Debates of March 10th, 2009

Domtar

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, there are very great challenges in these tough times for a great number of people. We have a framework and we intend to stick with that framework.

Science and Technology

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, using smoke and mirrors, the government claims to support Canada's students and researchers but it is paying $90 million in new graduate scholarships by cutting $148 million in research grants. It is not an increase. It is a cut.

Thanks to the Liberal support for the budget, the Conservatives have overruled arm's length agencies for their own ideological purposes. This is an attack on academic freedom.

When did the government decide that it knows better than the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada which projects should get funding and which should not?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology)]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the member and many of the members opposite have not read the budget clearly. This government has increased the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council budget by 50%. On top of that, in this budget we added $87 million for more scholarships. In fact, the NRC received an additional $200 million for IRAP which helps whatever industries want help in and whatever area of research they deem to need it.

That is what this government is doing. I wish--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Fleetwood--Port Kells.

Broadcasting

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, media has become so much more than the daily newspaper or the dinner hour newscast. The Internet and other new media have changed the way viewers watch their favourite television shows.

Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages please explain how the government has responded to the changing broadcast landscape?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, after the announcement yesterday, Ivan Fecan, of CTVglobemedia, said, “Congratulations to [the] Minister...for putting the audience first in the creation of this fund”.

That is what we are trying to do. We are merging together the old Canada media fund and the Canada television fund to create the Canada media fund. This will support industry, Canadian content, official languages, aboriginal content and the content that Canadians want to watch on the platform on which they choose to watch it.

This is about modernizing the way we make investments so that it serves Canadians better. It is what we were elected to do and we have delivered.

Revenue Canada

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada encouraged fishers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec to voluntarily retire from the fishery in return for a retirement benefit. Hundreds of fishers took the offer. Unfortunately, the government taxed that benefit 100% instead of the required 25%.

The fishers have been trying to get the government to return the thousands of dollars taken from them unfairly but the government has refused.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans intercede on behalf of those fishers and get the government to return to them the money they are owed?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, when the fishers sold their licences, they became subject to capital gains tax pursuant to the Income Tax Act. Some fishermen protested, even though we intervened in an attempt to have the tax owing reduced somewhat. However, given that the matter is still before the courts, I will not speak any further about this.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. That will conclude question period for today.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion:

“That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-336, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute) be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.”

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

Oral Questions

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

Mr. Speaker, during question period, in a statement made by one of the Conservative members, it was suggested that the Leader of the Opposition had said that a Liberal government would take away the universal child care benefit. The Leader of the Opposition has never, ever stated that and has never believed that. That member should retract that statement and clear the record.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am not sure that the hon. member is rising on a point of debate rather than a point of order. The hon. members may feel that it is a point of order but, in the view of the Chair, it is not because it has nothing to do with procedure. It has to do with arguments about what is right and what is not. As hon. members know, judicious though I may be, I am not a judge and do not decide who is right and who is not.

Canada's Economic Action Plan

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to an order of the House dated February 3, 2009, I have the honour to table the first report to Canadians entitled, “Canada's Economic Action Plan: A First Report to Canadians”.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the Bloc Québécois' new private forests critic. The Bloc Québécois is the first party to have such a critic.

The Bloc Québécois decided to dedicate this day to the fact that the forestry industry, the industry as much as the workers, has been neglected, forgotten by the federal government. Why do we have to dedicate a day to this debate? Because the federal government has decided to have a double standard. On one hand, there is the auto industry that deserves a real helping hand. The federal government decided, for example, to go ahead with loan guarantees, offering companies the opportunity to get help from the government. On the other hand, there is the forestry industry, which has been abandoned by the federal government.

During question period, we saw—and this may prove very instructive for the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), who was saying that loan guarantees could not be used by the federal government because they are in conflict with the free trade agreements—that its own lawyers, before the London Court of International Arbitration in connection with the softwood lumber agreement, and the civil servants at Export Development Canada, EDC, are basically giving the okay to loan guarantees for the forestry industry.

