Guy André

[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 The Conservative government is trapped in its outdated ideology.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.

[Boundary Waters, June 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question on this subject, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, “whatever we do will be in the national interest.”

What national interest is the minister referring to? The Canadian nation or the Quebec nation? Will he unduly favour Lake Ontario at the risk of completely depleting Lac Saint-Pierre?

[Berthierville Music Festival, June 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight a significant event scheduled for the week of July 31 to August 3 in my riding, Berthier—Maskinongé.

This is the 14th edition of the Berthierville “Tout pour la musique” festival. This event will be better than ever in 2008. It has been gaining momentum every year with its varied program showcasing local talent.

The festival's vitality and creativity, together with the warm welcome extended by the people of Berthierville, reflect who we are. The festival makes an invaluable contribution to the economy and shows off our magnificent region.

I would like to thank and congratulate the organizing committee, the many volunteers, the sponsors, and the municipal authorities who have worked together to ensure the success of the Tout pour la musique festival. I would also like to salute the exceptional contribution of the president, Bernard Grégoire, who has overseen this event for many years now.

[Income Tax Act, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-520, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, which would amend the federal government's home buyers' plan.

I would like to thank the member for Delta—Richmond East for introducing this bill. I would also like to highlight the excellent work my colleague, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, has done on this issue.

The bill we are examining today would increase the ceiling on RRSP contributions that an individual could use to purchase a new home from $20,000 to $25,000.

This bill could be very interesting to young couples. It would enable them to purchase their first home, but contributing to an RRSP from a young age also enables them to develop good savings habits. With this bill, the ceiling on contributions would go from $40,000 to $50,000 for a couple with enough money in their RRSP.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports this measure, because it will make it easier for many young Quebec families to purchase homes.

Furthermore, during pre-budget consultations, the Standing Committee on Finance indicated in its report that the government should quickly adopt this measure. It is not expensive, it would help support the construction industry, and, as I said, it would help young couples purchase homes.

In its supplementary opinion on pre-budget consultations, the Bloc Québécois said it supported the recommendation to increase the amounts available under the home buyers' plan in order to make home ownership more accessible. The government did not include this, and many other recommendations, in its recent budget. Let us hope that this bill will help move things along as quickly as possible in the interest of the people we represent.

The federal government's home buyers' plan currently allows an individual to withdraw up to $20,000—$40,000 for a couple—from their registered retirement savings plan to purchase or build their first home. This program works and it is time to increase the amounts involved, given the increase in the cost of housing.

As I just said, the purpose of this plan is to help young families buy their first home. It encourages buyers to save money to put a down payment on a house. By putting the emphasis on the down payment, this plan helps the buyer reduce their debt load over the years by significantly reducing their mortgage payments.

Since its creation in 1992, this plan has clearly been effective. Since that time, roughly 2 million people have used this plan with the goal of buying their first home.

To a certain extent, this type of program has helped Canadians and Quebeckers avoid the difficulties that a number of borrowers in the United States have experienced lately. We are all aware of the crisis that climbing mortgage costs have caused.

As I was saying earlier, Bill C-520 proposes to increase the ceiling to $25,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a couple.

Obviously, this amendment was created to respond to the significant increase in the price of houses that we have been seeing in recent years. In the riding I have the honour of representing, the price of houses has risen considerably. Whether in the Trois-Rivières-Ouest area or in Lavaltrie, Lanoraie or Berthier, house prices have risen steadily for a number of years now. It is becoming increasingly difficult for some people to buy their first home.

Improving the program as Bill C-520 seeks to do will help matters somewhat. In addition, I believe that this program will encourage economic development and social cohesion in our regions. More and more young families may choose to move to the regions and contribute to the strengthening of local communities.

As well, adopting this bill is a positive and necessary measure in increasingly uncertain economic times. With the price of gas going up, although the Conservatives prefer to ignore the effects on our communities, it is obvious that the prices of many essential consumer goods, such as food, transportation and of course houses, will unfortunately continue to rise.

In Quebec today, La Presse published an article about how the cost of fuel is causing families' transportation costs to go up. For example, a person living in Lavaltrie who commutes to Montreal every day is now spending $50 to $60 more per week. These costs are significant. We have to lower the interest rates that these young people, and many not-so-young people have to pay to buy their first homes, a purchase that can, in many cases, improve their lives and their living conditions. That is why it is so important to provide our fellow citizens with programs that can help them somewhat.

