Human Resources Committee on Jan. 31st, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The committee is now in open session.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm pleased that we can study the Bloc québécois motion from the start of our proceedings this morning.

This motion concerns the severity of the current crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. It 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 $1.5 billion in support measures 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.

Mr. Chair, do you prefer that I present my arguments or that we immediately move on to the debate?

I don't think anyone can be excluded from this debate in Canada. We've examined the scope of the problem that has been raging in the manufacturing and even the forestry sector for a number of years now, particularly in the past three or four years.

Tens of jobs have been lost. In fact, we're even talking about more than 130,000 jobs lost in four years in the manufacturing sector. All political parties, and more particularly the opposition parties, are dealing with this problem. The government showed encouraging signs when it announced an assistance program in the context of a trust. However, to general surprise, we observed that that program was inadequate, on the one hand, and that the funding was misallocated, on the other. The allocation was based on the population of each of the provinces, rather than the scope of the problems affecting the specific provinces, particularly Quebec and Ontario.

In addition, the government made that announcement conditional on adoption of the next budget, which we consider utterly unacceptable. If I understand correctly, that's also the view of the other opposition parties. It is not up to me to speak on their behalf, but that's what we've understood from the messages they are sending, from the statements they have made and from the positions they have taken. Not acting now, we feel, would be to fail in our responsibilities as parliamentarians.

Using all surpluses to pay down the debt, which the government is preparing to do again, is tantamount to acting as though only one group was important in society. In other words, the Conservatives' approach is to favour the oil companies and Western Canada as much as possible and to pretend to make an effort, if I can put it that way, for those who need assistance now.

In our society, those who need help now are the manufacturing and forestry businesses. It's also, if not more so, the workers affected by this crisis. I would say this involves entire communities. In Quebec, hundreds of villages are doomed to economic death since they depend solely on forestry, in particular.

Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, action must be taken now. Since the government has not acted in good faith, we of the Bloc québécois thought it was our duty to intervene in the committees. Intervening at the right time to correct unacceptable situations, among other things, is the committees' primary function.

Of course, engaging in politics also means anticipating, foreseeing events, and planning management policies. In this case, however, two successive governments have refused to anticipate. For years now, the Bloc québécois has announced that we were headed toward a major crisis in the manufacturing sector and has spoken out on the announced crisis among the forestry companies.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased that you've put this motion at the top of the agenda, because I believe you too recognize that there is some urgency here. This is the call I am also making to all our colleagues on this committee, including, of course, our colleagues from the Conservative Party who constitute the present government.

The work we're doing this morning is not partisan work designed to prove our party right. We have introduced a motion. We don't claim to be perfect, but what we do claim is that the effort must be commensurate with the needs. Furthermore, the amounts in question and the way they are allocated must be recognized by this committee and recommended to the House of Commons.

I would be pleased to hear the opinions of our colleagues on the committee. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

So far, all I have on the list is Mr. Martin.

Mr. Martin.

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

I want to go on the record on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus in support of this motion. I think it's absolutely necessary and certainly timely in light of the damage that is happening in communities, particularly in my experience across northern Ontario, where community after community is losing its mill and the whole town then is traumatized. People aren't sure what they're going to do. They are in immediate need of some income security so that they can have some time to plan for their future.

It seems to me that the EI fund, which has some major challenges following changes that were made to that system back in the early to mid-1990s, is a perfect vehicle to use to this end. If we simply leave those communities to their own efforts, we will end up with a lot of devastated towns, families, and individuals, as this change to the forestry industry takes hold and rolls itself out.

I know from having travelled across northern Ontario with a private member's bill that I proposed to the government to give FedNor, for example, bumped up capacity to actually participate, make some investments, and give some leadership in that part of the country, and having sat down and talked with leaders in those communities, that they're beside themselves as to what to do.

I look back to the early 1990s when my own community of Sault Ste. Marie was in some difficult straits and governments, both provincial and federal, came to the table with leadership, with resources, and with the willingness to see a future for those industries. Whereas at that time Algoma Steel, St. Marys Paper, and the Algoma Central Railway were virtually in bankruptcy, we were able to turn that around and they are now today very important pieces of infrastructure in that whole area, providing employment and generating great wealth and opportunity for further investment. I think this could be the case for many towns across Canada in front of this very devastating forestry challenge that we're facing.

I was in Welland, your own area, about a week ago and spoke with some of the leadership there: people who are using their own resources along with some small contribution by different levels of government to try to deal with the results of the downsizing in the manufacturing sector. It's pretty depressing to listen to the stories and to hear these people talk about the effort and lack of resources that families are experiencing as they try to deal with some of the impact of the change in the manufacturing sector, particularly in the Welland area.

