Bill C-50 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act until September 11, 2010 to increase the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants. It also increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants not in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I call the meeting to order, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 29, 2009, Bill C-50, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits.

We are going to get started. It's televised today.

I have just a couple of housekeeping notes for those of you who haven't been before a committee before. When we identify you, the microphone will turn on. We're going to start over on my left-hand side, and we're going to move all the way around to my right. You have seven minutes each. I'll just sort of wave at you when you're getting close to your seven minutes so we can get to some questions and answers. We're going to have a first round of seven minutes each by all parties, and then we're going to go into a second round of five minutes, which will be back and forth among all parties.

I'll recognize you in a second, Mr. Lessard.

There is some additional committee business that we need to deal with. My suggestion is I'm going to set some time aside to deal with that so we could talk about another meeting.

I'm going to turn the floor over to you, Mr. Lessard. I have a feeling you probably want to talk about another meeting. Go ahead, sir.

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member who just spoke a few questions that will be easy to answer. In his speech, he mentioned that Bill C-50, which is currently being studied, would help forestry workers.

I would like him to identify these forestry workers: in which regions do they live and how many are there?

Bill C-50 actually does not benefit those forestry workers. I imagine he could reconsider what he said. I would just remind him that Bill C-50, supported by the New Democrats, will help people, but only those who have not drawn more than 35 weeks of benefits over the past five years.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first of all like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

It is with great pleasure that I take the floor today, on this Bloc Québécois opposition day which is dealing with an issue of great importance for Quebec.

I would like to say to the hon. member who has just spoken that we are well aware that this is an issue that also affects all of Canada. However Quebec has been particularly affected by this crisis.

The motion tabled today criticizes the inaction of the Conservative government, as has been said in this House, in dealing with the forestry crisis. We have had some measures that are flatly inadequate to support the development of this industry and its workers, such as Bill C-50.

While the federal government has allocated the forestry industry some $70 million, it must be said once again, the Conservatives have granted the automotive industry over $9.7 billion. It is shameful. It is not that providing more support to the auto industry is shameful. We are not against support for the auto industry. But that support has been provided without consideration for the needs of the forestry industry in Quebec. That is our objection.

Granting $9.7 billion to the auto industry versus $70 million to Quebec’s forestry industry in a crisis situation is simply unfair and unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois. Let us not forget that the crisis in the forestry industry affects 825,000 workers, compared with 500,000 workers in the automotive sector. It would be entirely justified to support the forestry industry as much as the auto industry, but that is not what has happened.

The Conservative government had partisan electoral interests in Ontario when it tabled its latest budgets. In its choices, the Conservative government has decided to abandon the forestry industry and focus on the automotive industry, which as we know full well, also had certain needs.

However the forestry industry, the forest workers of Quebec and all the forest workers of Canada are worth more than this.

The Quebec forestry sector is made up of close to 88,000 Quebeckers who work in sawmills and pulp and paper mills, representing about a third of Canadian jobs in this sector.

In Quebec, approximately 230 cities, towns and villages are primarily dependent on this economic sector, including 160 small, rural villages which are exclusively dependent on the forest. At the moment they are being devitalized and torn apart by cuts. They have not been listened to by this government.

The softwood lumber crisis, which we remember very well and which preceded the present economic crisis, did much more harm in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada. On this subject I would have liked to respond to my colleague from the Liberal Party who spoke earlier.

No fewer than 10,000 Quebec workers were directly affected, collectively losing the equivalent of 3,200 years’ pay. That is not nothing.

Collectively, sales in Quebec fell four times more than the Canadian average. That was due not only to the broader economic crisis, but also to a lack of support for the forestry sector from the government.

Since April 2005, it has been worse still. The forestry industry, if we include related activities such as forestry and transportation, has lost an additional 25,000 jobs.

Today, the forestry industry is experiencing a major crisis that presents a serious threat to some of these communities, which are experiencing a loss of vitality and a major population exodus.

In the riding I represent, hundreds of workers have lost their jobs. Communities like Saint-Gabriel-de-Brandon, Mandeville, Saint-Alexis-des-Monts and Saint-Mathieu-du-Parc, which are rural municipalities, are experiencing job losses in the forestry industry. Those industries need support from the federal government to modernize their equipment. We have talked about loan guarantees. They need help, and this government has turned a deaf ear.

