Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by our government colleague. It is true that everyone, including the industry, the workers, the provinces and the opposition, supported the government when it negotiated with the Americans.

Yes, the U.S. government did use protectionism against Canada with regard to softwood lumber. The member knows that the Bloc Quebecois would like his government to take active measures to help the companies, the industry and the workers.

I would like to know if my colleague from the Liberal Party agrees with the concrete measures proposed by the Bloc Quebecois to help the industry and its workers.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the secretary of state's speech. He has given us the agenda of the Minister of International Trade for the last few months. I know it because I have followed it closely and so have the workers of my region.

The workers have said, “This is strange because all the provinces and all the industries had co-operated with the Minister of International trade to solve the problem”. They knew the Americans would use their power to impose protectionist measures. They also knew that the Americans had the upper hand and that, if the Minister of International Trade did not assume his responsibilities, did not act as a check and balance to the strength of the American protectionism, we would lose again in this matter. This is what has happened.

As a responsible party, the Bloc Quebecois has suggested an action plan to help industries and workers. In return, you are telling us that the government will look at the situation as it develops and might act in a few weeks. No, today we have suggested a debate—

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

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

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

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

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

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

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

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

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

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

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

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

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

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

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

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

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

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech of the government member. I agree that the U.S. government took an unfair decision on softwood lumber and used its huge power to impose protectionist measures. It did so because it felt strong and supported by the softwood lumber people in the United States.

However, what has this government done? The member gave the background of the dispute, saying that the government understood, that it was going to do this and that. He mentioned economic development corporations and the fact that the government is aware of all this.

However, what has the Canadian government got on the table today? What is it proposing to help our businesses and our workers? I would like to hear the minister on this issue.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance by telling him that there are little cowboys, big cowboys, as well as good and bad cowboys, known as good guys and bad guys. The Americans are behaving like the bad guys.

It is true that the government has not been as proactive on the issue of soft wood lumber as it should have been. What happened was predictable. When answering questions in the House, the Minister for International Trade said, “They will abide by their decision, we almost sure of it”. The government should have sought alternatives.

As my colleague of the Canadian Alliance said, the government waited too much. Instead of being proactive, it chose the wait and see approach. How do you expect us to negotiate with a country such as the United States when we have nothing on the table to convince them that if they do this, we will do that?

The federal government representatives are not good guys. They are little cowboys who do not care about the workers' interests, and act only in their own interests.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Joliette for sharing his time with me during this debate on softwood lumber. I congratulate him on his hard work and fine performance ever since this issue has been with us. This has been a clear message for workers and businesses in Quebec that the Bloc Quebecois is standing up for them. Once again, I congratulate the hon. member for Joliette.

As my colleague just mentioned, the softwood lumber dispute with the Americans has been simmering for a long time. In 1996, the Canadian government accepted voluntary penalties just to prevent any trade dispute with them. But the Bloc Quebecois has always held that these stop-gap measures were not a real solution. We have always stood for the principle of total free trade in softwood lumber with the United States.

Unfortunately, the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled last Thursday to uphold a 27.22% tariff on Canadian lumber. Clearly, this will have a serious impact on jobs in the forest industry throughout Canada and more particularly in Quebec. In Quebec alone, it could cost the industry as much as $550 million a year and result in the layoff of 10,000 workers.

I take the floor today also as the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development. My region, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, will be devastated by this situation. It has 30 lumber plants with a capacity of at least 10,000 cubic meters each. Some 2,452 plant workers and 2,435 forest workers work for them. Therefore, of all the regions in Quebec, mine is by far the one that will be the most severely hit by American sanctions.

This fear is unfortunately justified since, as soon as the temporary sanctions took effect several weeks ago, between 12,000 and 20,000 workers lost their jobs according to Canadian lumber industry estimates. This number could rise to 50,000 if U.S. sanctions become permanent, and there is every reason to believe that they will.

I was extremely sad to hear the international trade minister say that those job losses may not be the result of U.S. sanctions but rather due to a natural restructuring in that sector of our economy. You have to be completely disconnected from reality to say such things. The minister should come to my region.

I remind hon. members that during oral question periods, my colleague from Joliette and other members of my party invited the minister to visit their respective regions to talk with workers in the lumber sector. However, the minister did not even answer nor did he accept the invitation.

