Ken Boshcoff

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today I received yet another letter from an organization that has been axed to death by the minority con government, the summer work student exchange program. One would think that summer employment for students would be as high a priority for the government as it has been for the past 12 years.

In my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, as it is with many similar ridings that have medium sized cities along with many smaller communities, we have been hit hard by the cuts to the students, student summer work, literacy, the environment, wind energy, agriculture, economic development, minority groups, volunteers, aboriginals, tourism and heritage.

Let me be clear. It is a very good thing that the government has listened to people and has restored funding to museums. There are several museums from Thunder Bay on Lake Superior to communities such as Chapple near the Manitoba border. Oliver Paipoonge, Hymers, Founders, the Northwestern Ontario Sports Hall of Fame, Atikoken and Fort Frances are some of the communities that have plans that would have been hurt by the incompetence of those cuts.

Just last week in Fort Frances, when I spoke at a dinner in appreciation of those of Ukrainian heritage, many of those citizens reminded me that it was the NDP that supported the Conservatives. The people of northwestern Ontario also blame the NDP for the jobs lost and plants closed because the Liberal forestry package of $1.4 billion was not implemented. The NDP now talks about the forest industry but everybody who works in that sector knows that it was the NDP that stabbed them in the heart.

It is probably easier to list the damage that this unholy alliance has caused.

First, these include cuts to literacy, when more money is needed, and the Prime Minister's wife asked for money the day after $18 million was slashed from the budget, amazingly harpercritical.

Second, the lowering of every old age security cheque because the Conservatives raised taxes for the poorest in the nation.

Third, the elimination of the visitors' GST rebate is yet another blow to tourism in northwestern Ontario and, indeed, all of Canada will suffer.

Fourth, the damage to community and household environmental groups such as EnerGuide. I can only restate and reiterate my call for the reinstatement of this program. I truly hope the Minister of the Environment is listening to Canadians at the field level, in the communities and in their households who know this program was working so well.

Fifth, the court challenges program helped the disabled and other minorities and now, as a source of dissent, it has been snuffed out.

Sixth, the chainsaw massacre of FedNor's budget by $6.4 million is yet another example of the NDP-Conservative alliance hurting northern Ontario. This part of the nationwide maliciousness of $40 million lost to regional development will hurt our economy in all parts of the country.

Seventh, the leaders of my urban aboriginal communities and those of the 11 first nations I represent are also outraged by the abandonment of the Kelowna accord.

Eighth, the students of Lakehead University and Confederation College are furious at the spiteful way in which the student jobs, which are so vital to the furthering of their education, have been butchered.

Ninth, is another letter, this time from the Fort Francis Volunteer Bureau, stunned by the words of the Conservative government that volunteerism is “not a priority for Canadians”. That is a quote directly from their letter. I believe that everybody shares my amazement at the disregard and disdain for volunteerism shown by the government.

Tenth, northwestern Ontario lost 400 early learning and child care spaces thanks to the loss of the program. For us, for those communities throughout the north, it affects us dramatically. It may not seem like a lot to some people, but for a community to lose 25 or 30 spaces where there were only 35 or 40, it makes a horrendous difference in terms of parents being able to go to work and actually help the local economies.

Eleventh, for the record I believe the people of Canada were astounded that the NDP members again supported the Conservatives when they voted against our motion that would have restored support to those groups and organizations that are out there helping Canadians on a daily basis.

The motion stated:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government inherited the best economic and fiscal position of any incoming federal government and has not demonstrated the need, value or wisdom of its announced expenditure cuts which unfairly disadvantage the most vulnerable groups in Canadian society.

That is what happens to an organization such as a literacy group in a small community. A cut of $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 may seem small but in many of these situations each and every one of those groups, whether it is environmental literacy or just plain trying to help their community in volunteerism, that amount of money pulled out of the equation is carnage. It hurts organizations and in fact kills them because they cannot leverage additional funds. It may mean the loss of a part time person but more often than not it will actually end the organization's ability to get funding from the provincial government, private sectors or others. It is the abandonment of federal commitments to people who need it.

