Serge Cardin

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is now with even less enthusiasm that I again speak to Bill C-24.

As I was saying, this bill aims to impose charges on certain softwood lumber products exported to the United States and charges on the refund of certain customs deposits paid in the United States.

It is positively appalling to see a bill that imposes such charges on an industry that is having enough problems, in addition to charges—that I would say are illegal—imposed by the United States for many years.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the softwood lumber agreement that was signed is not the breakthrough of the century. This is really not what the softwood lumber industry needed. The United States, which imposed duties on softwood lumber for many years, levied approximately $5.4 billion from the forest industry, of which $1 billion will be returned to the United States. As for the other $4.4 billion, it will be paid back to the industry.

The reason the forestry industry is having problems at present is clearly because of inaction on the part of one government after another: inaction by the Liberal government followed by inaction by the Conservative government. From the very beginning, the Bloc Québécois repeatedly called on the Liberal government of the day to implement measures to support the forestry industry. First, the Bloc asked for loan guarantees. It knew that some day the industry would win its cases against the United States. So the government could have given advances, or lent money, or guaranteed loans. That would have given the forestry industry a chance to preserve a large number of jobs.

It would be wrong to say that this would have preserved all those jobs, because we know that the softwood lumber industry is cyclical. A large share of the job losses could have been avoided, however, if the Liberal government had given loan guarantees at that time. As well, the Bloc suggested a number of other measures and is still suggesting them, in spite of the implementation of the agreement, Bill C-24, and the law that will ensue.

The Conservative government came next. The worst thing is that even in January of this year the Conservative government was making campaign promises saying that it would support the forestry industry. It would have supported it precisely by giving it loan guarantees. As soon as the government was elected, the promise was forgotten. That was the end of loan guarantees. The government negotiated a softwood lumber agreement.

There are a number of bizarre circumstances in this case. For example, the government was negotiating an agreement while the industry was engaged in proceedings against the United States. How would the United States see this situation? The government was negotiating with them, the industry was bringing proceedings against them. The United States was in a position of strength. They knew very well that the courts would find that what the United States was charging the softwood lumber industry was illegal. Canada and the industry would have recovered all of the duties that had been collected by the United States.

At the same time, the Conservative Party was negotiating an agreement. What, exactly, was going on? We might think that what was going on was appalling.

The money of course belonged to the softwood lumber industry—$5.4 billion dollars—and the agreement signed by the Conservative government let $1 billion of it go. Why? As administrative fees for collecting duties charged to the Canadian forestry industry? This is a completely bizarre situation and we cannot follow it. Today, however, we have to acknowledge that the agreement exists and that the purpose of this bill is to act on it and to implement the softwood lumber agreement. We know perfectly well that something else could have been done, and certainly that the Bloc Québécois is not particularly enthusiastic about this outcome. Nonetheless, the industry has asked us to support it through all the ups and downs it has been through and all these problems, problems that I would say were virtually invented by the United States, throughout this long period of time.

In Quebec, the industry, if I may say so, was on the brink of bankruptcy. People want the forestry industry to survive in Quebec, and certainly they needed to recover that money, their money the United States had made off with. So they let $1 billion go, money that will moreover, and this is odious, assist the United States forestry industry. This makes absolutely no sense. So this begs the question. Why? Why did the Conservative government let $1 billion go to the United States of America when the forestry industry needed it so badly? Why?

Why give someone $1 billion if you know perfectly well that the courts and the judges are going to tell you in the end that the duties imposed by the U.S. were illegal? Why leave $1 billion in the U.S.? Since nothing in the hypotheses we might come up with makes sense, we could quite simply say that it is for future considerations. What are they? I leave it up to the people, the public and other MPs to figure out what it might be, though it definitely will not be anything very brilliant or perhaps even legal.

We know exactly who comes out ahead in the softwood lumber agreement. I repeat, of the $5.4 billion, only $4.4 billion has been reimbursed, and $1 billion remains in the United States. Who is the winner here? The U.S. companies, of course, which are going to cash in $500 million and are going to invest in their industry, in their businesses. A $50 million fund will go to initiatives aimed at promoting the use of wood for both residential and commercial purposes, and $450 million will be left to the discretion of the American government. This is an unexpected windfall for the Republican Party. At that point, it was just in time for the elections. Still, we know how that turned out. Not everything can be bought.

To conclude, I repeat that the Bloc Québécois reluctantly supports this agreement. The cut-rate negotiations of the Conservative minority government will have served to jeopardize the forest industry, particularly in Quebec. The return of funds collected illegally, contrary to what the Minister of Industrye appears to believe, is not a miraculous injection of money, or a gift from the government. It is the industry’s money that is going back to the industry. We must never forget that.

It is time to give the industry a chance to recover, at least for the companies that have not already given up the ghost.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is with little enthusiasm that I rise now to again speak to the House about Bill C-24. This bill aims to impose export charges—

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. I would like to return to the matter under consideration.

There have been exchanges concerning the fiscal imbalance, but people who are forced to take out small loans, small as they may be, at an interest rate of 60% also have to deal with a financial imbalance.

