Antoine Dubé

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the member opposite, especially when he said that, in his opinion, the risk of a WTO or NAFTA decision against Canada was minimal. He is almost sure that it would be in favour of Canada. He also admitted that there was a crisis that had to be solved in the meantime.

In the meantime, would he be in favour of government loan guarantees to be repaid, since we will be reimbursed if we win? There are not only big businesses, but also small businesses involved. I would point out to him that, since small businesses are not registered with EDC, we must find another way for them.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the words of the minister, who says he is open to solutions. At the same time, I know that other government members have also said so today.

Concerning the specific issue of the softwood lumber crisis, the Minister of International Trade talks about using existing programs. However, it seems to me that this crisis is particularly urgent and important.

I know that the Minister of Natural Resources, who is from British Columbia, knows this. I do not have to convince him. This is an extremely important and specific crisis, a conflict with the United States, and it is likely that Canada will win at the WTO or under NAFTA.

In the meantime, we must face the situation. Would the minister agree to consider a program or specific measures to deal with this particularly important and urgent crisis?

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member. However, he is asking us to blame the government. But, unless I am mistaken, what the hon. member for Joliette is looking for with his motion—and we can lay the blame on the culprit later on—is a quick solution. We need a solution to a problem that confronts us now.

The hon. member is absolutely right. Other measures should have been taken over the past five years. Instead of just waiting until the end of the five year agreement, the government should have begun sooner. Now that we are faced with the problem, I join my voice to that of the hon. member for Joliette and those of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues in asking for a specific assistance program for that industry, and not some global program that would include other initiatives, with the result that we would never know if it will work or not.

We must make a decision on special measures now. We must do it quickly and make it a priority for this industry.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I almost regret having said nice things about the hon. member, because now he is asking me a difficult question. I must admit that I did not look at the issue from this perspective.

The hon. member is talking about a tax. I hope he does not mean a corporate tax because, in addition to countervailing duties, these companies would indirectly have to add something themselves. I hope this is not what he means.

As for a tax, I would not go so far as to say what someone once told me. Not knowing what to reply, that person blurted out an answer, but the next day it turned out that the answer was completely false. Honestly, I would rather leave that question to the hon. member for Joliette. He is a well-known economist and a former economics teacher. I would not want to answer on his behalf. He will guide us.

However, something must be done quickly. Taxes are usually announced in a budget speech. We must not wait until April of next year for the Minister of Finance to announce some measure to help companies, because the government must provide that help now.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Roberval has just given an excellent speech concerning the regions in his riding in particular.

I shall complete the member for Roberval's response to the question from the secretary of state—whom I thank for asking it—as to what exactly the situation is in Quebec.

For Quebec, this means 250 plants that create work, 35,000 direct jobs in plants or in the forest, 250 municipalities affected, 100% of job creation in 135 towns or villages, and $4 billion injected into the economy. Let us keep in mind that Quebec is the second ranking province affected by the problem, accounting nonetheless for 25% of Canadian production. The expanse of forest In Quebec is bigger than a number of countries, covering 646,000 square kilometers.

In the year 2000, Quebec's softwood lumber production totalled in excess of 17 million board feet. In 2000, Quebec's hardwood lumber production was 1,335,000 board feet. Out of Quebec's total softwood lumber exports, 54.5% goes to the United States, as does 41.9% of its hardwood lumber exports. Exports to the other provinces account for 42.9%. That is the situation.

I am from the Chaudière-Appalaches region, which is opposite Quebec City, across the river, and extends as far as Beauce. It includes Beauce, Lotbinière, Bellechasse, Montmagny and Lévis. This region has 2,000 forest workers and 6,000 plant workers, producing one billion dollars worth of exports to the United States annually. One billion is far from peanuts.

The Secretary of State wondered what exactly the Bloc was proposing. Of course, for the major companies—and there are some big businesses in this field—this would be an extension of what Canada Export and Development could do. It used to be EDC, the Export Development Corporation. It could provide loan guarantees to these major companies. In my region, however, it is mainly the small companies that are affected. Most of them are not registered with this federal agency.

So what we want is to see the companies gain a little time. It could be up to six months. The Bloc is asking for six months of special assistance to the small and medium business sector, until the legal or intergovernmental squabble is over, the discussions that are going on with the United States.

What is needed is a program which could cover up to 50% of the salaries of affected employees. Without this, what will happen? People will have to receive EI benefits. Which would the government prefer? Keep people working, or let them go on EI? We know what will happen. People will go on EI, with all that this means in terms of loss of dignity for those workers affected.

These are the sorts of measures we are proposing. The Bloc Quebecois has put forward a plan, which would take the form of special assistance for at least six months, until the situation becomes clearer. It would cost about $500 or $600 million for all of Canada. As the hon. member for Roberval just said, there is a surplus right now. The government can afford to do something about this crisis.

I would like to add a special note here. In my riding, there are two companies which are directly affected by the softwood lumber dispute. One of them went bankrupt on Friday. These people are going through this situation this week. I need hardly say that I will be trying to find a solution. However, how does one convince a banker to delay payment schedules?

