Alexandra Mendes

[Business of supply, October 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat that the Liberal Party voted against the agreement submitted to Parliament. We voted against it.

[Business of supply, October 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. The government's inaction with respect to the forestry industry has been disastrous.

There was absolutely no initiative to help the industry when it would have made a difference. Obviously the decisions of the international court in London have made it even worse for the whole of the industry.

The Bloc motion is asking the government to open its heart or its finances to help the industry at this very crucial moment.

[Business of supply, October 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I cannot speak for the minister or try to define her concept of stability. It is clear that an industry that has lost 20,000 jobs in the past three years is not a stable industry. It is an industry that continues to see entire communities disappear, or just about. I do not really see where stability comes into the picture. It is certainly not in support for the industries in terms of loan guarantees or loans. I do not know what her concept of stability is.

[Business of supply, October 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's support, but perhaps he was not in the House the day the agreement was adopted. The Liberal Party voted against the softwood lumber agreement and the Liberal Party has always been against that agreement. We do not support it and we maintain that the agreement does not benefit the industry. It could not be any clearer.

[Business of supply, October 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question as such in what the member said, but he is right about what I was referring to with respect to smaller communities.

There is more than softwood lumber per se involved. All the supporting industries, including private woodlots, need this support. I am totally in favour of extending loans and loan guarantees to them as well, but they must have access to competitively priced loans that they will be able to repay.

[Business of supply, October 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to this motion. This motion addresses a long overdue concern and it is certainly required in light of the government's lack of action.

To begin, I wish to get right to the point and confirm that the Liberal Party will be supporting this motion. This issue is too important to be indecisive about and to try to play politics when the viability of a whole national industry is at stake.

We must act immediately to provide the necessary resources to safeguard the thousands of jobs and expertise that the forestry industry provides our country. The government must understand that blaming world markets and sitting pretty, as it has done throughout the forestry crisis, is not the way a governing party should run our country.

Enough of blaming others. Enough of playing politics. The time to act is now. This motion provides a clear directive.

I received a copy of the motion and reviewed it carefully. Two things jumped out at me. The first is that this motion is good for Quebec. Of course, that is not surprising, as it is a Bloc Québécois motion.

As a member from Quebec, I am always looking out for my province's best interests, and this motion and its directives would most certainly help our forestry industry. The second thing that struck me was that this motion is manifestly good for Canada.

I do not think the Bloc members had this intention in mind when they drafted it, but this motion is helpful for all of Canada.

Mainly because the forestry sector is entrenched throughout the country, every corner of Canada is affected by this industry. It is one of the four founding industries of our country. It is hard to think of a Canada without a forestry industry.

As a country, we pride ourselves on natural resources. With the second largest land mass in the world, it is easy to see why. So, it is no surprise that our forestry industry is a cornerstone of our past, present and hopefully future economic greatness.

The Liberal Party understands this. The Liberal Party has tried to look at the long-term success of this industry, but the party opposite has consistently thrown roadblocks at these attempts.

On November 24, 2005, the Liberal government, together with forestry industry stakeholders, announced a concrete plan for the forestry sector known as the forest industry competitiveness strategy, with a budget of $1.5 billion over five years. The strategy included $215 million to develop new technologies to improve competitiveness, $50 million to develop bioenergy and cogeneration capability, $90 million to support forestry innovation and value-added products, $66 million to grow wood markets, $10 million to enhance professional skill levels in the forestry sector, $150 million to support economic diversification in communities that rely on the forestry industry, $800 million in loans to help forestry companies be more competitive, and $100 million in loans to help small businesses in the forestry sector.

When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, they tossed the plan out. Now Canadian forestry workers are paying the price for that decision. Instead of investing in improving technology, skills and competitiveness to strengthen the industry and save jobs, Canada is now losing tens of thousands of jobs. Canada has lost 20,000 forestry sector jobs since the Conservatives came to power.

These job losses and lack of vision on the part of the Conservative government hurt more than just the forestry industry. They hurt the people in the communities who rely on the forestry sector to survive. This is why we are here today. We are here to help the people, families and communities that rely on this industry throughout Canada for their very survival and future growth.

If we look back at the TV coverage of those critical days during the automotive collapse, the cameras often focused on the hard-working men and women walking out of the factories with long faces of despair and worry. It made a great 30 second clip on the 6 o'clock news. Now, do not get me wrong. I am not saying that the automotive industry was not in crisis and that it did not require government intervention. What I am saying is that the same thing is happening in the forestry sector. However, no one has brought to light the worried and concerned faces of the thousands of men and women facing this terrifying and unnecessary loss of a way of life.

These small rural communities do not attract the attention of the big television networks, and all we hear about are big companies that are trying to restructure financially in order to stay afloat. Small family-owned businesses and community forestry operations need our help, and they need it now.

