Debates of May 7th, 2002

Supply

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank you for giving me this opportunity to discuss the impact on Canadian workers of the tariffs being put on lumber by the United States.

These tariffs will definitely have serious effects on the lumber industry workers throughout Canada. With layoffs and uncertain economic times looming, these workers wonder how the tariffs will affect their daily lives and those of their families.

Again, workers affected by this difficult situation can rest assured that measures are in place to help them. These measures include the employment insurance system, a major program assisting members of the workforce.

From the very first day of its mandate, this government endeavoured to help Canadian workers adapt to a demanding and rapidly changing labour market.

These past few years, the Government of Canada helped workers increase their skills and their employability so they could get good jobs and keep them.

We have provided employment counselling and information to help them learn where to find jobs and how to land them. We have provided unemployed workers with temporary income support to meet the essential needs that they and their families have while they are looking for a new job.

On many occasions, the employment insurance program has helped Canadian workers and their families at a time when they needed it. They may need it when they lose a job because the economy has suffered, or because one particular sector has lagged, or when they are too ill to work, or when they leave work to provide care for a newborn child, or when they re-enter the workforce after having looked after their family.

All of this reassures Canadians greatly during uncertain times. This program is designed to respond quickly and automatically to local job market needs.

For example, the eligibility requirements and the length of the benefit period are adjusted in every region of Canada every four weeks, based on the most recent figures on regional unemployment.

A change as small as 1% or less in the unemployment rate can trigger a review to lower the eligibility requirements for workers and an increase in the number of weeks of benefits.

And yet, while the employment insurance program is flexible enough to respond to unemployment fluctuations, it has also evolved to take into consideration the needs of Canadian workers and their families.

For example, based on changes in the job market, we have adopted adjustments based on the small weeks projects to encourage workers to accept any work without being penalized. We have reviewed the program to make it better help Canadians who collect benefits more frequently, such as seasonal workers.

We have improved the program's ability to help clients balance their professional and family responsibilities by extending maternity and parental leave, by changing the rules that apply to parents returning to the workforce, and by exempting Canadians who stay at home to look after their newborn children.

We have strengthened the program's ability to respond quickly and effectively to the particular situations with which workers in some industries are confronted.

For example, following the massive layoffs in the airline industry, HRDC worked closely with unions and employers to provide career counselling services, help process applications and find ways to keep people in the labour market. Every chance it could, Human Resources Development Canada also concluded work sharing agreements with employers and unions thus ensuring that many jobs would be kept.

We met the challenge with strong action. It included consulting the Council of Forestry Industries and helping it to support its members throughout the country. We went to the employers' sites to help employees complete their claims for employment insurance and ensure that they were then processed as quickly as possible. We used automated programs enabling employers to send pay data electronically and helping local offices to deal with the massive layoffs.

Our aim continues to be to help workers return to work as quickly as possible. The Electronic Labour Exchange, the National Job Bank and the documentation centres located in the Human Resources Canada centres help workers across the country find a job that suits their needs, their skills and their training.

We also support other programs and services through labour market development agreements with our partners in the provincial and territorial governments. Accordingly, under the program with British Columbia, Human Resources Development Canada provides nearly $290 million to help people there find and keep work.

It involves, for example, helping clients find new jobs through job search clubs, helping them draft a resume, helping with job search skills, career guidance and job interview preparation, helping clients without jobs find work through career assessments, providing guidance services and directing people to other programs and services, providing financial help to individuals to cover some of the cost of their skills training and related expenses and, finally, providing workshops and advice to clients starting their own business.

Following a transfer agreement signed in 1997, the province of Quebec is now responsible for developing and implementing its own active employment measures.

The Government of Canada has increased its funding to Quebec from $450 million in 1997 to close to $600 million for the current year. These concrete measures were taken to provide assistance to workers throughout Canada.

Let me also point out that employment insurance is only one of the many programs helping the unemployed adapt to economic change. To meet the special needs of older workers, we have launched pilot projects to find new ways to help them make the transition to the new economy.

Besides employment insurance, the Government of Canada spends over $3.5 billion every year to prepare our young people for the labour force. Many other programs focus on the special employment and upgrading needs of first nations and handicapped Canadians.

In conclusion I would like to thank the hon. member for his concern about the well-being of the softwood lumber industry workers, a concern our government and I share. I would also urge my colleague and all the members to cooperate with the government so that workers in the softwood lumber industry and throughout Canada can get the help they need to adapt to economic change.

