Guy André

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-2, an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association. The association is made up of four countries: Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

As some of my colleagues mentioned this morning, this is the second time that Parliament is considering the bill to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association. During the second session of the 39th Parliament, Bill C-55 was passed at second reading, but could not be finalized before the 39th Parliament ended on September 7, 2008.

Bill C-2, which is before us today, and Bill C-55 are identical. I want to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill because we believe that it will provide good trade opportunities for Quebec. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that this economic initiative, while very positive for Quebec, raises some concerns that I will explore later in my remarks.

As we all know, many Quebec businesses depend on exports to ensure growth. However, 85% of our exports are to the United States. That means that we have to diversify free trade.

International exports represent almost one-third of Quebec's GDP. Every day we are painfully becoming more aware that our economy is far too dependent on that of the United States. When there is a recession or a downturn in consumerism as is now happening with the Americans, coupled with the obvious aggression of emerging countries such as China, India and Brazil, we can see that it is getting more and more difficult to keep our place in the American market and to encourage growth in our manufacturing businesses. The results have been significant for Quebec. We have lost over 150,000 manufacturing jobs in the past five years, more than 80,00 of those since the Conservatives came to power.

The riding that I represent, Berthier—Maskinongé, has been severely affected by the loss of manufacturing jobs, particularly in the furniture and textile industries. If we were less dependent on the American market and our trading relationships were more diversified, I am convinced that our manufacturing sector would not be so hard hit.

And this is what makes the agreement that we are looking at today such an interesting initiative. It also offers new opportunities for Quebec business. For example, like Quebec, Switzerland has a large pharmaceutical industry, vigorous and innovative, especially with respect to brand name drugs. It is not surprising that Quebec is the Canadian leader in the field of brand name drugs because of its pool of skilled researchers and its favourable tax system. We could therefore easily imagine that in order to more easily break into the American market—

I think that I will stop there and continue after question period.

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's remarks, and I would like him to answer my question.

As everyone knows, we moved a motion in the Standing Committee on International Trade to provide additional support for shipbuilding and for our marine policy. I would like the member to comment on that. Will the Conservative government heed the recommendations in that motion in this free trade agreement?

In its budget, the government is investing $175 million in acquiring new Coast Guard vessels and refurbishing aging vessels. We know that, under the agreement, the government can give preference to suppliers from Quebec and Canada. I would like to know whether the Conservative government plans to support the marine industry here in Quebec and Canada by doing what Norway has already done. That country is absolutely ready to deal with this agreement and with free trade. When making new investments, will the government give preference to suppliers from Quebec and Canada?

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with pleasure to my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, with whom I had the chance to work for a few years. Certainly, we do not always agree with the NDP on free trade, but I agree completely with his position on shipyards.

The Bloc Québécois tabled a motion in the Standing Committee on International Trade urging the Conservative government to introduce measures to support the shipbuilding industry. Hon. members will know that Norway has made huge investments in its own industry, and this agreement could threaten shipbuilding in Quebec and Canada.

I would like to raise a point, though. This agreement gives us cause for concern about the shipbuilding industry, but it contains other provisions that we feel are very good for Quebec, especially as regards the pharmaceutical industry. Quebec is developing many pharmaceuticals with Switzerland, and this agreement could be very good for trade. Norway imports Canadian nickel. One area of Quebec, Ungava, is a major nickel producer, which could lead to further trade. As for Iceland, it imports aluminum, an important product of Quebec. This agreement will promote more exports.

So we support free trade in Quebec, whether it is with the Americans or when other agreements benefit us. Of course, agreements like the one signed with Colombia that do not respect rights—

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about some of the concerns expressed by people and businesses regarding this free trade agreement. Shipbuilders are obviously among those who have expressed their concerns. At present, imported vessels are subject to a 25% tariff. Under the agreement, these tariffs will gradually decrease over three years and will be completely eliminated in 15 years.

I used to sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade and we had moved a motion calling on the government to invest in and support the shipbuilding industry. This morning, my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke asked the minister a question about that and the minister's answer was somewhat evasive. Norway has made massive investments to support its industry and the Conservative government does not seem willing to make similar efforts here. This could have disastrous consequences for Quebec and the rest of Canada.

