Debates of March 10th, 2009

Guaranteed Income Supplement

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of the member's motion, Motion No. 300, and I commend the member for bringing this important issue before the House and for the passion that she showed today as she spoke to us.

I will reiterate a bit about the motion, although other speakers have already spoken to it. The motion calls for parliamentary action to ask the government to:

...as soon as possible introduce a bill providing: a $110 a monthly increase in the guaranteed income supplement paid to pensioners; the continuation of the payment, for a period of six months, of the old age security pension and supplement to a person whose spouse or common-law partner has died;

The motion also asks that the government make automatic the registration for people 65 years of age who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement.

Last, it asks that the government make a fully retroactive payment of guaranteed income supplement for seniors who have been previously shortchanged.

Of course, such requests as those contained in the motion are very much in keeping with the NDP's ongoing work to improve the lives of seniors. For that reason, I am pleased to support such a motion designed to enhance the income security of Canada's poorest seniors. In fact, the motion is more or less in line with the policies the NDP has been arguing for, for years.

The reality facing our country is that our seniors are finding it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to make ends meet. They do not just worry about their retirement incomes. They are the fastest growing group of Canadians living in poverty. Even though our seniors built this country, people who should be our country's heroes in so many ways, today far too many of these seniors suffer silently, living lives of poverty and neglect, neglected by their own federal government.

In fact, that is how it was put to me recently by a delegation of prominent seniors who visited my office. They said that it was as if seniors were invisible to this country. They have worked hard all of their lives and have played by the rules but now, with every bill they open, they are paying more and getting less.

International Woman's Day was marked just last Sunday. I find it more than ironic that it is older women who are hit the hardest during these uncertain times. Low income rates among senior women remain more than double those of senior men: 3% of men and 7% of women. As women tend to live longer than men, it is unattached senior women who suffer most of all.

I will paint a picture cobbled together by research from Statistics Canada.

First, if we take the maximum amount available to a senior from old age security and combine that with the maximum guaranteed income supplement, we are still well below the after-tax low-income cutoff. These programs provided almost one-third of the income of senior women in 2003. Older women tend to have incomes lower than men because they participated less in the paid labour force and, if they were employed, their wages, on average, were less.

The Conservatives talk about choice for women to stay home and raise their children but then they are penalized when they do so. In 2004, about one in five women had never worked outside the home. Further and again, as women live longer, they are at greater risk of running out of savings in their lifetime.

According to a 2006 study, senior women suffer much more financially from widowhood than senior men. Over a 10 year period, senior widows saw their income decrease in the five years after the death of their husband. Over the same period, widowers' incomes actually increased in the five years after the loss of their wife.

In 2005, it was estimated that the incomes of unattached, low income older women were, on average, about $2,220 below the after-tax low-income cutoff. In 2004, the mean before-tax income of women over 65 was 67% of men.

Women tend to receive lower CPP benefits because of their historically low earnings and because the majority of Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan. The types of jobs women do and the lack of pension coverage make it difficult for women who work throughout their lives to accumulate retirement incomes and to provide a secure financial future for themselves.

The 2001 Seniors in Canada Report Card published by the National Advisory Council on Aging identified the economic status of unattached seniors, particularly women, as the area where priority action was needed. Five years later, despite a minor increase in their incomes, the 2006 report card shows that unattached women are still very much at risk of living in poverty.

Moreover, low income seniors must deal with a convoluted maze of uncoordinated federal, provincial and territorial programs. On top of this, seniors also face the clawbacks associated with GIS. This is something I hear from my constituents in my office in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. A slight increase in income can affect GIS and other benefits and increase costs and taxes for low income seniors. If a person receiving the GIS cashes a $1,000 RRSP, the individual could see her GIS benefits reduced by up to $500. If the person is among the 50% of GIS recipients who pay income tax, she could pay a further $250 in income tax.

Furthermore, other provincially and territorially administered benefits face the possibility of being reduced and/or being eliminated altogether. In the worst case scenario, small increases in income outside of these programs could very well result in a net loss of income for the senior.

