this file.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the question asked in the House of Commons by the hon. member. As he mentioned, the federal government has worked closely with both industry and the provinces seeking a resolution to this long standing dispute. We share a commitment with the provinces and industry to defend the interests of Canadian lumber companies, the people they employ, and all the communities right across this country.

The U.S. department of commerce imposed 27% countervailing and anti-dumping duties on imports of Canadian softwood lumber in May 2002, following the expiry of the softwood lumber agreement. Our governments and industry have mounted a strong defence against the U.S. trade action since these duties were imposed in 2002. We continue to do so through challenges and together we have pursued a two-pronged strategy for resolving the softwood lumber dispute.

We are engaging in discussions with the United States to find a durable resolution to this dispute and we have taken no fewer than six challenges of the U.S. duty actions before NAFTA and WTO.

As the hon. member may be aware, NAFTA and WTO panels have ruled in Canada's favour in every one of those challenges, finding the U.S. duties to be inconsistent both in U.S. international trade obligations and U.S. law. As the Minister of International Trade stated on September 10, this U.S. international trade commission determination supports what the Government of Canada has been saying all along. Canadian exports of softwood lumber products do not threaten the U.S. domestic industry with material injury and there is no basis for U.S. countervailing or anti-dumping duties.

As the hon. member may be aware, on November 24 the United States requested establishment of the extraordinary challenge committee, the ECC, under article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement to review the proceedings of the NAFTA panel in this case. The Government of Canada believes that the U.S. allegations and the request for this ECC are without foundation and that the U.S. claims will be dismissed.

The government will be mounting a strong case in defence of Canadian interests with the ECC challenge. If the U.S. claims are rejected, the U.S. department of commerce will be required to revoke the duty orders and refund the duty deposits paid with interest. We know the U.S. will use every litigation tool available to it in this dispute. We have always maintained that the U.S. industry is not injured by imports of Canadian softwood lumber and our position will not change.

We are working with our provincial counterparts and industry. As recently as October, our minister met with Canadian industry representatives to explore whether there was a basis for a resolution of this dispute. We have also repeatedly raised concerns with the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans to further the discussions with the United States to resolve this dispute. In the meantime we have continued our dialogue with the Canadian industry over the past several weeks. We encouraged them to develop a united Canadian approach.

I would like to reassure the hon. member that the government is well aware of the impact that the softwood lumber dispute is having on our Canadian industry, our workers and our communities.

Our government will persist in defending Canadian interests in this dispute to get every cent back. We will continue to work toward a durable resolution to this dispute. We are going to use the panels, whether it is WTO or NAFTA, to get our money back.

More importantly, I would like reassure the House that our government is committed to working closely with the provinces, with the industry, and other stakeholders toward a resolution of the softwood lumber dispute.

[International Trade, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud that the President is coming to Canada. He made good signs on the beef issue and we look forward to better signs on softwood lumber. We will welcome the President, and look forward to dialogue.

[International Trade, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, 200,000 people rely on the softwood lumber industry. Sales are worth $11 billion. We are aware that a bill has been put forward. It is against U.S. trade law and the Bush administration is also against it. We will continue to push hard to get every dollar of the $3 billion that was collected wrongfully from our producers.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, everyone reads a book a different way I guess. For almost 20 years, the Income Tax Act has clearly stated that charities cannot “directly” or “indirectly” support or oppose a candidate for public office or a political party and the hon. member should know that.

The CRA has developed publicly available guidelines to establish with greater certainty how the law can be applied and administered in a consistent, fair and reasonable manner. Anyone can access these guidelines through the web page.

Registered charities want to comply with the rules, and the CRA works with them to ensure that they understand these rules and that they are followed. Our goal is voluntary compliance, and to achieve that, we are involved in education, advice and guidance for charities in meeting their regulatory requirements.

This law is for all members of the House and all people who want to run for public office or are already in public office. It is intended to that.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here this evening to put some facts straight on the matter.

The hon. member has requested this debate to discuss the issue of the separation of church and state. The hon. member has asked about specific taxpayers. I will not violate the confidentiality of any taxpayer by discussing their affairs in the House. However I can discuss with the member opposite the role of the Canada Revenue Agency in monitoring registered charities on an ongoing basis.

This is not an issue about the separation of church and state. It is a matter of applying the Income Tax Act rules to charities registered under the act. To qualify for registration an organization's mandate must be charitable at law. Once registered, regulatory oversight is warranted given that the registered charities enjoy significant tax advantages and are supported by the public moneys.

The CRA carries out broad based outreach and education activities to ensure that registered charities understand the law. When the CRA identifies a trend toward partisan political activity, our outreach activities can include proactively contacting these organizations to ensure that they understand the law and will comply.

The Income Tax Act allows registered charities to engage in limited, non-partisan political activities. Charities can speak out on issues related to their mandate, including controversial issues. They are free to engage in public debate and to conduct public awareness campaigns. To be acceptable under these rules, these activities must be linked to the charity's purposes and remain incidental to its charitable programs.

Partisan political activity is not permitted at any time. I would like to repeat that because I believe it is the crux of the issue. Partisan political activity by registered charities is not acceptable under the law.

