Debates of Oct. 19th, 2009

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Question Nos. 402 and 409 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 402

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

With respect to government spending in the constituency of Brampton West, what was the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, itemized according to: (a) the date the money was requested in the riding; (b) the dollar amount requested; (c) the dollar amount received; (d) the program from which the funding came; (e) the department responsible; and (f) the designated recipient?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 409

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

With regards to Canadian International Development Agency funding and programming: (a) what programs and initiatives has the Agency undertaken specifically around conflict management in Africa and what were the total costs associated with each for the last three fiscal years; (b) what equipment and resources were purchased through the Agency’s budget for conflict management initiatives in Africa; (c) what programs has the Agency undertaken specifically designed for development aid in Africa and what are the total costs associated for each; (d) what programs has the Agency put in place and how much funding has been reserved for emergency relief aid to Africa; (e) what is the total bilateral aid funding for Africa in last three fiscal years; and (f) what is the total multilateral funding for Africa in the last three fiscal years?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Foreign Affairs and International Trade

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Further to the tabling of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(3)(a), a motion to concur in the report is deemed moved, the question deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Wednesday, October 21, 2009, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by eight minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the House debated this motion earlier, the member for Chambly—Borduas had the floor, and he has seven minutes remaining.

The member for Chambly—Borduas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and Chambly—Borduas for their presentations.

I would remind my colleague that in 2005, 2006 and 2007, under two different governments, the Bloc called for loan guarantees for companies. At that time, we knew we had problems with the Americans and proceedings were underway relating to special taxes on softwood lumber. We were seeking loan guarantees to enable companies to stay afloat as long as the cases then underway had not been completely dealt with by the courts. When two different governments denied that request, we had to sign an agreement in which Canada, and mainly Quebec, was the big loser.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. If we had been able to see the cases in the courts through to the end, would our industry, in both Canada and Quebec, be in a better position today?

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

Mr. Speaker, we do not have a crystal ball. We cannot know what the outcome would have been. However, we did have a good chance. The assessment of the softwood lumber agreement by the industry, that is, the forestry companies and workers, at that point, four years ago, was that it was the right thing to do at the time. It meant that the industry could survive for four more years.

That was not the assessment of our Liberal and New Democratic friends, who would have chosen, four years ago, not to ratify the agreement and to kill the forestry industry. The problem is not the agreement, it is the fact that the Conservatives have done nothing in the meantime to support the industry. They chose rather to focus all their efforts on supporting the auto industry and the banks. This was particularly true in the case of the auto industry. They have funnelled $10 billion to the auto industry, and only $70 million to the forestry industry, even though the forestry industry employs many more workers than the auto industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech. I want to ask him about scandals we see here in the House of Commons.

It seems to me that the lack of assistance for the forestry industry is, in a way, becoming another scandal. Nearly $10 billion has been invested to support the auto industry, and the meagre sum of about $70 million to support the forestry industry in Quebec.

Nearly $55 billion has been stolen from the unemployed over the years. The Liberals are the ones who stole that money. The Conservatives continued on the same path and have stolen a further $5 billion. We are looking at a theft of nearly $60 billion from the independent employment insurance fund. Meanwhile, people are going hungry, they are losing their jobs and they have no resources left.

They have also continued to encourage the whole tax haven situation. From one end of Canada to the other, we are looking at tax evasion on the order of $100 million, because of these tax havens.

I would like my colleague to tell me why these governments, in the House of Commons, are stealing and not helping our workers, and how sovereignty for Quebec could be a sounder option for all Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: we could make our own choices. We could determine the contribution rates, of course, and choose what we want to do.

My colleague talks about money being stolen. I will be a little less blunt and call it a direct misappropriation of a huge amount of money, $57 billion over 13 years, first by the Liberals and now by the Conservatives.

I find it quite disturbing, for example, that this support targeted at one industry only is acceptable to our Conservative colleagues from Quebec—particularly the Minister of State Responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec—who can witness first-hand what is happening. We are not jealous about the help for the automobile industry. That is fine. However, if the government really wants to help it should at least provide equivalent assistance to the forestry industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc's motion today is very important and urgent. The forestry industry in Quebec is having a hard time remaining competitive and recovering from the world economic crisis and has been for a number of years already.

The current government, under the Conservatives, committed to providing $70 million in assistance to the forestry industry, a paltry $70 million to help 825,000 workers involved directly and indirectly in the forestry industry, while it gives the automotive industry concentrated primarily in Ontario nearly $10 billion for 500,000 workers.

Quite frankly, we have to ask who are they kidding?

Let us find the solution. In my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, there are towns such as Malartic, Val d'Or and Matagami that are holding their own now because they have fairly prosperous mines. However, other towns such as Lebel-sur-Quévillon, Senneterre, Waswanipi, Chapais and Chibougamau are one industry towns and dependent primarily on forestry.

Very close to us and part of the same region are towns and villages such as Amos, La Sarre, Ville-Marie, La Morandière, Champneuf, Barraute and Béarn where the one industry has closed.