Only through cooperation will we be able to provide Canadians with the services they expect.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks made by the Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. He thinks that everything has been done, that there is nothing left to do. That is an extremely dangerous conclusion to draw on the part of a minister who is responsible for regional development.

Funny but workers are saying that employment insurance is not helping them. The member's speech dealt exclusively with employment insurance. Employment insurance is a good thing, but it does not meet the exceptional needs created by the softwood lumber issue.

I want the member to tell us what he is going to put on the table. I also want to know if he agrees with a dedicated fund. The Bloc Quebecois proposed a dedicated fund that would bring transparent solutions to help small and medium size businesses face the situation.

The government tells us that everything has been done and that we live in the best country in the world. It tells us to find shelter and wait for the storm to blow over. That is the solution proposed by the secretary of State. This is a serious problem.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can see that the member listened to my speech but she did not understand what I said. It is unfortunate because I mentioned the measures that we have taken. We said that, as the Canadian government, we are sensitive to the situation facing workers in the softwood lumber industry. There are measures already in place and, as time goes on, we will see if adjustments are needed. As the Canadian government and as the Liberal Party, we have always been very open and we will continue to help people.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, it seems that time and time again when a member of the Liberal Party rises in the House to give a speech on this topic we get that warm, touchy-feely, feel good message about all the wonderful things we are doing to help these families. I heard the member talk about maternal leaves and all that, but dagummit, there are thousands and thousands of people across the country in this industry who are really hurting. The Liberal Party is not taking it seriously enough.

I have news for the member. There could be cattlemen suffering the same kind of thing just around the corner because of the trade breakdowns that could occur in our cattle industry, not to mention many agrifood and other natural resources where this is beginning to happen. It is happening because the government does not have the will or the fire in the belly that it takes to stand up to a bully and let him know we have had enough of this.

What do we have to do? How about loading up a busload of those cowboys and sending them down there to do the negotiating?

The Liberals should start acting like they mean business instead of this touchy-feely, feel good message about how they are going to make it wonderful for all our poor families out there by giving them a couple of hundred bucks here and there. They do not seem to understand the seriousness of it. They get up and do their fancy little dance around the issue with speeches in the House, a touchy-feely, warm, feel good thing, and then they leave here and go and drink their fine wine and eat their fat cheese.

When will they start thinking about the interests of the individuals out there who are truly suffering instead of all this warm, touchy-feely, feel good stuff that nobody is interested in? People want solutions. They do not want those kinds of speeches.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, unlike the official opposition, we might not get all in an uproar, but we are very aware of what the workers are living. It is not because we publicize part of what the Canadian government intends to do on behalf of workers that we should not be believed.

I would remind the member that apart from saying that we are insensitive, he does not have many solutions to propose. We are doing things. The Canadian government has been working at it for weeks. We are listening to the needs of the people and we will find solutions in due course, as we have always done as government on this side of the House.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the minister and to my colleague from Jonquière and I am appalled to hear that he has done everything he could and that, for example, EI is there to help those who will lose their job.

We all know that this is not true. Nowadays, with what has been happening in the employment insurance sector, no seasonal worker is covered. At the most 42% of workers are eligible for employment insurance. This is complete nonsense.

I ask him to withdraw what he said and to tell the truth.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member, like his colleague from Jonquière, says that he is listening, but he does not understand.

The employment insurance program responds to 80% of the people making a claim. My riding is hit by the softwood lumber situation and people are entitled to employment insurance benefits.

However that is not what we wish. We do not necessarily want them to get employment insurance; we would rather have them working. That is why the Government of Canada is negotiating in good faith and is getting processes under way in order to defend the rights of all Canadian workers.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Island North.

The first item on our agenda should be an apology. The Prime Minister should stand in his place and apologize to Canadians for making jokes about the softwood lumber industry crisis and heartlessly ignoring the despair of thousands of families suffering as a result of that crisis. He said that the Americans are doing this to Canada because we beat them at hockey and that we have lots of 2x4s to use when the time is right. That remark shows just how heartless the government has become and also how indifferent those members on the other side have become.

What is disturbing--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order, please. The hon. member may now continue.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know they get excited when we on this side speak, but I appreciate your help.

What is disturbing is that the Prime Minister does not yet accept that the American administration might be in a more accommodating mood if he had not said he wanted President Bush's opponent to win the last election in the United States. Instead, the Prime Minister makes a joke that has enraged British Columbians and all of us who are proud to represent British Columbia in this parliament. The few who were not enraged by that insensitive remark were Liberal members of parliament. We promise that in those few ridings the voters will remember the Prime Minister's joke.