To enable all of these workers to survive while they wait for this crisis to end, the Bloc Québécois is of course proposing that employment insurance be made more flexible, to provide the workers hard hit by this crisis with a decent income. As we have seen, that is not what is done by Bill C-50, introduced in this House by the Conservative Party with the support of the New Democratic Party. That bill provides employment insurance for people who have essentially not had to claim employment insurance in the last 10 years. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are still refusing to provide support for the unemployed.

What is even worse is that the Conservatives have turned a deaf ear to what forestry workers and people losing their jobs are asking for. They are also trying, in Bill C-50, to define certain categories of unemployed workers.

Some workers or seasonal workers in the forestry and manufacturing industries have had the misfortune of having to claim employment insurance several times in recent years. Those people will not receive the same benefits as people who have not had to claim employment insurance as often in recent years. This means that those workers will be further impoverished. And that is of course why we are voting against this bill.

In short, the measures announced would have little effect in Quebec because they are not accessible to seasonal workers or forestry workers.

As well, in the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé, there is a category of workers not covered by the bill. I am talking about the entire situation of workers in the tourism industry. Here again, these are seasonal jobs. These people do not have access to any support. If the waiting period for employment insurance had been eliminated, these workers would have been penalized less; they would have been less impoverished, unlike the situation with the measures proposed by this government.

In addition, to enable the sawmills and factories that are having problems and that could employ these workers to get through the crisis, the Bloc Québécois proposed a set of measures that has been on the table for several months. Today, we continue to press ahead to help this industry, one of the most important in the economy of Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois has laid out a set of demands in its recovery plan for the forestry industry, including loan guarantees, for example. We have been calling for this for years. We asked the Liberals for them, in their day, and we have continued to ask the Conservatives for them. We are calling for loan guarantees so that more efficient production equipment can be acquired. We are calling for massive investments or tax measures to promote innovation and research and development in the industry. We are proposing that the research and development tax credit be refundable, so that even companies that are not making a profit will be able to innovate and develop new products.

It is also important to note that all these measures are consistent with the softwood lumber agreement, whatever the Conservative ministers and members might say.

I will conclude today by saying that the purpose of this motion is to provide support for the forestry industry and our workers in that industry. That is why we have introduced the motion in this House.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Yukon who certainly has done a great deal for rural affairs since I have known him in 2004.

In the meantime, let us talk about the sabotaging of the EI bill. I will go back to the point that they keep missing. A lot of long tenured workers in the forestry sector will not benefit from Bill C-50 as the Conservatives claim they will.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak.

I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, for today's motion.

It is a very important matter for us in Newfoundland and Labrador, for the east coast of Quebec and all of Canada.

Here we are today debating a motion that deals with an industry in crisis.

At this time I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Toronto Centre. That, in and of itself, provides a taste of diversity: one member, completely rural, myself, representing 170 towns, debating with the member for Toronto Centre, not so rural. Nonetheless, here we are talking about an industry that is vital for me and this country. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this motion to the House.

The opposition motion, in part, states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should act urgently to provide the forestry industry, which has been hit hard by the economic crisis....

I would go even further to say that this crisis started well before that, certainly in the newsprint industry because of the fact that the average price for newsprint, which was just over $500 American per ton, put it in a grave situation. The demand has been lower and lower for the last 10, 15 to 20 years, coupled with the fact that over the past two or three years the Canadian dollar has been above 90¢ American. That, of course, hurts our exports.

In the particular situation of the riding of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, therein lies Grand Falls—Windsor which is the largest town in my riding. It boasted one of the largest, most successful newsprint mills on the east coast of this country, a mill that was 100 years old since its inception in the early part of the last century. It was started by interests in England who came to Newfoundland and Labrador for the sake of the rich forests to provide them with a product in order to produce their papers in Europe.

The reason I think it is so important that we are debating this today is because of the lack of action in this particular case to some of the key measures that we are proposing, some of which are outlined in this motion.

I will go back a step to just a few years ago. I was elected in 2004 and in 2005 we were very proud to be working on a bill, certainly an incentive for the forest industry, that we thought was ideal for this country. At the time, we announced a real plan to make the forestry sector more competitive. We were saving jobs through loans, supports for research, new technology, skills development and community adjustment.