Meanwhile, the government is happy to create phoney committees to study the reasons for the forestry industry crisis. The urgency of the situation calls not for studies but for actions focused on results. Precious time has been lost to entrepreneurs, who desperately need to find solutions which the government is unable to identify.

The auto industry, located primarily in Ontario, was set up and is maintained thanks to a whole lot subsidies. My colleague from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean knows something about this, since he was an adult at that point.

This industry receives $9.7 billion in addition to all the subsidies it got for locating. Some ten Canadian cities are affected and some 500,000 jobs are maintained in this specific sector, which represents around $19,000 per job maintained or $970 million per city involved. The figures are so simplistic that there is no need for an army of accountants at the Department of Finance.

I recall my Bloc colleague Yvan Loubier. He was finance critic and gave his little pocket calculator to the Liberal colleague, who is still in the House, and who was a minister at the time. With this calculator, my colleague managed to predict very accurately what a whole range of accountants could not. The government had surpluses, and the figures were full of mistakes and totally wrong.

Equivalently and in all fairness, the current government should have given $16 billion just to the forestry industry, including $5.25 billion to Quebec alone. Is this not a long way from the ridiculous $100 million for Quebec, which represents, if used only for the forestry industry, a mere $369 per job or the big figure of $435,000 per town or village affected? Of course, it is more accessible than the same $100 million from the communities support fund not earmarked specifically for forestry at the time. The municipalities did not have access to the treasure chest, as they had not been given the key or the combination to it.

Will it be the same this time? This is a real rebuff for Quebec. It appears as illogical as it does because it is, considering that the $9.7 billion is allocated for non renewables, to which must be added the costs of depolluting and decontaminating of an American industry.

In essence, we have contributed to the American treasury to the detriment of a clean and renewable resource, industries and towns and villages in Quebec for what amounted to $22.8 million in assistance.

That is far from the $970 million given to Ontario cities, but they think Quebec will put up with it.

I leave it to the people of Quebec to decide how good the policies of this government have been, certainly not to the government itself, which has failed to demonstrate any logic or sense of fairness in the distribution of assistance in Canada, whether in regard to the softwood lumber crisis, the mad cow crisis, equalization, GST harmonization, and many other things.

One of the most flagrant cases, which can stand for all the rest, is Lebel-sur-Quévillon. Through a slight change to the law, some assistance could have been provided under employment insurance. We had first reading. We asked for agreement to move immediately to second and third reading because there was an emergency. But the government was opposed.

We made it to second reading, but before third reading is reached, the town of Lebel-sur-Quevillon will have been emptied of its workforce and it will be more and more difficult to re-start a plant that could have been successful. It is a very modern plant that was able to produce its own energy. It had good spin-off effects for the region because it enabled the sawmills to fill a need by selling their woodchips, for example, to a pulp and paper plant. This reduced consumption of the actual primary material, softwood lumber.

The labour force could have been kept in the area, both for the new industries that were developing at the time as well as the paper plant itself and the surrounding sawmills. The town managers who wanted to acquire and operate sawmills and the paper plant were also gaining credibility. The town was diversifying its economy. It seemed to be prospering and on the right track.

Ultimately, people are beginning to realize that this government is not very different from the ones that preceded it, if only because of its propensity to say “my way or no way“. We do not really have a French expression for that, but it means basically that if the government's bills do not pass, no bills will pass. If the House does not support the government bill on young offenders, for example, there is no way we will make some progress and pass the amendment on parole after a sixth of the sentence has been served.

As I told my colleague a little while ago, we have suggested some approaches that have been recognized by other levels of government as likely to make a real contribution to helping the forest industry without being an undue burden for the government.

The government and the opposition could have cooperated as a Parliament and taken steps to keep the Canadian economy afloat in both Quebec and the rest of Canada. Apart from the oil companies and the automobile industry, not much has been done in the rest of Canada. We are seeing unemployment and social problems, therefore, now that it has been a year since plants have closed and people are not likely, at this point, to get their jobs back.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problems within the forestry industry go back four years ago to the softwood lumber deal, and I have read a lot of interesting points in some of the briefing notes.

It appears that the government is restricting its thinking to matters such as tax cuts to help the forestry industry. Would the member care to comment on how the government seems to think tax cuts will help an industry that is not making any income?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is what we have always argued. Even if there were tax cuts or refundable tax credits, that does not help someone who has no income to declare and no taxes to pay. However, if there had been non-refundable tax credits, as the Bloc Quebecois has called for, it is highly likely that the industry would be in a better position, even today, because it would have greater vitality. The same is true for the loan guarantees that were requested. They would have enabled companies to stay afloat much longer. What actually prompted the government to sign the agreement was the weak economy in all of the cities, the plants and workers who were facing this crisis, and the proceedings initiated by the Americans. If the economy had been stronger, the plants would have continued operating for another year or two or three. Even with the crisis we are seeing today, the fallout would have been easier to endure.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for a very quick question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that Bill C-395 introduced in the House affects many workers in the hon. member's riding.

How could this bill better support the workers in Lebel-sur-Quévillon affected by the forestry crisis?