Ken Boshcoff

[January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will address the question of the minority government ignoring the pending collapse of Canada's pork and beef industry, firstly with a national overview, followed by the role of the province of Ontario, and then a local perspective.

Let it be stated emphatically that the absence of the federal minister in this crisis and the lack of a compassionate response means that every day more farmers go out of business permanently. The abandonment of rural Canada by the federal Conservatives is now well documented. Why do they not help our farmers?

To address this crisis, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommended several measures, including: interest-free loans; paying out the remaining percentage owed producers under the CAIS inventory; examining ways to relieve the pressure on the industry from the rising Canadian dollar; improving the responsiveness of business risk management when a liquidity crunch arises in the farming sector; fast tracking the federal $600 million Kickstart program so that funds can start flowing earlier than initially planned; reviewing regulatory measures susceptible of putting the Canadian meat industry at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis other countries; and helping producers, processors and renderers with the disposal and storage costs of ruminant specified risk material. All of these were recommended.

Decreasing prices, increasing input costs, the strengthened Canadian dollar and regulatory compliance costs are all elements of a perfect storm, which has resulted in an acute income crisis for the beef and pork industries. Although both the production and processing sectors are affected, the crisis became acute this fall for hog and cattle producers, who are struggling to meet even their most immediate financial obligations. It also is felt that some regulatory measures such as inspection fees and the ban on SRMs has put Canadian meat processors at a competitive disadvantage.

Feedback received by the standing committee suggests that the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, CAIS, was well received by producers. The question now front and centre is that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, on Wednesday, January 23, which is known as agricultural day in Canada, announced publicly in a widely circulated propaganda video that CAIS has been replaced. Regrettably, the government is dragging its federal feet.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, Clare Schlegel of the Canadian Pork Council stated, “Canada's hog industry is simply looking for a short-term loan program and improvements to the CAIS program”.

These requests have so far been rebuffed. She states further:

As the request[s] for a short-term loan program and improvements to the CAIS...program have been denied, the liquidity problems for our farmers are getting worse every day.

This industry is world class and has the basic fundamentals to succeed in the future. However, our Canadian Government must also accept its responsibility of providing a stable business environment if it wants value-added businesses to continue adding to the balance of trade.

Mr. Geri Kamenz, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, wants Ottawa to provide its share of much needed public investment in agriculture. Ontario Pork chairman Curtis Littlejohn has long voiced concern that Ottawa has thus far ignored pork's requests. As Ian McKillop, president of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, has said, more has to be done to meet the livestock industry's current needs.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2008]

With regard to spending by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs: (a) what is the amount per student that is allocated under the Band Operated Funding Formula (BOFF) for education for the 2007-2008 fiscal year; (b) what is the historical BOFF amount per student each year for the past 10 years; (c) what is the projected BOFF allocation per student for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 fiscal years; (d) how much additional funding is allocated per student for the 2007-2008 fiscal year towards important supports such as libraries, data management systems, technology integration, language and culture programs and vocational training; and (e) what was the projected BOFF per student allocation for the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 fiscal years under the Kelowna Accord 2005 agreement that included $1.8 million for education?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 28th, 2008]

With respect to Environment Canada project K2A65-06-0039 which was awarded to the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in January and February 2007: (a) what is the annual amount of funding provided by Environment Canada to the IISD; (b) what is the designated use for the funds outlined in sub-question (a); (c) what is the contract value of project K2A65-06-0039; (d) what policies are in place to ensure fairness and accountability in the Request for Proposal (RFP) process when an RFP submission is received from an organization that is also funded by Environment Canada; (e) which departments were directly involved in the decision to fund the IISD; (f) were any ministerial staff directly involved in the decision to fund the IISD and, if so, which ones; (g) which departments were directly involved in the decision to award project K2A65-06-0039 to the IISD; and (h) were any ministerial staff directly involved in the decision to award project K2A65-06-0039 to the IISD and, if so, which ones?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 28th, 2008]

With regard to the ongoing investigation by Mexican authorities into the murders of Dominic and Nancy Ianeiro in February 2006: (a) has the government of Canada formally asked the government of Mexico if Dr. Cheryl Everall and Ms. Kimberley Kim remain persons of interest to either federal or State of Quintana Roo authorities conducting the investigation; (b) if Dr. Cheryl Everall and Ms. Kimberley Kim remain persons of interest to either federal or State of Quintana Roo authorities, has the government of Mexico provided the government of Canada with information as to what the interest is in these two Canadian citizens; and (c) if there is no further interest, has the Canadian government formally requested that Mexican authorities provide written confirmation that these two women are no longer considered people of interest?