The Reform-Conservatives, however, cancelled that plan upon forming government in 2006. At the time, they came out with a $1 billion plan, a price tag that was roughly close to ours, and they created what they called the community adjustment fund. They even made the announcement in front of a logging mill in New Brunswick.

The problem with that was that the program was an incentive for communities that had failed. In other words, if the major industry of that particular town had disappeared, had folded, then they could avail themselves of projects or, what we commonly refer to in Newfoundland and Labrador, as make work projects and people could obtain employment that way.

The mill in my riding was functioning at the time in 2005 and it could have availed itself of a service that provided some of the incentives that were contained in our package. This was introduced on November 24, 2005. It included: $215 million for the development of new technologies to enhance competitiveness; $50 million to develop bioenergy, cogeneration power technology, that would have been a great incentive for the mill in Grand Falls—Windsor; $90 million to support innovation; $66.3 million for wood product market development; and $800 million in loan support to help forest companies invest to improve competitiveness and to help diversify the community.

The other thing we talked about at the time and what we push now is the fact that a lot of these mills are old. As I mentioned earlier, the mill in my riding that was shut down recently spanned 100 years. An incentive for it, and an incredible incentive it would have been, would have been to allow the mill to make investments to improve its machinery because it was so old at that time. This is not just the idea of a tax cut. This is also introducing the idea of a subsidy to create more efficient machinery involved in the business of paper making. That is one example. It also included supporting investment in new equipment, which I mentioned, and supporting skills and training programs for forestry workers.

I will now talk about the EI situation. A little while ago, Bill C-50 was introduced for long tenured workers. The problem was that the situation with long tenured workers in this particular bill did not apply to loggers because they are seasonal workers. This bill did not cover them.

In addition to that, if the mill had shut down for a period of, on average, seven weeks of the year, people in that mill also did not qualify because they had claimed EI for too much of the year. Therein lies another problem. Indeed, it is a shame. In this particular case, that is why we think Bill C-50 falls flat. I would impress upon my colleagues down on the left of the House, pardon the expression, the NDP, because they, too, play a role in allowing people to access EI easily, much easier than what it is right now.

We would indeed re-establish Canada's leadership in the world and we would have opened up markets for forest products.

I saw some of the debates earlier and I was reading some of the transcripts of what has been said in the House about the SLA. The Conservatives claim that the government cannot support loan guarantees to forest companies because it would be in violation of the SLA, the softwood lumber agreement. However, that is not entirely true. They, themselves, are arguing in the London court of arbitration that loan guarantees are not a violation of the SLA. They have in fact posted their legal defence of loan guarantees on the DFAIT website.

It is give here, take here. The argument is here. We cannot do that. We cannot push forward with strategic loan guarantees, similar to what was done in other sectors, because of trade agreements. That is not necessarily true. They even refuted their own argument on the DFAIT website.

This is the situation in which we find ourselves, which is why I am glad we are having this debate today. We can point out to all the Canadians working in the forest industry just what the Government of Canada can do for the entire industry.

Going back to a situation I spoke of earlier, diversification, I would like the government in this particular situation to make it accessible and easier for some of these companies to be larger players in the world of forestry products. I will give an example, which I mentioned earlier.

The town of Grand Falls-Windsor is now hoping to get into the pellet industry. It is small little wood pellet but a great source of energy. It is cheaper, more environmentally friendly and, for us, it could create an industry of exports. Right now in Europe, that industry has reached a maturity in many countries and, therefore, it is incumbent upon us to aid that industry. Currently, however, it is extremely difficult to get access to capital in this particular situation because it does not have the component of a strategic subsidy, companies with loan guarantees.

The ongoing trade dispute is hardly a shock to the government. We and many members of the opposition repeatedly warned the government that the softwood deal amounted to a sellout of Canadian interests and that would see the erosion of Canadian control over its own industry.

I was taken aback by a comment that was put out there by BMO Nesbitt Burns analyst, Stephen Atkinson. He claimed that the agreement effectively handed U.S. companies veto power over provincial forest policies. Well, that is very interesting because last year, when AbitibiBowater declared bankruptcy, because of issues of severances, of timber rights and water rights, which are resources belonging to the people, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which I congratulate it for doing so, expropriated those, as well as provided the severance payments for the individual workers. There is a province that had to pick up where the federal government was behind and continued to turn a blind eye to this particular situation.

