Peter Julian

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to rise today on the prebudget debate to discuss what is going to be extremely important for Canadians across the country.

Over the last 11 years we have seen 11 years of Bay Street budgets. What we need to see this year is a budget for main street, a budget for our communities across the country, a budget that will help to address the fall in the quality of life which we have seen Canadians endure over the past decade.

In my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster we saw the closure of a major hospital just a few months ago because of federal health care cutbacks. We have seen for the average Canadian worker a fall in salary of 60¢ an hour in real terms. We see average Canadian families now indebted a third more than they were a decade ago. And we have seen broken promise after broken promise.

In this year it is time for this budget to address all these outstanding issues and start to address the main street deficit. The fact is that most Canadians are living with a lower quality of life than they were 10 years ago.

I would like to speak for a few minutes about what we particularly do not want to see in the budget for this year.

First of all, we do not want to see the continued mismanagement of public funds, as we saw in the sponsorship scandal last year and in numerous other cases. A few weeks ago, despite the regulations that exist at Treasury Board, we saw that the Canadian ambassador to France managed to spend $200,000 on social evenings, while Canadians find themselves with ever dwindling financial resources. We do not want the budget to permit such bad practices any longer.

Neither do we want to see continued investment of money in certain foundations that have no oversight from the Auditor General. We all know that she has spoken about this on many occasions. I myself am impatiently awaiting Ms. Fraser's report on this subject on February 15. It is very clear that we cannot continue to keep money from the public servants who are responsible for ensuring that it is spent wisely.

We do not want to see more tax reductions for the best performing companies, as we have seen under this government. In fact the first major decision of this government, taken at the beginning of last year, was to cut the income taxes of such companies.

There is this huge gap between Bay Street, with its record profits, and ordinary Canadians. We are in fact looking at profits of 14% once again. This is unprecedented in Canadian history. At the same time, Canadians are living with increasingly fewer resources and services, and increasingly fewer promises are kept.

These are the things that we especially do not want to see again. We do not want to see this government wrong again in its budget projections. In the last 10 years, we have seen a difference of $86 billion between the forecasts and the final results. It is absolutely appalling for projections to be so far from reality.

Those are the things that we do not want to see in this budget.

There are things that we do want to see. In this minority Parliament and because of pressure from the four corners of the House--and I can guarantee that in this corner of the House we will be fighting for main street--this budget must finally start to address that main street deficit: the cuts in community services; the cuts in the quality of life; the cut in basic revenue; the increase in debt for Canadian families; the increase in debt for Canadian students; and the increase in debt we are seeing right across this country, which is being paid for by Canadians from coast to coast to coast. If we want to see that main street deficit addressed, then there are things that must be in this budget.

We must invest in education. Either we have seen students themselves and/or their families going into debt by tens of thousands of dollars in order to further their education to make a contribution to this country or, as in my riding where I have knocked on thousands of doors, we have seen dozens of young people who have not gone to school. They have not gone into post-secondary education because they know there are no supports in place to help them do that.

We are looking in this budget for a significant investment in education that will start to address that main street deficit, an investment that will start to address support for ordinary Canadians across this country so that they can go to school and get the trade qualifications and the education required for them to make the full contribution they want to make to this society and to this country.

What we want to see and are fighting for is a main street budget that is going to invest in a sustainable environment. It is deplorable that after signing the Kyoto accord, after making that commitment to reduce emissions by 20% in 2005, we are actually seeing an increase of 20% in emissions, as our leader, the member for Toronto--Danforth, has pointed out on numerous occasions here in the House. That is shameful. It is shocking.

In this corner of the House we are working hard and we will be fighting to make sure that this budget in this minority Parliament actually addresses that main street deficit and that we start to invest in a sustainable environment. This includes investing in municipalities and investing in infrastructure.

We will also be fighting hard to make sure that this budget invests in children. We have been calling for this for years. Broken promise after broken promise from the government has led to not keeping that fundamental commitment made by Liberal governments and the Liberal Party during elections: to establish a pan-Canadian, publicly funded, universally accessible, not for profit child care system that helps to support families, those working families and families across this country that have had to deal with that main street deficit and the absence of publicly funded, universally accessible and not for profit child care in this country. We will be fighting for that in the budget to be tabled this month.