I am here this morning on behalf of our caucus to say that we will certainly be supporting any initiative that will provide people, communities, and some of these industries with some assistance to get through this very difficult time, to restructure, and to provide the opportunity that I believe is central to the Canadian economy and will be again at some point.

This is a very worthwhile resolution to be debating here this morning. It's very timely, and I think we should all get behind it and support it, so that we can get that kind of support out to those communities, those families, and those people in this very difficult time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

On the list I have Mr. Lake, Ms. Yelich, Mr. Komarnicki, and Mr. Savage.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

My understanding, and maybe we can get some clarification on this, is that the finance committee has already voted to have a study on this exact issue. Is that not the case? Can anyone clarify that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

There have been similar motions out there. I believe Natural Resources dealt with a similar motion in trade, although it was not specific because there weren't the identical dollar amounts, and a few other committees. Yes, I believe that Finance has committed a couple of days to look at this similar issue.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

And from what I am looking at, you are right, they are not exactly the same motion. In fact the finance committee motion encompasses everything in this motion plus some more. So the finance committee has already agreed to study everything within this motion.

I don't think there's any question that when you look at introducing virtually the same motion to five different committees, that is clearly an indication of the intent to obstruct Parliament. You cannot have five committees sitting on exactly the same thing. That makes no sense at all. Once one committee has decided to study it, there is no sense tying up four other committees with exactly the same study.

Clearly I would oppose this, and we'll move forward with the employability study. Obviously when we are dealing with the issues we are talking about and undertaking a study as important as our employability study, you would think that would be an absolute priority for us given that the finance committee has already agreed to study this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I just wanted to hear what the Liberals had to say about that.

I find it quite amusing that Mr. Lessard is looking into the future and talking about being futuristic. Does that mean he is going to disband the Bloc Party and join a real national party? This is what the federal government does. It has programs for all of Canada, and there has been a lot of investment in the industries. There is the $1.4 billion community development trust for all of Canada. Quebec itself has $72.5 million in target initiatives for older workers. I am just wondering if he expects those programs already in place to be scrapped so that we can agree to his budget. I am just wondering what his thoughts are, and I just want to hear what the Liberals have to say about this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. I have Mr. Savage, followed by Mr. Komarnicki, and then Ms. Sgro.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to commend Mr. Lessard for bringing this forward. I think we've all been hit in our communities by the downturn in manufacturing and forestry. In my own riding, a plant closed two weeks before Christmas, putting over 500 people out of work.

I think the response from the government is inadequate, and I think this needs to be evaluated, so I commend Mr. Lessard for bringing this forward.

I have spoken to people on the finance committee who indicated to me that they will be looking at this. I don't think it makes sense for two committees to be doing it at the same time. I would rather not vote against this. I would rather table this until we see what the finance committee has to say. We would be very amenable to discussing this motion. We might have some amendments and some recommended changes that we would consider to be friendly, if the time came.

We think it is worthwhile having the discussion. It is a very important time in the history of Canada in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. They need more attention. But I do believe the finance committee is going to have a look at it. My recommendation would be to table it, see what the finance committee does with it, and then look at it again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

I have Mr. Komarnicki and then Ms. Sgro.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is good to see Mr. Lessard. I was previously on this committee, and certainly he has promoted older workers and dealt with the EI fund on numerous occasions. Although he may have the right sentiments, there is no question that when you are looking at the kinds of dollars he raises in this motion, that is something that would require budgetary considerations and that certainly should be looked at by Finance. We are not talking small dollars. He is talking $1.5 billion and $60 million and $1.44 billion. Those kinds of considerations should go to the finance committee through budgeting and Treasury Board and so on.

As you well know, Mr. Chair, our government has created a $1 billion community development trust fund to deal with issues like that. But again, it's contingent upon the budget and budgetary measures. There is an investment of $72.5 million in targeted initiatives for older workers and also $127.5 million for long-term competitiveness initiatives in the forestry industry. So there are a number of initiatives and variations of that.

When we talk of that degree of dollars, and specifically—and I think I agree with Mr. Savage—that a motion similar to this is being looked at by what I would consider the appropriate committee, that's where it should go. In my view, in this committee this motion should be opposed or set aside for future consideration for those reasons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Ms. Sgro, followed by Mr. Martin, followed by Mr. Lessard.