British Columbian members of parliament are welcome in this party and we will make sure that we bring even more with us in the next election. Judging by all the phone calls, British Columbians are already rubbing their hands in gleeful anticipation of helping us do that.

Then there is the Minister for International Trade, the minister who bungled international trade, especially the softwood lumber file. He dropped it like it was greased. He fumbled it like it was a hot rock. He said that job losses were due to restructuring. Due to restructuring? Was he all three of the monkeys that saw no evil, heard no evil and spoke no evil? Did he not hear from mayors, from workers and from management that the industry would be in crisis if the Americans were to do what they have done? Was he not there that Monday or did he send his perfect twin?

Restructuring is just not even in the cards on this issue. Where did he come up with that word? What brilliant bureaucrat in his department offered him that gem to pass along to Canadians? Or was it the ethics counsellor, with his talent for turning pigs' ears into silk purses?

Then there is that other obscure backbencher over there who said that British Columbians were “nervous nellies”. I can assure everyone that British Columbians are not nervous nellies, but the few Liberals who hold seats in our great province certainly are. If anyone wants to see an endangered species they can look at the Liberal members of parliament from British Columbia. Premier Gordon Campbell of British Columbia, at the softwood summit last Monday with the international trade minister sitting at his side, confirmed a potential 50,000 layoffs. So much for the minister's listening skills.

The announcement last week by the U.S. trade commission is a major blow for the national economy. Those softwood workers pay hundreds of millions of dollars into the treasury through income taxes. They are consumers, borrowers, families and school board supporters. We in the opposition saw this train wreck coming two years ago and warned the government, but once again the government was not listening just as the trade minister was not listening last Monday at the softwood summit when he was sitting next to the premier who said that 50,000 jobs were at stake. He calls that restructuring? There is something wrong with that.

Two and a half years ago, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North undertook on his own to contact and establish relations on behalf of our softwood industry with the group called American Consumers for Affordable Homes. His relationship with that group made the Alliance the first party to embrace its free trade position, long before the government had even heard of that group.

I know this simple fact is hard for members on the other side to grasp, but more than softwood workers' jobs are at stake here. People employed by trucking companies, aviation service companies, marine service companies and catering service companies, just to name a few, will all suffer, and not just in British Columbia. We are talking about that because the minister was there last Monday and there are 50,000 job losses in that province. This is going to happen right across Canada.

There are not only workers to worry about. There are spouses and children. They are all suffering because the government neglected the file and abandoned the softwood industry, those workers and their families.

Before I conclude, I want to tell the softwood lumber industry and all those workers that while the government was ignoring them, members of the Canadian Alliance were not. We were working hard both here in parliament and in the United States to find solutions. The member for Vancouver Island North deserves most of that credit. He has done a phenomenal job. That is what this government in waiting does and I hope the industry and the workers will remember that when they get their time for revenge at the next federal election.

The last thing the government needs is another Liberal member of parliament. I hope Canadians remember that in the byelections next Monday. I hope they send the Prime Minister a message that the government has done a poor job on softwood lumber, agriculture and other problems. It does not deserve to elect any members next Monday.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has made a speech saying the government is not doing enough. In my speech I mentioned things that are already happening such as employment insurance and a number of other things. What does the opposition party advocate should be done in addition? Does the Leader of the Opposition favour an export tax while our actions are proceeding to the WTO? What other things does he advocate we do? We on this side of the House would be happy to hear his party's proposals.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up and talk about the issues. The minister talks about EI and what the government is doing in those areas. A few weeks ago my constituency assistant wrote the minister in charge of the file. He told me there is now a minimum 13 week wait in British Columbia to process EI claims. That is over three months. I am sure all members of the House have the same problem.

What government can say it has a program to help unemployed workers when it takes three months plus a week before they can find out what they will get? Does the government not understand? How cruel can members be on that side of the House? The issue affects 50,000 people plus their families and children. Those people need a government with compassion.

The government should bring in people from other parts of the country where unemployment is not as high, move them out to British Columbia and solve the issue for the people there. It is not doing that. All the rhetoric is fine, but the government should check with its own members from British Columbia. I am sure they all get it just as I do. It does not matter whether one is Leader of the Opposition or an independent member. Members from British Columbia will have EI problems in their offices. A minimum wait of 13 weeks is unacceptable.

That is the first thing we would do. We would send people there to make sure the system worked. People could walk in today and know they would be looked after. They would not need to worry. We would work with them. If it took two years to get to the WTO we would help them through it. We have done it in eastern and central Canada but it seems British Columbia is a long way away. We have a crisis and the government pays lip service to it.

