Claude Guimond

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, as my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I have said repeatedly during the debates on Bill C-2, we think this free trade agreement is an excellent agreement. We have all been very clear. However, we must make sure it is accompanied by a real, vigorous policy in order to ensure that Quebec and Canada can be very competitive in the coming years, to be able to compete with countries like Norway.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again here today to speak to BIll C-2, which should lead to the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the states of the European Free Trade Association. The Standing Committee on International Trade has already studied it at length. We have heard from a number of witnesses and we are ready to debate it here today at this stage.

The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it is generally in favour of this agreement. We in the Bloc think that it is a good agreement, especially for the Quebec economy, because there are attractive economic opportunities for us in the countries that are signing it. I will not spend any more time on why we support this agreement, since this has already been explained in previous speeches by some of my colleagues and myself, during the debate at second reading.

In my last speech I also spoke about shipbuilding and its place in this agreement, and I will take advantage of this opportunity to clarify my position on this matter. First of all, I must say that I am aware of the concerns the representatives of the shipbuilding industry in Quebec have about the implementation of this agreement.

The future of our shipyards is a matter of vital importance to Quebec, particularly its eastern part, where a sizeable portion of the economy depends on the economic spinoffs from the shipyards. I feel it is absolutely vital for Quebec's shipbuilding industry to remain healthy and able to develop in the years to come. For that to happen, the government needs to finally accept its responsibilities and invest in this field.

It must be understood that the difficulties being experienced by the shipyards and the marine industry in general did not just crop up today, and the blame must not be laid on the adoption of an agreement whose impact will not be felt here for many years to come. On the other hand, we must not miss our opportunity to make a major change of direction in our marine policy. We can state that there is no real marine policy in Canada at this time, and that could cause real trouble in future years if action is not taken now.

There is no denying that there will be more competition. We have concerns about competition from countries like Norway, where the marine sector has been heavily subsidized for many years. That said, we must start immediately to implement measures to help this industry become more modern and more competitive. We know that the major problem, the real problem, is that for years the shipbuilding sector has suffered, and still does, from a flagrant lack of government support. It is time the needs of Quebec and Canadian shipyards were paid attention to.

According to the agreement in question, there will be a tariff phase-out on the most sensitive shipbuilding products, for up to 15 years in certain cases. After that period of adjustment, no tariff protection will be allowed, and ships from EFTA countries including Norway will appear on the Canadian and Quebec market and compete on an level playing field with our own. This would not pose a problem if we were not so far behind.

According to the witnesses we heard in committee, if our borders were opened to our competitors tomorrow morning, our shipyards would simply not survive. That would be a very bad thing, because our shipyards are essential on a number of levels—economic, strategic and environmental.

One question comes to mind today: what will our shipbuilding industry look like in 15 years?

We are convinced that if the government finally assumes its responsibilities, as I was saying earlier, and decides to recognize that establishing a true marine policy is of the utmost importance, this industry will surely progress and be in an excellent position with respect to its future competitors.

Obviously, we do not believe that the government will take any action at all without pressure from those concerned. Therefore, in the hope of obtaining some movement by the government on this issue the Bloc Québécois presented the following important recommendation to the Standing Committee on International Trade before the free-trade agreement takes effect:

...the Canadian government must without delay implement an aggressive Maritime policy to support the industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada's commitments at the WTO.

That was the only recommendation made in the report. The Conservatives never see any problems with their policies, the Liberals, as usual, failed to propose any recommendations, and the NDP, in its predictable opposition to free trade, opposed the agreement altogether. The Bloc Québécois recommendation, which finally received the committee's support and was included in its report, meets the expectations of many shipbuilders in Canada and Quebec. Even though they have no hope of seeing their sector excluded from the agreement, they do expect the government to act quickly and forcefully.

We see in the report that, according to representatives of shipbuilders and marine workers:

...without combined access to the structured financing facility and accelerated capital cost allowances, the impact of the agreement would be devastating to the industry and would lead to job losses. In their view, this additional government support was critical if the Canadian industry was to survive increased competition from Norwegian producers.

Some will say that Norway has announced that it has stopped subsidizing its shipbuilders and that that will enable Canada to compete on a level playing field with that country. But what are we doing to make up for all the years when there were no subsidies here, while Norway was achieving the high level of competitiveness it enjoys today, thanks to generous government support? Quite simply, there needs to be a dramatic shift in the federal approach to the marine industry, which means abandoning the laissez-faire policy the Liberals and Conservatives have followed to date.