Ms. Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I too believe this is a really important issue. I would rather that we weren't even dealing with it, that our country would continue to move forward in a positive way, and that more job creation was happening and so on. But the reality is that anyone who has been in the U.S. has seen the downturn in the economy there. They're into a recession, whether they're ready to admit it or not. When that happens, we know it's going to happen here, and we know it's going to affect a lot of our workers and a lot of the companies. The auto industry has been really hit these last couple of months, and we continue to see jobs lost there.

I think the issue is important, I think we need to be looking at it, and I think it's appropriate that this committee look at it. But I am concerned about the fact that Finance is where it all ends up. They are currently looking at it, and we have other things to do. I think we should get on with the employability study and try to get that finished so that we can move into some of the poverty issues we wanted to study.

I do think it's very important. We should be looking at it if it's not being dealt with properly at the finance committee. It should come back and we should be looking at it....

So I think you need a motion to table it at this particular time. Let's monitor what's going on at Finance so that we don't lose the importance of this issue, and we'll move on with it at a later date.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Martin.

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

I don't agree with tabling this and setting it aside. There's a real sense of urgency around this. Anybody who has gone out to speak to the families and communities that are being hit with this, particularly the one-industry communities, will know that there is no tomorrow here. They need assistance now or else they lose--they lose all their investments in their homes, their small businesses, their industries.

Yes, some of them may have to pick up and move to places like Calgary—where there is no housing.

These are very devastating and difficult circumstances. There are some communities in northern Ontario where people are actually walking in now, from the States particularly, with credit cards and buying up homes as cottages so that they can come up and spend the summers up there. This is pretty devastating stuff for these folks.

For us to suggest for a second that we put this off somehow to some other committee, or that somebody else deal with it.... I know that ultimately it would have to go through Finance, but I think we can send a message to Finance from this committee that this is really important. This is of some urgency.

In terms of the billion dollars the Conservatives rolled out—I'm wondering if they think that's enough—the hanger they put on it was that it not flow until the budget is brought down. Now I'm hearing from the finance minister that the budget is going to be.... We thought it was going to come soon, and now it's not going to come soon at all. It's going to be later, apparently.

How long are you going to make these communities twist in the wind here? How long are they going to wait before some money from the federal government flows out to them so that they can take care of their immediate needs? There's an urgency here, a real urgency around this. As I said, all you have to do is go out and meet with some of the people in these communities to get a real sense of that urgency.

So I would suggest that we not table this, that we not put it off, and that if in fact at the end of the day it is Finance that will deal with it ultimately, we send the message to Finance that this is really important and needs to be done, that we need to get the money out the door so that these communities and these families can take care of their issues in front of this terrible reality in the manufacturing and forestry sector that they had absolutely no hand in causing. They just got up every morning, packed their lunch pail, went to work, worked hard, and then one day the plant closed down. Now they're being asked to shoulder the whole burden, for the most part, in terms of the impact.

I think it's incumbent on us to do the right thing, and to do it immediately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

I've never heard of people buying houses on credit cards, but....

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

You should go into northern Ontario and have a chat with some of these folks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I've seen credit used in a lot of different ways, just never for buying houses.

Mr. Lessard, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

By way of a preamble, I would say that, in politics, there are those who make political statements and those who have a political will.

Ms. Yelich asked me whether this replaced existing programs. It doesn't replace existing programs, but rather those that have been cancelled, in particular the $500 million Technology Partnerships Canada program, which was introduced by the previous government. That's what they've done during the crisis. They haven't put any programs in place, or consolidated any either; instead they've cancelled some. That's why we're in this situation today.

It's not because the question is being examined by the Finance Committee that it shouldn't be put before our committee. I don't accept that argument. The Finance Committee has to give its opinion on all financial commitments under its jurisdiction. Our committee must consider matters pertaining to human resources and social development, which includes the question of the safety net for workers who lose their jobs. The issue today is about all those individuals who have become vulnerable as a result of the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. We have to discuss this to determine what measures we should recommend to the House, and to the Finance Committee, because it must have an overview and advise the House. However, it wouldn't be surprising at all if it were the Finance Committee that awaited our opinion. It's like the chicken and the egg. Which will come first? Them or us? We have to give an opinion, and we are responsible for protecting these people by protecting programs that can help them when they lose their jobs.

I'm very sensitive to Ms. Sgro's argument that there is an urgent need to talk about poverty. The committee has decided to discuss that subject. Our colleague Mr. Martin wants to do that, and I think we should pay tribute to him for all the work he has done in that area. This isn't a question of political parties. When people defend these kinds of issues so fervently, particularly when the need is so great, we must recognize that. However, I would remind our colleague Ms. Sgro that we're talking about a measure to protect poor people or people who are going to become poor.