Therefore, I would compel the entire House to vote for this motion because it widens the debate and allows us to bore down to particular issues that will help failing mills. My mill no longer exists but a lot can be done to help mills in places like Kenora, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta. So much more needs to be done but so far we have seen so little. For the vast number of forestry workers across this country, this is such an imperative time to do that.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate today is very important to Quebec as a whole. As my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord said, it is a debate that affects the regions of Quebec, where companies have closed and pulp and paper plants have slowed production. My colleague also condemned the situation in which all these communities find themselves. What we are asking for today is that the government provide the forestry industry, which has been hit hard by the economic crisis, with assistance similar to that given to the automotive industry concentrated in Ontario, and primarily through tax credits, loans and loan guarantees so that companies have immediate access to cash, and tax measures for private woodlot owners.

The automotive industry has received $9.7 billion in assistance. In comparison, the government has provided only $170 million to help the forestry industry, which has been in trouble since 2005. We are asking for loan guarantees, but also in the area of research and development so that these companies can modernize their equipment.

It is clear that the Conservatives have completely forgotten an important industry in Quebec. They are not in action mode now; they are in study mode, with a Quebec-Canada committee that will come out with a report in May. It is not a report that is needed. What is needed is for the government to wake up now to what is happening and provide appropriate financial assistance for all the industries across Quebec that are being forced to close their doors or scale back production, which is what is happening in my colleague's riding of Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

Last week, he and I met the industry's spokespersons. They told us that if there were, and if there had been loan guarantees and assistance provided for research and development, they would make it through the current crisis much more easily. Clearly, the Conservatives do not at all see this reality in the same light. Currently, the government is getting agitated, it is meeting people, but it is not making decisions. We listened carefully to the speech of the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. He talked about the help provided to the forestry industry. However, that help is not something like loan guarantees, not at all. That type of help was provided through the Canada Economic Development office, and it was also provided to other businesses in other sectors.

Let me provide an overall picture of what the forestry sector represents in Canada. It is an important industry that provides 850,000 jobs, compared to 500,000 for the automotive sector. This is why we were justified in expecting something else. The spokespersons representing that industry in Quebec, including Mr. Chevrette, asked that it be treated respectfully and that we should support it considering what it is going through. Over 88,000 Quebeckers work in the forestry sector, which includes sawmills and a number of pulp and paper mills. Close to one third of Canadian jobs in that sector, or 32%, are located in Quebec. This percentage speaks volumes. That is why we are still asking the government to help. We are putting pressure by tabling this motion in the House, so that the government realize the importance of this issue. Forty per cent of the towns and villages that are affected by the forestry crisis, and they are located in Quebec. This means 230 towns, including 160 that are totally dependent on that industry. According to the Quebec Forest Industry Council, which provided these figures, in Quebec 25,000 jobs have been lost in this sector since 2005.

This crisis is not new or recent. It is not like we caught the government off guard. It was asleep. It was asleep at the switch, while businesses in that industry were shutting down day in and day out. The numbers clearly show the importance of the forestry industry. For that reason, the government could also have been much more proactive with a true reform of the employment insurance program.

The OECD said that to get through the financial crisis, we needed to help people who were losing their jobs and prevent them from falling into extreme poverty. Once again, the government did the complete opposite. It introduced Bill C-50, which is woefully inadequate.

With this bill, the Conservative government targets long-tenured workers. But we could probably talk about long-tenured or long-lasting unemployed workers in the forestry industry.

Naturally, the Bloc Québécois cannot support Bill C-50, because it will exclude too many people. With this bill, 35% of people who receive EI will not be eligible, particularly because they will have had to receive less than 36 weeks of benefits in the last five years to qualify.

Many other people will be excluded: women, part-time workers, young people, and workers who have been laid off intermittently. A worker will have to have worked almost permanently and have had few claims for employment insurance. That is why the Bloc Québécois thinks is it a poor measure to help this sector of the industry, which has been seriously affected.