With regard to everything else we have a tariff coming up. The one thing we and the government agree on is that we will beat the Americans at the WTO. In the meantime the government should assist companies in making sure they can cover the duty so they can stay in business and get people working again.

It is a pretty simple program. The government says we will win. I agree. What then is the problem with putting up the money to make sure people can stay in business? We are talking about a couple of simple programs. If that is what the government did we would be happy. However we have not gotten an answer from the other side. Everything is hot air. Everything is a crisis. Government members tell us to sit down. They say that in the next speech we will hear a bit more about it.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the leader of the opposition. He is right. During the whole negotiation process, the government had the support of all the provinces as well as all the companies. They were saying: “Yes, we will go to the United States with you to see that this issue gets settled”.

Unfortunately, as the leader of the opposition said, I think the international trade minister had a hot potato in his hands and he did not know what to do with it. Therefore I ask the leader of the opposition to tell us whether he agrees with the solutions put forward by the Bloc Quebecois with regard to companies and workers.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc for her comments. It is an issue on which all sides of the House agree. There needs to be support. We agree with their position as they agree with ours.

We both agree the government is in a crisis and a free fall. We agree that is not supporting workers. I talked a lot today about British Columbia because I have a passion for it. However as the hon. member knows, I also grew up in Quebec and have a passion for Quebec. I was born in Ontario. I feel sorry for workers across Canada who are going through this.

I emphasized British Columbia because the minister was there on Monday with our premier, mayors, MLAs and MPs from across the province. He started a good program by having consultations with all elected officials. That is why this is so important. When the minister comes back and says softwood lumber is not the problem and that it is only a readjustment of the industry, that is wrong. It is damaging.

All members on this side of the House need action from the government. That is why we have been asking questions about the issue every day. That is why we have an opposition day today. We get hot air. We are not getting answers. It is time we got serious and real answers on the issue.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, last Monday I was in Vancouver, British Columbia at the premiers' softwood lumber summit. There were 35 people there including mayors, company representatives, first nations representatives and representatives of the West Coast Environmental Law Association. Federal and provincial legislators from government and opposition were there. The senior federal minister for British Columbia, the Minister of Natural Resources, was also there along with the federal Minister for International Trade.

A major focus was the presentation of the B.C. Ministry of Management Services which is the equivalent of Statistics Canada for the province. It said 15,000 forestry workers in the province were out of work. It anticipated 50,000 would be out of work when the full impact of the tariff came into effect sometime after May 23. That is about a quarter of British Columbia's 200,000 forest industry workers. The official opposition recognizes that B.C. is not alone in facing these layoffs.

One can imagine the outrage in British Columbia when three days after hearing all the data, participating in the meeting and expressing not a shred of doubt we witnessed the Minister for International Trade say not one job had been lost due to the softwood lumber dispute. He said the losses were due to restructuring. The minister then went to Spain and the arrogant Liberal government has not explained itself or the minister's behaviour. The Minister of Natural Resources, the senior federal minister from British Columbia who was also at the meeting, has said nothing to explain his colleague's behaviour. Forest workers, families and communities have been insulted, brushed off and ignored by the government.

I was in Port Alberni on central Vancouver Island this weekend. It has four sawmills, three of which are closed. The mayor is rightly concerned. I was on a softwood lumber panel and chaired a coastal parliamentarians meeting. A member of the panel was Darrel Wong, president of I.W.A. Canada, Local 2171. Some 2,100 of his members have been laid off. Some 30 companies have been closed, 21 are inactive and 32 are at reduced capacity. One might ask what the minister has been smoking. Shutdowns have been happening since last August when the preliminary duty was announced. The Coast Forest and Lumber Association provided me with a list of 20 sawmills on the coast. The mills are either down, partially down or have been down four to five months.

The Minister for International Trade should apologize for his remarks. It has been five days. Perhaps the senior minister from British Columbia, the Minister of Natural Resources who was also at the premiers' summit, would like to distance himself from his cabinet colleague's statements with more than silence. We now have an insight into why the government has no sense of urgency to tackle the dispute head on. It is easier to deny the problem than to fix it. All the opposition parties are willing to recognize there is a problem. We are of one mind.

The trade minister likes to say he has the provinces, industry and labour onside. However at times they are afraid to say anything negative because they do not want to break with Canadian solidarity. Privately there are major concerns.