In effect, low income seniors are trapped. Because of this tangled web of disincentives, they are actively discouraged from earning additional income to make their lives more enjoyable. Moreover, and with respect to this motion, I am often asked by seniors why they are not automatically registered for GIS. Qualifying for old age security means people already meet the income requirements for GIS and yet they must apply for the latter to receive it. Every July, people who have not reapplied for their GIS benefit are suspended from receiving those benefits until renewal applications are completed.

In 2005, and I am borrowing data again from the National Advisory Council on Aging, there were approximately 115,000 late applicants for GIS. The council believes that most of this benefit bottleneck can be accounted for because seniors are not renewing the GIS on time. Approximately 138,000 seniors who qualify for GIS do not receive it.

This will simply not do. It makes sense that seniors who are eligible for the benefit should automatically be registered for it. The income security system for seniors is difficult enough to negotiate as it is and seniors do not need yet another form to fill out.

The motion before us today solves this problem by automatically registering seniors for GIS and by providing full retroactivity with respect to the payments they have missed.

In keeping with the spirit of the motion being debated, I would like to conclude with the following message. I and the NDP believe passionately that no senior should live in poverty. Accordingly, we would like to see the combined GIS and OAS benefits increased so that they are equal to or greater than the low income cutoff. We also believe that the clawbacks associated with GIS should be eliminated immediately. In addition, we would like to see better coordination of provincial, federal and territorial programs. To better protect unattached senior women, we also would like to see an automatic and compulsory sharing of pension rights under CPP, employer pension funds and retirement savings plans.

We, in this Parliament, must ensure that all of our seniors have the financial support they need to live dignified, independent lives free from the scourge of poverty. We must take every opportunity to enhance their income security. This motion is a very good step in that direction and I thank the member opposite for tabling the motion here today.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about the motion that my colleague was generous enough to move. I am here in this House this afternoon and I have been listening to the debate from both sides. People are talking about money, values, costs. I have a bit of difficulty with that. I would like, for one moment, maybe for the 10 minutes that I have, to talk about the seniors we represent, who are probably the most vulnerable people in this country. We have an aging population and 38% of seniors are over 75.

People who are over 75 sometimes have difficulty knowing how to organize their affairs, and more importantly, they are often too proud or too ashamed to ask for help from anyone at all. In the case of people over 75, the husband was probably employed somewhere that did not have a pension plan. Perhaps their children have even passed away before them, since their children's lives were very different from their own, and they have probably been left to take care of themselves. They are very proud and have learned to get by their entire lives. Indeed, in the case of people over 75, they survived the first great depression, which lasted from 1929 to 1940. So, for someone who has lived through that and managed to feed their family, feed their children, send them to school, clothe them, and so on, those people might think they do not need much to survive. So they are content with very little and they often manage to make do without asking for the things they do not have.

I was listening earlier as the hon. member for York West and the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain were talking about the votes that took place previously in this House. It is true that three years ago—I hope the hon. members will recall—when the Liberals were still in power, a unanimous vote was passed in this House on a similar motion granting seniors the guaranteed income supplement, that is, what was owing to them, with full retroactivity, which was to be followed by automatic registration. At that time, we did not even fully understand just how disadvantaged our seniors have become and we had not yet asked for the additional $110 a month. I am pleased we are doing so now. This came as a result of our visits with seniors, when we began to understand their needs and what we could do to help them.

They are talking big bucks but how much, exactly? In the morning papers there was a reference to $525 million for a project having to do with a defence communication system and they were not even certain of the results. The amount of $291 million had already been spent and according to the reports the results were not convincing so far. That means $816 millions have been spent for nothing, yet they are getting upset about a few billions for people who have given everything for their country, many of whom went off to war between 1939 and 1945, and some of whom now have children or grandchildren off fighting in Afghanistan, people who have helped build the economy of this country and make it strong, even though they earned very little.