Poverty is not an abstract thing that we can be happy to philosophize about and adopt nice positions on in a cyclical manner, as we did in 1990 and 1993, and then do nothing about. Child poverty has increased, not decreased, whereas we said we would reduce it by 50% before the year 2000. These are social measures. The employment insurance fund already has surpluses. The present government isn't in a poor financial position either, because it has generated significant surpluses, which even the previous government will recognize. This year once again, the government has generated a major surplus of $11.5 billion. It wants to attach that to the next budget. However, this doesn't even concern the next budget.

We've examined the positions of the other parties. The Liberal Party feels that the total cost of all measures targeted at the manufacturing sector is between $2.5 and $3.6 billion, depending on the measures adopted. We come to roughly the same figures. So that means that we agree on the measures that should be taken and the needs recognized. We're identifying the right needs, but we're not necessarily going about meeting them in the same way.

Will we refuse to take this path, saying that someone else should decide for us? This is our responsibility, not that of the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee has to have an overview in order to determine what it is possible to allocate to the various budget items. That's how we have to look at it. Otherwise we'd never need to talk amongst ourselves when it came to finances relating to our responsibilities.

Out of a budget of $235 or $234 billion—you'll spare me $1 billion—we've generated a surplus of $11.5 billion. It's the Finance Committee that has to examine that question as a whole.

The introduction of these measures in no way requires us to reduce the funding of certain programs. The idea is simply to determine whether we have the political will to take this initiative. If we do, is it the right one? I understood that my opposition colleagues were prepared to take measures. I understood that my government colleagues also agreed, but that they were not ready to take measures. That's the difference between us. Are we going to take these measures?

I'll conclude by recalling that the money is there. So it's not a question of money. It remains for us to determine whether we will act on the political will we've shown. That way, we'll know who's speaking the truth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

On my list right now are the following: Mr. Lake, Ms. Sgro, Mr. Savage, Mr. Komarnicki, and Ms. Yelich.

Mr. Lake, go ahead, please.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

There are a lot of things in the last two statements to respond to. First of all, I take issue with the wording Tony is using in this: “There is no tomorrow.” We've used some really big language to talk about the problem. This is a serious problem. There's no question that there are some serious issues out there, and we acknowledge that. We need to be realistic about the economy. We need to be realistic about how the situation in the U.S. is going to impact Canadians. We also need to be very careful. We're the leadership of the country, and we need to be very careful about how we articulate the issue. Consumer confidence, obviously, as anyone here in this room knows, is crucial to ensuring that the economy remains as strong as possible. We have to remember that right now the Canadian economy is, if not the strongest in the world, one of the strongest economies in the world.

Our employment situation in Canada is still very strong. Contrary to what Mr. Lessard might suggest, poverty is lower than it has been in the past across the country. People are employed across most of the country. The numbers are strong. Yes, there are some issues, and we're dealing with those issues. But we do have to be very careful how we articulate this.

We've taken some measures. I'm hoping that given some of the talk on the other side of the table that the opposition parties will be considering supporting the budget, and supporting the $1 billion community development trust we've put in place. I also want to point out that in our economic update in the fall we took some steps that put us in a very good position to be ahead of the curve on this. In terms of the tax cuts that we made for Canadians, all Canadians, including the workers you're talking about, whom you represent, are going to be paying less money to the government and having more money to spend on the things they need for their families.

We've taken some steps that are going to make Canadian businesses more competitive. So as we move forward, Canadian businesses will be more competitive than any of the other businesses in countries in the G-8. We'll have the most competitive business environment in the entire G-8 when our corporate tax cuts come fully into place within the next five years. We've set that action in motion ahead of the curve in the economic update that we came out with in the fall. In Canada, we're probably in the best situation in the world heading into what may be a little bit of a tough economic ride.

Tony talked about pushing this off to another committee, but that's not the truth at all. We're not talking about pushing it off to another committee. The other committee has already voted to study this issue. Surely there are other important issues at the same time as this that Parliament needs to be discussing without having five committees tied up studying exactly the same thing. It's ridiculous.

Every single word contained in this motion, from what I'm looking at, is also contained in the finance committee motion. There are a few extra things in the finance committee motion, but every single word contained in this is contained in the finance committee motion. Again, if we're going to do the job we're elected to do, we can't be studying the same motion in five separate committees.

I totally support Mr. Savage's suggestion that we table this. If as a committee we're not happy with what comes out of the finance committee, then we reserve the right to study this further if we want to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

I have Ms. Sgro, Mr. Savage, Mr. Komarnicki, Ms. Yelich, and Mr. Lessard.