Guy André

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good remark by my colleague. One of the options put forward by the Bloc Québécois is to change the federal tax system to help the development of secondary and tertiary transformation industries in the regions most affected by the forestry industry crisis. Obviously, British Columbia is also facing this ongoing crisis.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is true the problem in the forestry industry has been with us for some years. It started in May 2002 and lasted through the fall of 2006.

We still remember the softwood lumber crisis. Back then, we were asking the Liberal government for loan guarantees to support our industry. That is when we lost more than 10,000 jobs: between May 2002 and April 2005.

The crisis began then, and has continued ever since. The government in Ottawa, which once had a huge surplus, is now in a crisis itself and is doing nothing to help the forestry industry.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by advising you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, a colleague who is very familiar with the softwood lumber and forestry file.

It is with great interest that I rise to speak here today on this Bloc Québécois opposition day to address an issue that is very important for Quebec, of course, and all of Canada. Naturally, I am referring to the forestry crisis we are seeing in many areas of Quebec, as well as the Conservative government's refusal to take action on the matter.

The motion we moved here today denounces the Conservatives' failure to act in this file, and particularly the vastly inadequate measures included in the last budget. The motion also proposes to the government a series of measures to help the forestry industry.

While the forestry crisis persists throughout Quebec, the Conservative government's recent budget revealed that it remains completely insensitive to the difficulties facing that industry and the communities that are affected. When will this government understand that its approach is simply unacceptable in the context of the current crisis and that it must immediately start listening to and working with forestry stakeholders to help this industry get though these tough times?

The Quebec forestry industry accounts for nearly 88,000 jobs in various sawmills and pulp and paper plants, or about a third of all Canadian jobs in this sector. The economies of some 230 towns and villages in Quebec are heavily dependent on it, and 160 of them are totally dependent. The forestry industry is going through a severe downturn that poses a grave threat to many of these communities. Just between May 2002 and April 2005, more than 10,000 jobs were lost in the Quebec forestry industry. Since April 2005, the situation has only grown worse, with more than 21,000 job losses in the Quebec forestry industry and related areas.

Left to its own devices during the softwood lumber dispute, when the federal government refused to provide it with the loan guarantees it needed to stay afloat, the forestry industry was unable to face the mounting value of the Canadian dollar at the time. Forestry companies lost their competitive advantage on foreign markets, especially in the United States. Now the Quebec forestry industry has to deal with a U.S. economy that is slowing rapidly and is in crisis, resulting in a major reduction in timber sales and collapsing prices.

It may also be faced with surge in protectionist sentiment in the United States, which would further undermine sales south of the border. I recently attended the winter meeting of the National Governors Association in Washington. I had an opportunity to discuss some pressing issues, such as the trade in softwood lumber we are currently debating, with a number of U.S. governors and congressmen. We were told that some senators and governors from southern states were critical of U.S. imports of Canadian softwood lumber and were asking the American President “to take whatever action is necessary to fully address Canadian unfair trade practices in the softwood lumber sector”.

Even if these approaches to the American President are politically motivated, I think we need to be very vigilant. They show that there is a definite protectionist trend in the United States. As I was saying before, there is a major crisis in the forestry industry in Quebec and urgent action is needed at least to mitigate its effects. The government does not seem to understand this and is being negligent in providing assistance in its last budget that is not nearly enough, and I would even say, that is shameful and insulting.

With the support of the Liberals, the Conservative government provided the forestry sector with no more than a mere $170 million in its last budget. That is a disgrace. At the same time it decided, with the support of the Liberals and the Conservative members from Quebec, to invest more than $2.7 billion to support the automobile industry in Ontario. We are not opposed to this, but we think that the Quebec forestry industry is just as important, and even more important in terms of jobs. In the opinion even of the Québec Forest Industry Council, the $170 million that was announced over two years is far from enough and hardly reflects the needs flowing from the crisis in the Quebec forestry industry.

The Conservatives and the Liberals are showing their contempt for this industry which is the lifeblood for many Quebec regions. However, the Bloc Québécois is proposing a series of measures to support our forestry companies: loan guarantees for the purchase of more efficient production equipment; massive investments or tax measures to promote innovation; R and D for the industry; making the R and D tax credit refundable so that companies not turning a profit can innovate and develop new products.

