Jean-Yves Laforest

[Goods and Services Tax, March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister just said is totally false. There are just as many exceptions in Ontario.

The federal government has always refused to compensate Quebec on the pretext that provinces would only be compensated when harmonization cost them more than 5% of their sales tax revenues. According to Ontario’s budget, the change to a harmonized tax will actually increase Ontario’s revenues by 3.5% annually.

Can the minister tell us why he unilaterally changed the compensation formula if not for strictly partisan electoral reasons?

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I would like to comment.

However, as we wonder whether the government is trying to get around basic accountability rules and we question the fact that it wants to fund projects that, by its own admission, are not even included in the current budget, the big question is why did the Liberals support this budget, when it was poorly drafted? Why are they going to support the $3 billion, which the member feels is improper and which, as I said earlier, is practically a slush fund?

I can comment, but I have a hard time understanding the Liberals' position.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I said in my speech, it is very important to insist that the government be accountable. During the 2005-06 election campaign, this government promised that accountability would be a very important value in Parliament. It was so important that the government introduced accountability legislation and modified accountability for many people associated with the government. Today, the government is in denial, in a way, because it is proposing to set aside accountability for two or three months while it spends money on projects. But we do not know which projects, and Parliament will not be able to approve them. This raises serious questions. What is more, the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on this Liberal motion which basically takes us back to a discussion of the budget in general and the measures brought forward by the government. This great question of Vote 35 is something new. The Conservative government has asked for a blank cheque to spend such huge amounts that even the Auditor General said she was very concerned about how such a fund would be managed. She is worried about how transparent the government will be in its handling of a fund like this. It is a blank cheque. It is really frightening, but the Liberal Party still decided to support it.

As I was saying, this takes us back to a study of the budget in its entirety. We have been saying all along that the Conservative budget is clearly inadequate and unacceptable to Quebec. There are several things that take us back to this point. We spoke about the personal income tax cuts. The Conservative government included these cuts in its budget, but they are not targeted very well. In addition, as it itself admitted, the cuts will not do much to kick-start the economy.

In order to benefit fully from these tax cuts, an individual has to earn at least $81,500. That is not at all representative of the middle class. The people who are most affected by the economic crisis are those in the middle class. Income tax cuts would have been helpful if they had been targeted better at the middle class or people below the middle class who really do not earn very much. But that is not what the government did. It ensured once again that the people who really benefit from the tax cuts are the ones with very high salaries. That is not what the government should have been trying to do. Unfortunately, all this was supported by the Liberals, who have turned their backs on Quebec once again.

Another major point in the budget that we could highlight is the tax evasion issue. In 2007, the Conservative government took a step in the right direction and mandated a task force to see how double deductions could be eliminated for companies doing business outside of Canada. The task force made its recommendation to the minister, and he set out immediately to follow up on it. However, he went back on his word, and once again these companies can double dip. In the meantime—as he himself said in 2007—the government collects less tax because companies are double dipping and it is the middle class and small businesses that have to pay more. That is very unfair. I am just repeating here what the finance minister said in 2007, and he is still the same person.

We cannot understand why the government wants to make things easier for these companies to the detriment of the middle class, which ultimately includes most of the people of Canada and Quebec. Once again they are being cheated by the Conservative government, and that is very disappointing.

My colleague spoke just now about employment insurance. We know that the measures presented will benefit only 25% of those on employment insurance. This is not a measure that is equitable for everyone. We should have made the rules for accessing employment insurance more flexible and reduced the number of hours for people to qualify. We should have eliminated the two week waiting period.

Such measures would have been really attractive for all the people who are unemployed, and there are a lot of them. We are in an economic crisis, and a great many people have lost their job and need access to employment insurance. What is hurting them most with regard to employment insurance—I have said this before, because people in my riding whom I often meet with talk to me about it—is the two week waiting period before they can get their money. When people are periodic employment insurance claimants, they have to accumulate these two weeks from one year to the next, and they always have difficulty dealing with the problems this causes their family. Very often both spouses work in the same company which, year after year, has to close its doors temporarily. At this time much more than that is involved. Companies are not closing temporarily, but for good. This is one more reason for taking time to deal with these problems of people who are having great difficulty making ends meet.

We could talk for hours about the problems and major drawbacks to be found in this budget. The Conservative government has come up with this idea of non-lapsing appropriations and interim supply, and a $3 billion fund which some have termed a slush fund. We know very well that the government will strut around and try to score political points.