Why is the government now the only party that does not want to go ahead with this measure? The Bloc Québécois' work could result in success for business if we manage to make the government understand that the tool is available, that we can move forward, that we can offer loan guarantees to prevent companies from going bankrupt, not because of mismanagement, but because the U.S. market has shrunk dramatically. We have to make the government understand that we need a transition period, perhaps six months or a year, during which companies can go forward with loan guarantees, get the money they need, keep working, and maybe even buy equipment to improve productivity. That is the purpose of the Bloc's proposal today.

We know that the softwood lumber agreement, though not great, could have been worse. We had to sign it. In the past few weeks, industry representatives and workers in my riding have reminded me that the Bloc did the right thing when it supported the agreement. Now, the industry needs another helping hand because the U.S. market has dried up.

My riding is blessed with cross-border industries in Saint-Pamphile and Daaquam that mill American timber in Canadian mills, in Quebec mills, and then resell it, mostly to the American market. Luckily, they are exempt from the softwood lumber agreement. Unfortunately, they are not getting that kind of support from Economic Development Canada. The federal government and the ministers involved seem to think that the forestry industry's time is up, but thousands of jobs depend on it, and those jobs will last. There will always be a market for wood. If Quebec and Canada fail to do what must be done in time, they will have a much smaller share of that market in the future.

This morning, the United Nations issued a reminder that one way to combat the slowing economy is to invest in silviculture. That is one of the approaches we could use. A lot of workers are out there planting trees. These people help create carbon sinks to absorb carbon, and their positive contribution will help us address climate change challenges.

The federal government, however, as is the case in so many sectors, is not sensitive to this reality. It is not doing enough to move forward on this file and it continues to view forestry as an outdated industry. It is nothing of the sort. It is an industry that definitely has a future, if the federal government moves forward on this.

There are also other measures the federal government could move forward on, primarily involving benefits that could be given to workers who lose their jobs. In a forestry community, in a municipality that depends on the forestry sector, when 25, 50 or 75 workers lose their jobs, this has a significant economic impact, an impact on their families and on the entire community. In that respect, the federal government has an excellent tool to intervene.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing the elimination of the waiting period when people qualify for employment insurance. At present, during the first two weeks of unemployment, unemployed workers receive no benefits, even though they pay into the system from the very beginning. This is an appalling feature left over from the old employment insurance system, which people paid into only after working for a few weeks. Since the Liberal reforms in 1994, people must pay into it from the very first hour, but they do not receive benefits right away.

The federal government is looking for ways to stimulate the economy. One of the best ways would be to eliminate the waiting period and give unemployed workers employment insurance benefits beginning the very first week they are unemployed, thereby allowing them to remain consumers and keep the economy going. Apart from the tax cuts we have seen in the past, if we could return the favour now to those who were the key players in tackling the deficit, we should give them back their employment insurance benefits beginning on the first day of unemployment, by eliminating the waiting period.

With this motion, the Bloc Québécois is fulfilling precisely the mandate it was given, which is to defend the interests of Quebec. There is a need to do so in various areas, and particularly in economic matters. The incomes of families affected by the economic slowdown have to be protected. In that regard, measures have to be taken to move forward. My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques will certainly address that issue as the critic for these matters.

I would like to point out that the slowdown has been such that, in the forestry industry, the sawmills that cut wood and the paper mills have been affected. However, those who often take a hit are the woodlot owners, who are not getting paid. They have to stop cutting wood because the prices they are getting are not enough to support production. In that regard, the government could have put forward a measure to help them trough these difficult times.

This Parliament must therefore go ahead and vote for the Bloc's motion which, among other things, proposes concrete action, as we did last fall with respect to the economy in general. We were the only party to do so. For the forestry industry, we are proposing loan guarantees. I discussed that proposal at the beginning of my remarks. Loan guarantees are permitted under international agreements and the FTA. We have demonstrated this. This was further evidenced by the representations made to the courts by government lawyers.

