Mario Laframboise

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-2, the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. This is a bilateral agreement between Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Canada.

When we are faced with a free trade agreement, we must be able to take a step back and analyze its pros and cons, and that is what the Bloc Québécois does each and every time, in a responsible manner. We have to look at its strengths and weaknesses. The Bloc Québécois' top priority has always been the interests of Quebeckers. We are the only party in this House that rises every day to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

When we look at this agreement in terms of markets and economies that could generate as many imports and exports from Quebec to the EFTA as from them to us, we can see that there are some very significant markets in Quebec.

First of all, there is aluminum, which is our leading export to Iceland.

When it comes to Norway, nickel accounts for 80% of what we export. In Quebec, we have in Ungava one of the biggest nickel mines in the world, belonging to Xstrata. This too is one of our strengths.

Pharmaceuticals should also be included. We all know that Switzerland is a major producer of pharmaceuticals, and thanks to the skills Quebec has developed in this sector and the assistance provided over the years, Quebec provides very fertile ground for this entire industry and a free trade agreement like this could well give its industry a real boost.

Turning to agriculture, there is always a major problem with international agreements because of the supply management issue. Unlike other treaties, though, this one excludes supply management. It is very important for us to be able to defend the interests of Quebec farmers under supply management. In this agreement, the government has understood, for once, the message that the Bloc Québécois gave it: remove the entire supply management question from the treaty.

One very important thorny point remains and that is shipbuilding. There is a feeling in the treaty that this problem was taken into account. That is why the entry tariffs on equipment and ships and any agreements are subject to a 15 year phase-out with countervailing duties that are reduced with a certain moratorium for three years. This was obviously a major concern.

I will be repeating myself now because I had a chance at another stage of the bill to express my views on this matter. I am very surprised, though, that we could not arrive at a consensus in the House—not to put the free trade agreement on the back burner, because I think it is good for Quebec and also Canada—but to deal right away with the real problem in our shipyards. This is a sector that cries out for a real Canadian policy.

I am amazed that the government has not quickly implemented a Canadian shipbuilding policy and that we are not busy in the House discussing one now. If we look at this Canada-EFTA free trade agreement, it soon becomes apparent that the entire shipbuilding industry has been ignored by the Canadian government for far too long in comparison with what has been happening elsewhere, especially in Norway. I know this is a sensitive issue, but the people opposed to the free trade agreement will understand. I am thinking of the New Democratic Party. It is obvious, though, that if shipbuilding were removed from the treaty, the EFTA countries would no longer have much reason to sign it.

We have to be realistic about this situation. But once again, it is important that the Government of Canada use the moratorium and the 15-year period over which tariffs will be reduced to put in place the Canadian marine policy the industry is calling for.

It was very hard to listen earlier as the Minister of International Trade told us yet again that he had provided enough support for this industry sector with the programs that had been put in place. This is staggering, because I do not sense any openness and, in light of how he answered the question I asked him, I sense that the government is going to take the same approach to the forest industry: they have to be careful, there are international laws, there is the WTO.

While the minister is refusing to introduce loan guarantees for the forest industry, claiming that they are subsidies, his own lawyers are arguing at the WTO and in the London court that loan guarantees are not subsidies. He has given the same answer to every question the government has been asked about this, yet no one has been able to quote a section of any law or regulation that says that loan guarantees are subsidies.

There are loan guarantees in the auto sector and many other sectors. EDC provides loan guarantees for all parts of the aerospace industry. That is a fact, yet we have the feeling that the shipbuilding industry is falling victim to the Conservatives' tendency to help only certain industries and to use international laws as an excuse to refuse help for industries not in that select group.

That is a hard reality, because the forest industry impacts Quebec. And if the government does the same thing in the case of shipbuilding, it will affect the Davie yards in Lévis, near Quebec City. Once again, these are repeated attacks against Quebec that we cannot ignore. We agree with Bill C-2 in principle, but there is a problem in this agreement, and it has to do with shipbuilding, because the government has neglected this industry for too long.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is a simple one. From his speech, I got the feeling that he is not being as bold as international regulations allow with respect to this kind of financial help. For example, with respect to the forestry crisis, the minister insists that loan guarantees are subsidies, and I sense that the same thing will happen with the shipbuilding industry. That worries me.

Despite the fact that his own lawyers handling the forestry file at the WTO have argued that loan guarantees are not subsidies, every day the minister stands up here in the House of Commons and says that loan guarantees violate WTO rules. That worries me, and I would ask him to clarify his position.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my colleague for Drummond is absolutely right. And he knows the situation very well. What is worse is that the workers in the forestry sector know the situation very well. They are very bitter about the position of the government, and I understand them. If anyone has been following the evolution of this crisis for the past four years, it is the employees from the forestry sector, for whom I have a good thought today. It is not easy for spouses and children when people lose their job. That is the reality. They are the ones members should have in mind when they make decisions here. It is sad to see that the Conservatives, supported by the Liberals, have decided to abandon a whole area of the industrial sector and a whole group of workers.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, this question allows me to set the record straight.