These rules are applied evenly and fairly to all registered charities. The CRA's application of these rules are not based on which side of a debate or issue a charity supports. If the CRA acts against a registered charity, it does so because of the actions of that charity, not on what that charity is or who it represents.

The CRA receives complaints about organizations that engage the public on a specific political issue, including environmental groups, rights advocates and faith based organizations.

These organizations may be deeply committed to their causes and may be conducting allowable political activities, but if they are engaged in partisan political activity, they have contravened the Income Tax Act rules governing charities.

When the CRA believes that a charity's activities may be contravening the rules, its staff step in to inform and educate the charity about its obligations under the Income Tax Act. Revoking charitable status is our last option, after our efforts to educate, guide and provide advice have not been successful.

Not heavy-handed, our goal is voluntary compliance and that starts with education. Among the services CRA offers to charities are guidance, advice and education in understanding and complying with tax law. The vast majority of charities want to comply with the law and appreciate the outreach that CRA undertakes to help them understand and abide by the rules.

[Export of Military Goods, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I also have another report to table on the export of military goods from Canada, 2002.

[Canada Account, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of International Trade, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Canada Account's annual report of 2002-03, prepared by EDC, Export Development Canada.

[Cape Breton Volunteer Firefighters, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the Cape Breton Firefighters Burn Care Society for the last number of years. This is a non-profit foundation comprised of police, firefighters, medical personnel and other volunteers who work endlessly on our behalf providing quality care and quick response time when called upon. It not only provides services to victims of fires but also provides information on the prevention and awareness of fire safety.

Every year the Cape Breton Firefighters Burn Care Society hosts the Atlantic Burn Camp. This camp welcomes children of burn injury from across Atlantic Canada. It is a chance for children who have suffered from both internal and external scars to meet with other children to share their stories. It also hosts the annual bowl-a-thon raising approximately $20,000 a year. This year's bowl-a-thon brought firefighters from as far away as Rothsay, New Brunswick.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the hard work and dedication of all the volunteers who contribute to the success of this society.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of the Environment for bringing this very important marine issue to the House today. I am from Cape Breton Island which is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean. We have so many different breeds of sea birds and too often we see them damaged by pollution.

Since the hon. member across the floor mentioned another issue that we have in Cape Breton, the tar ponds, I would like to mention that the Minister of the Environment has been at the forefront in the last few years in dealing with the tar ponds. It was evident in the budget and it was also evident this week in the negotiations that we are going to clean up this mess.

A silent disaster takes place every winter off the coast of Atlantic Canada. Hundreds of thousands of sea birds die every year in the winter. They experience a slow and struggling death, all because of the discharge of oil waste from ships that are making their way through the ocean waters. The ships are not permitted to discharge their waste in the ocean but many do. Let me explain what happens to the murres, the puffins, the dovekies and the gulls that share these waters with the big ships.

A spot of oil no bigger than the size of a quarter, as the minister stated before, can penetrate the natural defences of the birds against the cold waters of the Atlantic. We can liken this to a pinhole in a diver's suit. Over several days the cold soaks the birds and zaps their reserves of body fat and muscle.

Yes, there are laws against discharge of waste by ships at sea, but the problem has been that the fines for violating these laws do not provide a sufficient deterrent. It would seem that the polluters have concluded that it is cheaper to pay the penalties than to pay for disposing the waste in a legal manner. In other words, the way things work now, it is the cost of doing business.

We are proposing to give our enforcement officers the tools they need to do the job by the anti-pollution clauses of the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We are also proposing that we make sure that those who purposely pollute our ocean waters and are responsible for the deaths of our marine life are brought to justice.

There are members here from Newfoundland and Labrador. They are also surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean and have also seen the problem first-hand.

With the fairly simple proposals in this bill we could, within a year, be able to look back at the winter of 2004-05 and say that we have taken the action that was needed for fewer deaths of sea birds from oil. We could say that we have done the right thing by putting together the legislative tools. We could say that we have taken action on conserving biodiversity and have addressed an ongoing problem. We could say that we have lived up to our domestic and international commitments.

One of the most important parts of the legislation will be to make the investment needed to find the polluters who discharge the waste illegally and bring them to justice. We do not need to invent anything and we do not need to come up with much that is new. The technology is there. Satellites and technology on board aircraft can spot the oil slicks trailing behind the ships very soon after the discharge has been made. Acting swiftly in bringing these violators to justice will send a very strong message.

With the changes in this proposal before us, we could increase surveillance. We could partner with the Canadian Space Agency and use the RADARSAT technology as an eye in the sky. There is something quite fitting in using technologies for this purpose. Human activity is the reason our waters get polluted, but humans are also the creators and inventors of the high technology solutions.

Support of this bill to implement these legislative amendments will signal to all of Canada that we are committed to a conservation regime that works with industry, but also one that is backed by a strong legislative mandate and enforcement of the law. It is an essential move to ensure our natural legacy.

I urge members to support the bill, to reverse the yearly losses from the silent disaster of the oiled birds at sea.

[Genetically Modified Organisms, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have to take a very balanced approach in dealing with GMO products in the country. Not only do we need to worry about what people are consuming, but we also have to worry about how farmers will compete with other places in the world.

We have to take a balanced approach, and we are looking into this matter.