Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to present our views on the July 1 softwood lumber agreement.
The disputes between Canada and the U.S. with respect to softwood lumber go back a long way. History shows that they go as far back as the 18th century. Now we obviously have no intention of presenting a chronology of events. We simply want to point out that our organization has always followed developments in this area very closely, and particularly for the last 20 years.
We can testify today to the fact that these many disputes between Canada and its southern neighbour have had very negative consequences for workers, insofar as they have resulted in serious job losses. We will come back to that specific point in a moment.
Although it goes without saying, we want to clearly state that we are commenting today in our capacity as representatives of workers in this industry. In that sense, we do not claim to have full knowledge either of the overall ramifications of international softwood lumber trade or of discussions within individual companies with respect to their situation and specific trade strategy.
However, we are very much aware of the kind of misery that workers and their families must endure when a job is lost. Every day provides an opportunity to note the weakness of current assistance programs aimed at people in communities affected by production slowdowns or even plant closures. It is with that in mind or from that perspective that we feel we can legitimately participate in the current debate.
That is also why we have seen fit to analyze the July 1st agreement from the perspective of a worker. In our assessment, we must consider the particular circumstances of the Quebec forest industry: first, because of forestry activity there is highly regionalized, and second, in the light of policy decisions made by the Government of Quebec after the release of the Coulombe report.
It is important to realize that the economy of Quebec and its regions cannot develop or be understood without considering the contribution made by a modern, innovative and competitive forest products industry, both in terms of its economic activities and its social responsibilities.
Almost 150,000 men and women in Quebec participate, directly or indirectly, in this important industry in every region of Quebec. That is not insignificant. In 2003, the industry had a payroll of $3 billion and represented 14.4 per cent of the Quebec manufacturing sector's total payroll.
The industry plays a major and decisive role as regards both employment and production in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Northern Quebec, Chaudière-Appalaches, North Shore, Mauricie, Outaouais and Estrie regions. In 2003, across these regions of Quebec, employment in the forest products industry represented almost 8 per cent of total employment in the Quebec manufacturing sector. More than one job in three depends on the forest products sector in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean or in Mauricie. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, almost four out of every five manufacturing jobs is in that industry.
It is by recalling these facts that one can understand why the loss of a single job in these regions is a real catastrophe. Indeed, it's becoming very difficult to find new jobs for workers affected by the crisis in the forestry sector.
It is a well-known fact that the softwood lumber crisis with the Americans has, as we said previously, resulted in numerous production slowdowns and even permanent closures of production units. The big losers in all of this are clearly the thousands of workers who have lost their jobs.
Our union organization is sharply critical of the short shrift given the human side of this crisis and its major consequences for workers and their families, as well as their communities. In light of that fact, it is not really surprising that nowhere in the agreement is there any mention of the people working in this industry or of measures aimed at supporting them. In that regard, we note a flagrant lack of interest and desire. And yet the concessions made by workers and the plant closures they have been subjected to greatly contributed to the collection of some $5 billion placed in trust as a result of the softwood lumber crisis.
In Quebec, workers and their association have been exceptionally open-minded, with a view to helping affected companies come through this crisis. In fact, we firmly believe most companies operating in the forest industry will recover from this crisis and, once it is behind them, become profitable again and end up in an even better position to succeed, since the house cleaning will already have been done.
The fact is that this entire exercise will turn out to have been very costly for the thousands of workers who lost their jobs in the crisis, but benefited from no support measures whatsoever. What is worse, lumber companies currently operating in Quebec refuse to accept any responsibility for the forest industry's current situation and the job losses that have resulted. Under the circumstances, it is very difficult, indeed impossible, to negotiate additional employer contributions to assistance programs, such as assisted retirement programs. While they recognize the usefulness of these measures, they refuse to participate.
If the agreement that has been negotiated is implemented and money is returned to these companies, how will they use those funds? Will companies set aside part of the money to help workers and their families come through this crisis?
We sincerely doubt it. And yet, that is the logical thing to do. That's why we believe the Canadian government must show some leadership in this regard by encouraging the establishment of a workers' assistance fund with the money that is recovered when the dispute is ended. We also believe that the magnitude of the labour crisis and particular characteristics of the forest industry, which we described earlier, require the creation of a special program using the Employment Insurance Fund.
The Quebec forest products sector is going through a crucial phase in its history. This industry, which is part of Quebec's industrial heartland, is not only affected by economic conditions associated with the business cycle of its traditional export market, but also—and to an even greater extent—by structural pressures of such a magnitude that support is an absolute necessity. Those pressures relate as much to changes observed in Quebec, with respect to the nature and use of the comparative advantages our industry receives from developing natural resources which are fundamental to their activity, as they do to the emergence of new industrial models on a global scale during the last 20 years or so.
In the wake of the Coulombe report, the Government of Quebec took steps to ensure better management of Quebec's public forests. However, there is still a great deal of work to be done, and we believe Quebec's many industry players will opt for structural reform of the forest products industry.
In that regard, the anti-circumvention mechanisms provided for in the agreement are of tremendous concern to us. It would seem that every reform needed to ensure that the Quebec industry has a bright future is closely scrutinized by Washington.
Furthermore, the restrictions set out in the agreement with respect to either volumes, minimum prices or, more importantly, a monthly price setting procedure, will lead to restructuring in the lumber mill sector, leading to significant impacts on the labour force. How can one reasonably believe, in an industry as complex as ours, that companies will be able to plan their operations on a monthly basis?
For all these reasons, we cannot support the softwood lumber agreement that has been negotiated.