First of all, thank you very much for having us here today.
As you may know, the CSN represents more than 330,000 members in all sectors across Canada. I'd like to mention that we represent many workers in the forestry sector.
Let's talk about why we're here today.
Of course, let's acknowledge that the Government of Quebec did not react as it should have. We've been waiting for some years now for it to table a plan to protect the caribou. Unfortunately, that keeps being postponed. We're not here to oppose the emergency order, because we think there is a real urgency. That said, ideally, we would still like to see agreements negotiated with the provinces, as far as possible. I understand that did not transpire in this case.
If we are participating in this committee's study today, it's because we're aware that the implementation of this order will have repercussions. To protect the caribou, obviously, you have to cut down fewer trees. That's been proven by scientists. It is essential. Beyond that, what we have before us is above all a clear illustration of the need for a just transition. That is fundamental. The federal government itself signed an agreement at COP27 in favour of a just transition. We understand that it is often related to oil, coal, and so on, but it goes beyond those sectors. It also affects forestry, which we are discussing at the moment, and it can also have an impact on other sectors, such as recreational tourism and fisheries. We believe that a just transition plan is fundamental to maintaining social protection and mitigating consequences for both workers and communities.
We therefore say yes to an emergency order, but we must plan for that sort of thing.
For example, if workers are affected, why not provide them with training so that they can diversify and pivot? We could provide a transitional measure for workers who have difficulty pivoting.
We recognize that this order could lead to a decline in allowable cuts. For example, I heard Quebec's chief forester present data and talk about significant losses. There is some evidence, though, that it might be somewhat less severe. I don't deny that there will be consequences, but perhaps there should be a more neutral space to concretely measure potential losses.
In our opinion, to find solutions, there will have to be interdepartmental and intergovernmental co‑operation, because that will involve a number of projects. We will have to move forward, and that includes the forest industry itself. Could it focus more on value-added products, for example? We have been trying to achieve that for many years, and we must continue along that path.
Ultimately, we are saying that we need measures to support people properly during the transition, whether that be through employment insurance or training programs. We have to find ways to provide targeted assistance to those who will be affected.
For us, a transition is required. Earlier, we talked about forest fires. We are aware of that, but climate change bears some of the blame. So a transition is needed in the short, medium and long term, but we want it to be fair and to take into account both workers and communities.
Thank you.