According to the government, this measure would apply to 190,000 people. But we disagree with that figure. It would be closer to 60,000 people, because, to be eligible, a worker would have had to use up all regular benefits. But in reality, only 25% of unemployed workers use all of their regular benefits. Thus, it would not cost the government $935 million, but would instead cost $300 million.

The government is playing with the numbers, and will tell people anything at all. This bill falls far short of what is needed to help those who are losing their jobs, and especially those who will be excluded from Bill C-50. Real reforms would have made it possible to do more and to help all workers, not just those in the forestry industry, but those in other sectors as well.

We also would have liked the reforms to increase the benefit rate from 55% to 60% of earnings.

The Bloc also recommended that insurable earnings be increased to $42,500 and be calculated based on the 12 best weeks. It also recommended eliminating the waiting period.

Adding weeks to employment insurance is nice and all, but people are still not getting employment insurance benefits from day one to help pay the bills. We have every right to ask why the government came up with measures that fall so far short of meeting needs and helping people cope with the reality of job loss.

I do not have much time left to discuss the 2009 budget, in which the government gave far more to Ontario than to Quebec. In 2009, they talked about $4 billion for measures targeting Ontario. So far, the auto industry has received $9 billion.

I could also have talked about other forestry industries. The government could have come up with green initiatives to help them. It could have promoted the use of wood in the construction of federal buildings.

There are many things this government could have done to help forestry companies diversify their product lines to keep production up.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. However, there is no need to be on it in order to do a quick calculation when one lives with workers as we do in Quebec. Our calculation is based on the fact that the number of people entitled to EI amounts to only some 43% or 44% of workers. The remainder are not entitled to it.

We also asked that people be paid right off, that is, for the two week waiting period to be eliminated. That would have allowed workers living in single industry towns to remain at home and await the reopening of the industry when they were laid off.

The figure of 190,000 claimants allegedly entitled to help was totally distorted. First of all, in the forestry industry, the layoffs took place in the two or three years prior to the final closings. These workers cannot benefit from the plan proposed in Bill C-50. The same may be said for a lot of women who work part time. They will not have access. That is where the calculation is distorted.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government has introduced Bill C-50 concerning employment insurance. The OECD had done an analysis of the impact of the economic crisis specifically and called for an employment insurance scheme to counter the effects of the crisis. Bill C-50 is plainly less than we are entitled to expect.

I would like my colleague to explain why, for example, we are challenging the figure of 190,000 people who would be affected by Bill C-50, in terms of the increase in the number of weeks of benefits after regular benefits are exhausted. How can the Bloc come up with a figure well below 190,000 people affected? What we are talking about instead is 60,000 people who would be affected. And it would not cost $935 million, it would cost $300 million.

I would like the member to tell us, more specifically, what the government’s intentions are regarding Bill C-50.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I remind members that we are discussing a motion introduced by my Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, on this opposition day. I will share my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

The forestry industry is the sole economic backbone of many regions in Quebec. In fact, the Quebec forestry industry accounts for 88,000 jobs in various sawmills and pulp and paper plants, or about a third of all Canadian jobs in this sector. The economies of some 230 cities, towns and villages in Quebec are heavily dependent on it, and 160 of them are totally dependent. Nearly half of all forestry communities in Canada are in Quebec.

We are in the middle of the worst economic crisis in history. As a result, more than 25,000 jobs have been lost since April 2005 in the Quebec forestry industry and related sectors.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced a number of measures that we have run by business owners and their employees—the primary stakeholders. The Bloc Québécois is presenting three measures with three main objectives, which are supported by those in the industry.

The first is to provide immediate support to the industry; the second is to help the workers and communities affected to get through the crisis; and the third is to modernize the forestry industry.

Very concrete measures have to be implemented with respect to these three components. In our opinion, access to credit is now the main problem for these industries. This is one of the reasons why, four years ago, we supported the softwood lumber settlement with the United States. As we know, this morning the NDP made much of this fact. We find it regrettable that the NDP wanted the crisis of four years ago to go on. It would like to have seen no assistance to the forestry industry four years ago, so as to settle its fate once and for all. However, the softwood lumber agreement gave this industry four more years of life.

What is unfortunate is that the Conservatives refused to implement the transitional measures that we proposed here, notably credits to help people through this crisis, and also to help companies engage in secondary or tertiary processing, or to take a big step in this green shift that we on our side of the House would particularly like to see. Clearly the green shift is of little concern to our friends opposite, but it is of great concern to us.