I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on this.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the floor talk a little about the economy and the importance of the economic statement. The problem is that this economic statement contains no real measures to support the economy. The election campaign just ended about a month ago. Throughout Quebec, we debated all possible measures and the needs of Quebec, including everything from the manufacturing and forestry sectors, to the issues facing older workers, which my hon. colleague just mentioned. The question of social housing was also raised, as were POWA, aboriginals and unemployed workers. Many things were discussed during the election campaign. We must support our industries and the sectors that are struggling or facing crisis situations.

Yet there is nothing within the economic statement that offers assistance and support to our industries. There is nothing in this statement to support the workers affected by the crisis. That is why we oppose this economic statement. A minority government was elected and it must listen to the other parties. In this House, however, it does not listen to the other parties or to the voters.

I would like to hear what my hon. colleague has to say about this.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 25th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech, and I agree for the most part with some principles. In times of economic crisis and recession, it is important to stimulate the economy and help our businesses. We need a more interventionist government. In terms of the manufacturing sector, we need to help our companies modernize and purchase new equipment so that they can produce more, but we must also provide social protection for people who lose their jobs, through employment insurance measures and social measures to support the workers suffering from the economic recession.

So, I agree with the hon. member, but I did not hear him talk about culture. In the throne speech, the government did not announce that it would rescind the cuts it has made to culture. These cuts greatly affected Quebec, because our francophone culture and our identity are much different from those of the rest of Canada. When the government makes cuts to culture, it is making cuts to our very identity, our language and our means of promoting Quebec throughout the world.

I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about this, because we are calling on the federal government to transfer the money for culture. More and more, Quebec is calling for cultural sovereignty, because culture is still very important.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who spoke about the throne speech.

The throne speech is silent on the Kyoto protocol, even though Quebeckers feel very strongly that Kyoto must be honoured. The throne speech also makes no mention of the fiscal imbalance, even though, during the most recent election in Quebec, the parties represented in the National Assembly and all the socio-economic players in Quebec sent a unanimous message to the Conservative government that the fiscal imbalance had not been corrected.

The manufacturing sector cannot avoid a recession, and many jobs will be lost. The throne speech does not show that the government is committed to helping people who lose their jobs, by improving the employment insurance program, for instance, or reinstating POWA—which we have been calling on the government to do for years—for older workers who lose their jobs.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say about this, because as I said, during the recent campaign, Quebeckers called on this government to take such measures. Yet there is nothing about this in the throne speech.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of economic development that supports social issues. Here, we have a government that does not think about the individuals who are losing their jobs. It refuses to improve the employment insurance system. This system was much more generous in the 1970s and 1980s, when claimants were eligible for about a year.

As for seniors, the guaranteed income supplement exists for seniors who are living at the poverty line with $8,000 per year. We must support these people. This government does not think about individuals, does not offer social protection services and does not make investments to protect people experiencing economic problems. What the government needs to do is invest in our people, while, of course, continuing to invest in economic development—

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleague that health comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

In Quebec, the health care system is well organized. We have a department of health and social services. In every region, we have regional agencies, CLSCs, health care centres and youth centres. Our system delivers services to all types of clients, from young people to seniors and people who are incapacitated and need hospital care. We have a very good health care system that is very well organized. We do not need a parallel health care system.

All we are asking is that the federal government transfer the money we send to Ottawa, in order to give more support to our health care sector, which is under enormous pressure because of our aging population.

Ottawa is investing money in a mental health commission. Quebec has a mental health policy. We have mental health practitioners in the CLSCs, we have mental health teams in the hospitals, we have psychiatrists, social workers, psychologists and nurses. We have a range of services. We do not need Ottawa—

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak since the beginning of this new Parliament.

I would like to thank the people of Berthier—Maskinongé for having placed their trust in me for a third consecutive mandate. I can assure them that I will continue to defend the interests of my constituents and the people of the Mauricie region, as well as the interests of all Quebeckers, with strength, passion and determination.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the House, not because the Conservative government's throne speech has given us much to be happy about, but because I am speaking on behalf of the people of the region that I am honoured to represent.

