Raymond Simard

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone undoubtedly knows, I represent a Manitoba riding. When the province of Manitoba was created, francophones and anglophones were essentially equal in numbers, although francophones were the majority at one time. That did not last very long. Anglophones soon surpassed them in numbers and eventually suppressed the rights of the minority for 80 years. As the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst no doubt knows, Georges Forest took matters into his hands and fought all the way to the Supreme Court. He did so with his own money and suffered tremendously as a result.

So, I am astonished that the Prime Minister would rise in this House and say that the court challenges program was a waste of money, that it only went to pay legal fees to Liberal lawyers. I find that entirely unacceptable.

Here is my question for my hon. colleague. Last year, when the Standing Committee on Official Languages voted in favour of Bill S-3, was that a political decision or not? Indeed, how can one vote in favour of Bill S-3, which essentially gives francophones the right to defend their constitutional rights, only to later take away the main tool that allows them to do exactly that? This is my question for the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Literacy, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this morning Literacy Partners of Manitoba announced that the Conservative government cuts are forcing that literacy group to close its doors by summer 2007. The executive director, Lorri Apps, is furious over the comments of the Treasury Board President to the effect that the root cause had to be dealt with rather than fixing the ensuing problem. Furthermore, Raymond Roy told how this program had changed his life outright. He is now a confident individual and a productive member of society.

Does the Treasury Board President really believe that it was not worthwhile “fixing” Mr. Roy.

[Government Programs, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday we asked the President of the Treasury Board about his statement that his government did not wish to allocate funds to adult literacy. He answered by saying, and I quote, “—it is not too much to ask that when people graduate from high school that they be literate”.

My question for the President of the Treasury Board is this: Are we just going to abandon the 22% of Canadians who do not complete their secondary education?

[Government Programs, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the same week the government cut literacy programs, the Prime Minister's wife was out contradicting her husband. It turns out that she was right.

Literacy leaders tell us that the whole coalition is now on life support. Saskatchewan is closing within two months. Yukon is closing within two weeks to a month. Alberta is hanging on by a thread. Newfoundland is in the worst shape of all. In my riding, Literacy Partners of Manitoba will close its doors in March.

When will the government reverse this unconscionable decision?

[Government Programs, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the budget cuts he has made, the President of the Treasury Board described adult literacy as a waste of money.

Studies clearly demonstrate that minority communities are more disadvantaged in terms of literacy.

Plurielle, a group that provides literacy services for these communities, announced today that it was closing nine literacy centres in French-speaking Manitoba.

Will this Conservative government reverse these unacceptable budget cuts?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if it is an opposition member speaking or the cheering section for the Prime Minister , and I am not even sure there was a question.

However, if there is absolutely no possibility of reaching a deal in a reasonable amount of time, why would the Conservatives sign a deal with these people whom they do not trust, whom they do not think would honour any agreement?

The hon. member says that the Conservatives have signed a long term deal with these people, when in fact we all know that there is a clause after two years. The odds are very good that the industry will once again not honour its obligations and probably break its deal with the Canadian industry.

My feeling is that the Conservatives have surrendered this package to the Americans. It does not surprise me. When we think about it, everything else they are doing in every other policy statement is very close to what Mr. Bush is proposing. It does not surprise me one bit that these people would collaborate with the U.S. on this deal. The fact is that most experts do say that we were very close to a resolution. We were probably a year away from a resolution, but what was missing, as I said before, was a package to tide over the industry for another year or so. This has been repeated all over the place.

When I have listened to my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, who have approved the deal, they are doing it with a certain reticence. There is no doubt about that. They do not believe the industry is well served with this deal. I think they also believe, like us, that the industry was forced into it under enormous pressure because of the fiscal needs of the industry in Canada.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, consulting Canadians is never a waste of time. In my experience it has been one of the successes of this party. If anyone is known for being in touch with Canadians, it is the Liberal Party.

With regard to the hearings, my colleague said that maybe it was not appropriate at the time. We consulted the industry and ended up with a $600 million package that was focused on exactly what it needed.

If we are talking about consultation with the industry, we have done it. The $600 million package addressed its needs precisely. If anyone has consulted the industry, it is us.

The fact that the Conservative government would not even offer this option to industry, in the interim, until it probably came to a successful conclusion within a one year period is totally unacceptable.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24, better known as the softwood lumber deal.

From day one, this deal did not feel right to me, from the day the Prime Minister walked into the House in a huff to announce the agreement and then soon after when we saw the incredibly negative industry reaction when all the details were finally exposed. It was, in my opinion, politically motivated. The new Prime Minister of Canada's new government was so anxious to reach a deal at any cost that he was prepared to sacrifice the industry in the process. In his obsession to appear decisive, the Prime Minister seemed prepared to sacrifice one of our most important industries, not to mention the long term viability of the free trade agreement.

NAFTA and WTO judgments had clearly indicated that our industry was not subsidized. Therefore, there was no reason to capitulate on this very important principle. In fact, most experts felt that the U.S. would have exhausted all appeals within a one year period.