I am not going into great detail here, for I have little time left. We also wanted measures to support workers who lose their jobs. The first thing was to modernize the employment insurance program. We tabled concrete proposals and bills in this House to abolish the waiting period so that people could receive their EI benefits sooner, thus injecting immediate money into the local economy. We also asked for the employment insurance eligibility threshold to be lowered to 360 hours for everyone. There was much debate on this subject last summer. We asked for a benefit rate increase from 55% of income to 60%, an increase of insurable earnings to $42,500, and calculation of these benefits over the 12 best weeks. And this would be a good time to restore the program for older worker adjustment, commonly called the POWA.

If these measures were put in place, even without the POWA, the number of persons who could hope to receive employment insurance benefits would rise from 46% to 65%.

The measures that were introduced by the previous government excluded so many people that only a minority of them can now hope for employment insurance benefits, even if they contribute to the plan. In other words, we are talking about 148,000 more potential recipients of employment insurance. Imagine the beneficial effect that would have on the economy of each of our regions, each of our constituencies. On average, there would be $30 million more per year coming into our constituencies. That is money that belongs to workers and employers, except that the government has hijacked it and is depriving our regions of this economy, of this economic breath of air.

We would also like to see substantial support for seasonal industry. Something quite tragic is now happening in this House. The government has tabled Bill C-50, which concerns people who would be able to receive an extension of their employment insurance benefits, but only those who have not been unemployed in the previous 7, 8, 10 or 12 years, provided they contributed for 30% of their time and did not draw 35 weeks of employment insurance benefits. This means that all seasonal workers are excluded. The great majority of women and young people are excluded. Almost all the workers in the forestry industry are excluded.

This is a bill of exclusion. The Bloc finds it very unfortunate that the NDP supports this bill which is anti-worker and anti-unemployed.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

My apologies.

As the Prime Minister put the matter earlier this month, in just over 100 days, Canada's economic action plan is already protecting Canadians, stimulating our economy and creating jobs from coast to coast to coast. Ninety per cent of the funding for this fiscal year is now committed. Our economic action plan is helping create or maintain an estimated 220,000 jobs by the end of 2010.

Housing construction and renovation is up both here in Canada and in the United States. In August, housing starts increased in the United States to their highest level in nine months, and Canada's housing starts also exceeded expectations, advancing 12% in the same month.

It is also worth noting that the drop in the construction industry in Canada has been proportionately much less severe than in the United States, and indeed, much less than in the rest of the world. We are seeing early signs of stabilization and recovery.

It is clear that in Canada government-backed stimulus programs are making a difference. In our government's budget 2009, these programs included: home renovation tax credits, a substantial increase to our ecoenergy home retrofit program and market expansion programs. Together, the housing-related measures included in the EAP will increase domestic lumber demand by an estimated one billion board feet over the next two years, and by harnessing the potential of new markets in emerging technologies, Canada's industry is reinventing itself and preparing for a competitive comeback that will reinforce and sustain its international reputation as a leader in the world's forestry industry.

While the situation remains difficult, we believe that Canada's forest sector is worth investing in. The industry told us that the country needed leadership and strategic thinking. The forest industry wanted measures that would help it weather the short term but would also pay dividends down the road.

Putting it in another way, our forest well is not only our trees. It is our creative capacity to make difficult, complex decisions and the willingness of the forest industry to innovate and its flexibility to adapt. This is precisely the thinking that is behind our economic action plan.

We are seeing light at the end of the tunnel for another reason. Right from our first term, the Government of Canada has been proactive in its commitment to the future of our forest industry. Right at the start, we understood that we needed to respond quickly and effectively when challenges arose. In short, there was not time to sit around and wait for more studies. We acknowledged the challenges and we set a course of action.

Then later in 2007 in excess of $200 million was provided by the Government of Canada to help in dealing with the mountain pine beetle. When we recognized that greater assistance was needed for Canada's forest industry to become more competitive, $127.5 million was provided for a long term forest industry competitiveness strategy in 2007.

To further increase the energy efficiency and the environmental performance of our pulp and paper facilities, we also introduced a new $1 billion pulp and paper green transformation program. This program will enable new investments in pulp and paper facilities across Canada, but it will help them to become greener and more sustainable.