I am going to mention a specific example. I called someone who had to extend a loan or extend his room to manoeuvre.

The person to whom I spoke, whom I will not name here, told me “Yes, Mr. Dubé, you say that you think that there will be a federal assistance program. I have just read the newspaper and the Minister for International Trade said 'Oh, but the difficulties are not just because of the problems of U.S. countervailing duties. It is a natural restructuring phenomenon'”.

The previous day, I had tried to reach this person. Finally, on Thursday, I read in the newspapers what the minister said. “Do not get excited. There is no problem. It is a problem, but there is no real loss of jobs”. In contrast, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association said “Already, 1,800 jobs have been lost and, in the weeks to come, as the duties take effect—which will be May 23—this number will rise much higher”.

Yesterday, I was in my riding and I know that this situation is having an impact on those not directly affected, such as people who work in hardware stores, those who sell lumber, and those who sell it after it is processed, even if only to immediate clients. Even for these folks, it is traumatic.

We see this with banking institutions. I am not talking about large banking institutions, but about those in ridings. They are worried because if a particular caisse populaire makes a loan to a company and it is not paid back, shareholders will be affected.

I quoted figures earlier. There is more than just the 35,000 or 38,000 jobs in Quebec to be considered. The multiplier effect all this has on the economy must be considered. I consulted no economist this morning, but I know there is a multiplier effect of at least four. This is the way it has to been seen. It involves other jobs.

It can also lead to bankruptcies. The bankruptcy of one small business can result in four or five others. In the final month before declaring bankruptcy, the owner alone may be aware of the facts. He is afraid, so he does not pay his latest bills. When he does not pay these bills, others are affected.

In short, Mr. Speaker, I know that you understand the situation very well, because there are people in your riding working in this area. The crisis is much more serious than it first appears. Given the present figures, even though spring has arrived, this sort of thing snowballs and creates an even more serious psychological climate in the lumber sales sector.

Therefore, I congratulate my colleague from Joliette for introducing a motion on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois on this opposition day in order to debate the situation. I thank the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific for his concern over this matter; although international development is his focus, it does not prevent him from being very aware, according to his question, of the concerns of the people in his riding, his region and even people in Quebec or British Columbia.

We have a full blown crisis, a real catastrophe. We must all drop partisanship and appeal to everyone so that an assistance program may be set up quickly and as a priority to enable these people not only to save their companies but also to save jobs and prevent the very serious consequences this could have on regional economy.

In this regard, I wanted to join with the other Bloc members to speak to this debate. I note a sensitivity and a receptiveness, as in the case of the last speaker. I tell myself that on days like today, it is worth speaking in parliament, because people listen and want to act. If they do so, I encourage them to do it quickly.

[Taiwan, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the government majority on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs rejected a motion in support of Taiwan's request to be admitted as an observer to the World Health Organization. And yet, Taiwan is an important transit point for travellers entering or leaving Asia.

Given the high risks of an epidemic because of the large number of travellers, and the expertise which Taiwan has developed in the health sector, will the government support its request to be allowed observer status in the World Health Organization?

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

In closing, it does not matter if you like beer or not. The microbrewery industry is an integral part of the Quebec, Canadian and regional culture in other provinces and it absolutely must be protected. That is what I wanted to do, like others.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak in this debate. When we ran in the last three elections as Bloc Quebecois MPs, we made a commitment to defend the interests of Quebec. The interests of Quebec sometimes coincide with those of Canada. This is the case for the microbreweries, because there are some outside Quebec. My concern today is to defend the interests of Quebec's microbreweries.

When we travel to other countries, we always want to try products that are typical of the country we are visiting. We do not necessarily want to have things we could get here. The same thing goes, I imagine, for people from elsewhere when they come to a province, to Quebec, or a specific region of Quebec. They want to taste something typical.

I remember my days as executive assistant to Jean Garon, Minister of Agriculture at the time. He was interested in regional cuisine. For me, beer is sort of linked to regional cuisine, because there are beers that are typical of a region as well. People want to experience the differences, want to see a variety of products, want to choose and encourage local products, first of all for their own pleasure but also to encourage the microbreweries.

As Quebecers, whether we are from one region or another, when we tour various regions, as many of my colleagues do, we always try to see what is specific to a given region in Quebec.

Five years ago, there were 21 microbreweries. We can say that in nearly every region in Quebec except maybe downtown Montreal and downtown Quebec City, there was a microbrewery, a beer produced by a microbrewer we could drink and appreciate.

At the same time, there is no need to go somewhere else. You can consume a product without having to go somewhere, and appreciate its regional flavour and the flavour of the region.

This industry could have flourished, but in view of the current situation made to stay by this bill overlooking, neglecting this sector, even those who felt like starting a microbrewery are giving up today. They are giving up because of the deplorable action of this government who is ignoring this sector.

