Robert Vincent

[International Trade, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we will be losing more jobs. They do not even know what they are negotiating. Recently, the Minister of International Trade's chief negotiator appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to present a study of the effects the free trade agreement currently being negotiated between the Canadian and South Korean governments would have on the automobile industry. Mr. Burney emphasized that the effects of such an agreement on other industrial sectors had not been analyzed.

How can the Minister of International Trade negotiate an international agreement without studying—

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the following question for my colleague from Laval—Les Îles.

She mentioned all the pilot projects the Liberals had implemented, but the only project, the only thing we are asking for is the POWA. The very POWA they abolished in 1997 whose reinstatement we have been calling for ever since.

What is preventing its reinstatement after so many government studies? There should be an answer to that.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the NDP member say that the Bloc Québécois is really in favour of this bill. I would like to say to the member opposite that he, himself, often whines and complains about pretty much anything, but when it comes time to vote, he votes in favour. So why does he say one thing and then do the opposite? I think that what someone says is one thing and what I understand is another.

Quebeckers support the softwood lumber deal. Obviously, backs to the wall and a gun to their heads, they have no choice but to accept the agreement. And people wonder if we support it. They are asking us to vote to get them out of this mess, to give them some air so they can survive.

That is what the Bloc Québécois is doing. If the members opposite fail to understand this, that is their problem, but they had better not expect us to go along on their bandwagon to places we do not want to go.

I have a question for the member opposite. The president of the FTQ, Mr. Massé, is concerned that in the wake of this agreement, the Americans will take control of all forestry companies in Quebec and elsewhere.

Does the member believe that acceptance of this agreement may lead the American forest industry to buy us out?

[Goods and Services Tax, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, since October 2001, the government has been engaged in an arm-wrestling match with the Quebec school boards that launched an appeal to recover the full amount of GST paid on school transportation.

On January 29, 2003, the Tax Court of Canada ruled in favour of the school boards. However, the government has reimbursed only 68% of the amount paid.

On October 4, 2005, the Conservative Party tabled a motion, which was then adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance, to issue the total amount of reimbursements for GST on school transportation to the school boards, in accordance with the January 29, 2003, decision.

I am therefore asking the government to reimburse the remaining 32%, as it demanded in the fall of 2005. That remaining 32% represents over $72,335 for the Val-des-Cerfs school board in my riding. When will they get this money?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for his speech on softwood lumber. I think he was quite thorough. The Conservative member said earlier that 83% of Canada's forestry industry's money is coming back to it and the other 17% is going to the Americans. If that is how the Conservative member used to negotiate, I am glad she did not have a hand in this negotiation.

After making the Canadian and Quebec industries lose money, does the government intend to implement new strategies? We see that the Bloc Québécois has proposed alternative measures to support the industry. It is not just a matter of negotiating and pulling out. There also needs to be a new plan.

I would like the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup to say a few words about other ways that could help the Quebec and Canadian industries get new machinery and develop new procedures.

I recently read that an older worker support program would be implemented but that it would not apply to the softwood lumber sector. In my opinion, this should go further.

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup spoke earlier of the Minister of Industry's inertia, which did not help the industries and allowed free enterprise to rule. Can the hon. member tell us what concrete measures the Conservative government should apply in order to support the softwood lumber industry?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Fifty million, that is it.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I listened to the Liberal member asking for loan guarantees and saying that the Conservatives should have given them. I must point out that the Liberals had the opportunity to do the same thing, that is to provide loan guarantees, and they never did. That the Conservatives have not done so either is another story. I do not understand why they wanted to negotiate— I spoke about that previously.