We are also calling for the establishment of a policy to encourage the use of lumber in the construction and renovation of federal public buildings. This is a specific measure the federal government could implement, which would not cost the government more in the end and would allow it to use lumber. As with all aspects of the economic slowdown, the buying power has to be maintained. When governments decide to implement infrastructure programs, they do so to keep the economy going. Deciding to build buildings with lumber would keep the forestry economy going. That would be a meaningful benefit.

We would also like to put in place measures to support the production of energy and ethanol from forest waste. It has become evident that ethanol produced from corn can be harmful to the environment. Energy products derived from forest waste are far less harmful to the environment, produce good results and use an under-utilized resource.

Therefore, the Bloc Québécois has decided to use this day to discuss the forestry industry. This issue concerns several ridings as it directly affects employment in logging and milling, the paper industry and the entire wood processing sector throughout its territory.

In the past, in Quebec and Canada, there was a sort of social pact whereby seasonal workers in resource regions could qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. In turn, they produced goods consumed in major centres. The Liberal reform of employment insurance in the 1990s broke that pact. It has never been re-established by the federal government.

We hope that this government will take action in this period of crisis. We need innovative solutions and these must be introduced by the federal government. Today, the Bloc Québécois is presenting constructive proposals and hopes that the Conservative MPs, especially those from Quebec, are listening and will ask their government to take action.

At this juncture, Quebeckers are being told that there is help for the auto sector but that the forestry industry is being sacrificed. Many Quebec and Ontario regions find that unacceptable. Our forestry industry needs proper support equal to that received by the auto sector.

The Bloc Québécois is launching this appeal on behalf of all Quebec communities that depend on forestry.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, I listened to my Bloc Québécois colleague with a great deal of interest. What I do not understand is how the Bloc Québécois is involved in the current forestry crisis. Job losses in Quebec have risen sharply since October 2, 2006, when the softwood lumber agreement, that sellout agreement, took effect. Since then, thousands of Quebeckers in Mauricie, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and elsewhere in Quebec have lost their jobs. Because of the anti-circumvention clause, which the NDP had predicted the Americans would use, Quebeckers and Ontarians had to shell out $68 million last week. In a few weeks, another $400 million will be paid.

Is the member prepared to admit that the idea of loan guarantees, which is good and which the NDP fully supports, is blocked by the softwood lumber agreement, that sellout agreement? In fact, the Americans are happy with this agreement, because they can use it to take the Quebec forestry industry and its workers to court.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the past, the NDP has had valid ideas when it came to social equity. However, when it comes to the softwood lumber agreement, it is completely out of touch with reality. Again last week, I met with forestry industry leaders and workers. They said they were happy that the agreement had been signed, that it was not the best agreement in the world, but it was something. They told us that the agreement absolutely has to be maintained because it contains a dispute mechanism. They added that even if we lose some cases, we can win others. It relieved them of the sword of Damocles, which the Americans were dangling over their heads.

I would be willing to bet that during the latest federal election the NDP lost at least 5 to 10% of the vote in my riding because they are so out of touch with this reality. People do not want to hear that the agreement should be denounced and that it would have been better to live worse off without it. People felt that the Bloc Québécois position on this was reasonable and asked us to continue supporting this agreement. Today, we continue to defend workers and industry leaders. The forestry industries of Quebec and Ontario need the tools that the Bloc Québécois are bringing forward, which the Conservatives still refuse to accept.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup supported our government’s softwood lumber agreement, which gave our industry a new breath of life. Last week, he could have helped the forestry industry, as he seems to claim to be doing in his remarks. In particular, he spoke about biomass conversion. The economic action plan sets aside $1 billion over five years for green infrastructure, with projects for biomass utilization, projects that are directed at communities, among others. There is $1 billion for communities, not to mention an amount of $170 million that is provided directly for the forestry sector, along with measures to stimulate the current weak demand, particularly from American customers. On one hand, we want to encourage demand, and build up infrastructure with increased lumber content in buildings. At the same time, as I have stated, we want to encourage home renovations that will certainly lead to increased demand for lumber products.