I am pleased to report today that 24 companies, representing 38 pulp and paper mills across Canada, have qualified for credits under this program and that many others across Canada will also benefit from investments financed through the program. Complete details regarding specific mill and company allocations under this program are available on the Natural Resources Canada website.

The Government of Canada will continue to implement this program as expeditiously as possible and we are now working with recipient firms to ensure that the funding flows to eligible projects in forest communities across Canada as quickly as possible.

We are certain this investment in Canada's pulp and paper sector is value for money and will yield dividends for Canada's forest communities for years to come. That is why we are ensuring that every credit paid out under this program is being invested at mills in Canada in projects that are going to improve environmental performance.

Another important element of our strategy for the forest sector is to develop new and different forest products and new and different markets for those products. Therefore, budget 2009, our economic action plan, committed a further $170 million to assist industry in developing new products and processes and in exploiting new and diverse market opportunities.

We need to sell more to the world not just one country. The $170 million are not spread out over several years. It is an investment over two years because the industry's needs are now and we need to ramp up our efforts on diversification immediately.

We are pleased to report that over 80% of this year's $70 million in spending for this fiscal year has already been committed. Therefore, let me bring the House up to date on the progress being made in the forest sector because of the economic action plan.

First, enhanced funding has gone into the Canada wood program. There are now 129 projects under way which are designed to expand export opportunities for Canadian wood product producers in expanding overseas markets. These projects are valued at $8.4 million, are up and running in countries such as China, South Korea, Japan, Australia, the Middle East and among member countries of the European Union.

Although growing overseas markets for wood is long term work, we are seeing some encouraging results. Since 2005, we have seen exports of lumber to South Korea and China increase by 20% and 108% respectively, creating and maintaining hundreds of jobs in Canada's forest sector.

Funding from the economic action plan has also gone to the North American wood first initiative. The goal is to expand the use of wood outside the traditional residential housing market.

Wood first is helping 44 projects, worth a total $5.94 million, which promote the use of wood in non-residential construction such as school and health care facilities both in Canada and targeted regions of the United States. It is through these projects we are making inroads into realizing the multi-billion dollar opportunity to use more wood in Canada and in the United States outside of the residential sector.

As well, we have recently developed partnerships in China and Korea to construct large-scale wood demonstration buildings that will showcase Canadian products and technology, further helping to develop emerging wood markets for our wood products.

These initiatives are helping the forest sector make inroads into new multi-billion dollar markets where greater demand for high-quality Canadian forest products can translate into more jobs in Canada's forest sector.

A transformative technologies program has also received increased support from the economic action plan. This investment is supporting research and development of emerging technologies that will broaden the range of products produced by Canada's forest sector.

Research areas include new materials using nanotechnology, new energy and chemical solutions from forest biomass and next generation building solutions. For example, because of transformative technologies program support, FPInnovations, which is Canada's national forest research institute, has been working with a national network of university experts on the development of paper-based biosensors. These can detect, report and destroy toxins and pathogens such as SARS and listeria.

Progress is made with bio-products research, such as nano-crystalline cellulose as well. The aerospace and automotive sectors have shown interest in using this cellulose in advancing lightweight, high strength composite materials.

Our transformative technologies program has also been investing in new uses and markets for wood. Until just a few months ago, building codes did not permit construction of wood buildings more than four storeys anywhere in Canada. Thanks to research funded through this program, we have a six-storey wood building being constructed now in Quebec City and a second planned in B.C.

Because of research being done on cross-laminated timber, known in the industry as X-Lam, we may one day soon see buildings constructed from wood of 10 storeys or more. There is a growing interest in the manufacture of X-Lam. This product can be used in floor, roof and wall systems.

The economic action plan has also provided $40 million in a complementary initiative to develop pilot-scale demonstrations of technologies and products developed under the transformative technologies program that we launched in budget 2006.

Natural Resources Canada, in collaboration with the provinces and industry, are working together to identify potential sites to build operational pilot plants. Construction is expected to begin next year and it will contribute to the commercialization of emerging technologies developed through the transformative technologies program.