As legislators, we want to help families buy their first homes, and at the same time, we want to encourage them to save. I think that the committee will have to make some amendments to improve certain aspects of this bill. For example, there is the matter of indexing amounts. This measure is important because it will ensure that in 10 years, for example, the amount set out will still be enough and will still be relevant with respect to changing costs of buying a house. We should not have to come up with a new bill every time.

I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill for families because it is in the interest of all Quebeckers and therefore of all Canadians.

As a responsible party, we are prepared to work with the other members to improve the socio-economic status of the people we represent. But I should point out that there are other pressing housing needs. We must not forget that there is still a critical need for social housing. Recently, we have seen that social housing is also a problem in regions such as Rouyn-Noranda and Rimouski. Investment in social housing is also needed.

In conclusion, we need to help low-income individuals and families and the middle class obtain adequate, affordable housing. The federal government needs to step up to the plate on this issue, especially since it can afford to, with its surplus. This money should be used to improve the living conditions of all those who are in need and who need our support to improve their quality of life.

[Trade, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government announced that it has concluded a free trade agreement with Colombia. Yet that country has one of the worst records in terms of labour laws and human rights. No conditions in this regard appear in the agreement itself as a prerequisite to its signing and nothing seems to have been imposed on Colombia.

How can the Conservative government justify such an agreement knowing that Colombia does not honour its international obligations on these issues and that the Standing Committee on International Trade, which is currently holding hearings on the matter, has not tabled any reports?

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 27th, 2008]

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

In response to his concern about shipbuilding, for some time now, the Bloc Québécois has been urging the government to bring in a real marine policy to ensure the development of this industry, which is of strategic importance to Quebec and essential to the protection and environmental safety of the river. As others have pointed out today, the federal government stopped subsidizing the industry in 1988. The government stopped subsidizing it, so Quebec brought in tax credits for the industry, but the federal government clawed back between 20% and 25% of the money allocated to support Quebec's shipbuilding industry. Shame on the government, with its multi-billion dollar surplus, for not offering more support to this industry.

To answer my colleague, the Conservative Party will have to understand this eventually. The government saw what happened in the manufacturing sector where many jobs have been lost in the textile industry and all other manufacturing industries. Despite the fact that it rakes in so much money, the government never offered that industry any support. Its surplus was in the billions—$11 billion last year—but it did not offer any help. I think there is a lesson in that, and we hope that the Conservative government gets it. We cannot leave the industry to its own devices without providing some support to help it deal with competition. Under this agreement, it has 10 to 15 years, depending on the type of vessel, to bring in a real marine policy to support the shipbuilding industry. It has the means. I hope that the government will wake up.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As he was saying, the European Union is a market of capital importance to Quebec and Canada. If we do not have an agreement with the European Union, companies will be tempted to move to countries that have access to the European Union. In that respect, the hon. member for Sherbrooke is right.

Concluding a trade agreement with the European Union should be a priority. If we do not have a trade agreement with the EU, in the coming years we will see companies move to countries that have signed such agreements in order to access this huge market.

One of the priorities of parliamentarians would be to work on establishing an agreement with the European Union. This agreement with the European Free Trade Association is a step in the right direction.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is with keen interest that I join the debate today on Bill C-55, which would implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association. The association is made up of four countries: Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

To begin, I want to reiterate that after responsible analysis the Bloc Québécois will support this bill, which we believe, in general, offers promising economic trade opportunities for Quebec that are worth pointing out. However, there are also some concerns that my colleagues have mentioned and that we share.

We all know that Quebec is a trading nation. Many of our companies, especially those operating in leading-edge sectors, rely on exports to ensure their growth. That is important. International exports represent almost one-third of Quebec’s GDP. If we include trade with Canada's provinces, Quebec’s exports represented about 50% of its GDP in 2006.

In trading terms, Quebec is far too dependent on American markets. Indeed, nearly 85% of our current exports go to the United States. Given the slowdown in the American economy that we are now witnessing, the rise in the Canadian dollar and the aggressive tactics of emerging countries such as China and India, we are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain our market share with our neighbours to the south. The results have been significant for Quebec. More than 150,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the past five years, including more than 80,000 since the advent of the Conservative government and its laissez-faire doctrine.