First of all, I am pleased that the NDP has decided to support the Bloc Québécois motion. It will now stop living in the past. The problem is that the NDP members are always living in the past. in this case the Bloc Québécois is not to blame. An entire industry and not just one man—Guy Chevrette or whoever—wanted the agreement. The entire Quebec industry wanted it. In fact, not just the Quebec industry, but the Canadian industry as well.

As I mentioned, we can always go back over the past but in these international debates, the pattern never changes. The Americans know very well that by the time the winners lose they will all be dead. That is what will happen and what they are doing. They know very well that in the end Canada will win. However, they are sucking the life out of the industry. For that reason we must have loan guarantees. That is the reality. No matter what Americans may think, let us get going and help our companies. If we can support our industries and get them through this crisis, the winners will triumph in two ways: they will have weathered the crisis and they will have money in their pockets. In addition, there will be a nice surplus allowing them to increase employees' wages. Perhaps the NDP should step into 2009 and stop living in the past.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Trois-Rivières, who does some excellent work.

As a member of the Bloc Québécois, I have the pleasure to speak to the motion put forward by our party.

Let us take the time to read together the motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois.

That, in the opinion of the House, by providing only $170 million in funding over two years in the latest budget to assist the forestry industry, the government is showing once again its lack of concern for the Quebec economy, which has been hard hit by the forestry crisis, since this amount falls well short of what this industry needs to see it through the current crisis, especially since this funding will serve to extend programs that are ill-suited to the needs of the industry in crisis; the government should therefore establish a real plan as soon as possible to help the forestry industry, a plan including a series of specific, sustainable development measures, including loans and loan guarantees, refundable tax credits for research and development, a policy to encourage the use of lumber in the construction and renovation of federal public buildings and measures to support energy and ethanol production from forestry waste.

The Bloc Québécois motion is intended to be complete in itself. Our colleagues in the other parties should follow the Bloc's example. Quebec is a diversified society in a number of the sectors of its economy. One of the major sectors is the forestry industry. My riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has one of the highest concentrations of hardwood forests in North America. We need to keep abreast of developments in the hardwood forestry industry. In times of economic crisis, that industry faces a rather difficult situation. According to this morning's, Le Droit, one of our companies has just had to apply for protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act because of the weakness of the market. The newspaper was referring to a hardwood floor company in difficulty that has a number of employees. In the Papineau sector of my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, 45% of jobs are connected to the forestry sector.

If I chose any other riding in the regions of Quebec, the figures would be more or less the same, that is somewhere between 25% and 55% of the labour force is connected to the forestry sector. The same goes for other provinces in Canada. Every day, the Bloc rises in this House to defend the interests of Quebeckers, but we are glad when it also helps other regions of Canada.

One cannot remain unmoved by this crisis, which started long before the financial crisis announced in 2008. It is more than five years since the forestry industry started to ring the alarm bells and to warn the government. We had the softwood lumber crisis and the agreement with the US, which the Bloc Québécois supported precisely because the Quebec forestry industry asked it to. The industrial sector was unanimous on this. The NDP often accuses us of all manner of things in this area, but the Bloc Québécois has always been in symbiosis with those industries. It is all very well to live in a dream world, like the NDP, but there is a hard reality: people are losing their jobs. Business owners are saying they would rather lose a billion dollars than to risk losing it all. That is the choice business made at the time, and we endorsed that choice. That is what it means to be a political party that listens to business and its needs.

This is why we are proposing this motion today. We are still listening to business. The industry has been asking for loans and loan guarantees for several years, not several months. It has been done for the auto industry, but this government is refusing to do it for the forest and manufacturing sectors although it is allowed by international law. This is the reality. Why? Because in a time of crisis, it is rather difficult to obtain financing from the banks. This is the reality. Forestry companies have been in a crisis situation for many years. Even in budget 2008, the Minister of Finance had identified the forestry and manufacturing sectors as simply being in recession. They were already in recession then. Signs were present well before the financial crisis became evident in 2008.

Obviously, when a whole segment of the economy is suffering both in Québec and in other Canadian provinces, it is impossible for us not to be on the lookout and not to try to listen. The Conservatives have proposed a stimulus package with only $170 million for this sector. This is just peanuts. Excuse me for saying this, but compared to companies' needs, this is close to nothing. This is why we are today asking the government to open their eyes. We need a true plan to help the forestry industry. There is a package for the auto industry. We are not criticizing this plan, quite the opposite. What we wanted in the stimulus package for the auto industry was protection for subcontractors because many of them are in Québec as well as other parts of Canada. We were hoping the plan would have a clause to prevent manufacturers from subcontracting outside of Canada and outside of Québec, but once more, the Conservatives did not listen.