I had the opportunity last night to talk to a trade lawyer. The discussion we had went to the heart of what needs to be done. It is common knowledge in trade circles that the Canadian government is too soft and rolls over too easily, particularly in disputes with the U.S. This goes to the heart of the motion we are debating today.

To succeed in securing free trade in lumber, forest workers must be supported. Industry must not be forced to fold because of cash flow problems resulting from penalties for which we can and will obtain repayment in the future. There is no shortage of suggestions for achieving this except from the government which is once again playing for time and pretending no problem exists.

For example, HRDC has come up with $13 million in additional benefits for workers in British Columbia. This works out to $260 for each of the province's 50,000 unemployed forest workers. That is not what is required. An extended creative EI benefit is clearly needed. There are administrative problems as the Leader of the Opposition explained. However it does not happen to be true in some areas of the province including my area.

In terms of tariff management schemes we have suggested two possibilities which go to the heart of the question asked of the Leader of the Opposition. First, we should look at dealing with Export Development Canada. Currently qualified exporters of Canadian goods can insure up to 90% of their accounts receivable exposure with Export Development Canada. The definition of accounts receivable must be expanded to include deposits made on contested tariffs. The Government of Canada would have to assume much of the underwriting risk. The approach is simple. It has been out there quite a while. However as far as we can determine the minister has not asked Export Development Canada to look at the possibility of accomplishing it.

Second, we could go through Canadian Commercial Corporation. Currently Canadian Commercial Corporation acts as a middleman for many cross border contracts between Canadian and U.S. industries, especially in the defence sector. Certain members of the softwood lumber industry could sell their lumber to CCC. Canadian Commercial Corporation could then sell it to the U.S. and become liable for the duties.

Why can we not engage the government on these issues? I have been trying for months. It would rather pretend the problem did not exist. As I said previously, the government has done no apparent homework on tariff management plans. It can always find trade lawyers who agree or disagree with the suggested approaches.

The upside to urgent government action in supporting workers and tariff payment schemes is that Canadian solidarity could be maintained. The longer the government continues to let things drift the more likely there will once again be a rush to a deal that will have long term negative consequences for our competitiveness not only in the U.S. market but all other markets into which we ship forestry products.

The situation has reached a serious juncture. It is absolutely necessary that the federal government intervene immediately. It has a responsibility, an obligation and an opportunity to display leadership. It is critical that the government announce a comprehensive plan for workers on the tariff issue. Otherwise industry, the workforce, the municipalities and the provinces will divide. The solidarity necessary to win the battle will be lost due to the government's lack of leadership.

This crisis was avoidable. The Liberals knew it was coming but ignored it. They saw no political opportunity in it. The Canadian government has not acquitted itself well. Could members imagine it doing the same thing for turbot off the east coast?

Canadians deserve better leadership from the federal government. A plan containing worker relief and tariff payment measures is required now. The people on the Canadian side who are most keen on pursuing free and unfettered trade are the very people who are saying the Canadian government has to put a tariff scheme and worker support scheme in place.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have listened attentively to the Canadian Alliance member. His speech is on the right track and I share his opinion that this government is deaf, dumb and blind.

I would like to know from the Canadian Alliance, who always tells us what is going on out west and in B.C., what is happening in the western companies, in their plants and with their workers. What do these workers expect from this government?

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member from the Bloc for her question.

I cannot speak for western Canada as well as I can for British Columbia and especially coastal British Columbia which I would say in general is probably the one part of the country that looks to the federal government the least for anything. However there are special circumstances when indeed it does look to the federal government. This is a litmus test for the federal government in every way.

People are running out of benefits. Employment insurance and the entitlement to further benefits are essential right now. There was a huge expectation that on May 2 or at least on May 3 there would be an announcement. It was our opinion that the government could not let it go past the weekend. We are past the weekend and into the following week. It increasingly appears that the government has no agenda to do anything which is of huge concern.

For example, in my riding I am looking at one job in four being at risk. That is above and beyond the forest sector. That is talking of one job in four in total, everyone.

On the tariff end of things we want the government to do the right thing in terms of our negotiations with the U.S., however the approach that people are witnessing is an academic one. The government is displaying a lack of interest in investing political capital in rural British Columbia, rural western Canada and for that matter any other rural part of Canada.

The same equations hold true for Quebec, northern Ontario and other parts of the country. When one looks at the political landscape it is clear that the priority of the government is not in those places. That is the political reality. It is unfortunate for Canada and for Canadians that it is the mindset of the government and is a good reason why we should all feel slighted and insulted by its behaviour.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)]

Madam Speaker, this is the single most important file that has had the most attention from the Minister for International Trade for the last year. Members opposite did not raise this issue and a whole range of issues until we worked on this specifically and energetically with the provinces and industry.