I have trouble understanding how they can confuse the issue and say that the Bloc Québécois can ask for things but will never do anything. I would point out to my colleagues that every time the Bloc Québécois has asked for something, every time it has invested efforts in finances, it always got answers. I can assure the House that it is not because the Bloc Québécois will never be in government that it does not know how to make decisions relating to finances and to the people it represents.

We have always been extremely painstaking in ensuring that the money was there to do what we were asking for. For our colleagues over the way, it is a big deal to give $1.5 billion to deserving seniors, but no big deal at all to allow companies to put money into tax havens and never see a cent of tax from it. There is a big difference between allowing the oil companies to not pay billions in taxes and giving, or not giving, $1.5 billion to deserving seniors.

What kind of a society do we live in if we think like that? We are in a recession and so it would not be possible to provide our parents with food, to give them what they need? The government has decided it needed to provide tax credits. When people do not have to pay income tax, they get no tax credits. Is that clear? Seniors receiving the guaranteed income supplement will never get tax credits, unless they go back to work, as the government seems to want them to. At age 75, they might have a few more years of work left in them, mightn't they? At $7 an hour, I am sure our seniors could make a lot of money.

It is inconceivable that this government should want to spend so much money on defence, deprive itself of so much money from the oil companies and allow companies to use tax havens when we need this money to help the most vulnerable members of our society.

During the most recent election campaign, I visited seniors' residences, as I always do. I will always remember one evening. When I left after dinner, a very stoic woman was waiting for me at the door to the building. She was clean and well dressed and was standing waiting to hand me an envelope. Naturally, I did not want to read the letter in front of this person, so I went to my car, where I opened the envelope and read the letter.

This person was asking what I, as a member of Parliament, could do for her. She had had nothing to eat in her refrigerator for two weeks. She was eating only bread and peanut butter. She was asking what I could do for her. She does not get enough money from the guaranteed income supplement. Her pension cheque, which usually goes up every July, had not gone up. It usually increases every three months, but it had not increased. Her rent, like all rent, had gone up. The extra $16 she was getting did not even cover her rent increase.

What do we do in this case? Do we take money out of our own pockets and give it to her? I am sure that there are at least 25, 50 or 100 people in my riding who are in the same situation. Of course, I directed this woman to agencies that could help her, but it still took several days before she got any help.

Is it right to leave people 80 or older broke like that, without anything to eat? Is it right to leave them to commit suicide? At present, 40% of suicides are committed by people over 50. In 2006 alone, 453 out of 1,136 suicides were committed by seniors. We need to think about that.

The motion my colleague has put forward today would enable seniors to live better, with respect and dignity. It would not make them wealthy. We live much better than that ourselves. I hope my colleagues will think about that when they vote on the motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Huron—Bruce will have about two or three minutes before the time for private members' business expires.

The hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Motion No. 300, which purposes that the government introduce legislation to make amendments to the Old Age Security Act with respect to the guaranteed income supplement.

We all share the aim of doing all we can to help our country's seniors enjoy a better quality of life. It is only because of our seniors' long years of sacrifice and hard labour that we live in such a prosperous and successful country today. There is no question the entire nation owes them a debt of gratitude.

That is why since 2006, our government has acted decisively on its commitment to protect the security of Canadian seniors and to help increase their quality of life. One need look no further for evidence of this commitment than our efforts to reduce poverty among seniors.

Thanks to our government's continued and increased investments, Canada is recognized as a global leader in alleviating poverty among seniors, with one of the lowest levels of poverty among the elderly of any country in the industrialized world. As recently as 1980, more than 21% of older Canadians lived below the poverty line. By 2006, that figure was less than 6%.

That being said, there is always room for improvement. Our government will continue to work to ensure that the needs of all seniors, including low income seniors, are adequately met.

I remind the House that since taking office, our government has increased the GIS by 7% over and above regular indexation to compensate for the increase in the average wage. The total cost of this investment for low-income seniors is $2.7 billion over five years.

As many seniors continue to work, we have also increased the GIS earnings exemption from $500 to $3,500 per year. This means that a single pensioner earning $3,500 or more is now able to keep up to an additional $1,500 in annual GIS benefits.