When we talk about leaving a billion dollars on the table, it must be remembered that $500 million of that amount will be paid to the American softwood lumber industry. Personally, if someone were negotiating on my behalf with a third party over my money, and if that money were paid to the other party, the one who started the dispute, I would not be happy. It would be as though I were robbed in my own home, as though, like everyone else, I knew who the robber was and as though a Conservative member negotiated with the robber and told him he could keep the television set and the cutlery. They did the same thing. The Conservatives were elected and they stuck their nose in this issue. There remains $500 million for the softwood lumber industry and $500 million handed over to the White House, which can do whatever it wants with that money. Everything is fine; and they say that it is a good agreement. Really. Where are we headed? If we agree to a loss every time the Conservatives negotiate on behalf of Canadian companies, we will be in the hole in no time at all.

As far as the agreement is concerned, I admit that in fact the Quebec industry has agreed to sign the agreement, but the dispute results from the inaction of the Liberals and the Conservatives, who failed to provide loan guarantees to firms in the industry. Now, the Conservatives are giving them back their own money and in addition they are leaving a billion dollars of industry money with the Americans. I do not know where they are heading, but if that is the way they want to negotiate, we will not be negotiating for long.

Can the Conservative member think of any other solutions, such as POWA? When I mention POWA, I am not thinking only of softwood lumber but of all Quebec and Canadian industries. Because of the Conservative government's inertia, there is no such program for the industry.They want to allow free enterprise. Considering the 90¢ dollar and the 94.3% increase in the cost of gasoline, electricity and propane gas, we have a small problem with free enterprise. If they leave industry to fend for itself, we will soon be without industry in Quebec and Ontario. Moreover, with respect to negotiators like those opposite, we can do without them.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Conservative member’s speech and I am perplexed by what he had to say.

I find it hard to understand why he says today that this is the best possible agreement. It may be a good agreement, in the circumstances we find ourselves in. However, I do not understand why, last October, the same party was calling on the party in power to give loan guarantees. But as soon as it is in power, it is no longer talking about giving loan guarantees.

I do not know where it got its mandate to negotiate on behalf of the industry. I cannot understand why an industry would have given this government a mandate to negotiate and then leave a billion dollars on the table. And $500 million will be paid directly to the White House. The Americans will have 18 months in which they can go back on the agreement, and we are told that it may work for a year or two and we will start the process over again of going back to hearings to win the case. I think we should have been able to see the case through. The dispute is not over and will not be over, because in 18 months it may start all over again. If we had been able to see the case through, we could have put an end to it once and for all. As well, all of the tribunals say that there was no such thing in this agreement and that softwood lumber was not subsidized by Canada. I think that much is clear.

I do not understand why we did not see the case through. That is my question. Where did these people get their mandate to negotiate on behalf of the industry? I understand that the industry in Quebec is asking that this agreement be signed, now that they find themselves up against the wall, with no money left and no people left.

I think that the government could have supported the industry, here in Quebec, and the Canadian softwood lumber industry. It did not do that and has allowed the Americans to control our forests.

For any government that represents its country’s industries, it is unacceptable to allow another country to dictate how things will be done in an agreement, in addition to leaving a billion dollars on the table, money that belongs not to the government, but rather to the industry. I think that the government has exceeded its mandate and that it would have been just, reasonable and fair to the Canadian softwood industry to give it the loan guarantees and to continue the battle so that one day it would be over.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as I have only one minute, I will be brief.

The Conservative member mentioned earlier that the agreement would run for nine years. What he forgot to say—and I would like him to elaborate on this—is that the final wording contains a clause that allows Washington to terminate the agreement at any time after 18 months. It seems to me that we do not often hear about that. It is all well and good to say that we have a nine-year agreement, that we will be able to do something and that industries in Quebec will be able to continue doing business with the United States, but after 18 months, Washington can terminate this agreement. What does the hon. member think of that?

[Teleglobe Canada, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Teleglobe Canada—sold to private interests a few years ago—has announced that it will streamline its activities in Canada and move more than 200 employees to India in the next few months.

Is this decision not a red flag for the government and should Canadian laws be reviewed in order to deal with the new economic reality resulting from globalization?