It is fine to say that we want a solution but not look at the delicate package being brought together. Specifically, does the member for Vancouver Island North agree with an export tax? If he does, could he explain how we could continue with litigation in the WTO and the NAFTA if we had an export tax? Some members of industry want it and some do not. We are trying to have a common position in the country. I would like to know the member's specific answer to the export tax question.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, the senior minister from British Columbia is not even here. He is muzzled and the trade minister is somewhere else. That is displaying a sense of lack of priority. That is clear to me.

I have noticed that the government has been busy revising history on the softwood file for the last two or three months. The whole thing about a border tax is an attempt to obscure the real issue. A border tax would be very negative for Canada. It would not make us competitive in terms of our entry into the U.S. market. In order to meet the qualifications of a border tax we would have to increase our costs on the Canadian side in order to eventually get rid of the border tax. That would make us uncompetitive in all those other markets as well.

I am taking a clear position unlike the government that obscures everything so that nobody can figure out where it is coming from until two weeks after the event.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois, concerning the matter of an assistance plan for Canadian lumber industry workers.

We are all aware now of the outcome of the negotiations between the Liberal government and the United States. Basically the Liberal government was unable to defend the interests of Canadians. So here we are this morning forced to debate a motion that is totally justified by the U.S. decision to impose a 27.2% tax on lumber sales to our friends whom we have supported and helped out during difficult times.

On May 2, the NDP leader called upon the government to do something for the forest industry workers whose jobs were threatened. Moreover, all opposition parties had called upon the government to provide emergency financial support, but it preferred to turn a deaf ear and leave them and their families to their own devices.

It is obvious that the 27.2% tax is going to result in enormous job losses. According to a quick evaluation, just in order to sell their Canadian lumber on the U.S. market, forest companies will have to pay out $2.2 billion annually. This is a lot of money.

The NDP leader asked the minister a question in the House, which I would like to quote:

Mr. Speaker, we do not want the government to stand by. We want the government to stand up and do something.

Forestry workers and their families are becoming more and more desperate by the hour. If the government refuses to help with loans, will it at least crank up a national housing program, long overdue?

This was for the purpose of trying to generate employment in the regions.

This would provide relief to the troubled softwood industry and it would also generate desperately needed housing.

With an investment equivalent to a single month's surplus, the government could create 36,000 housing units and at the same time create 46,000 desperately needed jobs. Will the government do that?

The leader also asked one other question:

Mr. Speaker, let us call with one voice for the return of that money, but how many more forestry workers must lose their jobs before the government finally takes steps to protect their families, their communities and their industry? People want to work.

The fear of generating more complaints about subsidies is the government's lame excuse for inaction, but we know that the government has an American study that debunks that myth.

Will the trade minister move on that study's conclusion and make available to threatened companies loans at commercial rates?

Here is the minister's reply:

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. I have always been clear on this very subject.

This is the minister's answer. If he was so clear, I wonder why we are debating this motion in the House of Commons today.

I think it is important that we stand by our workers and the government intends to stand by the workers. We will stand by the communities, we will stand by our industry, and the Americans need to know that.

This is a nice speech in the House of Commons. The minister goes on to say:

I have always said that loan guarantees or any other means of action were on the table, that there were a number of options that were on the table. We are consulting with the industry because the industry itself is giving us advice at this very moment about what would be the most helpful tool to help them.

We will stand with them and of course whatever we would do we would design in a way that would not be countervailable.

The minister made this statement in the House of Commons on May 2 of this year. Today, May 7, the following comments made by the Tembec company can be found on CBC's Newsworld:

Tembec will use the North American Free Trade Agreement to file a $200 million damage claim against the United States over that government's plans to impose duties against Canadian softwood lumber producers. The company's president and CEO, Frank Dottori, said he was disappointed in the United States' decision to go ahead with the duties.

Where was the government on May 2? Where is the government today that said on May 2 that it would consult the industry? Where was the government when our colleague across the floor a few minutes ago said it was on the file from the beginning and the opposition was not there? Where was the government when the opposition brought this to the House of Commons many times?

Where was the government? How can the government say today in the House that it is defending Canadian workers? What is the government doing? What is wrong with it for it to drop an industry where thousands and thousands of good jobs will be lost because the Americans are telling us how to run our own country? Where was the government when the minister himself said that he would not abandon Canadians, since Quebec has already lost 1,800 jobs and more than 10,000 more jobs will be lost across Canada?