I am happy that we are holding this debate on the trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association, because it reveals how fragile our marine industry is in the face of foreign competition and forces us to take a stand on these issues quickly. It is not the agreement that is bad, but our policy. That is why a change of direction is imperative. In 5 or 10 years, it will be too late. We must act now. With a few targeted measures, our shipyards can become modern, productive, financially healthy and extremely competitive. The biggest problem to date has been the lack of political will to change things, and it is high time that changed too.

Of all the aspects of this free trade agreement, this one has concerned me the most. The other aspects of the agreement, including agriculture, seem to be well handled and in line with Quebec's interests.

I would just like to add, as some of my colleagues have already pointed out, that this free trade agreement may open the door to a future agreement with the European Union. We must seize the opportunity when it arises and, more importantly, be ready to compete.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we obviously need to be looking at transformation. It must be based on good research and good development and we must, without a doubt, find solutions that are environmentally sustainable. We have to consider the industry and relaunch it on a new basis that will benefit everyone.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

Just recently the Conservatives made a decision. They clearly chose Ontario's auto industry. We can understand that the auto industry needs assistance but it should not be given at the expense of the forestry industry, which is very important especially in Quebec.

Today, what is new about this debate is that, henceforth, we have to consider the 130,000 private woodlot owners in Quebec and in Canada who have been forgotten since the start of the forestry crisis. They need substantive measures to help them get through this terrible crisis.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supported this proposal a few years ago because there was a consensus in Quebec among forestry producers, the industry and the National Assembly of Quebec. Action was urgently needed and that is why the Bloc Québécois is in part responsible for deciding to intervene at that point.

I would also like to mention that all measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois, including today's, do not contravene international trade measures that we must honour.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleagues who have risen on this opposition day have talked about the serious problems plaguing Quebec's forestry industry. I would like to join them in making this House aware of the forestry sector's problems, long neglected by the federal government. Today's Bloc Québécois motion points to the inadequacy of funding allocated in the latest budget to an industry that has been in crisis for several years and that, if left to its own devices, will suffer even more because of the current economic situation. That is why, in our motion, we have denounced the absence of specific measures to improve things for the forestry industry, measures such as bonuses, loan guarantees and refundable tax credits for research and development. We also strongly encourage the use of lumber in the construction and renovation of federal public buildings, along with new measures to support the production of energy and ethanol from forestry waste.

Despite the government's excuses to cover up its lack of political will, all of these measures are legitimate and would not violate the international softwood lumber agreements that bind us. My colleagues have already gone into great detail about these aspects of our motion. I would like to focus on what is really going on with private woodlot producers in Quebec. I would like to talk about what is happening to 130,000 owners, 10,000 of which are located in the lower St. Lawrence region, where 50% of the woodlots are private. That is an indication of how important their activities are to local and regional development in my region.

Over the past few years, private woodlot owners in Quebec have seen their situation get worse. They have been hit hard by the forestry crisis and have felt the impact of permanent and temporary plant closures, tighter markets for their wood, and sharply declining prices. Such are the consequences of an ongoing crisis that they are not equipped to deal with because of a lack of government support. In its most recent budget, the federal government once again ignored the needs of private woodlot owners in Quebec.

Richard Savard, who has responsibility for forestry in the regional conference of elected officials in the Bas-St-Laurent area, referred to the latest federal budget as a missed opportunity. In addition to being woefully inadequate and poorly targeted, federal assistance for the forestry industry in no way meets the needs of private woodlot owners. Yet private woodlots account for 29,000 direct jobs in Quebec.

In my region, Bas-St-Laurent, activities associated with private forest management and wood marketing create some 2,000 forest and factory jobs. In addition, the economic spinoffs from private woodlots are vital to our rural communities. It is crucial that the situation of private woodlot owners improve, because the survival of these communities depends on it.

In Bas-St-Laurent, the warden of the Témiscouata RCM, Serge Fortin, was outraged at Mr. Flaherty's insensitivity. According to the warden, because the minister is unaware of the impact that the forestry crisis is having on some regions, he does not appreciate that the loss of 500 jobs in our region is the equivalent of a loss of 10,000 jobs in Montreal. We have to bear in mind that, according to Department of Natural Resources data, 1,000 direct jobs have been lost in the forestry sector in Bas-St-Laurent since April 1, 2005. This is alarming.

Faced with the government's inaction, private woodlot owners are not just standing idle; they are doing everything they can to develop the full potential of their forest heritage. This means that, in addition to being undeniably important to rural communities, private forests can play an important environmental role when managed sustainably. They can help preserve wildlife habitat and ecological diversity, protect air and water quality, store carbon and reduce soil and shoreline erosion. In fact, thanks to the management of private forests, they are more productive today than public forests. Management is very profitable in the long run and deserves to be recognized.

