Finance Committee on Feb. 4th, 2008

[Robert Dunlop]

Mr. Chair, no. I'm reading from the backgrounder issued on January 10 by the Prime Minister on the proposal to create a trust with the provincial governments. The payment would be into a trust and the beneficiaries would be the provincial and territorial governments.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Okay, so it's effectively a provincial trust rather than a third-party entity.

[Robert Dunlop]

Well, the provinces and territories, not being bodies controlled by the federal government, are the beneficiaries of the trust and will use the contents of the trust for programming in those general areas. That's how it would work.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

So essentially the government loses control over the money once it goes into trust.

[Robert Dunlop]

It makes a general agreement with the provinces about how the money would be used, and the provinces are responsible for delivering the programs.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you.

With that, I see no more questions, so I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward and answering the committee's questions.

We'll now go to the motion. If Mr. Crête is still interested in moving it, we will accept it at this time.

Go ahead.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I will consider the motion moved, unless you want to move it again. I simply wanted to make a quick comment about the subject-matter of the motion.

It's important that each member of the committee listens to what I say.

First of all, as I see it, this motion merely goes over the same ground theMinister of Finance should have covered in his economic statement. The Minister of Finance should have committed himself to this initiative in the budget. ThePrime Minister had said that the creation of a $1 billion communities trust fund would be tied to the budget. We have just received confirmation today that he has changed his mind about this, and I applaud him for this decision. I think he did the right thing by reversing his position.

That being said, this motion involves the use of the current year's surplus. According to the economic statement, if $1 billion of the surplus is used for the trust, an additional $10.3 billion of the current year's surplus would still be available. Given the size of the surplus, there will still be money available, even after the funds mentioned in the motion have been allocated. There is nothing stopping the federal government from introducing a bill to allocate these surplus funds, as the motion is proposing. This is not technically impossible. The proof is the creation of the communities trust fund.

Mr. Del Mastro, you are wondering if this could potentially lead to problems with the United States. Canada has already acted and set up a trust. One billion will be allocated to that trust to assist the manufacturing and forestry sectors. All we're asking is that $1 billion be allocated to the forestry sector. It is merely a matter of dollars, since the initiative has already been carried out.

Two financial decisions which the committee has already endorsed are part of the motion: the decision to allocate $500 million for Technology Partnerships Canada and $1.5 billion in reimbursable contributions. These decisions were part of the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. The committee adopted a motion respecting these recommendations. The Conservatives abstained from voting, but all of the other committee members endorsed the motion.

The same can be said for employment insurance. The Employment Insurance Act makes provision for pilot projects to be set up. At present, six pilot projects are under way. If the motion were adopted, if the government were to embrace it and if the political will existed, all the government would need to do is invoke this provision to create a $1.5 billion reserve fund through the pilot project that has already been funded.

With respect to senior workers, the difference in terms of the current amounts has to do with an income support program. This program is designed for persons who have done everything to find a job but still find themselves unemployed. It has been scientifically proven that 20% of all laid off workers 55 years of age and older will not find another job. Often, it is out of their hands. Employers are not interested in hiring them because of higher health and safety costs and so forth.

Therefore, this motion comes close to what the government should have proposed, but did not, in December in its economic statement. We're attempting to rectify this oversight. The government has already agreed to make amends in part by creating the $1 billion fund.

That, in essence, is the aim of my motion, one that I hope will be endorsed by the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay.

We have had the motion officially moved. Everyone has heard it. Is there any further debate on the motion?

Do you want to debate the motion?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I do, to say that I think we have to do something as a federal government to be helpful here. We have whole towns hanging by their fingernails across this country. I'm speaking particularly for northern Ontario. I've travelled across northern Ontario over the last two or three months and have met with community leaders, industry leaders, and individuals who are just beside themselves as to what they're going to do.

It's easy to say, as we've heard here, that you just pick up and go to Alberta or something. It's not as simple as that. These are folks, a lot of them older workers, who have spent their whole lives in this industry and have made major investments in their homes and their camps. Some of them have started small businesses. Now it's all being lost while we sit back and simply allow the forces of the market to determine what the end result will be.