Many people living outside these communities do not even realize that if the forestry industry ceases to exist, entire established communities will perish in turn. One feeds the other. These communities depend on the forestry industry, and if the main source of income dries up, the local restaurant will close as well, followed soon after by the corner store, which will likely be forced to close after the owner has laid off the only employee. The local grocery store, the garage and the gas station, all these small businesses will also watch as their clients leave to look for jobs elsewhere. Families will struggle to make ends meet at the end of the month, communities will struggle to keep their people, and young people will lose hope and leave to find work in major urban centres. Communities that used to be prosperous and independent will turn into ghost towns, deserted by the people who used to live there, where only a few die-hards hold out hope for renewal.

I do realize this is a worst case scenario. It is definitely doom and gloom. However, it could happen and it has happened, and all from a lack of government direction and a will to act. These stories need to be heard. These stories are the consequences of the government's lack of initiative to assist the people it represents when they are in need. The Conservatives do not want to believe that their own demagogic and narrow-minded refusal to intervene has led to this situation. They would rather blame it on all sorts of outside factors which, while real, are hardly the whole story.

The Conservatives are wrong in that they could have prevented it; they could have made a difference. Should they accept this motion as the right thing to do, they could still help these people and communities emerge from these tough economic times better positioned and better off to fight another day.

There are ways to help, there are ways to assist and there are ways to make a difference. I know that we want to make a difference for all Quebecers and all Canadians.

How can we make that difference? For starters, we have to listen to them. I am happy to say that my party has done just that. I have personally visited Quebec and British Columbia and listened to forestry sector representatives talk about what they need. I have spoken with company owners, plant supervisors, employee groups and numerous associations. I have been struck by how they have to struggle in these difficult economic times.

I have listened to their solutions for the present and their dreams for the future. My colleagues have also travelled and listened to similar stories and concerns in the Atlantic provinces and northern Ontario.

What is surprising about all these meetings, visits and consultations is that no one in the forestry sector expects the government to hand them a blank cheque. The industry has never asked for gifts or handouts. What the industry needs is tools. It has asked for these tools so that it can fight, survive, modernize operations and keep companies open and effective. That is how it is going to keep its skilled workers and keep communities viable.

The industry has asked the federal government for tools in the form of tax credits, loans and loan guarantees so that its companies would have access to the much needed capital to keep the lights on, the saws running and their employees paid. It did not ask for a free ride. It asked to have the chance to fight and that is what this motion is all about. More important, this is exactly what my party has offered the industry since 2005.

I will now go back in history somewhat and discuss the softwood lumber agreement. We all know that the government likes to rewrite history. If one stands idle a tad too long these days, history just seems to disappear from government websites.

The Liberal Party has always supported and encouraged a two-pronged approach to resolving the softwood lumber dispute: both adjudication in the courts and negotiations.

On September 19, 2006, the Liberal Party voted against the softwood lumber agreement, and on December 6, 2006, it voted against Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act.

The Liberal Party wanted to make sure the Conservative government would adhere to the North American Free Trade Agreement and keep its campaign promise to recover all customs duties illegally collected by the United States.

The Liberals believe that the softwood lumber agreement is deeply flawed, for the following reasons.

It represents a reversal of the position taken by successive federal governments and supported by NAFTA and World Trade Organization trade panels, that our softwood lumber industry is not subsidized.

It jeopardizes Canada’s ability to help industries that are already in trouble by handing over part of our sovereignty over the management of our natural resources to our American competitors. The consequences of that capitulation will be felt in future disputes that will certainly arise, not only in the softwood lumber industry but also in other industries against which the same charges are levelled by their American competitors.

It creates an export tax that is in fact higher, at the current rate, than the illegal American customs duties of the past.

It strips NAFTA of any credibility as the arbitrator of trade disputes and cancels out the principles that govern this trading relationship.

It forfeits $500 million to the American forestry industry, which is using it to fund attacks on the Canadian industry in the courts and the political arena, and forfeits another $500 million to the American government.

It contains anti-fluctuation provisions that will deny the Canadian industry the flexibility it needs to deal with unforeseen circumstances such as the pine beetle infestation.

Despite our strong legal position, backed up by many decisions of international and national trade tribunals in Canada and the United States, the Conservative government rushed the negotiations by setting arbitrary deadlines to get the most political mileage out of the agreement for the Conservative Party of Canada.

The Conservatives’ campaign platform took precedence over the interests of an industry that has a major influence in all regions of Canada. The Conservative government issued an ultimatum to force the hand of Canadian producers: accept this agreement or the government will cut you loose. The loan guarantees put in place before the 2006 election were cancelled and the Conservatives made it plain to the industry that it would not get any federal aid if it decided to assert its rights in the courts instead of accepting the agreement.

