Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 31st, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Order, please. We go the public portion of our meeting.

We will start with the motion from Madam DeBellefeuille.

Before that, I know there was some discussion during the break about the priority list of witnesses for the nuclear safety study, but I'd like to ask everyone, if they possibly can, to have their prioritized list in by question period. Otherwise, the chances of having their witnesses available for the next meeting are slimmer.

Let's move ahead. Madam DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion reads as follows:

Given the seriousness of the crisis rocking the forestry sector, that the committee recommend that the government introduce as soon as possible an improved aid package of $1 billion for the forestry sector to diversify forest economies, which is to be administered by Quebec and the provinces and distributed among them according to the relative size of their forestry industries and that the adoption of this motion be reported to the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

We have two people on the list.

Do you want to speak to the motion first?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Certainly. Mr. Chair, I make the motion at a time of crisis and urgency. I feel that both opposition and government members recognize that the forestry sector is in crisis. Twenty one thousand forestry jobs have been lost in the province of Quebec alone. Across Canada, British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Alberta are affected by the crisis in the forestry, and we believe that our committee would be giving the government a strong signal that this is the time for action, the time to provide a plan to help the industry and its workers to get back on their feet and through the crisis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Merci.

We have three on the list: Mr. Alghabra, Mr. Harris, and Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Alghabra, go ahead, please, and speak to the motion.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a very important motion. Earlier today and at previous meetings, all of us expressed how important this file is and how urgent it is that action be taken. We have committed to conduct a study and we will be doing that, but I think this motion sends a signal to government, Canadians, and everybody who is involved in this industry that we can offer short-term solutions. I think the study would probably focus as much on the medium and long term as on short term, and it would still be important. This motion will not contradict the need for a study.

I want to make an amendment, and perhaps it might be accepted as a friendly amendment. So as not to have any limitation or restriction on the size of the aid package, I wonder if Ms. DeBellefeuille would accept this as a friendly amendment and remove the dollar figure, which is $1 billion. The motion would then say “improved aid package for the forestry and manufacturing sectors to diversify forestry economies”.

The other part of my amendment relates to where it says “which is to be administered by Quebec”. Instead of “and the provinces”--and I don't know if it's the translation--I would want it to say “and other provinces”.

We will be supporting the amended motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Madam DeBellefeuille, you've heard the proposed amendment. Do you consider that to be a friendly amendment?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Yes, I see it as friendly and I accept it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is it agreed by the committee to accept that as a friendly amendment?

I don't need the agreement. We'll be discussing and voting on the amended motion in this case.

The motion has been amended with a friendly amendment from Mr. Alghabra. We'll read that back to make sure we get the gist of it.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Chad Mariage]

Given the seriousness of the crisis rocking the forestry sector, that the committee recommend that the government introduce as soon as possible an improved aid package for the forestry and manufacturing sectors to diversify forestry economies, which is to be administered by Quebec and other provinces...

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the motion.

Those on the list, I assume, are on for discussion of the motion: Mr. Harris, Mr. Bagnell, Ms. Bell, Mr. St. Amand, and Mr. Boshcoff.

Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chairman, while I guess I support the thought behind the motion, I believe the motion is flawed in some respects. First of all, let me say that I, for one, believe--and I'm sure my colleagues on this side agree--that this forestry issue is something that demands immediate attention. I'm sorry members opposite didn't exactly see it that way, choosing to deal with the nuclear issue, which was pretty much dealt with in an extended manner, rather than getting right into the forestry issue. I would prefer if the members in the other parties had seen the seriousness of the crisis that our forestry industry in Canada, in all provinces, including the province of Quebec, is facing. We just started to deal with it.

I like the principle of Madame DeBellefeuille's motion, but it may cause some problems, first of all, because of our agreements with the United States, which is the biggest market for Canadian softwood lumber, as you know. Even though the market for building houses in the States has gone south right now, we've enjoyed a huge market for our softwood lumber in the States because we've had ongoing stand-alone agreements with them. One of them is our current softwood lumber agreement, and as in past softwood lumber agreements, Canada cannot be seen to be directly subsidizing our forest industry. That is absolute fact. We will invite a challenge under the softwood lumber agreement in an instant should we even be perceived to be directly subsidizing our forest industry in any form.

The government recognizes the crisis in the forest industry and it recognizes that forest workers are going to be displaced by poor markets and for other reasons. Certainly in B.C., where we have the pine beetle, workers are being displaced by that infestation, and our industry is in crisis. That's why the government has developed the community development trust to assist communities that are dependent on any type of industry when there is an economic slowdown in that industry that has an effect on certain communities. In the auto sector, the manufacturing sector, the forest sector, the mining sector, where communities are having trouble because of tough economic times in their particular economic sector, this development trust is there to provide transition, retraining for workers, etc. That's already in place, and it can be expanded to include any community experiencing an economic slowdown because of the conditions of their particular industry.

Even though I really appreciate the thought, I fear that in Madame DeBellefeuille's motion, if we are to include anything in that motion that sounds as if the government would be directly subsidizing the forest industry singularly, we would raise the eyebrows of the Americans in an instant, who are saying they should watch this one because, if the government does that, they are going to launch a challenge under the softwood lumber agreement. That's my concern.

In light of the fact that the government already has a community development trust that can be applied to communities affected by the forest industry, I'm not comfortable with the motion specifically talking about aid to the forest industry. I fear that this is a rocky road that we don't want to travel.

I would be very willing to go into a series of committee meetings that dissected the forest industry seven ways from Sunday and that came up with some recommendations on how communities can be helped and so on, but to send a signal that this is about aiding specifically the forest industry financially, I have a problem with that. And I think we would have some challenges from south of the border.