We will be fighting as well to increase the $4,900 child tax benefit and to open the benefit and include those who do not pay income tax, again to address this main street deficit.

It is important to note that when we talk about growing poverty in this country, when we talk about the fact that homelessness in my area has tripled, when we are talking about the fact that food bank lineups are longer and longer, when we are talking about the fact that there are more and more poor Canadians, so much of that has impacted children in this country.

It is deplorable that 15 years after the adoption in the House of this resolution to eliminate child poverty we now see over a million poor Canadians, poor children and their families who are forced to address this issue of the main street deficit. We will be looking for a substantial investment to make sure that for this main street deficit for poor children, who are in food bank lineups and are homeless in so many tragic cases across this country, there is finally an investment to start to deal with their reality.

It is tragic as well to note that we are now looking at between 150,000 and 300,000 Canadians who are homeless in this land. At a time when we are looking at record corporate profits, at a time when we have $9 billion of surplus, at a time when we have all of these resources available, we are looking at between 0.5% and 1% of our population who are sleeping without a home tonight. That is shocking.

We will be fighting for all of these issues because we have had 11 years of Bay Street budgets. We in the New Democratic Party caucus will be fighting very hard to make sure that this is a main street budget dealing with the real realities of Canadians from coast to coast to coast in this country. We will be fighting hard and we will not stop until Canadians are adequately represented in this year's budget.

[Textile Industry, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for Shefford for his speech. It is important that we discuss this issue in the House today.

A while ago, I put a question to another member concerning the $50 million in measures over a five-year period that will actually give $200 of $300 a month to each business, everywhere in Canada. Here are the questions I wanted to ask my colleague for Shefford.

First, even if he is far removed from these issues, does he think that these funds can meet the needs of the textile and apparel industry?

In addition, in his riding of Shefford, what are the consequences of the government's disengagement for several years and of the fact that, today, it suddenly comes up with some measures?

What consequences and what repercussions does the member foresee in his riding in terms of job loss and business failures?

[Textile Industry, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, we heard the member for Brome—Missisquoi talk about other members of the opposition just waking up to the fact that this issue was before us and that we had to deal with it. My opinion is that on three of the four corners of the House we have been awake for some time and it is only the government that has finally awoken to the fact that immediate measures need to be taken.

We talked earlier about the $50 million that will be provided to the textile and clothing apparel industries over five years. This amount of money, divided among 3,900 different companies, basically means a few hundred dollars a month for each of those companies.

I want to ask the hon. member, given today's disaster in the industry, whether he thinks the last minute measures taken by the government are even remotely appropriate.

[Textile Industry, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond. I know that she and my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska are working very hard since the apparel and textile industry is so important for the Eastern Townships. I thus know that they recognize it and that they are fighting hard to continue protecting the interests of the workers in that industry.

When we talk about the government and all those international trade issues, everybody can see an obvious failure. It is not only with respect to the apparel and textile industry that the government is taking hasty measures and not doing the necessary negotiating or planning.

We only have to look at the softwood lumber industry, which is vital to my home province of British Columbia. For years we have been seeing inaction on the part of the government. The same is true with respect to agriculture. Today, several farming organizations made presentations to the subcommittee. It is the same problem.

The government is not acting. It is systematic. The government is ossified and, unfortunately, is unable to make decisions and plan ahead for the good of communities across the country.

[Textile Industry, December 14th, 2004]

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

I certainly recognize that it shows the government has not consulted for a very long time. In fact, it consults only a few people; of course, it does not consult unions or people who are knowledgeable. It does not do that kind of consultation.

Moreover, as we know very well, it has difficulty in consulting generally. On all other issues, it will maybe hold bogus consultation, but that only shows the extent to which the government is ossified and incapable of acting and consulting the right people to be able to take the right actions it has become.

I totally agree with him. It is terrible.

[Textile Industry, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to this extremely important issue tonight. I congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for requesting this debate. This issue is really important.

Two weeks ago, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre introduced an emergency resolution about remission orders. He actually suggested a seven year extension to help the Canadian textile and clothing industries adjust. We did not have any discussions then. The government did not move. We held a debate, but in the end, no resolution was passed and no decision was made.

Today, as we know, in a very unfortunate turn of events, the Cleyn & Tinker company announced that it will close down its plant in Huntingdon, eliminating 800 jobs in a city where they are badly needed.