In addition, it is important to mention that none of these measures contravenes the softwood lumber agreement, no matter what the Conservative minister says. For weeks, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the government and its Quebec ministers which section of the softwood lumber agreement prevents the federal government from providing loans and loan guarantees to the Quebec forestry industry. This government does not have an answer and chooses to ignore us. No one in the government, including the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) can quote the section in NAFTA or in the softwood lumber agreement.

Why? Because the agreement does not prohibit the use of loan guarantees. This position is shared by the Quebec Forest Industry Council and the Government of Quebec, which allowed Investissement Québec to provide guarantees.

The position of the Conservative government, including the Quebec MPs, only shows that it prefers to bow down to the U.S. protectionist lobbies that complain about the smallest initiative that will help the forestry sector. But above all, it proves that this government does not want to help Quebec's industry. During this time, what have Quebec Conservatives done? They have remained silent and have refused to stand up for Quebec.

In closing, this motion addresses the needs of the forestry industry and the communities that are dependent on it. For that reason I am asking that all members, especially Quebec members, support this motion.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief.

I listened to my colleague and I agree with much of what he is saying, except when it comes to the idea of a summit. I am worried because I think we need to get the government to act immediately to help the forestry industry. There are things that could be done right away. Would having a summit not get in the way of any possible immediate action and put if off until later?

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether my colleague is aware of the London Court of International Arbitration's February 26 ruling. The tribunal found that we had exported more than our quota to the United States. In its ruling, the court recommended introducing a 10% export tax on softwood industries.

The industry reported that Quebec was responsible for 40% of the over-quota exports, while Ontario was responsible for 60%. As such, we do not feel that Quebec should have to pay 50% of the amount owing. If a 10% export tax is instituted, we will have to pay 50% of the amount owing, even though we are responsible for only 40% of it. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 9th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce C-336, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute).

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table this bill as the current economic crisis is causing the loss of thousands of jobs throughout Quebec. The federal government must support workers who are losing their jobs. To that end, the Bloc Québécois is proposing a number of measures to help these individuals, such as the improvement of and increase in access to employment insurance.

I am certainly proud of this retroactive bill, which will make it possible for individuals who have lost their jobs as a result of a labour dispute, whether a lock-out or a strike, to become eligible for employment insurance benefits. Individuals who lose their jobs after a long labour dispute do not accumulate the hours of employment required to qualify for employment insurance. Henceforth, eligibility will be based on the number of weeks worked prior to the dispute in question, no matter how long it lasted.

Therefore, this bill will correct a serious shortcoming in the Employment Insurance Act. I urge all members to vote in favour of this bill.

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

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for the question.

We will recall that the forerunner of the Conservative Party was the Reform Party. At the time, the Prime Minister, a Conservative, had awarded an aerospace research contract to Bombardier and the Reform members were against the research and development to be carried out by Bombardier under this contract.

The consequences of this philosophy and tactics of the Conservative Party were felt not only by the aerospace industry but also by the manufacturing sector in general. In a context of globalization, when agreements are signed with many other countries and emerging nations are invading our markets, we must have more rigorous research and development to improve our productivity.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, the Liberals had also somewhat ignored Quebec in terms of research and development. Ottawa has yet to put in place, in this House, a true aerospace policy, for example.

Under the Conservatives, the federal government seems intent on putting Canada out of commission and its actions are catastrophic. Not only do they not have an aerospace policy, but all their efforts are contributing to the weakening of this pillar of our economy, either through incompetence or lack of imagination. I believe that research and development is the future. Americans invest a great deal in this area. It is not right that, among the OECD industrialized countries, we invest the least in research and development.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I rise today on this Liberal Party opposition day to speak to the motion calling on the federal government to significantly increase funding for research and development.

As a progressive political party, we are obviously in favour of this motion, because we believe that research and development can help create the jobs of tomorrow and, of course, contribute to economic prosperity.

Because of globalization, Quebec, like many other nations, is faced with growing challenges not only from our traditional competitors, but also from emerging economies. But to prosper, we have to spend more and more on research and development to improve productivity.

We also have to invest as much as our competitors in research and development, or else rapidly close the gap between our spending and our main competitors'.

What is the status of federal support for research and development?

In a nutshell, the federal government is not a reliable partner for Quebec—and I will prove it—and things have gotten worse since the Conservative Party of Canada came to power.

The federal government invests far less in research and development than the other OECD member countries—we have the statistics to prove it—and Ottawa's share of research funding in Canada is steadily decreasing.

In fact, Canada spends less than 2% of its GDP on research and development, which puts it in 13th place among OECD countries, which generally spend 2.26% of their GDP on R and D. That is a big difference.

