Carol Hughes

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that in 1996, the maximum employment insurance rate was $604. Now it is approximately $447. Overall, those who can benefit from it receive approximately $355 a week.

I would like to ask my colleague if she agrees that one of the best ways to stimulate the economy would be to reduce poverty and ensure that unemployed workers can access EI?

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, before I go into the details about EI, I will say that the impact is quite great. Just in the last two months of 2008 over 100,000 people lost their jobs and we have been hearing about job loss after job loss ever since.

On the free trade agreement, if we had fair trade, that would be great. We would be able to compete, and we can compete, as long as the government is willing to invest in the industries that we already have.

With the lumber industry, for example, when we did our prebudget consultations we heard that what that industry wanted was access to credit. Reasonable access to credit would have kept some of those mills going and kept the jobs going.

It is the same thing with our shipbuilding industry. If the government wanted to be serious about investing in shipbuilding, we would certainly be able to protect the jobs that we currently have and eventually create more jobs.

On the EI part, access to EI certainly has grave impacts across the north. Again, because of the inefficiencies across Canada, the required hours are not the same for everyone. I put forward a private member's bill to reduce that to 360 hours for everybody. I am hoping the House will support that bill when we discuss it.

As I said, when we consider that for every $60 given as a corporate tax credit only $1 goes to EI, that is an atrocity. Economists have said that an EI recipient spends that money in his or her community and there is economic stimulus right away. Within two weeks of a recipient receiving his or her EI cheque, he or she will have spent it on necessities. What happens with big corporate tax cuts? The corporations put that money in their pockets and go away, and sometimes that money is invested overseas.

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, who does actually benefit from free trade? Basically what we have seen is that those at the top of the big industries almost ensure that the smaller entities will have difficulty surviving. There is no such thing as free trade. It just ensures that the biggest players dominate the industry.

It is just like big corporate tax cut credits. The big banks and the big oil companies get the big credits. Sixty dollars for every tax credit that goes to the big corporations only $1 goes into EI. I think that is a shame. The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.

When we are looking at the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, chapter 11 of NAFTA allows for corporations to usurp the democratic will of Parliament. Therefore, I think it is important that we keep track of what really has been going on because no matter what Parliament's will is, free trade agreements override that.

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, when we are looking at shipbuilding, it does not just impact those people who are actually building the ships, but it does have a ripple effect into other industries, especially the mining and forestry industries. Everyone would benefit from that, not to mention some of our small business communities and the construction industry as well. Certainly, it would impact greatly. Given the fact that we have seen job loss after job loss in Canada, imagine that, we could start building up our manufacturing industry once again. Would that not be a great thing to put people back to work?

We have been seeing skill shortages over and over again. Again, by losing our shipbuilding capacities we will be losing skills. I want to reiterate that the ripple effect of job creation would certainly benefit Canada greatly.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join with my colleagues in denouncing this bill which will have long-term implications for the workers of this country. It is a bill which further commits Canada to a free trade agenda when what we should really be pursuing is a fair trade agenda.

I find it interesting that we are continuing to negotiate these types of trade deals given the difficulty we have had recently with the rise in protectionism, particularly from the U.S., our biggest trading partner and close signatory in the North American free trade agreement. It can be argued that we are the poor cousin in that arrangement, bringing only concessions to the table and having to live with the whims of our partners. We are seeing this with respect to iron and steel procurement in the U.S. stimulus package.

We have also witnessed the long struggle to get an acceptable softwood lumber agreement with our American partners. In northern Ontario we are particularly aware of the failure of successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, to protect an industry that goes to the heart of our economy. In northern Ontario we have watched the trend in the softwood industry as workers are being asked for concessions, mills are shutting down and those lucky enough to still have jobs in the forestry sector are not confident those jobs will be there in the future.

It is not because of a crisis in confidence of our products, work ethics or the future of the resource. It is because these people recognize that they are working within the confines of a flawed agreement that does little to protect jobs here in Canada.

In my riding, there was the loss of 120 jobs at the Haavalsrud mill in Hornepayne, the closing for four weeks of the Tembec mill in Kapuskasing and its announcement yesterday of lay-offs in Hearst, not to mention the concessions that Columbia Forest Products in Hearst tried to obtain from its workers. All these events have an immediate impact on our small towns.

Forgive me if I fail to see the silver lining in this latest free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association, comprised of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Although we are the larger partner in this agreement, at least in terms of population, once again we are conceding ground and making it difficult to ensure the future survival of important national industries.

I am talking about our shipbuilding industry now. We are entering into an agreement that will all but guarantee that our shipbuilding industry continues to contract and loses ground to foreign producers. This trade agreement will reduce tariffs on ships from 25% to zero in a period of 10 to 15 years, depending on the type of ship.

The main source of competition for shipbuilding will be Norway. Norway has pursued a long-term industrial strategy for shipbuilding. It has a state-of-the-art yard that has been subsidized and is well established. Canada does not. We do not have an industrial policy for shipbuilding and the infrastructure in the yards we do have is not state-of-the-art. Canadian yards are not on a level playing field as we set them loose to compete under the terms of this agreement.