What it agreed to do—and this is what the Liberal government had proposed—was to accept a negotiated settlement or continue the fully justified legal actions, which we would have supported by providing loan guarantees, reinvestment support, community and worker adjustment and assistance with legal costs.

The Conservatives claim that their softwood lumber agreement put an end to the dispute, but the United States began consultations questioning the forestry policies of Ontario and Quebec within seven months of signing the agreement.

Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Alberta face the same attacks. The $500 million the Conservatives handed over to the Americans by signing the softwood lumber agreement is what is being used to finance these attacks.

On March 4, 2008, the London Court of International Arbitration handed down its decision concerning the first lawsuits the Americans filed against Canada with respect to the softwood lumber agreement signed in 2006. The court ruled that Canada had violated the terms of the agreement by calculating the quotas incorrectly for the first six months of 2007. The court's ruling forced Canada to remedy those violations within 30 days and imposed a 10% export tax on the provinces in question, to a maximum of $68 million.

That ruling was a direct result of the fact that, in 2006, the Conservative government agreed to the imposition of quotas and taxes on the volume of wood exported to the United States, when the price of softwood lumber was generally under $355 U.S. per thousand board feet.

We have lost all credibility on the international stage. The government sold out our forestry industry for political gains and is now claiming that global markets are the cause and effect of the problem. The irony in all this is that the Conservatives now claim that the government cannot support the requested loan guarantees to forest companies because it is a violation of the softwood lumber agreement.

I am sorry to dispel their illusions but the Conservatives are being dishonest. Government lawyers are arguing as we speak in the London Court of International Arbitration that loan guarantees are not a violation of the softwood lumber agreement. They have in fact posted their legal defence on loan guarantees on the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's website.

One could be mistaken in believing that the story ends here. However, in the spring of this year, a report from the subcommittee on industry dealing with the difficulties that numerous industrial sectors are facing concluded with the dissenting opinion of the subcommittee on the forestry industry. It says:

In relation to a recommendation on the forestry industry, the Liberal Party of Canada supports a recommendation as follows: “That the government of Canada establish a credit facility specifically for the forestry industry”.

The Liberal Party continues to work actively with the forestry sector to assist it. We also realize that this is not a new problem, unlike the government which has stuck its head in the sand in the hopes that this problem will go away.

We must do more to support this industry on behalf of the thousands of men and women affected by this crisis. We must act now. We need solutions now.

We must help an industry in crisis, and we must do so immediately, with no more excuses. It is time to get the job done, and to make this Parliament work for the well-being of our struggling industries.

[China, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, at an event in Montreal celebrating the 60th anniversary of the People's Republic of China on September 28, I was informed by some of my constituents that the embassy had requested permission from the Department of Foreign Affairs to open a general consulate in Montreal over one year ago. No answer has been forthcoming.

There is a very large Chinese community established in the greater Montreal area, close to 100,000 people according to Statistics Canada. It would be a terrible shame should the convenience of a general consulate be denied them.

The current government has been rather ambivalent about this question and it is embarrassing to think that we have not yet been able to respond to such a request from the Chinese embassy.

The Chinese embassy is not merely a small diplomatic office no one has ever heard of. On the contrary, China is now part of the G20 thanks to its dynamic economy.

They are respected members around the table and have a strong and equal voice on the future of our world's financial strength. There are consulate general offices in Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary. Why are there none in Montreal?

[An Act respecting the Insurance Business (Banks and Bank Holding Companies) Regulations, October 7th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-457, An Act respecting the Insurance Business (Banks and Bank Holding Companies) Regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table this bill, seconded by my hon. colleague from Scarborough Southwest, that takes aim at making significant changes to the insurance business regulations for banks and bank holding companies in order to ensure that small and medium insurance brokers have a level playing field.

The bill amends four key provisions in the regulations in order to prevent Canadian banks from having an unfair advantage over independent insurance companies, agents or brokers. It clarifies, among other things, the term “telecommunications” to include the Internet. This change alone shows how outdated the regulations are.

This bill is a wake-up call to this House. There is a need to think of ways of modernizing the Bank Act and its regulations immediately.

I call upon all members of this House to support the intentions of the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Employment Insurance, October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are going to have to tighten their belts, because the Conservatives are getting ready to pick their pockets again and lighten their wallets with a new tax. Workers will have to pay $632 more with the increases in EI premiums. I do not know whether the minister knows how much this additional tax represents in groceries.

Why will the Conservatives not admit that this is a new tax they are imposing on workers and that it will cause new job losses?

[Aerospace Industry, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, job losses continue with no apparent end in sight. Many of my fellow citizens are losing their livelihoods.

Pratt & Whitney Canada will be closing a plant in a few months. The 160 jobs eliminated on the south shore are in addition to 200 others announced yesterday.

For more than a year we have been calling on the government to produce an aerospace action plan. Can the minister explain his blatant lack of action?