It is evident that this party and this government supports seniors. I would ask the member opposite, who put forward the motion, to read our economic action plan—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Huron—Bruce will have seven and a half minutes left in his speech the next time the bill is before the House.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the adjournment debate this evening, I will return to a question I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages here, in this House, on February 2.

I told him that he got a lot of people's hopes up when he came to Quebec in January to meet members of the cultural community. They said that he was a good listener. On February 2, the very day of my question, Le Devoir reported that the minister pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, because he had not restored the $5 million he cut, without reason, for foreign tours by artists.

I asked the minister to admit that he was trying to make something new out of something old because most of the money he was announcing—and that he continues to announce—will go to extending existing programs.

I want to talk about the Trade Routes program because it has to do with the second part of my question. I asked him to restore the program that made it possible for artists—in the performing arts and also more literary arts, such as writers—to present their cultural works abroad.

Trade Routes is a comprehensive trade development program specifically designed for Canada's arts and cultural sector. The program helps profit and not-for-profit organizations in the arts and cultural sector prepare to export and sell their products and services in international markets. In particular, the program offers access to market research, trade experts in Canada and abroad, and financial support.

Trade Routes helps profit and not-for-profit organizations in the arts and cultural sector, in the areas of crafts, design, film and television, heritage, new media, performing arts, publishing, sound recording and visual arts.

The program usually has a budget of nearly $8 million. Of that, close to $3 million—$2.7 million or $2.8 million, to be precise—goes directly to artists, theatre and dance companies, and the other $5 million goes to cultural attachés. That is why, during yesterday's meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I had a question for Alain Paré, president of the International Exchange for the Performing Arts (CINARS), who is keenly aware of the program.

He said that Heritage Canada's trade commissioners, who suck up $5 million of PromArt's $8 million allocation, were seen as duplicating the work of cultural attachés already working in embassies, people we could easily do without. However, we still have to figure out how to get that $3 million back. Artists really need that money, as well as the PromArt money, to perform and exhibit abroad.

I would truly like to know if the minister intends to find a solution so that Quebec's arts and culture sector will not be stifled.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, we have worked very hard to help the member through the very significant investments we are making. Apparently the member and her colleagues have no interest in reading the budget or in looking into the very significant investments we are making in the arts. The member specifically referenced travel abroad.

Her constituents and the constituents of the Bloc in Quebec should know that the Bloc has voted against budget 2009. Budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan, contains $276 million in new money, but of course that is not all of the money for the arts. The $276 million is new money. The member is unaware that there is $276 million in new money. There is $540 million in total, of which $276 million is new. It will go to help ridings from coast to coast and it will support the arts from coast to coast.

The member referenced international travel. The member should know, and in fact artists know, that we have increased the funding to the Canada Council for the Arts up to $181 million. That is a 17% increase. That was a fund of just $100 million only a few short years ago. It is now $181 million, thanks to the leadership of our Prime Minister, our finance minister and our great new young Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages.

Everywhere he goes, artists from coast to coast, after meeting the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, are very impressed with his leadership and his direction. People are very excited about where he is taking this file and about the progressive nature of the way we are taking this file.

Canadian culture is a world-leading export for Canada, but it is also something we are proud to promote right here in Canada. That is why we have invested $100 million for summer festivals. Those summer festivals will occur from coast to coast in this great country, from north to south and from east to west, and we will be behind those festivals. We are also behind so many things that the artists are doing.

I want to go back to the Canada Council for the Arts for one moment. The investment we have made there has increased to $181 million, $13 million of which they are spending on international travel, but the balance remaining, $168 million, is going to artists right here. They are investing it right here, in artists and in arts and culture right here. That is artists helping artists, and our government is standing behind the Canada Council. We are backing them up.