But the government is sitting, and we know on what. Today, it is sad to see what free trade has brought us, that is one way free trade. How many times have the Americans felt the need to impose countervailing duties to Canada? They did it on numerous occasions. How many times have Canadians been forced to impose such duties to the Americans? Never, because they consider that the United States is an untouchable power. We are caught under the American umbrella.

In the meantime, we are losing jobs here in Canada. The current government is not the only one to in this situation. We can go back to the previous government, which promoted free trade. Instead of free trade, we should have had a faire trade accord, where Canadians would have taken their rightful place.

If we look at softwood lumber and agriculture, we see that Canadians are losing everywhere. In the case of big primary industries, the Americans take over our companies and then decide what they will do with them. A company like Tembec has been forced to go to court to defend itself against the Americans because of free trade. Why is it not the Canadian government that is defending Canadians, as the minister said on May 2 in the House of Commons?

It is sad to see this and to see people who have worked in the softwood lumber industry across the country being affected by this situation. In the Atlantic region, we were not supposed to be affected by this problem. However, even we, the Atlantic people, have been affected by the rate of countervailing duties, as are all other Canadians.

We thought that free trade was supposed to apply to everything, without countervailing duties imposed by the Americans. The federal Liberal government was not even able to negotiate having these duties stopped so that we would not have to pay this money. Now, some companies have been forced to go before the courts to defend themselves, while it should be the government itself and our leaders who should be doing so to defend our people.

How can the federal government boast that it stood up for Canadian workers when they now have an employment insurance scheme that is no longer adequate, and an insurance fund from which the Liberal government has taken $8 billion this year alone? The benefits for workers who lost their jobs only amounted to $7.2 billion. It is shameful that the federal government should get more out the employment insurance program than the industry and workers do.

It is shameful that this government dares to boast in the House of Commons and to Canadians. It should assume its responsibilities instead.

When Canadians voted for the Liberals in the last election, it is certainly because most of them, myself excluded, agreed with them.

Let me remind the House that, during the last campaign, the Liberals were saying throughout the country, “Keep us in power, and we will protect you and create jobs. We will stand behind you. We are the only government in Canada that can look after you”.

It is disappointing to realize today that on a issue like softwood lumber, the federal government is not assuming its responsibilities and is content with spewing empty rhetoric in the House. This government is sitting on its hands. We have a minister who travelled to Vancouver to tell workers they did not lose their jobs because of the U.S. tax on softwood lumber.

It was because of modernization that all these jobs were lost. If that is so, we have a problem, because things will never go back to what they were. This means that the government has lost confidence. The government has lost the power to protect Canadian workers. The only defence the minister can think of is to say that our troubles are due to modernization.

It is true that modernization has hurt us, but not to the point of eliminating tens of thousands of jobs. It is not modernization that did that. We must now admit that free trade has hurt Canadians. Every time we turn around, the Americans are there with their rules. This is the source of the problem.

The federal Liberal government should assume its responsibilities. I cannot say often enough that it should be able to come up with assistance for these workers. It should be able to say to the Americans, “We will defend our free trade”.

It should not be up to Tembec to take the U.S. government to court. The government should assume its responsibilities. It was the government which signed the free trade agreement; it is for the government to assume this responsibility.

Be it softwood lumber or farming, we have problems with our primary industries. People have worked in these industries all their life. It was supposed to be heaven on earth when we signed the free trade agreement. The other countries were supposed to have better working conditions. In Mexico today, there are still people working for $2 or $4 an hour, and in the United States, working conditions have taken a step backwards.

Even here in Canada, working conditions have gotten worse instead of better, despite the new technologies and job modernization. It is worse than ever. People are forced to work an unacceptable number of hours, to work on weekends, up to 70 hours a week.

We saw this in Ontario. The Ontario government changed the law to say that overtime would now be paid after 50 hours. In 2002, we are moving backwards; this is not good for workers, not at all. Whether governments are Liberal or Progressive Conservative, things are not looking good in the provinces.

I am not trying to say that the softwood lumber dispute is the cause of all of Canada's problems, but I can tell you that we have had problems since the free trade agreement was signed.

Let us take, for instance, the privatization of our health care system. Some day, the Americans will get their hands on our health care system and we will no longer have a say in the matter. Beware of what the future holds for us. Canada is losing its sovereignty and the Liberals on the other side are to blame, because they are not doing their job.