In the coming months, the Bloc Québécois will press the federal government to recognize management plans as proof of reasonable expectation of profit, so that woodlot management expenses are deductible under section 31 of the Income Tax Act.

The advantages of sustainable woodlot management are many, and we need to ensure that the federal taxation system is better adapted to this type of operation, which benefits the population as a whole.

Under the present tax system, woodlot management expenses are not deductible from total farm income, and this tends to encourage poor forest management.

In other words, the tax system as it applies to private woodlots is not beneficial to farmers and does not favour sustainable resource use. At the present time, there is no specific status under the Income Tax Act for woodlot owners.

In the eyes of Revenue Canada, most of them are seen instead as part time farmers or hobby farmers. That being the case, it is not easy for them to claim their operating losses. They have to prove there was a reasonable expectation of profit, and this is very hard to prove according to the present tax authority requirements. There is, therefore, a lot that needs to be done as far as taxation is concerned to achieve more appropriate recognition of the work of private woodlot owners.

Another point on which the Bloc Québécois will place a great deal of emphasis is changes to the taxation system for private woodlot owners to allow averaging of revenue from the sale of wood produced by sustainable management or harvested after some natural disaster.

This is a very reasonable request, given the great irregularities in forest income. One harvest year, the revenue could be high, but then growers have to wait a number of years before newly planted trees are mature enough for harvesting.

At the present time, woodlot operators' incomes are all taxable in the year of sale of the product, even if that income may represent 10 years of work and be followed by another 10 years totally without income.

These are the reasons operators want income averaging for taxation purposes. That way, someone selling $200,000 worth of lumber this year could, for example, declare $20,000 income over the next 10 years. Obviously the taxation rate would be lower and this would make it possible for operators to live better off the proceeds.

Today, measures must be taken to make forest resources a true lever for growth in the regions of Quebec such as the lower St. Lawrence.

For any progress to be made on this, I would first of all stress the two measures I have just set out: management plans and income averaging for private woodlot owners in Quebec. Supporting those measures is tantamount to recognizing the contribution made by private woodlots to regional development, and acknowledging that private woodlot owners have particular needs which must be listened to.

Private woodlot owners can rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will continue to relay their demands to this House.

[Spect'Art Rimouski Broadcaster, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the extraordinary work of regional concert presenter Spect'Art Rimouski, which was awarded the Rideau/XM Radio Satellite top concert presenter prize in February at the Capitole de Québec. The award honours Spect-Art's boldness, ingenuity and excellent work in the field of artistic direction.

Spect'Art also received another major award, the 2008 Félix for Quebec performance venue of the year. Many industry stakeholders, including the Réseau des organisateurs de spectacles de l'Est du Québec (ROSEQ), praised the regional concert presenter's contribution and its collaboration with other performing arts organizations.

I, too, would like to congratulate Spect'Art on receiving this award and on everything it has accomplished.

[Private Woodlot Owners in Quebec, February 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have been appointed the Bloc Québécois critic for private woodlot owners. With this recent appointment, the Bloc Québécois is recognizing that woodlot owners have their own set of problems to which the federal government is not paying enough attention.

The economic spinoffs from Quebec's 130,000 private woodlot owners are very important to our regions, and for some rural communities they are vital. However, private owners have to deal with the crisis in the forestry industry that has resulted in a significant drop in revenues because of mill closures, fewer buyers, and falling prices.

I would like to assure private woodlot owners in Quebec that the Bloc Québécois supports their demands and will continue to work for change.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to elaborate on certain measures endorsed by the Bloc Québécois. These measures would modernize our trade legislation to better protect our companies from foreign dumping. These same measures would make it impossible to ignore Canadian International Trade Tribunal rulings that recommend applying safeguards. These measures would also allow workers themselves to file complaints about subsidies and dumping with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Another measure would be to change Canada's negotiating position at the WTO, making social dumping its first priority and focusing on multilateral negotiations within the WTO. That is the only forum for making rules to civilize international trade.

Lastly, another way to fight social dumping is to ratify the following International Labour Organization conventions: the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, and the Minimum Age for Admission to Employment Convention.

With these measures in place, we will have an edge in international trade.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is very aware of the importance of international trade, and our position favoured multilateralism.

The partner we are talking about is also Quebec's main trade partner, the United States. They alone account for 57% of Quebec exports, that is, one and a half times more than what goes to Canada. As for Quebec's international exports, the United States takes in 85% of those exports. Those figures show that Quebec is an irreplaceable partner for the United States.