John Rafferty

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened over the last couple of weeks to some Conservative members talk about projects in their ridings that have been approved and in some cases even announced. I have not heard anything in my riding about that sort of thing. I am assuming that this is from the $3 billion the government expects to be able to spend.

The Treasury Board and deputy ministers are not Parliament. The Auditor General has been very clear in the past in saying that spending by all departments must be approved by Parliament. She has been very clear on this.

I was wondering how the member reconciles that with a group of deputy ministers being in charge of this spending as opposed to Parliament being in charge.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Something should have been done before, but the House was prorogued and nothing happened then. In fact, I have been calling for a national forestry summit since before the last election.

I hope, as I continue to talk about it and as we put it on the agenda and in the national media, people will begin to realize how important the forestry industry is and how important it is that we put it back on a solid footing.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if I recall, that committee refused to go to Thunder Bay, so I am not sure how exhaustive it was.

Afternoon round tables with some businesspeople are not enough. I am talking about a national forestry summit with all stakeholders, including first nations, workers, business and innovators, who can move the forestry industry forward and put it back on a solid footing. I believe, as does the member, that this is a renewable industry and it is very important for Canadians.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that $170 million, while welcomed by the forestry industry, the money is not nearly the kind of help that it needs.

To answer his question directly, we simply do not trust the government. If we look at the softwood lumber deal, the government made some choices in that deal that are now costing softwood lumber producers in the province of Ontario and three other provinces $64 million to $65 million because it made a mistake. We do not trust the government. We all need to work together to ensure that the forestry industry gets back on a solid footing.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

As the New Democrat critic for forestry, I thank the Bloc Québécois caucus for tabling this motion and for putting the interests of our forestry industry, our forestry dependent communities and our forestry related workers on the legislative agenda.

For many inside and outside of Quebec, the size and importance of this industry and the depth of the crisis in which it is mired is simply not known. I have some facts about this important industry. The forestry industry is an $84 billion a year industry. It directly and indirectly employs 863,000 Canadians. Forestry related manufacturing accounts for a full 12% of Canada's total manufacturing output, and there have been more than 45,000 layoffs and job losses in the industry since 2003.

Between January 2003 and June 2008, there have been at least 26 permanent mill closures in Quebec alone and more than 54 indefinite closures. Together, these closures have cost the forestry industry, communities and the families of Quebec more than 11,000 well-paying jobs. The number of mill closures and job losses related to the forestry industry in Quebec during this period were more than the share of any other province in Canada during this period.

We must make no mistake, the forestry sector in Canada is in a crisis and the forestry industry, communities and families in Quebec are suffering a great deal. I find much I am in agreement with in this motion by the Bloc.

The $170 million for the forestry sector in the budget pales in comparison to the nearly $4 billion in assistance for the auto sector. That is not to say that the auto sector does not clearly need it, but the forestry industry has been completely ignored by the government. These two industries are roughly the same size but the forestry industry employs nearly 400,000 more people and it has had more than four times the real and potential job losses of the auto sector.

The government has shown little interest in Canada's forestry industry, our communities and our workers, and I am glad that this motion states as much.

The Bloc is correct in noting that the forestry industry urgently requires loans and loan guarantees from our federal government. Small and large producers began having their credit lines cut three years ago, so the payroll cuts that have occurred during this period are no surprise. Loans and guarantees will help Canada's modern and efficient mills keep operating, which will keep our small communities active and keep our hard-working families housed and fed during this downturn.

We also need a made in Canada policy for federal procurement so that Canadian lumber is used in all federally subsidized building projects in order to keep our lumber and wood product inventories turning over.

We also need more research, development and utilization of biomass technology and products. The Atikokan Bio-Energy Research Centre is within the boundaries of my riding. If any members of the House, including the Minister of Natural Resources, would like a tour, I would be more than happy to show them around.

I am in broad agreement on each of the points in the motion but I wonder why the motion did not state what so many stakeholders and parliamentary committees have stated in the past, that Canada needs a national forestry summit to help our forest industry, communities and families cope with this crisis in the short term and come out of this crisis stronger in the long term.

I do not speak without knowledge, interest or passion about this issue as I am from a forestry dependent community and represent several others in my riding.

Fort Frances counts upon forestry for 67% of its economic activity and wealth. The main employer in Fort Frances is the AbitibiBowater pulp and paper mill. It has a cutting edge biomass furnace just coming on-stream that reuses wood waste to create heat and energy for the processing of pulp and paper. It is as efficient and modern as any plant in Ontario and it has just laid off its entire workforce for the second time in six months.

Ainsworth in Barwick struggles to stay open, even though its value-added product retails for one-third of what it did a few years ago.

Buchanan's Longlac mill, a modern plant, is closed. Ken Buchanan worked hard over the years to stay in northern Ontario and invested in northern workers. In fact, 85% of the labour force at this plant was from first nations communities.

Nickel Lake Lumber, which only sells a value-added product, has 16 employees. It could expand its operations with a little help from the government.

Northern Hardwoods in Thunder Bay, as I speak, is in the process of turning off the lights and heat. When the market improves, it will cost millions of dollars to start up again. It does not need to be this way.