The riding that I represent, Berthier—Maskinongé, has been severely affected by the loss of jobs in the furniture and textile industries. If our trading opportunities were more diversified and we were less dependent on the United States, our manufacturing sector would not be so threatened. This is why this free trade agreement with the European association deserves to be explored and, indeed, to be supported.

For example, as is the case in Quebec, the brand name pharmaceutical industry is very strong in Switzerland. Quebec is the Canadian leader in the field of brand name drugs because of its pool of skilled researchers and its favourable tax system. One can easily imagine, and we even hope, that Swiss pharmaceutical companies could be tempted to produce their drugs in Quebec as a way of gaining easier access to the American market. We will strongly encourage that idea, which would result in new investments in Quebec. That is one of the main reasons why we support this bill.

If we look at the case of Norway, nickel accounts for more than 80% of Canadian exports to that country. The largest mine in Canada, and the third biggest in the world, is located in the Ungava region of Quebec and is owned by a Swiss company. This agreement can provide significant benefits for Quebec.

That is another reason why we support this agreement.

As I already said, we will support this agreement because it gives Quebec some good opportunities and the Bloc Québécois is here primarily to defend the interests of Quebec.

This agreement also has the advantage of not containing the same kinds of shortcomings as some other accords. For example, in contrast to NAFTA, the agreements with Costa Rica and Chile have a bad chapter on investment, as we know very well, which gives companies the right to sue a government that adopts measures that could reduce their profits. There are no such provisions in the agreement with the European Free Trade Association. The Bloc Québécois is very happy about that. These countries have a basic respect for human rights and the rights of working people and that is another reason why we support this agreement.

In addition, the agreement with the European Free Trade Association covers only goods and not services. Nothing would force us, therefore, to open public services to competition, whether provided by the government or not, because they are not included in the agreement.

Similarly, financial services and banks will not be exposed to competition from Switzerland, which has a very strong banking system.

It is the same with government procurement. The government remains perfectly free to purchase in Canada, subject to the WTO agreement on government procurement. This is an indispensable aspect of any kind of trade agreement.

I would also like to mention agriculture. Our colleagues in the NDP seem to have some concerns in this regard. I want to speak more especially about supply management, which is very important to Quebec and the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé that I have the honour of representing.

We all remember it was the Bloc Québécois that got a motion passed in 2005 requiring the full maintenance of supply management. We have been assured by agriculture officials in Quebec that this agreement does not derogate from supply management and does not contradict it or call it into question.

We are very proud of this motion and will continue to defend it because we think that farmers and consumers are best served by this system. We are satisfied with the bilateral agreements on agriculture because products subject to supply management remain protected.

The in-quota tariff is eliminated of course under the agricultural agreement with Switzerland, but it applies only to the part of the market already covered by imports, or 5%. The elimination of this tariff will therefore have only a marginal effect on our dairy farmers because the tariff rate quotas and the over-quota tariffs remain the same. It is important for this to remain as is, especially since milk proteins are excluded from the agreement. This is another essential provision for keeping our agriculture strong.

The fact that the 7% tariff is eliminated under this agreement makes it all the more necessary, however, for the federal government to remain adamant at the WTO that supply management is simply not negotiable. The Bloc Québécois will continue to demand a full defence of supply management at the WTO.

This being said, we have some concerns about what the agreement means to the future of our shipyards. Imported ships are currently subject to a 25% tariff. Under this agreement, the tariffs will gradually start dropping in three years and will be eliminated in 15. I heard the international trade minister boasting about the fact that his government had managed to negotiate this 15-year adjustment period.

I think the minister must be aware that the adjustment period provided for in the agreement will be useful only if it is accompanied by vigorous adjustment and modernization programs for shipyards.

Otherwise, it will just slow the decline of our industry. Norway has grasped this quite well, by the way.

In Canada, the federal government, be it Liberal or Conservative, has done nothing to support our shipbuilding industry. It has not supported shipbuilding since 1988. This is really a shame, given all the subsidies that are currently being handed out to the oil industry, which makes exorbitant profits.

As well, not only are the few aid measures still available very poorly adapted to the shipbuilding industry, but the federal government has even penalized the provinces that have instituted innovative measures, such as the refundable tax credit in Quebec, which for some years was considered by Ottawa to be taxable income under the Income Tax Act. That allowed it to claw back 20% to 25% of the assistance that Quebec paid to the shipbuilding industry. Unbelievable but true.