This is especially disappointing since the federal share of R and D funding has declined steadily over the past 30 years.

Whereas in 1971 the federal government accounted for 40% of total research and development spending in Canada, the figure was only 18.7% in 2003. The government has slashed research and development spending in spite of the demands of globalization.

By the way, members will have noticed that this previous decline took place under the Liberal Party.

Not only does the federal government not invest enough in research and development, but Quebec gets less than its fair share of federal R and D funding.

As is the case for many files of this nature, although Quebec accounts for 29% of all of Canada's spending on research and development, it receives only 24% of federal funding—once again, Quebec loses out within this federal system—compared to the 48.3% that Ontario receives.

The only area in which Quebec receives an adequate share of federal funding is that of business research, although much of that support is in the form of tax credits that are accessible to everyone, so Ottawa has no say as to the geographic distribution of that assistance. That is not right.

As for research done directly by the federal government, when the government itself decides where the money will be spent, Quebec receives only 19.4% while Ontario receives 58.3% of spending. There is a remarkable discrepancy there.

Yet the Quebec economy relies on the high-tech sector, like the aerospace industry and the pharmaceutical industry, much more than the Canadian economy does. That is why the Government of Quebec attaches much more importance to supporting research activities than the federal government does. However, as I have already indicated, the federal government is not contributing as much as it could be. Thus, with research and development spending totalling 2.73% of its GDP, Quebec is making a much greater effort than the federal government, which invests less than 2% of its GDP.

Although funding was already insufficient under the Liberals and Quebec was at a disadvantage compared to Ontario, with the Conservatives in power, the situation has only gotten worse. For instance, in the fall of 2006, the Conservative government eliminated the main federal support program for industrial research, called technology partnerships Canada, a program that was very important to the Quebec industrial sector, and it did so at a time when our manufacturing sector is shrinking.

A few months later, it announced an aerospace research support program. In reality, it was just the announcement of some semblance of a program, Technology Partnerships Canada, from which it had itself slashed a third of the budget and excluded all industrial sectors except aerospace. While Quebec is a world class leader in that field, it cannot count on the support of the Conservative government.

For several years now we have been calling upon the government to establish an aerospace policy that would ensure businesses of reliable and predictable support and thus allow them to plan developmental projects. Yet the feds have always refused to do anything. In the meantime, other cutting edge industries—pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, environmental— solidly entrenched in Quebec have also been left to fend for themselves by the Conservative government.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is calling upon the federal government to cancel the cuts imposed on the Technology Partnerships Canada program, on support to the development of the aerospace industry, and to restore that program's availability to all cutting edge sectors that the Conservatives have left without any support. In addition to support for our cutting edge industries, our manufacturing sector also needs support. For example, in my own riding the furniture manufacturing industry plays an important role.

In this period of major economic downturn, businesses including those in traditional sectors such as furniture manufacturing, should be looking at innovations now in preparation for the coming recovery—innovations involving new technologies in order to improve productivity and be competitive with the industries in Asia. If the Quebec furniture industry wants to make any progress in this increasingly difficult context, it must act promptly to invest in new manufacturing techniques. By investing in research and development, the furniture industry will be better able to integrate new technologies in order to achieve lower production costs as soon as possible and with an eye to customer specifications and demands. The ability is there, but support is needed.

In order to achieve these objectives for the furniture sector and all the rest of the manufacturing sector, federal government support must be obtained for research and development. The federal government must improve tax support for research and development, for instance by increasing tax deductions for research and development as well as the types of expenses that are eligible. The Bloc also proposes making the research and development tax credit a refundable one, so that companies can benefit from it even if they are still in the development stage and not yet making any profit. It is convinced that these few measures could be extremely beneficial to the furniture industry in Quebec.

In reality, in this area as in several others, we realize once again that it is best to count on ourselves rather than Ottawa, a partner that is not very dependable.

[Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will definitely be supporting this motion because it is an important element in the framework of the various bilateral agreements that the government is trying to sign. Social responsibility is also important when we talk about respecting certain working conditions in the places where our companies will be operating, and respecting the environment is important, as well.

Agreements have been signed recently. I am thinking in particular about the agreement with Colombia. Rumours are circulating that some mining companies are exploiting the workforce and are not respecting certain environmental standards. Some are even being linked to paramilitary groups.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on this. Does he approve of the agreement with Colombia, for example, in which I feel that social responsibility is not being respected?