Why does my colleague not support these budget measures? Why is he not standing up for workers, especially in the forestry sector?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would tell my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse that today’s debate should be the most instructive period for the Conservatives since the government returned after the election.

We have shown in black and white how government lawyers are pointing to loan guarantees as an acceptable measure under the agreements. For weeks, the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) has been saying the opposite. Today, we have the evidence that Export Development Canada—EDC—is giving the okay to this kind of measure. The lawyers who represented the Government of Canada before the courts in London did the same thing. The Conservative government is the only holdout. That is why we have tabled a proposal that calls for these things. I agree with him concerning the utility of wood construction. Thank goodness we can agree on that point. The Quebec forestry industry has issued a distress call to say that it needs loan guarantees. The Conservative government is the only one that does not want to move forward, even though its own lawyers admit that loan guarantees are a good management tool and the one that should be used.

Will my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse intervene with the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) and the Minister of International Trade to ensure that this tool will be available so that our industry can get through the current crisis and move toward recovery? Obviously, we must use all the other tools available but this is one that is important and which the Conservatives have unacceptably deemed off limits.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleagues who have risen on this opposition day have talked about the serious problems plaguing Quebec's forestry industry. I would like to join them in making this House aware of the forestry sector's problems, long neglected by the federal government. Today's Bloc Québécois motion points to the inadequacy of funding allocated in the latest budget to an industry that has been in crisis for several years and that, if left to its own devices, will suffer even more because of the current economic situation. That is why, in our motion, we have denounced the absence of specific measures to improve things for the forestry industry, measures such as bonuses, loan guarantees and refundable tax credits for research and development. We also strongly encourage the use of lumber in the construction and renovation of federal public buildings, along with new measures to support the production of energy and ethanol from forestry waste.

Despite the government's excuses to cover up its lack of political will, all of these measures are legitimate and would not violate the international softwood lumber agreements that bind us. My colleagues have already gone into great detail about these aspects of our motion. I would like to focus on what is really going on with private woodlot producers in Quebec. I would like to talk about what is happening to 130,000 owners, 10,000 of which are located in the lower St. Lawrence region, where 50% of the woodlots are private. That is an indication of how important their activities are to local and regional development in my region.

Over the past few years, private woodlot owners in Quebec have seen their situation get worse. They have been hit hard by the forestry crisis and have felt the impact of permanent and temporary plant closures, tighter markets for their wood, and sharply declining prices. Such are the consequences of an ongoing crisis that they are not equipped to deal with because of a lack of government support. In its most recent budget, the federal government once again ignored the needs of private woodlot owners in Quebec.

Richard Savard, who has responsibility for forestry in the regional conference of elected officials in the Bas-St-Laurent area, referred to the latest federal budget as a missed opportunity. In addition to being woefully inadequate and poorly targeted, federal assistance for the forestry industry in no way meets the needs of private woodlot owners. Yet private woodlots account for 29,000 direct jobs in Quebec.

In my region, Bas-St-Laurent, activities associated with private forest management and wood marketing create some 2,000 forest and factory jobs. In addition, the economic spinoffs from private woodlots are vital to our rural communities. It is crucial that the situation of private woodlot owners improve, because the survival of these communities depends on it.

In Bas-St-Laurent, the warden of the Témiscouata RCM, Serge Fortin, was outraged at Mr. Flaherty's insensitivity. According to the warden, because the minister is unaware of the impact that the forestry crisis is having on some regions, he does not appreciate that the loss of 500 jobs in our region is the equivalent of a loss of 10,000 jobs in Montreal. We have to bear in mind that, according to Department of Natural Resources data, 1,000 direct jobs have been lost in the forestry sector in Bas-St-Laurent since April 1, 2005. This is alarming.

