Robert Bouchard

[Sales Tax Amendments Act, 2006, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, since the member talked about the GST, I would like to ask him a question. What does he think about the visitors' GST rebate?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 29th, 2007]

With regard to the use of CF-18s: (a) what are the international training standards for the CF-18s used in Canada for training on firing ranges; (b) what benefits could CFB Valcartier offer with regard to the international standards for CF-18 training; and (c) regarding the exemption granted in 2005 to allow some air-to-ground missions to be carried out at the Valcartier firing range for the CF-18s from CFB Bagotville, what are the restrictions pertaining to this exemption?

[Summer Career Placements Program, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, many community organizations are worried. In the round of cuts that began in 2006, the summer career placements program has now come to be targeted by the Conservative Party.

In 2006, 959 students from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, including 329 from my riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, benefited from this program. Considering that, through this program, organizations pay only part of the cost of hiring students and that 95% of subsidized organizations are not for profit organizations, such an announcement is a tragedy.

The fact of the matter is that the program provides local work experience for thousands of young college and university students over the summer.

If the Minister of Labour is serious about standing up for Quebec and the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, he must intercede with the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development to ensure that the $97 million in funding for the program is renewed in full.

[Petitions, December 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present, today, a petition on the repression used by the Mexico's federal police in Oaxaca. The signatories of the petition denounce the climate of terror that has reigned since a teacher's strike in June. This petition, signed by 89 people, calls on the House of Commons to look into the situation and exert pressure in order to resolve this dispute through discussion and negotiation and not through excessive force.

I also want to thank Sylvie Dusseault for drafting this petition. She has my support.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member is raising a problem that is being felt particularly in the western provinces, such as British Columbia, I believe. The softwood lumber industry in Quebec supports this agreement. Before we stated our position, my party, my colleagues, my leader and I consulted the softwood lumber industry, unions and all the industry stakeholders. They recommended that we support this agreement, even though we felt it was a sellout and was not the ideal way to rectify the situation.

The Bloc adopted that position because it is a democratic party and the consultations produced that result.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, with NAFTA, the American and Canadian economies are perhaps not integrated, but facilitated. We also have to recognize that, at least in Quebec, a high percentage of companies export goods and services to the United States. In that sense, trade between Canada and the United States is highly developed.

Since we are talking about softwood lumber, it also would have been nice if there had not been all those constraints and taxes. Unfortunately, this dispute led to a misunderstanding by the Americans and an unacceptable situation for us, in that our companies and the softwood lumber industry were subjected to American anti-dumping taxes.

That is why we went to court, where we won on several occasions. Later, an agreement was reached. We feel that it is not the best possible agreement, as it involves compromises. It could be called a sellout agreement. But because of the situation of the softwood lumber industry in Quebec, we had to support the agreement, because the industry was at the end of its rope. The agreement was a way of giving the industry back most of the money it was owed.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I see that the situation in his region is similar to the situation of a number of companies in my region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean.

The softwood lumber industry in Quebec and in my region is currently on its last legs because of the large amounts of money withheld as a result of the tax imposed by the Americans. This money will be given back to the companies and will inject a bit of money into the softwood lumber industry.

However, the minority Conservative government absolutely has to introduce measures. It is not enough to give back some of the money withheld because of this American tax. An assistance program is needed.

In my riding, for example, there are a number of small companies, and the softwood lumber industry is the main industry in town. I was giving the example of Fernand-et-Boileau where 80% of the jobs depended on this industry. That is why assistance is needed in these communities.

Assistance also needs to be given to the companies that work in this sector and to the companies that have had to resort to mass layoffs and close their doors.

That is why we are calling on the government to implement programs for older workers and for the communities, in order to get the softwood lumber industry back on its feet.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to use the few minutes available to me to offer a brief summary of the situation as it relates to the softwood lumber agreement signed on July 1, between Ottawa and Washington.

As everyone knows, we have not been too eager to support Bill C-24. I come from a region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, that has been greatly affected by the softwood lumber crisis in recent years. That is in fact the reason why I wanted to talk about this issue again today.

Many of my colleagues from Quebec are going through a similar situation. In our respective regions, when the sawmill shuts down, the entire local economy is affected.

For example, the municipality of Ferland-et-Boilleau, in my riding, falls into the one-industry category, because 80% of local jobs depend on that economic activity. Obviously, the problems the forestry industry has been experiencing for several years have had major economic and social consequences for that municipality.