The fact that the Liberal Party and the Liberal members support such a measure takes us back to the whole sponsorship affair that eclipsed this Parliament for months a few years ago. Although the issue of transparency must be a concern for everyone in this House, we cannot be too surprised that the members of the Liberal Party should be supporting this request. We could be forgiven for thinking that they are going down a road they have already taken. Some very serious questions should be asked.

This is truly disappointing. We see that the Liberal Party will agree to give the Conservative government $3 billion that would be beyond the control of Parliament. That is the big question. Parliamentary control has always been an important standard for the elected officials of this chamber. The Conservative government, hand in hand with and supported by the Liberals, is going in this direction. Some very serious questions should be asked.

Nonetheless, the Liberal motion would force the government to a minimum level of accountability. However, it does not go far enough. Yes, it is a start, but the accountability is truly minimal. Requiring the government to post on a website tomorrow or the days that follow the list of committees and projects it will implement, etc. is a minimal measure which we will support. All the same, we are in fundamental disagreement on the very essence of this amount. We will continue to hound the Conservative government to make sure that the moneys in this “slush fund” will be disbursed legitimately. The details demanded in the Liberal Party’s motion are a beginning, but clearly insufficient.

I would also like to move an amendment to this motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette, that the motion be amended by replacing the words “this House calls upon the government to table” with the words “this House requires the government to table”, in the two places where those words appear.

[Mumbai Attacks, March 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on November 26, 2008, a series of horrific attacks took place in Mumbai, India, leaving 172 people dead and more than 300 injured. We remember that the terrorists who attacked the Chabad centre in Mumbai savagely assassinated Rabbi Gavriel Holzberg and his wife, Rivka Holzberg.

To commemorate this sad event, 100 rabbis representing the Canadian Federation of Chabad Lubavitch are on Parliament Hill today. I commend this group's values of peace, goodness and justice and the work it does both internationally and in Quebec.

I condemn these unwarranted attacks against innocent people. No cause or claim can justify such attacks against civilians. I would like to remind this House that the Bloc Québécois has always condemned violence and that there are other ways to defend and realize political visions.

[Government Expenditures, March 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government says that the money in the special fund is to be spent on initiatives announced in the budget and on increasing other expenditures.

Rather than put his head in the sand as he did yesterday when he delivered his rose-coloured glasses speech on the economic crisis, why does the Prime Minister not use this opportunity to announce that some of the $3 billion will be used to provide real support to the forestry sector in the form of loans and loan guarantees, as EDC's president suggested yesterday?

[Government Expenditures, March 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government's new website is a carbon copy of the first report submitted yesterday by the Minister of Finance. It does not provide any information about how the Conservatives plan to spend their proposed $3 billion special fund. If the money is not spent before June 30, it will be frozen and returned to the consolidated fund. The government must therefore know exactly how it plans to spend the money.

Why not release a list right now on that same website of which departments and programs are to benefit from the special fund?

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

I totally agree. There is no doubt that it is important that the government support the regions which are still in survival mode. Companies continue to operate, but are struggling. They clearly need help. At the same time, we must not forget the regions with companies that have closed temporarily. It is important that help be provided across all these regions. The fact that an industry or company has experienced what I would call temporary difficulties does not justify letting it down.

It is important that the government realize that the forestry industry still has a bright future in Canada and Quebec.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

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

It is clear that both his question and his observation that the Minister of International Trade does not even defend the forestry industry in Canada and Quebec reflect this government's inconsistencies. I spoke about this. Every day, we see contradictions, and they are becoming increasingly obvious.

They head organizations like Export Development Canada, which provides loan guarantees and loans for forestry companies and says it does so in full compliance with international free trade agreements and the softwood lumber agreement. Yet in answer to our questions in this House, the Conservatives say that what EDC is doing is not compliant. The Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec says that the government cannot provide loan guarantees because they make no sense and they will prevent or delay the signing of agreements and so on. This argument does not hold water. Once again, it is evidence of the Conservatives' contradictions.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on the Bloc Québécois motion. First, I would like to congratulate my colleague who spoke before me. He made an excellent presentation, outlining clearly several issues the forestry industry is facing, in his region especially.

I would add that my own region, the riding of Saint-Maurice-Champlain that I represent, is also a region that includes many workers who make their living from the forestry industry. There are also numerous municipalities. I had intended to name them all but I see that there are a great many.

There are workers who depend on the forestry industry in all of the municipalities in my riding: Grand-Mère, Shawinigan, Saint-Tite, Sainte-Thècle, Lac-aux-Sables, La Tuque, Parent, Notre-Dame-de-Montauban, La Bostonnais, Saint-Séverin, Sainte-Adèle, I could name them all.