The government will wake up to a brutal reality if it tells workers such nonsense. People protested last week. I remind the House that in my region, in the Chicoutimi area, hundreds of workers protested and asked the government to take its responsibilities and help workers and businesses face what the Americans are doing. They protested in the streets and they know full well that if they lose their jobs during the weeks to come it will be solely because of the U.S. surtax if nothing is done.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking, on this opposition day, the government to rapidly implement a program to support, until the end of the conflict, the lumber industry and its workers against the unjustified decision of the Americans to impose a 27.2% tariff on Canadian lumber exports to the United States.

These measures are necessary because, with the inhumane restrictions of the EI system, these people are unable to qualify. The measures are necessary in order to ensure the vitality and economic health of Quebec's regions. Many of these regions depend on this industry alone, which is a source of job creation. In Quebec, 135 towns and villages depend directly on these processing plants.

By doing nothing, the Minister for International Trade is telling us that he could care less about these communities in the remote regions of Quebec, as he so disdainfully referred to them during the last election campaign.

Where I live, in the Lac-Saint-Jean area, there is a ghost town, Val-Jalbert, which shut down its sawmill and is now a tourist attraction. We do not want to see all the towns and villages directly affected by the softwood lumber dispute going the way of Val-Jalbert.

There is no doubt that we must continue to press for a return to free trade. But as Frank Dottori, co-chair of the Free Trade Lumber Council and CEO of Tembec said in October:

We’ve been told by Canadian government officials for the last two months that there is a new will on the part of the U.S. government to settle this dispute more reasonably than in the past. A reasonable observer would surely say that the Americans continue to play the only game they know in trade negotiations: hardball.

Given that the Americans are behaving like cowboys, a negotiated or legal solution is clearly not imminent. The odds are that a settlement is still months or years away.

Softwood lumber workers are in no way responsible for the situation in which they find themselves. So why is the government leaving them to fend for themselves without jobs and without coming to their assistance in what is, after all, an exceptional situation?

What is this government actually doing? The federal government, with the help of the very generous Minister of Human Resources Development, is plundering the EI fund, which belongs to workers and employers.

This year alone, $4 billion will be used for purposes other than helping the country's unemployed. It is time to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's. This EI fund surplus must go to softwood lumber workers who have lost their job.

Knowing that we must help these workers and the regions of Quebec that have been affected by the softwood lumber crisis, the Bloc Quebecois has proposed immediate measures to support them. Why does the Minister of Human Resources Development not use the $700 million available for support measures to provide special incentives for employers to hire workers who have been laid off because of the softwood trade war?

The program proposed by the Bloc Quebecois calls for a six month grant to cover the full salary, which would be given in conjunction with six months of half of the salary and a conditional commitment by the employer to keep the employee for at least another year. These are good suggestions.

Why does the Minister of Human Resources Development not increase by one year the duration of benefits for older workers who cannot be retrained, and are affected by the crisis and awaiting a real support program for older workers?

Why does she not extend the EI benefits by five weeks? If the government does not want to go ahead with our suggestions, then all it has to do is say that they are the product of the fertile imagination of the Minister of Human Resources Development or the Minister for International Trade.

What is most important is that we help the regions of Quebec, because I and all of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois believe in regional development for Quebec. It is neither the workers nor of the regions that are to blame for the softwood lumber conflict. It is up the to Government of Canada to propose solutions to help businesses and workers.

[Highway Infrastructure, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Association des camionneurs artisans and the FTQ, which represent close to 100,000 workers, joined with me in demanding that the federal government respect its commitment to pay its share of the construction costs for highways in Quebec.

The federal government must at last announce investments to build highways 175, 185, 30, 35 and 50, and it must sign the memorandums of agreement prepared by Quebec. Ottawa has no excuse, considering that it will have a budget surplus in excess of $9 billion this year.

For many independent truckers and workers, implementing these projects would make all the difference by the end of the year. During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party pledged to invest $3.5 billion in our highways.

These comments reflect those made on Tuesday by the mayor of Ville de Saguenay, to the effect that the federal government is desperately dragging its feet regarding highways in Quebec, including highway 175.

The money that was promised must be allocated this spring, so that workers can have jobs immediately.