The Conservatives made a choice by tabling a budget that provides only $170 million for the forestry sector. As hon. members can well imagine, for that reason alone the Bloc Québécois could not support this budget, because we cannot abandon workers in this sector. For example, in my riding, in the Papineau area, 45% of all jobs are in the forestry sector. We simply cannot ignore that industry. As I said, the same is true in all regions of Quebec.

Today, we are proposing loans, loan guarantees and refundable tax credits for research and development. We are not talking about mere tax credits for research and development. In order to get tax credits, one must first pay taxes. However, when companies are going through crises and cannot finance themselves, they are definitely not making profits. If that were the case, they would have no problems finding money. This means that if we only give them tax credits, these companies will not be able to benefit from them. Instead, we are asking for refundable tax credits. If a business has not made profits but is investing, then it would get a cheque from Ottawa. This would also help that company make investments.

We are asking for a policy to encourage the use of lumber in the construction and renovation of federal public buildings. This makes sense. Canada is one of the world's largest producers of lumber. It would only make sense if, in the federal buildings, some of the construction projects would involve the use of lumber. Finally, we are asking for measures to support energy and ethanol production from forestry waste, or biomass. Now is the time to do that. If we want to help these companies, we must invest. One way of diversifying their activities would be to use biomass to produce energy. This could help them increase their production.

Again, if Conservative, Liberal and New Democrat members were aware of what Quebeckers are going through, they would support the motion brought forward by the Bloc Québécois.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this member's problem is that he should be getting legal advice. The NDP's amendment would only serve to put an end to this free trade agreement and that is not the goal. The NDP should have done this work before. If they did not do it, that is their problem. However, as we are talking, we are hoping that the free trade agreement will be put in place and that we will work immediately towards a policy to help shipyards.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows well enough that the Bloc Québécois would never sacrifice one job in Quebec, never. That is why we were hoping that the New Democratic Party would take off its blinders a bit and participate in creating a real policy, a strategy to develop shipyards. That is what is needed. We should not be discussing the NDP amendments. In this House we should be discussing an assistance program for shipyards. That is what would allow them to be competitive, and that is what Davie Shipyards needs. That is the reality. Once again, the NDP refuses to see the reality. They have moved on to something else. An agreement will be made and we should discuss a real assistance program and work together, with the government, on this program.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about the NDP's amendments to Bill C-2.

The Bloc Québécois' agenda is to defend the interests of Quebeckers. Overall, the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association is a good one, and the Bloc Québécois will support it because it will liberalize trade of non-agricultural goods with that part of the world. Quebec will likely benefit.

For example, Switzerland has a flourishing brand name pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceuticals account for 40% of Canadian exports to Switzerland and 50% of our imports from there. Swiss pharmaceutical manufacturers seeking to penetrate the American market may consider making prescription drugs here. It is no secret that Quebec's pool of skilled researchers and favourable tax system make it a premier destination for brand name drug companies.

A free trade agreement that facilitates trade between a company and its subsidiaries could promote new investment in Quebec's pharmaceutical sector. And then there is Norway, where nickel accounts for 80% of our exports. The largest mine in Canada, third largest in the world, is owned by a Swiss company, Xstrata, and is in Quebec's Ungava region.

Aluminum is our top export to Iceland, and aluminum production is concentrated in Quebec.

This agreement does not have the same flaws as some previous agreements. NAFTA, the agreement with Costa Rica and the agreement with Chile all contain a bad chapter on investments that gives corporations the right to take a government to court if it adopts measures that reduce their profits. There are no such provisions in the agreement with the European Free Trade Association.

This agreement covers only goods, not services. Nothing would force us, therefore, to open public services to competition, whether provided by the government or not, because they are not covered. Similarly, financial services and banks will not be exposed to competition from Switzerland, which has a very strong, secretive banking system, or Liechtenstein, which is a true haven for the financial world when it comes to taxation and anonymity.

The same thing is true for government procurement. The government is perfectly free to prefer Canadian suppliers, except as provided in the WTO agreement on government procurement. It would obviously be pretty ridiculous for the government to give itself a certain amount of latitude and then decide not to use it. We therefore want the federal government, which is the largest purchaser of Canadian goods and services, to prefer Canadian suppliers and show some concern for the spinoff effects of its procurement. And it has the right to do so.

In the area of agriculture, Bill C-2 also allows for implementation of the bilateral agricultural agreements in addition to the free trade agreement with those countries.

Those agreements, which are no threat to supply management, will have no great impact on agriculture in Quebec. Milk proteins are excluded from the agreement. The tariff quotas and over-quota tariffs remain unchanged. In other words, products that are under supply management are still protected. That is what we have been calling for all along, and what the Conservative Party usually refuses to recognize.