As members can see, the forestry crisis has hit home personally for me. I feel the pain that is being felt in industry towns and households in Quebec. The federal government needs to provide leadership on this issue and develop a plan to assist, not just the forestry industry but the communities and households that are dependent upon the industry for their livelihoods.

I hope the entire Bloc Québécois will support my call for a national forestry summit that will bring together all levels of government in Canada, a variety of ministries and opposition representatives at the federal and provincial levels, industry and union representatives, academics, aboriginal stakeholders and environmental groups interested in sustainable forestry management. Such a national summit would help us find ways to help the forestry industry, dependent communities and working families survive the crisis and prosper once demand for forestry industry products increases to more normal levels.

I thank the Bloc Québécois for putting forward this motion and for putting the national forestry crisis on the legislative agenda. I agree with its position on this matter and hope it will support my call for a national forestry summit to help the Quebec forestry industry, communities and households that have suffered through this crisis. I will be supporting this motion.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the minister say she has faith in the future of forestry. I do too and so does everyone else in the House, and all Canadians. I have spoken to the minister on numerous occasions and I know her heart is in the right place, which is with the forestry workers and families right across Canada. Although there were some afternoon round tables last year, much has changed since then.

I would ask the minister most respectfully, would she sit down with me and the forestry critics from the other parties to plan a national forestry summit?

[Corporate social responsibility and Canadian extractive industry in developing countries, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard for introducing this motion and for his general concern for citizens in developing countries. I would like him to know that I am of the very clear opinion that corporate accountability for Canadian resource extraction companies abroad is long overdue.

We know that extractive industries are often able to take advantage of political cultures in developing countries that do not accept or respect our domestic principles of democratic accountability and transparency. Centralized decision-making at the executive level that can offer extraction rights in exchange for capital in many developing countries can greatly infringe upon the human rights and environmental sustainability of localized populations.

Canadian companies, like those from other modern industrialized states, have at times taken advantage of such political circumstances in their quest for new sources of revenue to the gross detriment of workers and local communities that have and will suffer the devastating environmental consequences for generations. I was sad to see that, very recently, a lawsuit was filed against a company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange for its alleged involvement in human rights abuses at a mining concession site in Ecuador. Legislation that enforces a responsible code of conduct that respects international human rights and local environmental concerns and enforces corporate accountability upon Canadian companies operating abroad is needed now more than ever.

New Democrats have long stood in the House in support of corporate accountability as a principle of international trade and economic activity among and between nations. The member for Pierrefonds—Dollard will no doubt know that it was the former hon. member for Ottawa Centre who first sought to enforce this principle with Bill C-369 in the 38th Parliament. Support from the New Democrat caucus on legislation or motions that enforce ethical behaviour upon Canadian companies, including those operating abroad, has never been difficult to attain. As such, I am proud to offer my support for this motion.

The creation of an independent ombudsman, as prescribed in this motion and as would be established in law with the passage of Bill C-298, introduced by the current member for Ottawa Centre, would ensure that the enforcement of corporate accountability principles is legitimate, consistent, apolitical and fair to both Canadian companies and the populations that may or may not be affected by their operations abroad.

I would like to thank all the members of the advisory group and all participants of the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility for their hard work and encourage each and every member of the House to read their report and strongly consider their recommendations when deliberating this particular motion and other pieces of legislation. I would like to take a moment to also recognize the work of the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, which has helped keep the issue of corporate accountability on the political agenda in Canada for some time.

Member groups of CNCA that deserve our ongoing thanks include: Amnesty International, Africa-Canada Forum, Americas Policy Group, Asia Pacific Working Group, Development and Peace, Canadian Council for International Co-operation, Canadian Labour Congress, L'Entraide missionnaire, Friends of the Earth Canada, Halifax Initiative, Inter Pares, KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, MiningWatch Canada, North-South Institute, Rights & Democracy, Steelworkers Humanity Fund, United Church of Canada and more.

I wish to thank the staff and members of all of those groups. I ask them to please keep the strong and principled work that they have undertaken for so long and with such pride. This Parliament, a minority one with many progressive members, represents a rare chance for real change on a number of fronts, if only these members could muster the political courage to stand up in support of the principles they claim to respect and wish to uphold.

I would like to thank the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard for doing just that. I encourage him to reach out to other members of the Liberal caucus to gain their support for this motion and to lobby for their support of Bill C-298.

[Softwood Lumber, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that response is just the latest disappointment for the hundreds of thousands of working families dependent on the forestry industry.

Forestry has been in a 10 year downturn. It has seen 45,000 job losses in every province of the country. Five hundred more layoffs were announced just this week in Nova Scotia.

The Conservative government is overseeing the slow death of the forestry industry in Canada.

My question is simple and spoken most respectfully. Will the minister convene a national forestry summit to help our forest industries and forestry-dependent communities build a more secure future?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we all know that women have less access to EI funds than men do. It is a serious problem. If I could just go back briefly to the hon. government member, perhaps we could talk about a couple of other issues I talked about, which involve the government actually creating an unemployment problem. Perhaps we could come to some resolution.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the member that billions of dollars taken over the last number of years is gathering dust right now. That money belongs in EI. It should be going to workers and their families. I would like to see that money returned to them.