This is not new with the current softwood lumber agreement. It was in the previous one as well, and it was in other agreements we had. So it's not a new clause that's causing this problem; it's a clause that's already been in there for previous agreements. You can bet the American lumber companies and their lawyers are watching very carefully, as they have been for years and years.

That's what I have to say about that motion. I would have trouble supporting the motion as it is.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have two points.

First, I have a friendly amendment to add the word “territories”, to make it read “provinces and territories”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is that agreed, to add the word “territories”?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

My second point...and I apologize if I'm out of loop, because I'm not on the committee, but I thought there might have been some concern that this wouldn't be done before the budget. I was just wondering if Mrs. DeBellefeuille wanted to add the words “before the budget and as quickly as possible”.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I think that the motion is quite clear.

It's okay.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Okay, that's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

So you're just leaving that?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

All right.

We have now Ms. Bell, Monsieur St. Amand, Mr. Boshcoff, Mr. Alghabra, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Trost on the list.

Ms. Bell.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have seen the crisis in the forestry sector. It's all around me in my riding: the crisis of lost jobs, lost opportunities in communities, and lost opportunities for individuals over many years. This crisis has been going on for a number of years. One of the little towns that I used to live in almost became a ghost town. You could buy a house in that town with your credit card a number of years ago because of the mill shutdown. So I have seen this crisis growing, and it hasn't stopped.

This crisis has been exacerbated by the softwood lumber sellout that we had last year. When was that signed, April 2006? Raw log exports have increased. That's why I put a motion forward to curtail raw log exports and increase incentives for value-added manufacturing in Canada, instead of shipping our logs out and having them manufactured outside this country and sent back so we can buy the lumber. The irony is not lost on the people in my riding, Vancouver Island North, when they have to buy lumber at their local store that is made in the U.S. or somewhere else, while they see the trees cut down right in their own communities.

I have to disagree with some of the comments made by Mr. Harris. I don't see this as a subsidy for the forest industry. Where it talks about forestry and manufacturing sectors, I take “sector” to mean all parts of that. A sector is a sector. We're talking about an aid package for communities, for workers and for the diversification of communities. We want to see that diversification now. We want to see job training now. There is no need to wait for the budget for this to happen. We know there is going to be another huge surplus, and we can use some of that money. We're not even asking for very much at $1 billion. I would hope it is more. For $1 billion to do for the whole of Canada, with all of the communities that are affected, it would have to be spread pretty thin.

The government can put in a ways and means motion or a bill to do this now. There is no reason to wait. We didn't wait for the big banks and big oil companies to receive subsidies, if you want to call it that, in the fall. I don't know why we have to make workers who are struggling wait several more months for a budget.

The community development trust is not a done deal. It's not in place. It's contingent on a budget. It's only been agreed to by one premier, as far as I know. It hasn't even been negotiated with all of the other provinces, so it is not a done deal. It is not in place.

Let me go back to why we are in this crisis. There was money in the past, the softwood money from 2004, that came out. A number of communities in my riding were looking forward to some of that money, but they got very little. It didn't get to the workers. I still have people telling me that they didn't benefit at all from that package. They are very concerned that this $1 billion that was announced is not going to get to them either. They are saying they want this money to start flowing now, and it needs to go to communities for economic diversification.

They may be in the forestry sector, but they are not the industry, and we need to make sure those communities can survive. People have built their livelihoods around them, and we need to make sure that the workers in those communities can get the retraining that can help them move ahead into other industries if the forest industry doesn't come back in those areas.

The other thing is that I don't think it has any effect on the study we're going to do on the forestry sector. I think this needs to happen and should have happened a few years ago.

In the forestry study, we're going to be looking at what's happened and what kind of policies are in place, I would hope, in some cases. We'll look at a whole lot of things. One of them, I would imagine, would be forest policy and maybe some recommendations about how we can change the policies that aren't working or improve them so that they work better, so that we don't end up in these crises.

I would hope this motion gets support and that we can start this money flowing to communities and workers for their benefit and to alleviate some of the crises these people are finding themselves in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Bell.

I have six speakers on the list, and there may be more. We have about half an hour left.

Next on the list is Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wish, without any attempt to be antagonistic, to address one of Mr. Harris's points with respect to the importance of this issue to the Liberal Party.

My colleague from Thunder Bay--Rainy River, Mr. Boshcoff, and another colleague, the member for Kenora, Roger Valley, have been absolutely relentless about advancing this issue. They have continually stressed to their colleagues--and I dare say to members opposite--the importance to their respective communities of the forestry industry and the unprecedented difficulties that the forestry sector is facing. I know, for instance, that Mayor Len Compton of Kenora is very anxious to come before the committee at the request of Mr. Valley to present, so it's very important.

With respect to Mr. Harris's suggestion that we see the issue of the nuclear agency as more important than the forestry industry, we do not see it as more important. It is not more important, but the members opposite did agree to a special meeting on January 15 and a second special meeting on January 16. I think members opposite--the government members--understood the gravity of the situation. We wanted, as an opposition party, to have further special meetings prior to returning to Ottawa on January 28. We requested an opportunity to have two meetings during the week of January 21. We met with considerable resistance about the scheduling of those meetings, so that necessitated a meeting this week--January 29--and two additional meetings next week to, in the wise words of Mr. Trost, do the job properly or not do it at all. Two additional meetings on the nuclear issue will allow us to have done the job properly, and I think Mr. Trost is wise in his suggestion that we do the job properly.

So I speak very much in favour of the motion. We are very anxious, as an opposition party, to get to the forestry study as soon as possible, Mr. Chair.