In fact, it is mainly the west that will benefit from the agricultural agreements because they provide for freer trade in certain grains, but the impact will not be significant.

As for shipbuilding, we need a real policy to support and develop the shipbuilding industry as soon as possible. Like many people, we have some concerns about the future of our shipyards. At present, imported vessels are subject to a 25% tariff. Under the agreement, these tariffs will start gradually decreasing in three years and will be completely eliminated in 15 years.

However, our shipyards are far less modern and in much worse condition than Norwegian shipyards. Norway has made massive investments in modernizing its shipyards, whereas the federal government has completed abandoned ours.

If our borders were opened wide tomorrow morning, our shipyards would likely disappear. But for economic, strategic and environmental reasons, we cannot let our shipyards disappear.

Imagine the risks to Quebec if no shipyard could repair vessels that ran aground or broke down in the St. Lawrence, the world's foremost waterway.

For years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for a real marine policy, and for years the government has been dragging its feet. Now that the agreement has been signed, time is of the essence. A policy to support our shipyards is urgently needed.

Moreover, this is the only recommendation in the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade on the free trade agreement between Canada and the EFTA. The committee agreed to insert the recommendation proposed by the Bloc Québécois international trade critic and deputy critic, which reads as follows:

...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.

That is the only recommendation in the report. The Conservative policy of leaving companies to fend for themselves could be disastrous for shipyards. We expect the government to give up its bad policy, and we call on it to table a real policy, by the end of the year, to support and develop the shipbuilding industry. Given the urgency, we will not be content with fine talk. We need a real policy that covers all aspects of the industry.

The Bloc Québécois believes that this free trade agreement is a good agreement. The problem is shipyards. We call on the government to table a real policy by the end of the year to help shipyards become competitive. However, we cannot afford to jeopardize this free trade agreement, which is good for Quebec.

The real issue for the Bloc Québécois, and what it has always called for, is a free trade agreement with the European Union. Bill C-2, a free trade agreement with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, is good, but we have to recognize that it is limited. Together, these countries have a population of only 12 million people and account for roughly 1% of Canadian exports. The real issue is the European Union, with its 495 million inhabitants who generate 31% of global GDP. The European Union is the world's leading economic power.

Canada is far too dependent on the United States, which buys more than 85% of our exports. The American economic slowdown, coupled with the surge in value of Canada's petrodollar against the U.S. dollar, reminds us that this dependence undermines our economy. Quebec has lost more than 150,000 manufacturing jobs in the past five years, including more than 80,000 since the Conservatives came to power, with their laissez-faire doctrine.

To diversify as we must do, the priority should not be given to China or India, countries from which we import, respectively, eight and six times more than we export to them. The European Union is an essential trading partner if we want to diversify our markets and reduce our dependence on the United States. What is more, the fact that Canada has not signed a free trade agreement with the European Union considerably diminishes how competitive our companies are on the European market. With the rise in value of the petrodollar, European companies have tended to skip over Canada and open subsidiaries directly in the United States. Canada's share of direct European investments in North America went from 3% in 1992 to 1% in 2004.

Add to that the fact that the European Union and Mexico have had a free trade agreement since 2000. Consequently, if a Canadian company is doing business in Mexico, it is in that company's best interest to relocate more of its production to Mexico because it can access both the European and U.S. markets, which it cannot do if it keeps its production in Quebec.

Quebec would be the first to benefit from a free trade agreement with Europe. 77% of the people who work for French companies in Canada are from Quebec, as are 37% of those who work for U.K. companies here and 35% of those who work for German companies here. In contrast, just 20% of people working for U.S. companies in Canada are Quebeckers. The Government of Quebec has been working with companies since the Quiet Revolution, and that is a major advantage when it comes time to seek out European investment. We have everything we need to become the bridgehead for European investment in America.

For the Bloc Québécois, this free trade agreement between Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland is a first step. We cannot not sign it. The amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party, the NDP, runs the risk of jeopardizing this agreement. The Bloc Québécois will oppose the NDP motion.

[Sports Infrastructure, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it was this minister who gave a political lieutenant and Conservative organizer the job of talking with the provinces.

How can the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities assure us that the approach he is proposing will not turn the infrastructure program into a tool for promoting the Conservative Party and a source of secret funding to build up the Conservative Party's election fund, like the Liberals' sponsorship program?

[Sports Infrastructure, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the statements by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities show that there is obvious partisanship in the use of sports infrastructure program funding. The program even provides for making agreements with the private sector, over the heads of Quebec and the municipalities.

Is the minister aware that, if such agreements are allowed, over the heads of legitimate authorities, the sports infrastructure program could get out of hand and turn into a tool for politically blackmailing the cities?