The Bloc is voting against the Canada Council, and I would like to repeat that statement for the people in Quebec, because the Bloc does not run anywhere else. The Bloc has voted against increases in funding for the Canada Council for the Arts. The Bloc Québécois has voted against increases in arts and culture, and it campaigns as a party that supports arts and culture. Well, the Bloc cannot support arts and culture in Quebec and come to Ottawa and vote against funding increases for the Canada Council and so many other things, such as summer festivals. The member should apologize to the arts and culture community in Quebec for consistently voting against its interests.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Bloc Québécois had voted in favour of the budget presented by the Conservatives in this House, a budget that was missing $45 million for artists, I am sure we would not be where we are in the polls today, that is, at 40%. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are at only 10% in Quebec.

Everything he said is true. All the numbers he gave are more or less accurate, but there are gaping holes nonetheless. Artists are missing a portion of their funding, because the Conservative government took it away from them. Artists are missing the financial assistance that allowed them to tour and present their work abroad. In that regard, $7 million is missing: $4 million for PromArt and $3 million for Trade Routes. That is how much money is missing at this time, funding that allowed our artists to tour abroad. There are no existing programs that provide sufficient subsidies to allow them to tour abroad.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to polls in Quebec. I would argue that the polls in Quebec are meaningless. What matters is that the Bloc Québécois is voting against the interests of Quebeckers consistently.

Budget 2009 is good for the people of Quebec in so many ways, not just in arts and culture, but right across the board. There are investments in science and technology and the extension of EI. Who would vote against the extension to EI? The Bloc Québécois did. That is who voted against it.

There is also significant investment in infrastructure, in things that matter, including roads, bridges and sewers. These things will build the future of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois members voted against that, and they stand here trying to confuse the issue, trying to cloud the issue, trying to misrepresent what the government is doing.

The government can stand proud on what it is doing with heritage. It can stand proud on arts and culture, because no government in the history of Canada has ever been more supportive.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in budget 2006, the Conservative government announced $400 million to address the long- and short-term impacts of the pine beetle infestation; to strengthen the long-term competitiveness of the forestry sector in Canada; to support worker adjustment for the changing economy and to build new economies; to expand market opportunities for Canadian forest products; and to identify and address essential skills and adjustments for older and laid-off forestry workers.

Yet, in the same budget year, 2006-07, none of the $400 million was spent. In 2007-08, $112 million was spent. In 2008-09, $74 million was spent. The total spent is about $185 million out of a promised package of $400 million. Since then, things have worsened in the forestry industry not only in B.C. but across Canada.

In the period 2006 to 2008, the forestry industry suffered because of a drop in the U.S. housing construction market. It has suffered because of the poor softwood lumber agreement with the U.S. The Conservative government left $1 billion on the table out of a $4 billion deal negotiated by a Liberal government. The price of lumber dropped 40%. Two hundred and seven mills were closed across Canada and 38,000 jobs were lost in that time.

Pulp and paper companies began to lose money and prices for pulp and paper fell by 20%, during which time the money still was not flowing. Canadian companies lost $529 million U.S. in the final quarter of 2008. Costs and charges came to $292 million in 2008 compared to $30 million the year before. The government sat on its hands and spent only $180 million over two years. A year after the money was promised, nothing had flowed.

Three hundred rural and remote communities in Canada depend on forestry. In those towns, workers have suffered. I can speak specifically to B.C. towns that depended on forestry, such as Mackenzie, where people began to lose their jobs. Fifteen hundred forestry workers depended on that mill for their jobs. When the mill closed, 4,500 people who were depending on getting that money had to wait for it. In the meantime, the government still did nothing. First nations communities in the west that rely on forestry waited for the pledged money. They worried about how to harvest dead wood killed by the pine beetle. They worried about fires in summer. They waited for that economic help, but it did not come.

In the meantime, insult was added to injury. The same B.C. communities of aboriginal people waited for two years to meet with the former minister of natural resources, who himself is a British Columbian. With tens of thousands of lies, $1 billion in infrastructure under threat from the pine beetle and the enhanced threat of wildfires, the chief of the B.C. first nations community said, “Our community needs this funding now”, yet the long-awaited stimulus package did not come until a year later.