I would be remiss to go on any further without mentioning the good work of my colleague, the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. Had governments listened to his call for improvements in Canadian shipbuilding capacity, we would not be voicing many of our concerns today. We would be entering into this agreement on a level playing field and be able to compete not only with Norway but Japan, Korea and any of the best shipbuilding yards in the world. Sadly, his repeated call for a shipbuilding industrial strategy has been ignored, and we in the NDP are forced to fight on behalf of the remnants of this once proud industry to ensure it does not simply vanish.

I would also like to echo the sentiments of my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I too am appalled that not one ship is being built in the Thunder Bay shipyard, not now or even in the past year, yet at the same time we are moving ahead with an agreement that will forever hamstring this industry. It is inconceivable that we would like to merely walk away from these good jobs in a time when we are meant to be moving heaven and earth to protect jobs in Canada.

It does not end with shipbuilding though. Our concerns go beyond that. There are serious implications for our agricultural sector in this agreement as well. The provisions within the agreement concerning agriculture defer to the World Trade Organization principles and dispute mechanisms, which will have a very negative impact on supply management by weakening Canada's position. The NDP opposes these WTO mechanisms and has strong concerns about their effect on our domestic agriculture capacity.

Terry Pugh, the executive secretary of the National Farmers Union, told the Standing Committee on International Trade in April of 2008:

--the most critical and highly negative aspect of this deal...is its impact on supply management, for example, in the dairy industry. It's true that our access commitments remain in place for imports of certain commodities, as specified under the WTO agreement, but the tariff rates on some of those imports have been dramatically lowered, some of them to the point of elimination entirely.

He points out that butter coming into Canada in shipments of under 4,000 tonnes has a 7% tariff. Under this deal, that 7% goes down to 0%. The amount that is coming in stays the same but the tariff rate is actually reduced. That just opens up Canadian markets to offshore products, and every time we do that, we shut Canadian producers out of their own domestic market. Is that not a shame? It might be free trade but it certainly is not fair trade.

We have standards in Canada and our dairy farmers are demanding. They work hard and they deliver a safe product through reliable supply routes, operating under a supply management system that ensures as much.

They operate under the basic tenets of fair trade. These are commitments to health and safety, respect for human rights, worker rights and right to assembly. They operate in good faith. That is more than can be said about a government that rushes through trade agreements just to be seen to be doing something, a government that has made promises on icebreakers, the Arctic patrol vessel and the joint support ship project, none of which are moving ahead despite the fact that they could all be done in Canada.

I would like to quote Andrew McArthur of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding who appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on April 2, 2008. I know it has been mentioned a few times in the House already, but I think it is important that we keep hammering away at it. He said:

So our position from day one has been that shipbuilding should be carved out from the trade agreement. We butted our heads against a brick wall for quite a number of years on that and we were told there is no carve-out. If the Americans, under the Jones Act, can carve out shipbuilding from NAFTA and other free trade agreements, as I believe the Americans are doing today with Korea, or have done, why can Canada not do the same? [...] We have to do something to ensure shipbuilding continues. The easiest thing is to carve it out from EFTA. And if you do one thing, convince your colleagues in government to extend the ship financing facility, make it available to Canadian owners in combination with the accelerated capital cost allowance, and you will have as vibrant an industry as exists.

In closing, I would like to remind the government that this agreement threatens Canadian industry and agriculture. This agreement sets adrift, perhaps forever, our shipbuilding history and its industry. It could also have dire consequences on dairy producers and should be reviewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, could the member differentiate between free trade and fair trade? We have seen what happened with the softwood lumber industry and now the impact on our jobs here in Canada. Yesterday, Tembec announced that it would be laying off about 1,500 more workers. We do not disagree that there needs to be a fair trade agreement. The problem is that the free trade agreements have not been working in our favour.

We need to look at what we are doing with regard to our shipbuilding. If we want to promote a buy in Canada procurement policy or program, how can we do that if we are not building our ships or similar products here in Canada? Will the member acknowledge that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement with regard to the softwood lumber certainly was not to our benefit at this point in time given the fact that we are losing a lot of our mills? Would he not be supportive of carving the shipbuilding out of this agreement we are talking about today?

[Employment Insurance Act, February 2nd, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-281, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefit period increase).

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for seconding this bill, which amends the Employment Insurance Act to increase the benefit period for claimants 45 years of age or over who are laid off permanently after 10 years or more in the labour force.

This would help my constituents greatly. I hope that we will move forward with this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Employment Insurance Act, February 2nd, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for seconding the bills I am tabling today.

My first bill that I would like to introduce would be to lower the threshold for becoming a major attachment claimant to 360 hours, make special benefits available to those with that level of insurable employment, set the weekly benefit payable to 55% of the average weekly insurable earnings during the highest paid 12 weeks in the 12 month period preceding the interruption of earnings, reduce the qualifying period before receiving benefits, and remove the distinction made in the qualifying period on the basis of the regional unemployment rate.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Northern Ontario Communities, January 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, communities in northern Ontario have been hard hit by the decline in the mining and forestry industries. However, the budget presented yesterday does not provide significant help for the unemployed, workers and their communities.

The money in the economic stimulation plan hinges on equivalent investment from municipalities who do not have these funds. Consequently, they will not receive what they deserve.

How can this government abandon the people of northern Ontario?

[Points of Order, December 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, twice we have asked the member for Peterborough to apologize and he has readily admitted that he will not apologize. He has admitted that he has said the word “traitor”. Please have him withdraw--