These are real people, real families, and communities that could be viable and vital again with a little support and a little help from here. We saw this—I saw it personally—in the early nineties, in northern Ontario again. I was the provincial member of Parliament for Sault Ste. Marie when Algoma Steel and St. Marys Paper hit the skids. The ACR was bleeding to the tune of about $10 million a year because of all of that.

The federal and provincial governments came to the table with resources, giving leadership in a way that sees those industries all today vital and viable in that community. There were a number of them across the north that experienced the same reality and were restructured in that same way.

I'm saying that we need to do something. It was good news today to hear that the government was actually going to flow the billion dollars, not hold it hostage or play politics with it in terms of the budget. That money is desperately....

I'm sorry...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We have a motion. Direct any comments through the chair, please.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I'm sorry about that.

I just wanted to say that I'm pleased that the billion dollars is moving, but it's not going to be enough. We've said from the beginning that it's not going to be enough, when you look at all of the communities that are being affected.

I was in Welland two weeks ago, talking to folks there. There's community after community in that region, the Niagara Peninsula, being hammered by the downturn of the manufacturing sector.

So $1 billion isn't going to do it. Certainly this suggestion and motion by the Bloc is a step in the right direction.

I don't know whether you're interested or not, but if you cross northern Ontario, here are the numbers we're looking at, Mr. Chair. For Tembec in Smooth Rock Falls, there are 230 people; for Tembec in Kapuskasing, 65; for Excel Forest Products in Opasatika it's 78 people; for Tembec in Timmins, 100. The list goes on and on. I could go on for five or ten minutes here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

No, we wish you wouldn't do that. I think you've made your point.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I haven't made my point yet.

These communities have asked me to bring their voice to whatever table I can get access to, to make it clear that their livelihoods are on the line here. Everything they've invested in is on the line here. In some instances, I'm sure their very families are at risk. We need to do the right thing in their interest, and I think this is a move in the right direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you.

Just to correct, for the record, there's a tremendous amount of softwood and forest product industry in Alberta as well.

We have committed to the vote, but before we vote, we'll read back the motion. I want the clerk to read back the motion.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I would like a recorded division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

You're asking for a recorded vote; fair enough.

We'll read the motion and we'll have a recorded vote.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean-François Pagé]

The motion reads as follows:

That the Committee recommend to the government, in view of the serious crisis in the forestry and manufacturing sectors, that it implement without delay an improved assistance plan for the forestry and manufacturing sectors, including $500 million to restore Technology Partnerships Canada; $1.5 billion in reimbursable contributions to allow companies to purchase new equipment; a $1 billion diversification fund for the forestry industry, to be administered by Quebec and the provinces and allocated among them based according to the size of their forestry industry; $1.5 billion in support measure for workers affected by the crisis, including $60 million for an income support program for senior workers and a $1.44 billion reserve for the employment insurance fund to be placed in a special fund until an independent fund is created; and that the adoption of this motion be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

In our last meeting, for future business we had a motion on the floor. We were going to talk about some of the guidelines or direction out of that motion. I think Mr. Pacetti and Mr. Dykstra were going to get together to do that. We will have them complete that and will discuss that issue in future business in our Wednesday meeting.

Tomorrow, the Russians are coming.

Where is that meeting going to be?

It's Room 253, Centre Block. It's from 11:30 to 12:30.

Yes, Mr. Pacetti.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Because we were busy with the pre-budget report, I spoke to Rick quickly. What we're going to do is hopefully speak now, and then we have to speak with the researcher, so I'm not sure we'll be ready by Wednesday.

If anything, we may want to do it on a steering committee level and then present it to the whole committee. I think we need to do some work before.... I think what we want to do is properly frame it before—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Let's see how you make out and we'll take it from there.

Mr. Turner.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Chairman, I have a question for you—maybe it's better posed to the clerk—and it is about this room. Are we going to be in this room continuously or often or always or what?

[The Clerk]

We have 24 standing committees and we have 15 or 16 rooms, so there's a fight for them. It's hard to always get the Centre Block. I'm trying, but sometimes they are already booked. I don't do it on purpose. We take the room that is available. And we called this meeting only Friday afternoon because we had witnesses from the finance department confirm.

I'm trying my best to get the Centre Block, but--

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

We know we have meetings every Monday and Wednesday afternoon, though--isn't that correct?