A moment ago, I was listening to the news, and a worker in the Cleyn & Tinker plant clearly said the government had done nothing. This is not me talking, but a worker who was venting his frustration because of the lack of government action.

Other members of the House in the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, have been saying clearly for years that we need transition measures to help the textile and clothing industries.

As this worker told it very clearly, the government did not do anything. All of a sudden, it is waking up today, and it is announcing measures for this industry after these jobs were lost in Huntingdon. Despite all the concern about the textile and clothing industries throughout Canada and in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto—we knew there was a problem—the government waited until now to announce all of a sudden, like the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup told us, that it will do something.

They are thus announcing three different things. First, the duties on imported fibres and thread, worth up to $15 million per year, and on textile inputs for the Canadian Apparel Industry, worth up to 75 million per year, will be cancelled as of January 1, 2005.

We all know that representatives of the Textile and Apparel Industry have been coming here for months, seeking help. The Standing Committee on Finance studied the question. The Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment talked about the importance of these measures. A resolution was even passed on that subject. Today, the government is finally making this announcement, at the very last minute.

Second, in the next five years, an additional $50 million will be given to improve the effectiveness of textile production and to encourage Canadian textile companies to choose higher valued products, to serve specific niches and to increase their productivity. We are talking about $50 million in the next five years.

There are 3,900 businesses across the country. If we share this amount equally between all of them, it only gives a few hundred dollars per month for each one of them over the next five years to help them serve specific niche, chose higher valued products and increase their productivity. We are talking a few hundred dollars for an industry that is hurting and that has been calling for help for months now. We are only giving them a few hundred dollars. It might be enough to buy a little more coffee or a few pens.

It is ridiculous to see the government rushing in to provide 3,900 businesses that are so sorely in need with a total of $50 million over the next five years. There are tens of thousands of jobs involved across the country, and the government comes up with $50 million over five years.

Recently, it was decided to extend the duty remission orders by five years. The advantages these provide to textile and apparel manufacturers will be phased out over the final three years of that period. The industry called for seven years. My colleague for Winnipeg Centre introduced a resolution several weeks ago, and it mentioned seven years.

At present, there is an extension of 24 months only, for an industry that is so much in need of support at this time. After that 24-month period, the remission orders will be phased out. That is very little.

There is not much said about these measures and they are, as my Conservative colleague has said, too little and too late. Now it is being rushed in, whereas the three other parties in this House have been calling for action to be taken, for weeks now, months even. It seems to have taken the closing of Cleyn & Tinker and the loss of 800 jobs, combined with the context of a party in a minority government position being subjected to pressures from the other three parties in this House to get the government to finally take some action.

We ought not to be surprised by this. Since the Liberal government has been in power, there have been 40,000 jobs lost in this industry. Now we are talking of an industry that is surviving with 75,000 or so workers, despite the fact that export figures are $3.5 billion.

The urgent action taken today is not a match for the challenges faced by the textile and apparel industry. There are still fears for jobs, not only in Huntingdon and Montreal, but also in Winnipeg, Vancouver and Toronto. We know enough to expect the same inaction from this government and we know that the other three parties in this House will have to put the same pressure on this minority government if we are to see any reaction, like we did with the health care system.

A hospital was closed in my riding. Child poverty is on the increase, as is homelessness. There are crises everywhere, worsening crises, and the government is doing nothing.

In my opinion, we will continue to work on this as we do on other measures. The voters will not, however, forget the lack of action by the government, and the very limited action it has taken in panic mode today, even though they have had plenty of warning, for months and even years.

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention in the House. I know that the hon. member is fully aware of the value of the forest industry, the $16 billion in exports annually. I also know that the hon. member understands the size and scope of the incredible crisis that we are facing in British Columbia. It is over 100,000 square kilometres of devastated forest land.

The hon. member understands the size and scope of the issue. He certainly understands the value of the industry and the importance of forest lands in British Columbia. Would he not agree with me that $40 million over six years is very much a pittance, much less than what is needed from the federal government to address the crisis?

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a very important point about Kyoto, the importance of adhering to it and moving forward with it. I do not buy the proposition that somehow there is something better, something hidden away that we will hear about some time from the members in one corner of the House. The reality is we must work through Kyoto. Only through Kyoto can we really start addressing the issues of climatic change, which have worsened the pine beetle infestation.