[Forest Industry, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government's support for forestry is $1 billion too little and two years too late.

Workers and communities were shocked to hear that the fund will be handcuffed until June. The government has the funds in hand to help today. Why are hurting families being held hostage by personal agendas?

If the Prime Minister truly wants to help forestry workers, why will he not make this money available right now?

[Budget Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, as an example, with the recent sad passing of the phenomenal Canadian artist Norval Morrisseau, the Thunder Bay Art Gallery, which has been one host of many of his works, and places such as the Thunder Bay Historical Museum and the Fort Frances Museum and Cultural Centre, may not be able to share great works of art with other communities of that size because they could not afford the transportation costs.

When we think of what is involved for these smaller museums and art galleries, without that federal government assistance, smaller communities all over the country simply could not financially afford to do it.

We always talk about the arts themselves as being an economic generator. We know that art galleries depend on a turnover and a change to be able to attract new patrons to come and visit specific works of art. Without that program I am deeply concerned, as the hon. member has mentioned, that many people will not be able to see the national treasures that we have and which should be shared with everyone.

When I talk about Fort Frances and Thunder Bay, it is the places even smaller than those communities that really want to try and build up their tourism by having displays and attracting people. It comes down also to the quality of life. The cost becomes prohibitive for some of the touring exhibits of these medium sized museums and art galleries to reach outlying regions.

The hon. member for Yukon has really addressed a very specific point. I hope that by mentioning that tangible example of what happens in the field, and in reality the smaller places and their ability to share our national treasures, that I have answered his question.

[Budget Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in talking to the budget implementation bill, I will focus my remarks particularly on the aspects of the forest industry and what may be done and what should be done to the bill to improve it so it can address this.

I will take us back to November 2005, when a $1.5 billion forest industry competitive plan was announced by the minister of industry at that time. That plan included funding support for what we would call transformative technologies, incentives for bioenergy expansion, assistance to respond to innovative opportunities, support for market expansion and a national forest community adjustment fund.

As I continue on through my speech, let us understand that the forest industry in Canada, the capacity for us to sell to the rest of the world, remains as vibrant as it ever was. We know our fibre is the best in the world. The product we have to sell and the pent-up demand that continues is something that should afford us tremendous opportunities. Let us keep this market expansion in mind as we discuss all other aspects that affect the industry and its dramatic downturn that we face right now.

These supports were developed in collaboration with forest industry leaders, union, labour and management, suppliers, to help slow the loss of jobs in forest companies across the country. Therefore, there had been a great deal of concentration and input. Indeed, the hon. member for Kenora, who established a forestry caucus, and caucuses are voluntary organizations, took great pains to ensure that representation from coast to coast to coast, covering most provinces and territories, was involved in the drafting of this and the pushing of it, not only through the Liberal caucus but through the cabinet itself.

We know what happened in January 2006. After that, the Prime Minister decided to cancel this plan, in the 2006 budget. From that date to the present, we have yet to see any tangible assistance to replace the supports that were put in place in November 2005, over two years ago.

As news happens daily in the forest industry, very rarely does it offer much good news. On November 16, 800 more jobs were lost in northwestern Ontario. On November 20, the announcement of a permanent closure of AbitibiBowater Fort William mill meant the loss of another 300 people, this time, with a full closure.

When we talk about a budget being designed to help the country give a leg up to industries that at various times could use the help, it is very clear the budget does nothing to help the forest sector through its own period of restructure.

Let us be certain we understand that. We know there will be some casualties. Anything else is a dramatic lack of awareness of what is happening in the industry. However, my contention is that thousands of jobs would have been saved by continuing to keep the forest competitiveness plan in operation.