The situation is not rosy for the forestry sector. This agreement is only one step in the right direction. Once again, last weekend, the municipality of Normandin in Lac-Saint-Jean watched as Gémofor sought the protection of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. I would point out that Gémofor employed nearly 150 men and women. The uncomfortable situation the company now finds itself in is not encouraging for the people in that community.

These are just a few examples. But a large number of sawmills, like P.H. Lemay and Péribonka, have been affected by the crisis in recent months.

At present, the government seems to be wanting to wait for the market to sort itself out while abandoning hundreds of businesses to their fate. This is a dangerous game because a number of rural regions could see their economies completely wiped out by this kind of decision.

This industry is indeed on its last gasp, at the end of its rope. It would be better to accept this bad agreement than to risk losing those businesses. Now that the agreement has been ratified, it is up to the government to put a set of measures in place as quickly as possible to assist the softwood lumber industry, which is facing serious difficulties at the very moment when it has been weakened by a lengthy trade dispute.

The industry needs immediate assistance to avoid these plants having to bear the costs of the federal government’s failure to support them.

I had the opportunity to speak on this subject in September and I would once again like to refer to some statistics that prove the new agreement is not enough to ensure the survival of the forestry sector. In early September, the Bowater sawmill at Saint-Félicien was forced to lay off 140 employees for an indefinite period.

The Coopérative forestière de Girardville announced that an investment of a million dollars would be needed to restart its operations.

Finally, the PFS sawmill in Petit-Saguenay is due to re-open its doors after initially shutting down for what was expected to be two weeks. Meanwhile, the sawmill has decided to discontinue its second work shift due to market difficulties.

These are just some examples of what is happening in many municipalities in Quebec and across Canada.

Although it is a statistic that I have already referred to in this House, I would like to mention it again. The softwood lumber crisis led to the loss of 3,000 jobs in my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean—yes, 3,000 direct jobs —and the situation continues to get worse.

We are living through a crisis without precedent and the conditions for profitable operation are very difficult. A good number of forestry companies will have no other choice than to restructure or to realign their activities or their plants in order to remain competitive.

The root cause of the problem remains intact. The situation will continue to get worse if quick action is not taken. The problem is most acute in the resource regions of Quebec and it is difficult to close our eyes to this situation.

For several years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the introduction of a support program for older workers. The Bloc Québécois has intervened three times in the House of Commons to demand the implementation of a new POWA.

Unfortunately, the announcement of the Conservative program in October turned out to be worse than we feared because the assistance is not immediate and takes the form of a two-year pilot project that is under-funded and does not respond to the needs of older workers.

Indeed, a large part of the program consists solely in helping workers retrain. When an entire community suffers the hardship of a massive layoff, real action has to be taken. Regrettably, workers who are more than 55 years old and have difficulty finding another job cannot benefit from such a program.

That is why the Bloc Québécois believes that now that we have accepted a sellout agreement, it is incumbent on the government to put in place programs that will enable communities and companies that depend on the forests to diversify their economies.

The Bloc Québécois proposes to increase the budget that the federal government allocates for economic diversification of forestry regions. It also proposes that the funds be transferred to the Government of Quebec to avoid duplication of effort. Consequently, we are talking about a sum of $50 million over three years, strictly for Quebec. The federal government has the means to assist an economy that greatly needs support.

In closing, I would like to point out that Bill C-24 does not solve the structural problems in the market. In the coming months, measures must be introduced to avoid a collapse of the forestry sector. Moreover, I hope the minister will act on the resolution from the RCM of Lac-Saint-Jean-Est, in my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. The resolution adopted in September calls on the federal government to provide greater support to the forest industry.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's determination to implement a program coast to coast heavily penalizes grain producers in Quebec. Their situation has nothing to do with that of western Canada. The minister has a duty to also help the grain producers in Quebec.

Does he intend to do so by attending the next UPA conference, which will be held in Quebec City in early December, and making an announcement there?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, grain producers from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean met this morning with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in order to show him that the farm income support program is not suitable for Quebec, which the minister acknowledged. Despite the existence of a subsidy program, the money is not getting to the producers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

Will the minister admit that he has to implement a specific and more flexible program that is better suited to Quebec's producers, in order to allow them to also benefit from the federal subsidies?