Evidence of meeting #14 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was services.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you very much.
I want to thank all of you for your time here today, for your presentations, questions, and comments. If any of you have anything further to submit to the committee, please do so through the clerk. We will ensure that all members get a copy of it. I thank you for your time.
Members, we have two motions on our agenda. I will suspend for a couple of minutes to allow the witnesses time to depart, and then we will resume with discussion of Madame Brunelle's motion.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Would members find their seats, please?
Members, before we get into Madame Brunelle's motion, I wanted to get your acceptance—I believe I will. We're doing the service sector on Tuesday and Thursday, and we're doing the appreciating value of the dollar on Wednesdays.
Next Wednesday every academic we invited, except for one, said no. So we only have one. I believe it's Mr. Campbell, or a representative from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. As well, on the 7th, in panel two, every academic has said no, as far as I know.
So I would suggest that on Thursday the first hour would be for the service sector and the second hour would be for the dollar. That way, members, it would free up your Wednesday afternoon, instead of just having one witness.
1 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, thank you.
Now we'll get into the motion by Madame Brunelle. I would ask Madame Brunelle to move her motion.
1 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I need not remind members of the committee who have been here longer than I have been of the importance of this debate and its effect on the major crisis the manufacturing and forestry sectors are grappling with. This motion is a response to the assistance plan being proposed by the government. As far as we are concerned, this assistance plan must be strengthened. It is clear that the motion is in accord with what we heard today. We need to restructure our economy, invest in research and development, implement measures to reinstate the Technology Partnerships Canada program, and give tax refunds to companies so that they can buy new equipment. In addition, single-industry economies such as the forestry sector would greatly benefit from a diversification fund.
I would therefore encourage members of this committee to vote in favour of this motion, thereby sending a clear signal that the crisis is a serious one, that we must take action, and that the government must deploy all means available to help our industries.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. Merci, Madame Brunelle.
I have Mr. Carrie on the list.
Mr. Carrie.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to inform the chair that we'll be voting against this motion. I believe last night the finance committee already passed a motion to study this Bloc Québécois request in depth. To be specific, like any policy we do make on this, it has to be consistent with our softwood lumber agreement, which the Bloc did support. The committee cannot demand specific spending. This is exclusively the purview of the government. So I will not be supporting this motion.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Chair, the parliamentary secretary raises an important point.
I see that there are two motions. I wish to thank Ms. Brunelle for tabling the first one. I see that the motion is almost identical to the one tabled previously, in which, according to members of the Finance Committee, was adopted.
I now understand that there are problems of interpretation within the Finance Committee which means that a solution will not be reached for another day. In the meantime, although I accept the principle which has just been laid out, and I may perhaps support the motion, I find this a bit difficult, because aside from Technology Partnerships Canada, all other programs must be driven by the Department of Finance. If possible, I would like to defer debate on this motion—I know that this is at the discretion of Ms. Brunelle—until we can determine if indeed the Finance Committee has done the same thing. To my mind, the most appropriate committee to deal with this motion would be the Finance Committee, but I agree to having a debate on this matter. I would like to wait until tomorrow and I would like to ask Ms. Brunelle to postpone debate on her motion until tomorrow, unless it has already been adopted within the Finance Committee.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Sorry, I do have Ms. Nash and Monsieur Vincent.
Why don't we have Ms. Nash and Monsieur Vincent, and then we'll go to Madame Brunelle.
Ms. Nash.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
I don't have an objection if Madame Brunelle would like to postpone the motion, but I do want to say that it's a motion that's making a recommendation, and it's dealing with the issue that many of us have been raising for some time around the forestry-manufacturing crises.
I support the intent of the motion and the recommendation, but if there is a decision to postpone this, and Madame Brunelle is in favour of that postponement, I would support that.
1:05 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It could be said that one component of this issue falls within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, but we are the Industry Committee. I think this is a subject we can deal with because the manufacturing and forestry sectors fall within our area of study. Yes, we are dealing with financial matters. On the other hand, will the sector be able to tell us if $500 million or $1.5 billion would be enough to kick-start the manufacturing sector? Only then would we be able to have a better idea. We can meet with these people and ask that very question: it is their sector that we want to assist. The Finance Committee can say that it has money to give, money to allocate, and make recommendations to assist; however, we must properly understand the needs of the manufacturing sector. Is this enough? Are we going far enough? Is anything additional needed? I think these questions fall directly within the realm of the Standing Committee on Industry.
1:05 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the government's position. Any measure we call for will involve the Finance Committee. Are we going to remove ourselves from our responsibilities?
As it is currently drafted, this motion proposes measures which are in accordance with the unanimous report on the manufacturing and forestry sectors, tabled by this committee. I do not see why there should be a reluctance on the part of members. In fact, if the Liberals prefer to discuss this matter tomorrow, I would be willing to come back to it again at that point, with the assurance that we will do so. I do not want to prolong this debate unduly.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
So you are okay with it coming back tomorrow for sure.
Mr. McTeague.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
I don't know if the Standing Committee on Finance is going to take a position on the matter tomorrow. We need time. Ms. Brunelle, I would like to add that the motion tabled by Mr. Crête at the Standing Committee on Finance is much more in-depth than the one that you have tabled. It involves $1.5 billion, of which $60 million is earmarked for an income support program for older workers, as well as $1.44 billion for the employment insurance fund to be placed in a special fund until which time an independent fund is created, etc. I'm not aware of the committee's timeline. I think they're going to discuss this tomorrow. Do we have any confirmation that the motion has been passed? According to members of the committee, the motion has been adopted. I would like to know if postponing debate to tomorrow or Thursday will leave us with enough time. I leave it at your discretion to determine the date.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Just talking to colleagues on the finance committee, my understanding is it was adopted yesterday. There was some ambiguity as to exactly what would occur. My understanding is there will be at least two meetings on this motion, on the motion that was passed by Finance.
The clerk does have the motion from Finance, if members want to refer to that. I can hand that out if members wish.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say one last thing in conclusion. Regardless of whether or not this motion has been adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance—and there appears to be vagueness around this subject—I feel that it would be very important for the Standing Committee on Industry to take a position and make its own opinion on the motion. To the extent that we have worked on this subject, and to the extent that the public has asked us to deal with this matter, I repeat that it would be very important for us, at a minimum, to demonstrate how significant this subject is for us. It concerns us directly.