The lack of response or the inaction by the government has not been due to a lack of effort by, again, labour or industry. Almost a year ago, on January 22, the CEP Union asked the Prime Minister to call a national summit on the future of the forest industry and to do that as soon as possible. It has repeatedly expressed its concern over the past 11 months.

In April of this year the opposition leader pledged, in response directly to the CEP, to hold that national summit on the future of the forest industry upon taking office as prime minister.

Just a few days ago, on November 30, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union again announced that it would do its best to organize a national summit on its own, since the government would not do it.

On December 5, the Forest Products Association of Canada called for Parliament to study the forestry challenges and develop a market based action plan that would set the groundwork for a vibrant forest industry.

Before I became the critic for FedNor, I was the associate critic for Natural Resources. The departmental briefing made it very clear that the demand for Canadian forest products, whether it be wood, pulp or paper, compared to the rest of the world meant that with some adjustments we could provide market share and grow our market share in many of those components. Whether it is higher end, higher quality product, we know we can find our niches.

After all is said and done, Canadian fibre is the best fibre in the world. The way we process it in terms of our environmental standards, the way we harvest it, meeting exceptional environmental safeguards, the way we produce it, by cleaning the plant operations, means that on all those fronts the industry has shown a dramatic interest from the time I was a young boy, when I saw mercury pollution and smokestacks emitting all kinds of pollutants into the air. The Canadian forest industry can stand head and shoulders in the world with the effort it has made in terms of capitalizing.

Just recently in Thunder Bay, Bowater, before it became AbitibiBowater, put $180 million of environmental improvements into its operation. In these days, in a very competitive environment, it is something that should be applauded and recognized.

In the budget of last February was a capital cost allowance. As I read the budget, this is the only assistance that has been offered. While the measure is a small step forward, it is far less than what is needed. The best way to describe it is this way. A company has to have money and it has to make money in order to invest in new equipment, which is logical. It also needs to show a profit to benefit from the measure. Therefore, on two counts, while laudable as a concept, the reality of what the industry faces right now makes it very difficult for a company to take advantage of this. Indeed, to take advantage of something, it is a two year window. I am offering right now my advice that it be improved.

In question period last week I asked the government what it was doing to help. It said that it was getting it done. However, for the workers, the families and suppliers, there has been marginal assistance. I insist once more, let the budget include measures to help the forest industry, the workers, the communities and, directly, the suppliers. It is not just northwestern Ontario, it is the entire province of Ontario and, indeed, the whole country.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, some of us can say in one minute what many other members may take fifteen minutes to say.

A few minutes ago in question period I asked the government a question about what plans it had to address the issues in the beleaguered forest industry. Much to the chagrin of the House, the question was not answered. The hon. member read from perhaps some campaign literature or something extolling the virtues of all the good things that are happening, and, in spite of the fact that I was very specific about the mill closures in northwestern Ontario and throughout Canada, my question was not answered.

The government clearly does not have a plan for forestry. If we are going to get anywhere, the government must understand that when 1,100 families are without work this Christmas that is just this month's bad news.

[Forest Industry, December 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, 800 forestry workers in northwestern Ontario have been laid off in the past two weeks and over 300 more learned last week that their mill is now closed permanently. The government scrapped the Liberal $1.5 billion forest industry competitive plan and has presented no new plan.

How many more of my constituents will have to join the unemployment line? What is the Prime Minister's plan for these families?

[Business of Supply, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question because it recognizes the historical basis of a country that felt it had unlimited space in which to grow in the urban domain and now is faced with the dilemma where those rural and smaller communities, which are actually supplying the greater metropolitan areas, are facing a much more difficult time with their tax base to support that.

The hon. member mentioned the record cut from $40 billion to $33 billion for infrastructure and the municipalities of all sizes do not need a catch-all program. They need a program that is adapted to their specific needs. Overcoming those issues of congestion, gridlock, urban sprawl, pollution and all of those things, must be dealt with by all three orders of government in conjunction with each other.

When we first brought forward the federal involvement in a major way, one could say that those were also record spendings because they were new programs and a new role for the federal government, at the request of municipal people who had come forward with their case.

Therefore, if there are to be programs, it is important that they be made permanent, accessible and dependable.