Faced with the government's inaction, private woodlot owners are not just standing idle; they are doing everything they can to develop the full potential of their forest heritage. This means that, in addition to being undeniably important to rural communities, private forests can play an important environmental role when managed sustainably. They can help preserve wildlife habitat and ecological diversity, protect air and water quality, store carbon and reduce soil and shoreline erosion. In fact, thanks to the management of private forests, they are more productive today than public forests. Management is very profitable in the long run and deserves to be recognized.

In the coming months, the Bloc Québécois will press the federal government to recognize management plans as proof of reasonable expectation of profit, so that woodlot management expenses are deductible under section 31 of the Income Tax Act.

The advantages of sustainable woodlot management are many, and we need to ensure that the federal taxation system is better adapted to this type of operation, which benefits the population as a whole.

Under the present tax system, woodlot management expenses are not deductible from total farm income, and this tends to encourage poor forest management.

In other words, the tax system as it applies to private woodlots is not beneficial to farmers and does not favour sustainable resource use. At the present time, there is no specific status under the Income Tax Act for woodlot owners.

In the eyes of Revenue Canada, most of them are seen instead as part time farmers or hobby farmers. That being the case, it is not easy for them to claim their operating losses. They have to prove there was a reasonable expectation of profit, and this is very hard to prove according to the present tax authority requirements. There is, therefore, a lot that needs to be done as far as taxation is concerned to achieve more appropriate recognition of the work of private woodlot owners.

Another point on which the Bloc Québécois will place a great deal of emphasis is changes to the taxation system for private woodlot owners to allow averaging of revenue from the sale of wood produced by sustainable management or harvested after some natural disaster.

This is a very reasonable request, given the great irregularities in forest income. One harvest year, the revenue could be high, but then growers have to wait a number of years before newly planted trees are mature enough for harvesting.

At the present time, woodlot operators' incomes are all taxable in the year of sale of the product, even if that income may represent 10 years of work and be followed by another 10 years totally without income.

These are the reasons operators want income averaging for taxation purposes. That way, someone selling $200,000 worth of lumber this year could, for example, declare $20,000 income over the next 10 years. Obviously the taxation rate would be lower and this would make it possible for operators to live better off the proceeds.

Today, measures must be taken to make forest resources a true lever for growth in the regions of Quebec such as the lower St. Lawrence.

For any progress to be made on this, I would first of all stress the two measures I have just set out: management plans and income averaging for private woodlot owners in Quebec. Supporting those measures is tantamount to recognizing the contribution made by private woodlots to regional development, and acknowledging that private woodlot owners have particular needs which must be listened to.

Private woodlot owners can rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will continue to relay their demands to this House.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the Liberal Party will be supporting the motion because, in fact, it mirrors the plan that it had in 2005 for the forestry industry, which included loan supports for research, new technology, skill development and community adjustment. Unfortunately, as the member also knows, the Conservative government cancelled that plan in 2006 to the detriment of the forestry sector.

There is a comprehensive plan now but there is problem. The Conservative softwood lumber deal basically took tens of millions of dollars out of the equation when the government made that deal and left all the billions of dollars in the United States. The irony is that the Bloc Québécois supported that deal, which I understand cost some 20,000 forestry sector jobs since the Conservatives formed government.

I wonder if the member could advise the House why the Bloc Québécois was in favour of a flawed deal but now is fighting for the forestry sector.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supported this proposal a few years ago because there was a consensus in Quebec among forestry producers, the industry and the National Assembly of Quebec. Action was urgently needed and that is why the Bloc Québécois is in part responsible for deciding to intervene at that point.

I would also like to mention that all measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois, including today's, do not contravene international trade measures that we must honour.