This is what is really disturbing. Things work in small communities. As I travel through my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, which has 11 first nations and 16 municipalities, and that is just one riding in northern Ontario and one of dozens in the nation across this country, each time one of those cuts hits someone, something collapses. Something is withdrawn from the community and someone is hurt, which means that those people who were helping can no longer help the many people they were helping.

Let us look at the letter from the Fort Frances Volunteer Bureau which recognized the tremendous assets that volunteers provide. In most communities in the nation, volunteers are the wheels that keep our country going. Indeed, in communities such as that, that douses the flames of community spirit.

I would use the community of Atikokan as an example. It came fifth out of several hundred, if not thousands, of Canadian communities that applied to be Hockeyville. The volunteerism and spirit that I saw there was absolutely amazing and inspiring. Indeed, that happens in every community all across this country every hour of every day.

We have great people who believe in the future and who give of themselves. Whether it is in a museum or helping people learn to read and write, it is a fundamental aspect of our society. For me literacy has long been an issue that is dear to my heart.

Organizations tell me that they need more money. They say that they do not need lot, that they just need enough to keep going so they can give people the tools they need to relate to others, to read and write and to participate fully in society. When $17 million or $18 million is taken out of one program like that and the money is divided into a few thousand dollars across the country, we see the difference. We see these little things implode. People wonder why the government is no longer caring about them and helping them. They thought the purpose of government was to give them assistance when they needed it. They do not ask for much.

People should see the facilities out of which many of these organizations operate. They are not on the 17th floor on Bay Street. They scrounge telephones, fax machines and use computers that are years old. They do what they must do because they believe in helping others.

We had a chance to do something but the vote was lost in the House of Commons. I am only encouraged by the fact that the government has at least recognized the museum component of it because many small projects across the country would have been devastated. Can we have EnerGuide back? Can we have literacy back? I believe those are the things that Canadians all over the country are not only asking for but are demanding.

[Ukrainian Literary Society, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the men and women of the Fort Frances Ukrainian Literary Society have been the source of learning and light not only for Ukrainian families but also for the entire Fort Frances community and surrounding area. They have displayed exemplary dedication in helping to preserve Ukrainian culture through the offering of high quality Ukrainian food, dance, music, theatrical performances and fellowship at the Prosvita for the past 78 years.

The people of the Fort Frances area and Rainy River district have greatly benefited from the contributions of the Ukrainian Literary Society. Of particular note is 97 year old Walter Andrusco, whose guidance, wisdom and instruction in Ukrainian dance, language and song has been an invaluable legacy to the people of Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I trust that all members of Parliament will join me in thanking the Fort Frances Ukrainian Literary Society for their many years of service to the people of Canada.

[Petitions, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, signed by the residents of my riding, calling upon the Prime Minister to make energy conservation and the environment a priority and to re-enact the currently suspended programs. We know that EnerGuide has lost about 100,000 homes that could have been energy efficient at this time because of it.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 24th, 2006]

I do not think anybody in Canada has ever seen such a totalitarian approach to eliminating democracy.

I get correspondence, faxes, letters, calls and emails from western Canadian farmers saying that they will never again vote for the Conservative Party because of this method. I have the correspondence and it is a delight to me, but it is still scary to see this still being carried through. The western Conservative MPs are not returning their phone calls. They are not responding to their constituents. Why? Because they know that this is a railroad and they are embarrassed and ashamed, and they should be.

When I go to Winnipeg and talk to people at the Wheat Board, when I receive correspondence and call the farmers back, they give me the straight goods. I do not understand why the government will not accept this message: stop fiddling, stop destroying, stop dismantling. The government has done enough damage. It should do what is right and let the farmers decide.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pulling on the thread of stability means the seam of prosperity the Wheat Board provides will be destroyed.