I want to congratulate and thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and also the member for Drummond who did such a fantastic job in the Standing Committee on Finance and the caucus over the past few weeks, especially after what happened recently at the Standing Committee on Finance. They brought the matter to our attention because they followed the work of this committee closely, in this instance we could say the lack of work of certain members of the committee since the chair of the committee decided unilaterally that it would not be dealt with.

I want to congratulate both my colleagues because they really brought the matter to the attention of the Bloc Quebecois caucus as a whole so that we could study it. We saw the impact it could have. Since then, we all have heard from people who told us about their concerns and the consequences this could have.

There is something I would like to stress in particular, namely parliamentary democracy. Last week, I heard my colleagues ask questions in the House nearly on a daily basis.

I took the constant repetitions as purely insulting. Some said: “Well, there is no problem, there is no conflict of interest, there is not even an apparent conflict of interest given that neither microbreweries, breweries, or beer will be affected”. What a misleading way to answer, when we asked for and are still asking for beer to be included. The answer is still: “No, no, there is no conflict of interest. It is not in the bill”.

Well, I heard my colleagues, the hon. members for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot and for Drummond, at second reading. They were both in agreement. The Bloc Quebecois agreed to a modernized Excise Tax Act. This was discussed a long time ago. We then said to ourselves: “At last, here is positive legislation. Something will be done”. The bill was agreed to in principle at second reading. But, through some twisted procedure at committee, we learned that beer was excluded.

There is another aspect. Microbreweries in Canada and in Quebec—because they are both in the same situation—will not be treated the same as foreign microbreweries which have been bought up by big breweries in Canada and Quebec. We all want what is fair. This is patently unfair. Elsewhere in the world—we could name various countries—, in the United States for instance, the tax is 9¢ a hectolitre instead of 28¢.

Under the present rules, the United States, as well as WTO, recognize that an exception can be made for microbreweries. That is how it works in Europe. However, in the case of our neighbour to the south, with which we do the most trade, we realize that they are finding a way around this and we see microbreweries shutting down every month, so that now only about a dozen are still operating, according the hon. members for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot and for Drummond.

We are today sounding the alarm in order to save those microbreweries. Members of the Bloc Quebecois are therefore expressing their solidarity with those owners, the people working at that level. We do not necessarily have something against big breweries, but we must speak up against the unfair treatment given to microbreweries. We are standing up today in solidarity with the nine or ten remaining microbreweries, even if there is no such brewery in my immediate area, Chaudière-Appalaches.

There was one in Beauce, but it is now closed. We have not heard the member for Beauce on that subject in the House. Like my colleague, the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, I am puzzled by the silence of the Quebec Liberal members who, normally, should also defend Quebec's interests, although in this particular instance, they have not uttered a single word.

However, members from other provinces of Canada are also not defending their region, are not speaking up in the House. I have not heard a single one today. I am not talking about those who are absent. I am talking about those who made statements.

Right now, only Bloc Quebecois members are defending the interests of microbreweries. It clearly shows that the Bloc Quebecois is committed to the interests of Quebec.

Some people criticize us because we talk about sovereignty. We did not talk about sovereignty today. We talked about important Quebec interests that could be settled through federal legislation. Sadly, we note that Liberal members and, up to a point, the other parties who should follow on our example and defend the interests of small businesses like microbreweries, are not doing that. It is sad.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech. He is directly involved, because people in his riding work at the Boisbriand plant.

I come from the Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière area and I also feel concerned, as does the member for Charlevoix, because there are several subcontractors in our regions, particularly in Beauce. This also shows how important a large job creating business can be in other sectors.

As the member for Laurentides mentioned earlier, it is all well and good for GM to say that jobs from subcontracting will be maintained in Quebec, but if there is no large business acting as the drive force and raison d'être for subcontractors, this will have dramatic consequences.

I pointed out earlier that the level of insecurity for GM workers was high. The same is true for workers of a shipyard in my riding. This is why I want to show solidarity with the members from the Basses-Laurentides region.

I am so involved, and I do not know if all the members are, that I will share a personal anecdote with the House. I have bought a GM car, precisely to show how important this is. But if GM were ever to go—this is not a threat, and is not intended as one either—it would be unfortunate. However, I consider this as a proof of solidarity.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member for his work and ask him to elaborate further on the impetus large businesses give small businesses.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, before his last reply, I was prepared to congratulate the hon. member for his speech, particularly his openness to the Bloc Quebecois proposal concerning this morning's motion. I am less thrilled about the response his colleague invites him to share in concerning stability.

I would like to remind hon. members of the Bombardier investments in Dublin, Ireland. This is not exactly a place one could describe as having the greatest political stability, yet its economy is growing at an amazing rate. This is now one of the leading countries in Europe as far as investments are concerned.

In the region of the hon. member, for whom I have the greatest respect, there is no problem of political instability, yet he himself reports there are economic problems. How, then, can he explain his colleague's question?

Despite the threatened loss of jobs at GM, this quarter saw Quebec in the lead in Canada as far as investments and job creation were concerned. In the hon. member's region, where there is no political instability, there are many problems. How can he explain this?