Well before the throne speech was delivered, the Bloc Québécois made it clear to the Conservative government that it must abandon its laissez-faire ideology, which has been disastrous for Quebec's economy, and embrace the notion that the federal government has a key role to play in supporting the economy and helping people affected by the current crisis.

That is why the Bloc Québécois made a number of constructive proposals to help Parliament focus on what the people need as we enter an economic recession. Our proposals are based on a consensus reached through debate in Quebec during the recent election campaign. A majority of the people voted for the Bloc Québécois to defend their interests.

Over the past few months, the political parties in the National Assembly, business people and unions have all asked the federal government for strong measures to support our economy and in particular, of course, our manufacturing sector. Unfortunately, the throne speech was a great disappointment because none of the proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois or the economic stakeholders in Quebec were included, even though our proposals were based on priorities that affect Quebeckers and were drafted in response to their choices during the last federal election. That is shameful.

The throne speech confirms the Conservative government's complete disregard for the effects of the crisis on our economy and our people. The Conservative government is trapped in its outdated ideology.

This Speech from the Throne does not offer any revitalization measures to help the most vulnerable manufacturing industries that face international competition. For example, in my riding, the furniture industry still plays a significant role in job creation.

Once again, the government has chosen to do nothing. True to its own ideology, this government still believes that the free-market economy, free enterprise without any state intervention, can fix everything and that any intervention by the government would only lead to negative effects for the industry. That is not true. The government has the responsibility to support our businesses and it must accept this responsibility. Essentially, we have a throne speech that is devoid of any measures, devoid of vision, and that once again ignores the economic base of Quebec, the manufacturing industry.

When will this government realize that it has a role to play in helping the economy, especially during a crisis? The Bloc Québécois is asking the government to stop ignoring this fact and, instead, assume its responsibilities and intervene to help our economy. We are still paying taxes to Ottawa. We are handing over huge sums of money to Ottawa, and we have the right to receive help for our industries.

Over and over, the Bloc Québécois has suggested funding and support options for the manufacturing and forestry industries. For example, we suggested loan guarantees to help companies modernize as well as making the research and development tax credit refundable so that companies can take advantage of it, even if they are at the development stage and not yet turning a profit. I am convinced that these measures would allow Quebec's industries, such as the furniture industry, to expand and rise to the challenge of international competition. We cannot abandon Quebec's entire manufacturing industry, as this government is doing. As I said earlier, the furniture industry plays an important role in the Berthier—Maskinongé region. We want to keep these jobs, everywhere in Quebec that these industries exist.

We have innovative businesses with a skilled workforce that have overcome the challenge posed by NAFTA. Now, faced with a difficult economic trade environment, many of them are in trouble. They need support from this federal government. Unfortunately, this government has ignored our proposals. Its only response consists of cutting taxes on profits, which, I would remind the House, is only beneficial to businesses that are making a profit. Most of our industries in Quebec are not generating any profits. Lowering taxes for companies that are not making any profit does absolutely nothing for our industries.

I encourage the members of this government to read a book called La crise manufacturière au Québec: ça va mal à shop, which translates roughly as, “The manufacturing crisis in Quebec: hard times in the factory”. This just published book takes a look at all regions of Quebec affected by the manufacturing crisis. It talks about manufacturing jobs that have been lost in Beauce. That region has lost 3,000 jobs in five years. It talks about the 800 jobs lost at Goodyear in Valleyfield. And of course, it talks about the Mauricie region, and the jobs lost in the pulp and paper, textile and furniture sectors in the area I represent. It truly offers a good look at the big picture. I urge the members of the government and the opposition parties to learn more about this reality and the job losses in the regions of Quebec. The book also makes some proposals, for example, how this government should invest in and help our manufacturing industries. It is an excellent book.

No longer can it be said that Quebec's industries are prosperous. It is quite simply scandalous that this government is not taking urgent action. It is refusing to help communities in difficulty, yet it is continuing to help the oil companies in the west without hesitation. The government is saying it wants to support the nuclear energy sector, and it still intends to continue its unbridled military spending. With this throne speech, this government has shown us that it rejects many of the consensuses reached by the National Assembly, the people, the unions and the various socio-economic players in Quebec society. We do not understand.

As a result, the Bloc Québécois will have no choice but to vote against this throne speech.