Bill C-300 has, as its hidden intent, the goal of dividing and conquering, which would lead farmers to go head to head against the multinational corporations. Can anyone Imagine individual farmers competing directly with international cartels for rail cars?

It has been said that the bill would do in 12 weeks what the Americans have been trying to do for 12 years: destroy the Wheat Board.

The farmers of Canada have questioned, what? First, the CWB and then supply management. It is not far-fetched to assume that this is the logical progression. There is definitely a hidden agenda at play.

Ken Larsen writes:

Two American firms (Cargill and Tyson) slaughter and package 90% of Canada's beef. A handful of millers process wheat into flour. Three grocery chains control over 70% of the retail grocery market. These giant companies are the customers that thousands of individual farmers must deal with to sell their product.

The now chronic farm income crisis is largely a manifestation of this imbalance between the thousands of farmers and the handful of giants they have to deal with. Compared to these giants, there is no such thing as a large farm. Due to the limitations of technology and biology, it is essentially impossible to create a sustainable farm that can bargain on an equal footing with these giant corporations.

This arrangement gives farmers bargaining power to negotiate freight and handling with the railways on the 350,000 or so grain cars which go to the west coast each year. A customer like the CWB has more negotiating power with the railways than a farmer shipping six or even 50 cars of grain to port.

The latest attempt to weaken this marketing power of farmers is Bill C-300. It is another attempt by the agri-business sector and its lackeys to take a greater share of the economic pie from those whose powers are the weakest, the farm producers.

Independent economic studies have demonstrated that the Canadian Wheat Board is worth an extra $2 million per day to western farmers. As one prominent farm writer said of Bill C-300, “Apparently innocuous to the uninformed, Bill C-300 will deliver up the CWB's head on a platter to the concentrated American wheat lobby, led by multinational grain interests”

Ken Ritter, a farmer and chair of the CWB, said it best:

...the ability to attract premiums and the strength to go toe-to-toe with the world class heavyweights in the grain industry - are predicated on the single desk. So the notion that you can have a "dual market" with a strong, effective CWB alongside the lack of restrictions that come with the open market is quite simply misguided. It can't work. The second the CWB is voluntary, the single desk disappears and with it, the benefits I have just outlined.

Recently we talked about the flexibility of the Canadian Wheat Board and the fact that the board can adapt as necessary is indicative. One of the three newest initiatives, the delivery exchange contract, will provide farmers with increased flexibility in how they manage their deliveries and their cashflow needs throughout the crop year. The second initiative is a pilot program for marketing organic grain in partnership with the Canadian Organic Certification Co-operative Ltd. The third initiative is a series of enhancements to farmers to contract their durum wheat for delivery throughout the CWB.

The overriding message with respect to Bill C-300 is that without discussing the merits or de-merits of the bill we believe any major changes to the manner in which western grain is marketed or processed must be a decision by the farmers affected and that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should take those proposals to the board and seek the endorsement of producers through a fair plebiscite.

We oppose the bill not for what it does, but because of the means used to change the relationship of western grain farmers to the Canadian Wheat Board. Normally we consider private members' bills as free votes in the House but it is my contention, along with many others on this side of the House and other parties, that this is nothing more than a stalking horse for the Conservative government in an ideological vendetta. This would undermine and ultimately dismantle the Wheat Board.

In effect, it attempts to circumvent the process by which the board of directors of the Wheat Board, the majority of whom are producers and are elected by producers, is consulted and required to vote on these proposed changes. The problem is that farmers, through a plebiscite on a straightforward and honest question, will decide their own future. The question must be simple and unambiguous: Do you or do you not support the single desk selling feature of the board? It is a straightforward yes or no.

Bill C-300, although short in length, could have a very serious and long term negative impact upon our western grain producers. This is absolutely high-handed, anti-democratic and truly a railroad of the lowest order. Never before in the history of the Canadian farmer has any government deliberately attempted to destroy the farmer's ability to profit and succeed.