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the hon. member opposite who first said that we should not be talking about provincial politics and then proceeded of course to support the position of the B.C. Liberals.

It is very clear in the House that we have a responsibility to question the inadequate response from the federal Liberals. There is no doubt their response has been entirely inadequate. In previous interventions in the House, I have mentioned that very fact. Forty million dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to the sixteen billion dollars that the export industry is worth. There is no doubt the federal Liberals are responsible in large part, but we will not let the provincial Liberals off the hook either. What they do is pass the ball back and forth. The federal Liberals say that the provincial Liberals should be doing more. The provincial Liberals say that the federal Liberals should be doing more.

The reality is the inadequate federal response, coupled with the cutbacks, which we have seen devastating the ministry of forests, has led to the crisis we now see. Under the B.C. Liberal watch, most of the territory that is now infested was infested. Most of that has happened over the past three or three and a half years, since the B.C. Liberals were elected. That is unfortunate and it shows that the B.C. Liberal cutbacks have had an impact as well.

In the spirit of non-partisanship, members in all four corners of the House should recognize that when a provincial government enacts policies that have an extremely negative impact on our forest land, we have the responsibility to speak up. In this case, both the federal Liberals and the B.C. Liberals are responsible.

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important issue this evening. I would like to thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas, both for the skill with which he spoke to the issue a few moments ago and for his generosity in sharing his time with me this evening.

We know that the pine beetle infestation is devastating British Columbia. The latest figures for 2003 indicate that over 100,000 square kilometres of British Columbia are now infested. That means roughly 173 million cubic metres of wood has been affected and has been killed as a result of this infestation. That is the equivalent of 5.2 million homes that could be constructed with the wood.

We are talking about an area equivalent to three-quarters of Sweden. If the pine beetle infestation continues, we are talking about an area the size of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island together that would be devastated.

We are talking about something, the magnitude of which has never been seen in Canadian history. This is the greatest infestation that we have ever had in Canada. It is a matter of tremendous importance for communities in the interior of British Columbia that have seen their lodgepole pine forests and other forests devastated. In fact, the latest figures indicate that we could be talking about 85% of the lodgepole pine forests that will be affected. Obviously, the magnitude of this crisis is significant and the magnitude of the response needs to be significant as well.

As I indicated earlier, the $40 million that the federal government is putting in is not sufficient to handle the magnitude of this crisis, not nearly sufficient to handle the magnitude of the crisis. When we couple it with the cutbacks that have happened at the provincial level, we are talking about a situation where the lack of political action at both the provincial and federal levels is compounding this important crisis and making it much worse.

I would like to mention a report that will be released in a few days by the Sierra Club. It indicates the degree to which cutbacks by the provincial government have had an impact on the pine beetle infestation. The study is done by a former Vancouver Sun forestry reporter, Ben Parfitt. He was assisted by Kerri Garner, a student of environmental studies and geography at the University of Victoria. Certain excerpts were published by Stephen Hume in the Vancouver Sun last week.

First, they did a study of the cutbacks to the ministry of forestry. The cutbacks indicated that 800 jobs in the ministry of forestry have disappeared over the last three years since Gordon Campbell was elected. Most of those 800 positions which were axed include science, technical research and enforcement staff. We have been talking this evening about the importance that research plays in developing a response to the pine beetle infestation. The B.C. Liberals under Gordon Campbell gutted 800 positions. The newspaper report stated:

--the authors found “a gutted and demoralized department that is largely incapable of addressing the many challenges before it”.

The writers indicated that:

In short, the government wound up decimating the ministry just as it confronted the most sinister challenge it has faced--the nightmarish pine beetle infestation that is sweeping through B.C.'s boreal forests like a botanical version of the Black Death.

That is the result of the cutbacks of the B.C. Liberals in dealing with this important pine beetle infestation. It is having a huge impact on the interior of British Columbia.

As I mentioned earlier, we are talking about an industry that has $16 billion in export revenues annually, but there have been cutbacks, both in terms of the number of positions that have been eliminated and the cutbacks for reforestation. We have seen reforestation budgets cut from $82 million to $3 million in this most recent year and we know reforestation is one important way of trying to address this infestation.

We have seen cutbacks at both those levels and the result compares unfavourably to the U.S. forest service. For example, each U.S. forest service employee is responsible for managing a forest area equivalent to five--