These people realize that they are in a very difficult situation. That is why the Bloc Québécois has presented this motion today. The Quebec forestry industry is in a crisis, as many others have said. We are all agreed that we are now in a recession, but the Quebec forestry industry has been in a crisis since 2005.

It has been suffering the effects much longer than many people in other areas who have just lost their jobs. We agree that it is difficult. It is always a shame when people lose their jobs. However, entire towns have been deprived of income for many years. Families no longer have jobs. In some cases, both parents have been laid off by the same company. People are suffering.

There are 88,000 workers in the Quebec forestry industry. They are, in effect, the economic engine of many regions in Quebec. This crisis is hitting them with full force. I just said this has been going on since 2005. During the last four years, people have been struggling with these situations. Processing plants, sawmills and other plants, have been closing their doors, one after another, sometimes for good and sometimes temporarily. There is nothing in this Conservative government budget to really help the workers who are losing their jobs.

They boast of having added five weeks of employment insurance, but in terms of effectiveness and as a support measure for people who lose their jobs, it is practically meaningless because almost 75% of the people who lose their job will find a new one before the Conservative government issues their 45th or 46th employment insurance weekly benefit.

So, it is not a very effective measure. Once again, the Conservative government has introduced this measure to try to make political capital. However, if it had abolished the two week waiting period, then it would have done something to really help workers.

This is not the first time the Bloc Québécois has put forward a plan. We did it last year, to support the entire forestry industry. I will come back to that later. Last year, the Bloc proposed several measures that are still very relevant. In proposing them again last November, we had hoped that the Minister of Finance would have considered them before introducing an ideological economic statement. We did propose them again, but, unfortunately, he did not take them into account.

We know the federal government has the necessary resources. We know that, and its budget is supporting the auto industry in Ontario with $2.7 billion in funding. For the forestry industry, however, it is offering $170 million for all of Canada. This is a catastrophe. Quebec's forestry industry is an important driving force. Yet there is nothing in this budget to really help that sector.

The Bloc Québécois has already asked the government several times, and we are asking once again, to give these businesses and these workers some support. We are calling on the government to grant loan guarantees and assistance to modernize their equipment.

We know—at least we all hope—that the recovery will come one day and that people in many places want to be ready for it, but the federal government refuses that idea. It objects, saying that it would be in violation of the softwood lumber agreement and the free trade agreement, and that it would only create a host of problems.

However, at the Standing Committee on Finance today, we learned directly from Eric Siegel, president and chief executive officer of Export Development Canada, that his organization—a financial branch of the federal government—has granted loans and loan guarantees to businesses in the forestry sector. I told him that I assumed that when he was doing business with those companies and when he was granting the loans and loan guarantees, he was doing so in compliance with international agreements like the free trade agreement and the softwood lumber agreement. Mr. Siegel told us that, yes, he could not do business any other way and that he could not ignore those agreements.

So on one hand the government is telling us that it is illegal, that giving loan guarantees is not in compliance with the softwood lumber agreements. And, on the other hand, we see that the president and CEO of EDC, a federal government agency, is saying the opposite, that his organization is doing this while fully respecting the softwood lumber agreement. This seems to me to be such an obvious contradiction that it makes no sense.

The current Conservative federal government must review its position and admit that it has been completely wrong, that it misled us and that it must allow loan guarantees for forestry businesses. For some, that would mean avoiding bankruptcy, and for others it would mean continuing progress. It would also mean that the forestry industry would become more innovative and competitive, particularly in Quebec.

If we were to listen to the Conservatives, the forestry regions would be left to die. I am sorry, but there are still people and workers who are very productive, people who are well trained and who are not willing to say that their region is dying. They want to keep contributing to their region's growth and to the growth of the economy in their communities. However, what we are hearing and what we can understand from the reactions of the Conservative government and its elected members, is that, for them, it as though the regions are dying and have no future and so these regions must give in to the mass exodus of youth and to high unemployment.

But we are saying—and this is what those people are saying too and this is what they want to hear—that forestry can provide significant leverage and we have not explored all of the options.

Earlier, I listened to the question put to my colleague about the processing that should be done here. When we export unfinished products, we are exporting jobs too. We have to do something about this. We must invest energy and large sums of money in research and development, so that Quebec's raw materials—the wood from our private and public forests—can be processed here, as close as possible to the people who cut down the trees and take them to the closest town, and so that new products can be developed and marketed from there. That is what we need, but at the same time, we have to support companies with loan guarantees, we have to enable them to buy new equipment so that they can compete internationally. That is how we will really support them.

Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer any questions.