So today, some of our shipyards are having trouble and are not really very competitive. This kind of policy has to be shelved. We have to provide more support for our shipbuilding industry.

Because it receives support from its government, the industry in Norway is productive and competitive today. And now the Norwegian government is working to open up new foreign markets for it.

The Conservatives’ policy, which amounts to leaving companies to their own devices, could be very harmful to our shipbuilding industry. We have 10 to 15 years to get back on track and implement programs to support our industry.

In the case of the manufacturing sector, we can see how Conservative inaction has led to the loss of thousands of jobs. We should learn that lesson when it comes to the shipbuilding industry. So we are calling on the federal government to abandon its laissez-faire policy and put forward a policy to support and develop the shipbuilding industry quickly. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this for several years now.

In fact, this is the motion that I introduced at the Standing Committee on International Trade, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, and that received support there:

The Canadian government must without delay implement an aggressive Maritime policy to support the industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada’s commitments at the WTO.

The motion was supported by all members of the committee, but only after some discussion and some hesitation. I think it is important in this context.

We have to support our industry. We have 10 to 15 years, depending on the type of ship, to support the industry. It is therefore time for action.

In this motion we are telling this government that it has to act and put forward a comprehensive strategy to support the shipbuilding industry, because the Conservatives’ bad industrial policy must not be allowed to result in a bad trade policy.

Laissez-faire has produced no results for several years, and it is time for action. This government has the resources. The strategy should facilitate access to capital for the industry, stimulate investment, give preference to local suppliers in public procurement and of course encourage shipowners to buy their ships here at home.

When shipyard representatives appeared before the committee, they reiterated that they wanted a program to facilitate accelerated amortization that buyers of Canadian ships could use, and a structured financing mechanism.

On the question of support for struggling industries, the Conservative government is practising a hands-off, laissez-faire policy, as I said earlier, a free enterprise policy: free trade will solve everything, all by itself. That is not true.

In the case of shipyards, as in the case of manufacturing, where we have lost many jobs, we believe this policy is quite simply irresponsible.

We know how the Americans and the Europeans support their industries. We need to do the same so that we can become more competitive. That is why the Bloc Québécois will press the government to quickly introduce a series of measures to promote the development of our shipbuilding industry. I ask the opposition parties here to support us.

In closing, even though we support this agreement, we need to be aware that its impact will still be limited. The four members of the association represent nearly 12 million people and account for roughly 1% of Canadian exports. The real trade issue is the European Union. With its 495 million inhabitants who generate 31% of global gross domestic product, the European Union is the world's leading economic power. We believe that Canada should be pursuing a free trade agreement with the European Union.

As we know, Canada's petrodollar has risen substantially in value against the American dollar, which has led to a major crisis in the manufacturing industry. What people may not know is that the dollar has gone up in value much less against the Euro. As I said earlier, if our trade were more diverse and our exports less focused on the United States, our manufacturing sector would be much stronger and more robust. The European Union is an essential trading partner.

Moreover, a free trade agreement with the European Union would have benefits in terms of investment. Together with NAFTA, the agreement would make it attractive for European companies to use Quebec and Canada as their gateway to the North American market and consequently to move some of their production there. We will support such a free trade agreement. As nearly 40% of European investments in Canada are in Quebec, it would certainly be a desirable location for European companies that want to invest in North America.

We hope that the federal government will quickly reach an agreement with the European Union, because it would be the best way to diversify our economy and reduce our heavy dependence on the American market.

I am willing to answer any questions hon. members might have.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question. The minister responsible for Canada Post recently announced the establishment of an advisory committee to conduct a strategic review of Canada Post. That committee is to report to the minister in December 2008. Why does the government not wait for that report? Will that committee continue to sit even if the bill is passed?

[Canada Post Corporation Act, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my question quickly.

I understand that the Canada Post Corporation is not in a deficit position; it is currently making a profit. I live in a rural area, and I am convinced that the postal service there has not improved in many years. Post offices have closed, meaning that people in rural areas must now drive several kilometres to pick up their mail.

This proposal that we are debating seeks to take $48 to $50 million of Canada Post Corporation's profits. I am almost certain that this would have an effect on rural areas and mail delivery. It would eat into the revenues. We typically never reduce the postal services in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. It is usually the rural areas that feel the cutbacks.

Citizens are currently very unhappy with postal services. I do not think that this bill will improve these services.