This will also prove disastrous for ports such as Thunder Bay, the one I represent in Thunder Bay—Rainy River, as it will for Churchill, Montreal and even Vancouver, because when it is decided to send the wheat south, what else will go south? Not only will the marine industry, the headquarters and the research capabilities go south, but will the Vancouver grain industry move to Seattle? Likely. Will Winnipeg and all its research and development capabilities move to Minneapolis or St. Paul? Highly likely.

What we are doing here is unravelling the thread, essentially condemning western Canada to a demise. We are putting its farmers essentially at the whim of a market where they have to compete against people and corporations international in scope with all the effective marketing skills they have.

When we talked about the dilution of this, it not only affects those ports, but it also affects the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system and indeed, the internal marine economy of North America. It will certainly have detrimental effects on Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Windsor and Toronto. We can name them as we go down the St. Lawrence Seaway; they will all be affected detrimentally.

It is easy to say we can do one thing with the bill, that this is only to affect one part of it, but when it destroys the railway system, when it destroys the producer network, when it destroys the grain elevator system, that will all have a horrendous impact on the Canadian economy. It is interesting to see that some people just do not care what those impacts will be because of their ideological perseverance, but it will hurt and it will hurt big time.

When we talk about the people we represent, in my riding truly the port and the railways are most affected, but so are the grain elevators, the grain companies and the hundreds of people who work there. Western Canada will also be extremely detrimentally affected. I have actual proof from farmers. I have no idea who they are or what their political background is, but it is highly likely that they did not vote for my party in the last election, but they will the next time because of this highly undemocratic way--

[Bulgaria, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in Parliament to speak to the fact that each year approximately 2,000 Bulgarian citizens apply for Canadian visas. In the past 15 years over 20,000 Bulgarians have immigrated to Canada.

However, there is currently no Canadian embassy in Bulgaria. As a result, citizens of that country are required to journey over 400 kilometres to Bucharest, Romania to arrange documentation. It is a 12 hour return trip. Clearly, this situation should be rectified.

We must show our support for the large number of Bulgarians wishing to make Canada their home. This Parliament must also recognize the needs of Bulgarian Canadians. We need to establish a permanent embassy in Bulgaria's capital, Sofia, as soon as possible.

I am now asking the Prime Minister to address these concerns. Bulgaria will join the European Union on January 1 and we should have a Bulgarian ambassador in Canada shortly.

[Petitions, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition containing 119 names. The petitioners want to protect children from sexual predators.

The petition comes from various people throughout my riding which extends from the Manitoba border to Lake Superior, a wide range of territory.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer that directly because I really tried to believe that the government would be honest and forthright in addressing the flaws and deficiencies. I could never have expected it to be so punitive to Canadian companies that it would actually put in a 19% surcharge that would put many of them into bankruptcy.

I really wanted to believe, in supporting our companies and trying to keep the jobs going in northwestern Ontario, that if our companies were on their knees and just had to accept this because they had no other choice, that somehow those flaws, deficiencies and shortcomings would truly be addressed.

As I studied the agreement, after it finally came to us a week ago in terms of the ways and means motion, as to what it actually said, I was still trying to help the companies, the people who work for them and those communities. I could not believe that the government would deceive us so blatantly. I really wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt that it would be doing something good for northwestern Ontario.

Point after point has been made, not only in today's debate but over the past few days, and I know that for the future, should we accept his very substandard agreement, it will end up hurting northwestern Ontario more than the previous deal that would have been negotiated.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, members of Parliament well know that when we are engaged in negotiations we cannot simply throw in the towel just to end them and say that we have a deal and it is over. When we know we are entitled to 100% of the duties and they are collected illegally, then we should get them all back. That is the direction in which we are heading. We should certainly get interest and a fair exchange on the dollar. We know those have fluctuated over the past five years.