Payday lending is almost the equivalent of microcredit. I would like to point out that the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to professor Muhammad Yunus of the Grameen bank. At present there are almost 1,200 microcredit branches that employ 12,000. We know very well that banks today make outrageous profits. Most are in the order of billions of dollars. Does my colleague not think that banks could play a social role by providing microcredit at acceptable interest rates?

[Criminal Code, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois could of course support Bill C-22 in principle.

However, I would like to ask the hon. member the following question. Once this bill is enacted, what can be done the fact that a low of disclosure and reporting by rate victims of sexual assault is often a major obstacle in the fight against sex crimes?

I would like the member to tell the House what the Conservative Party intends to do about this. Indeed, even with the legislation, we are often unaware of sex crimes if we do not know about situations or activities, or apply certain measures to prevent sexual activity among young people, and especially exploitation of young people.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when I requested the floor to ask the hon. member a question earlier, it was to remind him that the bill should help not just the provinces and territories, but also the least fortunate in our society.

To come back to what I said in a previous question, this is oddly similar to micro-credit and, in my opinion, it is the financial institutions—which make outrageous profits—who should take responsibility.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, since for all intents and purposes we are discussing micro-credit, I would like to point out that the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley made special mention of the social responsibilities that banks should have. I remember introducing a bill, on another occasion, that would have allowed banks to play a social role by helping the most disadvantaged and the poorest who have to pay administrative fees. Often bank services are not accessible to these individuals.

I would just like to make an important point. The member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park mentioned that the member for Winnipeg Centre was too kind to the poor and that we have to follow the lead of the government in terms of Bill C-26. I would like to point out that, this year, Mr. Muhammad Yunus received the Nobel Peace Price. He is an economist who established a micro-credit system, with 1,200 micro-credit offices, which today has created jobs for 12,000 individuals. These are small repayable loans made at rates that are probably much lower than 60%.It gives credence to the statement that, and I quote, “Lasting peace cannot be achieved unless large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty”.

If people need payday loans and, if for all intents and purposes, micro-credit were available for relatively short periods, would it not be important enough to warrant establishing this system within the banks? They could be asked to play a social role and to loan small amounts. We know quite well that, more and more, banks—all banks—make profits in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, profits often in excess of one billion per year.

Ordinary banks have a social responsibility. I ask the member: would it not be better to ensure that banks fulfill their social responsibilities rather than protecting a loan system which, for all intents and purposes, is usurious?

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, before putting my question to the member of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to draw the attention of the House to what the Conservative member said.

The member was talking about 60% interest. If someone borrows $200 at 60% interest—interest rates are always calculated on an annual basis—that amounts to $120. If we divide that by 12, it is $10. For a loan of $200, an individual would pay $10 dollars interest per month. That does not seem exorbitant, but when you make the calculation the rate of interest is 60%. Unfortunately for those lenders, it is possible that $10 per month may not cover the administration costs.

That means that, strictly in terms of the profitability of such a service to the public—if it can be called that—the rate of interest would have to be even more exorbitant.

Therefore, I ask my colleague whether, given the conditions relating to the operation of such a business, we should not simply forget all that and create a bank for small loans and in doing so introduce regulations that better protect consumers?

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech on Bill C-26.

In listening to her, I put myself in the shoes of citizens listening to the explanations here in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, I think that the 10 minutes given to my hon. colleague were not enough for her to delve further and provide more specific information about this bill and the reasons why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to it.

I would therefore like to ask her to be more specific for the benefit of citizens. Does this bill set a maximum interest rate for borrowers? I would also like her to tell us whether this rate is still usurious or not.

[Chrysotile Asbestos, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, further to pressure from the Bloc Québécois, Canada supported, last week in Geneva, the decision to exempt asbestos from the Rotterdam Convention list of hazardous materials. Thus Canada officially acknowledged the safe and increased use of chrysotile fibre, as had the Government of Quebec in 2002.

Ottawa should, however, show some consistency by ensuring that federal departments and agencies now have uniform regulations that do not categorize chrysotile with hazardous materials.

The government must immediately comply with the recommendations made in the second report of the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment, presented to the House on June 17, 2005, by the Bloc Québécois and adopted unanimously.

This report recommends that the Government of Canada develop a policy based on information about this fibre, its promotion and safe use.

The economy of the communities of Asbestos and Thetford Mines depend on it.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member.

Who really wins in all of this? As I said earlier, it is the United States government that wins: for all practical purposes, it wins a billion dollars for having forced the forestry companies of Canada and Quebec to go bankrupt, leaving workers unemployed.

That billion dollars is very easily divided up. Five hundred million is going to certain U.S. companies, to benefit the United States in the same sector. A $450-million fund will be left to the discretion of the Americans. Fortunately Bush does not want and cannot have another term of office, because this would help him get elected. The billion dollars has mainly been used to develop specific friendships with the Bush government. There is $50 million remaining, which could in the end benefit Canadian business because it is for initiatives designed to promote the use of lumber, from Canadian and U.S. firms alike. Fifty million dollars may seem like a lot of money, but if most of it goes back to the United States, nothing will be left for Quebec and for Canada.