This is why the New Democratic Party supports the motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois. We do not have any other choice. The opposition blames the government for not having taken its responsibilities and for not having been tough enough during the softwood lumber negotiations with the U.S. We cannot simply say, “You are the parents, we are the children and we will listen to you”. But that is what is happening.

We are going through the same thing in Afghanistan. We always have to listen to the Americans and do what they tell us to do. We are down on our knees before them. It is time to stand up, to speak for ourselves and to act like a country, as we did in the past.

I urge the government members to consider the motion and not to rise, one at a time, to defend the minister. Let them speak the truth, let them say that they disagree with the way the softwood lumber issues are dealt with and that the government will assume its responsibilities and help Canadians in two ways, first, by negotiating with the U.S. and, second, by helping out our workers and businesses who are hurting and who stand to lose millions and millions of dollars.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate the New Democratic Party member and to answer his questions. He wondered why the Canadian government did not act upon my party leader's request to build social housing. I do not think it will do so, simply because the request comes from this side of the House. This government does not appreciate suggestions from the opposition.

Second, the member asked why we are having an opposition day on the subject. It is because of the inaction of this government. It is doing nothing. There is a pressing need to act. We want it to table plans, which it has not done.

The member also blamed free trade. This is not because of free trade, but because of this government, which is unable to stand up and discuss as an equal with the United States.

I would like to hear his comments on the solutions proposed by the Bloc Quebecois regarding the lumber industry workers. The Bloc Quebecois proposed that assistance measures for workers be improved, that a special status be given seasonal workers, that benefits be extended by five weeks and that older workers that cannot be reclassified be given assistance.

I know that workers are very important for the hon. member and I would like to hear him on that.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have to answer that there is a $42 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund. The money is there to help the workers. At the same time, though, I cannot agree with my colleague when she says that it is not a free trade problem.

Free trade has been hell in Canada since day one, because it is not really what had originally been proposed to the House of Commons and to all Canadians.

What was proposed by the Mulroney government was some sort of free trade that was supposed to help people to trade. And the term are quite clear, it is supposed to be free. In 1992, the Liberals said they were against free trade. They were still against free trade in 1993. However, once elected, they supported it.

With regard to housing, I have just spent a couple of days in my riding. Some seniors do not even have a place to live. These are older people who would like to live in an apartment or a home where they would feel secure. We could build units for them all across the country; we could use our wood and our 2X4s and 2X6s to build housing and to help our construction people here in Canada. There are solutions and I am sure that if we work hard, we will manage to find something. I agree with the workers. The cuts in the employment insurance programs are totally unacceptable. With the billions of dollars at our disposal, we could set up special programs.

I see my colleague opposite nodding. If the Liberal member from Halifax is fed up with what I have to say, he should not be here. We are here to talk about our problems and we should not be ashamed to do so. Those who cannot listen to what is being said should leave the chamber.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst for his excellent speech. I also want to thank the member for Joliette for bringing forward the motion before us today, which says that we should set up an assistance program for the softwood lumber industry and its workers. I will support this motion. It is an excellent motion. A month ago, I proposed a motion that said that the House should set up a new program to build houses for aboriginal and Inuit communities in Canada. We heard comments on that subject, but today we are dealing with another issue.

We are going to war against the Americans. What President George W. Bush is doing is trade terrorism. He is killing forestry jobs in Canada and in Quebec, and it is important to say so.

I have a question for the member. Following his excellent speech, does the member agree that we need social housing, housing for the homeless, as well as for aboriginals and Inuit? It will cost us $2 billion. If we do nothing, people are going to go back home.

I must say that I was once a forestry worker. Does the member agree that we need a program as soon as possible, in the next few weeks and not a year from now, to keep softwood lumber in Canada for a year or two? As the FTQ was saying at a meeting I attended last week along with the BQ member for Témiscamingue, we must find a solution quickly. We, the government, with the co-operation of members opposite, must get this new program. Does the member agree that we need a new program to keep softwood lumber in Canada without retaliation from the WTO and NAFTA?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I think I was clear on that point. I spoke about the number of dwelling units missing in Canada, either for aboriginal people, for the elderly or for those who cannot afford a house and would like to find an apartment. There are some 25 or 30 year-old young adults who have to live with their parents when in fact they would prefer to live in an apartment.

We cannot wait a year. The situation is urgent. We must act now. If the federal government wanted to, it could declare an emergency situation right now. It takes very little time to implement a program. They only have to tell the public servants “Today, we are implementing a program. It will be effective immediately and apply countrywide”. I can assure you that it would create jobs and that we could succeed.