Rather than simply surrendering and saying that we have a deal, people know that the big loss is 20% of operating costs over the past five years. If they are entitled to receive it back, why should they not get it back? Why should they have to live in fear that they are now financing all the litigants, all the people who represented the American lumber lobbyists, such as the lawyers? We have established a fund for them of half a billion dollars for the next number of years so whenever they choose to dishonour this agreement or cause some kind of disruption they can do it and be so well financed that Canadian companies would never be able to compete again. We have given them half a billion dollars to hit us whenever they want to.

When we talk about logic in terms of the deal, those of us not only in northwestern Ontario but all over the country now understand that the flaws are so magnified that they are of concern. The double whammy, the anti-circumvention and the problems that will happen with regional energy pricing, all of those still have not been addressed satisfactorily. With all of those things adding up they will cause unbelievable problems, not only for the industry but the downturn in the American housing market and the penalties assigned by ourselves will be beyond comprehension. That is the fear that I am representing for the companies, the workers and the communities in northwestern Ontario that want to keep going.

We still have had no satisfactory answer with respect to what happened to the $1.4 billion that would have essentially, through loan guarantees, modernization and environmental assistance, kept those companies going. Several of them would still be operating had that fund been utilized by the current government.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed softwood lumber deal will affect my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River and the entire region of northwestern Ontario in many adverse ways. The constant shifting position of the Prime Minister has caused much confusion about just what it is we are voting for or against.

When the minority government announced an agreement in late April, the severe flaws were to have been addressed. When the minority government re-announced the deal in July, it claimed the deficiencies had been addressed. When the Prime Minister announced in late August that the agreement was concluded and all deficiencies corrected, many of us in northwestern Ontario felt then that we could possibly support the deal. When the largest forest products company in northwestern Ontario, Buchanan, announced that it would reluctantly sign on, many of us questioned that reluctance, but we were prepared to do what we had to do for our region. Then at the international trade hearing, it became painfully apparent that few of the very major concerns for Thunder Bay—Rainy River would ever be satisfied.

Softwood companies all across the country are on their knees financially and need the cash flow. They could have been supported by the previous government, with a $1.4 billion forestry package, which many of us in northwestern Ontario as MPs worked so hard to achieve. That would have given our companies the loan guarantees to keep them going as we won each of the key dispute panels. However, no, the NDP joined with the Conservatives to destroy the forestry package. Northwestern Ontario rightfully blames the NDP and knows that it is largely its fault that it does not exist now. Then after the election the minority government would not give that $1.4 billion to help the forest industry carry through this fight to a clear victory. The money was there to help. We should remember that those $5 billion in tariffs were illegal. Yet only 80% of that may be returned. It is not what people in Canada think is a fair deal.

Point after point has been made outlining the many flaws and deficiencies. Somehow they combine to be an outright sellout. Still, I have been prepared to hold my nose and support the deal for our workers, for their families, for our communities, for the industrial suppliers and for the companies large and small.

As my constituents are frustrated, so am I at the government's changing of these rules and negotiating positions. Now that the actual motion has been presented and we see what it actually says, on principle, I must now vote against the deal. The motion spends more words punishing Canadian companies than it does trying to achieve a positive agreement.

The Bloc's votes will ensure that the government deal will pass. After it does, I will not do anything to hold up the flow of funds to those companies that need them to stay solvent, even if the deal passes without our positive amendment. However, it is clear that the unprecedented and atrocious bullying of Canadian companies by a 19% surcharge, one that would force many into bankruptcy, is just a shameful move by the Prime Minister in collaboration with President Bush.

Why would a minority government try to bankrupt Canadian forest companies? It is unbelievable in a democratic nation. Enough is enough, and I know many share that this is not what they thought they could support.

Then there is a bizarre double whammy that will occur if there is a downturn in the American housing economy. We will lose market share and then be further penalized by additional tariffs. This current deal is not even half as good as the deal the previous government was close to concluding.