What message does this give to other Canadian industries involved in disputes under the free trade agreement? Even worse, what message does it give to the U.S.? Although we were winning decision upon decision on this issue at all levels, the Prime Minister still caved in and essentially sold out the softwood industry.

As members can imagine, the softwood sector is a very competitive sector. The $1 billion that the new government has taken from it and surrendered to its U.S. competitors will create long term hardships beyond belief.

I listened to a Conservative colleague yesterday speak to the fact that once the U.S. returned the $4 billion illegally taken from the industry, many in the forestry industry would be able to reinvest these sums in their businesses. They would be able to buy new equipment and expand for the future. My understanding is that most of the smaller softwood producers are going through extremely difficult times, and expansion is the furthest thing from their minds.

What bothers me, given the reality of the situation, is the $1 billion that these companies will never see and the lost opportunities for these companies to use this money, their money, to reinvest and modernize their facilities and improve their competitiveness in the world market. One billion dollars has been left on the table, wasted, in this most competitive of markets. I am not even talking about the interest on these funds, and I have not heard any answers from our Conservative colleagues on what happened to that interest. From my experience here, it is still a mystery.

Second, and even sadder, is that $500 million of these funds will go to their direct competitors to continue the harassment of our Canadian softwood businesses. It is a terrible precedent to have set, and it opens up the door to other bad decisions in other sectors. The Americans, who have always tested our mettle on these issues to see what we are made of, now know that the government will abandon its industries when the going gets tough.

Members need not take my word for it. Members may know that northern Manitoba has a substantial softwood lumber industry. Chris Parlow, president of the United Steelworkers, Local 1-324, denounced the agreement with the U.S., stating:

[The Prime Minister] has done nothing in this effort to meet with Canadian workers and hear us. What do we have for all our wins at NAFTA, WTO, US Court of International Trade? We have won every stage of this dispute, only to have the US say they won’t recognize the rulings.

Speaking of not supporting our softwood industry, yesterday during debate I heard another Conservative member of Parliament say that we received the best deal possible. There is one element that he forgot to mention, and that is the new government did not offer a temporary aid package, as was provided by the past Liberal government. This aid package, which included $900 million in loan guarantees, was essential in allowing our local softwood businesses to survive in the interim.

We were also committed to $600 million of adjustment measures. I think it is important to explain what these funds were for, since it had been done in close collaboration with industry representatives and focused on their most basic needs. Frankly, we still feel these measures would be necessary under any circumstances even if this flawed deal is passed.

I know my colleague a few minutes ago enumerated these measures, but I they are important enough to repeat. It is an important part of what we had proposed, and it would have allowed the industry to survive on a temporary basis until we received the final decisions from the courts.

We had committed $200 million over two years to enhance the forest industry's competitive position, improve its environmental performance, and take advantage of the growing bio-economy.

We were proposing $40 million over two years to improve the overall performance of the national forest innovation system; $30 million over two years to improve competitiveness of the workforce, promote upgrading of workforce skills and provide assistance to older workers impacted by forestry industry lay-offs; $100 million over two years to support economic diversification and capacity building in communities affected by job losses in the forest industry; $30 million over two years to develop new markets for Canadian wood products; and $200 million over two years to fight the spread of the pine beetle in B.C. forests.

As we see, to add insult to injury, Canada's new government just cut funding to the pine beetle program. If one has been through this area of B.C. in the last little while, one cannot understand this type of logic.

This financial package was intended to carry the industry through while the appeals moved forward.

The previous government and industry stakeholders seemed very confident that the final decisions would favour the Canadian softwood industry. The fact that the Conservatives would not even provide the industry with the option of a temporary aid package is very sad indeed. Without this option, the industry was forced to capitulate and take the deal even if it considered it totally unacceptable.

If the Conservatives were so confident, as they seem to be today, that this is such a great deal, why did they not offer a similar package and allow the stakeholders to decide on whether they wished to take the financial package and wait for a final decision by the panels or take the deal that leaves over $1 billion on the American table? It seems to me this oxygen should have been provided to the industry by the new government, but no, it was take it or leave it. It is quite obvious that the bulk of Canadian businesses accepted the deal while holding their collective noses.

It is wrong. It is a bad deal. It sets a terrible precedent. It leaves over $1 billion in American hands to better compete with our softwood industry and, even worse, to provide the U.S. softwood lobby a huge amount of money to undermine one of the most vital sectors in our country.

For all those reasons, I cannot in good conscience support this deal.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening attentively to my colleague for the last 10 minutes. I agree with him that this bill was brought forth by the previous government. We obviously would encourage it.

One of the comments I have, though, is that the Public Health Agency is headquartered in Winnipeg. Winnipeg is the site of the only level 4 lab in the country. Given that my colleague is from Cape Breton and has always been a huge supporter of ensuring that these institutions do not remain only in central Canada, that they be located outside of Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal, I would like my hon. colleague's comments on, first, the importance of ensuring that it be maintained in Winnipeg and, second, the importance of having these institutions outside of the central capital region.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2006]

I would like him to clear it up for the member's information because it is very important that colleagues on the other side do not misinform Canadians about what is really happening with respect to crime during the last period of time.