What bothers me is the callous disregard shown to the real people whose lives are being damaged and the broken promise, the smoke and mirrors of putting money into a budget only to watch it disappear into some mysterious black hole. That is what galls me the most. The government seems to toy with the lives of people and does not care.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, those are pretty strong accusations.

As I said earlier today, we are saddened by the job losses that have taken place across this country. We are saddened by communities that are under the gun because of those job losses. But mostly, I am saddened when we see people trying to make political gain out of other people's misery. I would suggest that is what is happening again here tonight with the member opposite because I have heard nothing from her over the last year on this file.

I have been on the natural resources committee for a year and a half and I never heard a complaint from her until the last month when she began to think she can start to get some political mileage out of this issue. We heard nothing from her last year when the committee did its work and came up with a unanimous report which contained a number of the issues that the government has adopted in the economic plan of 2009. We heard nothing from her this spring when we were asking for budget input. She said nothing.

I should point out that the community development trust, last year, delivered $120 million to British Columbia for its forestry sector. That is a significant amount of money. Where was she when we were travelling the country this spring? We heard nothing from her on this issue. We are not dealing with this file because of politics; we are dealing with this file because we care.

We have put forward a plan and I am glad to see that she and her party are going to support it, but rather than criticizing us, perhaps she should be promoting what it is we are doing.

I want to talk a bit about the integrated approach that we have toward the forestry sector. It involves workers, technology, markets, companies and communities. I do not think I have enough time this afternoon go to through all of those things, but I will try to touch on a few of them.

In terms of companies, we have made some significant differences. We are providing access to credit. If people had been listening earlier to the debate, they would have heard some of the details. Last year in EDC's portfolio $14 billion out of $80 billion was targeted toward the forestry sector. We have improved work share programs in an attempt to give companies a chance to stabilize themselves and their workforces. We have accelerated the CCA, the capital cost allowance, which was asked of us.

In terms of communities, we provided $1 billion to the community development trust last year. As I mentioned, $120 million of that went to British Columbia. This year there is another $1 billion in the community adjustment fund to help communities deal with the economic situation they find themselves in. We have delivered, as she pointed out, $200 million to deal with the pine beetle situation in communities that have been so devastated by it.

In terms of workers, we provided $8.3 billion for skills training and transition. That includes things like the work share program and the extension of EI benefits. We travelled across this country and asked people what they wanted. One of things they told us they wanted was EI benefits extended. This government listened to those consultations and put that in place.

We have gone around the world trying to develop markets. We put $50 million this year into market development. We put money into future technology. I do not have time to talk about all of that, but one of the great things in place is forest products innovations and the difference that it is making in new technologies.

We have consulted with our stakeholders and listened to the concerns of Canadians. The budget initiatives that we are planning will lead to a strong and competitive tomorrow while looking out for the needs of citizens today.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask, where was this member while the government was travelling in the spring of 2009? B.C. MPs met with the forestry sector communities in British Columbia in the spring of 2008. I personally travelled during the summers of 2007 and 2008 to meet with the people in the communities where the mills were closing down.

I was there. I was there over the last two years, listening and speaking to the people in those communities. In the spring of 2000 I met with the BC First Nations Forestry Council. That is where I learned that it had been trying to meet for two years with the Minister of Natural Resources and could not get a meeting with the B.C. minister.

I am not speaking on my own. This is something that has been going on. We have watched this demise since 2005, when the Liberal government put $100 million into this community. In 2006 the Conservative government promised it and did not do it.

I can tell the member where I was.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the House remembers the complete mess the forestry industry was in when the Conservative government took over. If members are familiar with it at all, they will know that we brought in the softwood lumber agreement, which actually brought stability to this industry.

The member's party across the way was in government for years and could not resolve that issue. It allowed $4.5 billion to $5 billion of Canadian money to be tied up in the United States. It would have been tied up there forever if the Liberals had stayed in power.

The best thing to happen was the Conservative government coming into power. We were able to deal with the softwood lumber agreement. We were able to bring in packages both last year and this year to deal with the forestry crisis. We will continue to work with the industry and other governments. We will get the job done for Canadians and for forestry communities.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 7:23 p.m.)