As members can see, I have been doing my best to support what is best for the people of my riding. In the hearings at international trade committee, I watched the partisan giddiness of the government members, who blindly assumed that this was some kind of fantastic win for Canadians. We all know now that it is far from that delusion. It is especially flawed by the two year window that leaves northwestern Ontario very vulnerable to American lumber lobbyists. I am fearful that the damage will get even worse in the next two years. What then of those workers, their families, industrial suppliers, the communities in which they live? I will continue to work to ensure those companies will still be around.

If there are so many doubts, and there always have been in these long years of negotiations, then even those who want me to support the government will realize that we are only hurting ourselves. There is still, believe it or not, no package to help companies. Take it or leave it, the Prime Minister says. I could have supported a deal if there were at least some commitment by the government to help. Instead the coercion is beyond measure and will not help obviously.

The people of Thunder Bay—Rainy River certainly support their industries. When the industry says that they will take 80%, but will not delay further any payouts even though there is no dispute mechanism if a Canadian company does not get all it feels it should. They have no recourse. Canadian forest companies can get further illegally hit by millions of dollars without recourse. There are no appeals for those disputes.

As people understand these things, they still want federal support for forestry, not a misguided submission to President Bush. The previous $1.4 billion would have saved hundreds of jobs in Thunder Bay—Rainy River. It will forever be the marked shame of the NDP for abandoning Canadian forest companies as will the current minority government for not utilizing that $1.4 billion available to help our softwood and forest industries.

I stand firm in my commitment to standing with our workers, our families and our communities. Indeed, there is a way we could all support the bill should the amendment pass. Then the House could make it unanimous. It is similar to when people want to buy a car and fully intend to buy it, but when they get to the car lot to buy the car, the tires are flat. Because they said they would buy a car, would they buy it because they said they would, even though the conditions have changed?

I asked government members if now that they know the tires are flat on this deal, would they sign it? There are so many flaws, not only with the car, but with everything about it, that there is ample room for them to consider. The amendment would at least help the government get out of this.

Regarding the second part on punitive measures, of which there are far too many for a democratic nation, we always have to ask ourselves, why would we do this and hurt Canadian companies so badly?

In my region and riding, as we go from company to company, we realize that it is not only the softwood companies that are affected. The pulp companies, the paper companies, those companies that deal in forest products are interdependent and they need each other. They are affected as well. That is why the forest package of November was meant to be across forest products assistance. The amendment would ensure that we would not condone further illegal conduct, that we would get the remaining billion dollars back and have open access for Canadian producers.

The government should be supporting and showing concern for our Canadian forest products. By eliminating the punishment and the big stick, it would show that it wants to help Canadian forest products and the softwood lumber industry. With the amendment, we can get all that done and achieve what we intend to do, and that is to support free trade and a lumber agreement that will work in the best interests of Canadians, sustain jobs, remove barriers and ensure fair access to the American market.

It does not take much education for people to understand that there are many factors involved simply besides this deal such as the value of our dollar and the cost of energy. When we in northwestern Ontario talk about the cost of energy, we have worked with the province of Ontario for a fair energy policy, or regional pricing some may call it. With the anti-circumvention clause in the agreement, support for our industry in northwestern Ontario would be lost or could be essentially appealed and overruled by the American interests.

I use that illustration for the members of Parliament here to understand how badly flawed this agreement is and some of those things that will affect us directly still have not been addressed.

It is not the best deal possible. It is far less than what we had before. We know now that if we go forward without these amendments, within the next two-year period we will be back in the same place and we will have financed with a half a billion dollars. That will pay lot of lawyers firms for a lot of years to work against Canadian interests.

I am appealing to the government to stop and slow down, take this amendment under consideration and realize that we can have a positive bill, that we can do this well and that we can come away with an agreement that allows Canadians to hold their heads up high.