There are other programs supported by the economic action plan that are having a beneficial effect on Canada's forest industry as well. The $1 billion community adjustment fund is creating jobs and maintaining employment in communities affected by the global economic downturn, which very much includes forest-dependent communities.

For example, Canada Economic Development Quebec and the Quebec government have joined forces to help forest-dependent communities with a $230 million package. Of this package, the federal portion of $100 million for silviculture and $15 million for restoration of multi-resource access roads came from the community adjustment fund.

Our extraordinary financing framework is expanding the availability of credit to businesses, including forest companies.

The Canada skills and transition strategy is helping workers with enhancements to employment insurance and funds for skills and training.

Also, Bill C-50, which is currently before the House, seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act to increase the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants.

The Government of Canada is providing $9 million to establish an invasive species centre in the province of Ontario. This centre will work in partnership with the province on research related to alien invasive species. This will strengthen Canada's ability to manage invading pests, such as the emerald ash borer.

Furthermore, the leadership for environmental advantage in forestry program, or LEAF, a two-year, $10 million initiative in budget 2008, supports collaboration between Natural Resources Canada and the Forest Products Association of Canada in promoting Canada's sustainable forest management practices.

Canada has shown strong leadership in sustainable forest management and in environmental performance. This investment in LEAF will allow us to turn our world-class record into a market advantage.

We are aware that the Unites States government has announced another energy-targeted subsidy program, known as the biomass crop assistance program, that will pay subsidies to producers of wood biomass, such as softwood lumber and wood pellet producers.

The Government of Canada recognizes the challenges that the forest sector is facing and appreciates the potential of the biomass crop assistance program to disadvantage Canadian producers and distort the markets. We have formally raised our concerns about the impacts this initiative would have on the Canadian forest industry with the United States Department of Agriculture. I took the opportunity last week to bring it to the attention of the secretary of energy in the United States as well.

The Government of Canada has discussed this issue with its provincial counterparts and is consulting with industry. We are assessing all our options, while continuing our advocacy activities in the United States.

I could go on, but I suspect I have made the point. The Government of Canada is committed to Canada's forest industry and helping it to succeed, both in the short and long term.

From the beginning, our government has taken swift action to assist the forest industry as challenges have arisen. We have listened to the industry and we have listened to others. We have responded with programs devised to help strengthen and diversify Canada's forest industry, both for today but also for tomorrow. Because of programs like these, we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Judging from these bold initiatives our government has devised in support of Canada's forest industry, the motion put forward before the House is evidently unfounded.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP member for his question.

When it comes to talking about EI mechanisms, I urge the NDP members, who support the Conservatives' Bill C-50, to come to the Bloc's side and demand even more sustainable assistance. The assistance could be applied to the private forestry sector, because these workers, primarily seasonal workers, would benefit from these changes to EI.

Employment Insurance

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I will share what we are hearing. Yesterday in committee we heard from the Canadian Labour Congress and the United Steelworkers, both which support speedy passage of Bill C-50.

However, the witness that had the greatest impact was Rosalie Washington, who lost her job after 20 years. She literally pleaded with all parties to support the bill. It will provide her with much needed help so she can put food on the table for her three children.

The Liberal leader should stop caring only about himself, start caring about hard-hit Canadians like Rosalie Washington and support our bill.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for two weeks the minister has been unable to assess the impact of her bill on various industry sectors. Yet the Bloc Québécois is already able to say that forestry workers in Quebec are highly unlikely to benefit from Bill C-50, because they have been through a number of periods of intermittent unemployment, which excludes them from these new measures.

Why does the minister not acknowledge that her bill is designed for workers in the auto industry in Ontario?

[Erin Weir]

Yes, I think that's fair to say.

I think the other way to look at Bill C-50 is that it's potentially a substitute that does something for those workers who aren't in a position to avail themselves of training opportunities. I know that lots of workers who do meet the long-tenured criteria haven't been able to find qualifying training opportunities. At least Bill C-50 will give them some extended benefits, some additional income to live on, to try to weather the economic downturn.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Now, the fact that we've actually had a program, called the career transition assistance initiative, that helped those who were long-tenured to receive up to two years in benefits if they were engaged in training...was a positive long-term benefit. Do you see what we're proposing in Bill C-50 as being a bridge to that, and an extension of that, that's quite useful for that particular class of workers?