Debates of Oct. 19th, 2009

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was truly mind-boggling. We should speak clearly here. The hon. member for Jonquière—Alma just spoke about the assistance provided by the EDC. Does he know what assistance the EDC provides?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

It provides loan guarantees.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Say, for example, I am a company and a client wants to buy my products. I go to the EDC, which will give me a loan for that specific order I have to fill. And I pay for it. That is not what people wanted for the forest industry at the summit in Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean. What they wanted were loan guarantees like the ones given to the automobile industry.

It was very clear. It was the first point made at the summit in Saguenay— Lac Saint-Jean. The two ministers from Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean were responsible for accomplishing it, but they failed. They did not do it.

What he was talking about in regard to the EDC are services for which companies pay. They are not real loan guarantees. They are for orders and deliveries that are made. There is a difference.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague is saying is important. For months, the Conservative government has been trying to give us a false idea about the amounts of money available for the forestry industry.

I will give my colleague another chance to explain that. Here is what I understand: businesses selling their products on foreign markets pay for accounts receivable insurance.

I would like my colleague to explain that again, for Conservatives keep telling us that they are giving $10 billion to the industry. But in fact, the Government of Canada simply guarantees the accounts receivable for businesses exporting their products, and businesses pay for this service. Such is the reality. We are not talking about the loan guarantees required by businesses to be able to invest in their working capital. These are guarantees for accounts receivable.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is perfectly right.

If I have a sales contract, EDC lends me the money for that very specific purpose. The Quebec Forestry Industry Council is asking for loans, for loan guarantees. Some business people in the Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean region say they have problems with their cash flow. When a businessperson has a contract with a forestry company, the bank does not want to lend him or her any money. That is the reality. That is what the two ministers and the Conservative Party should understand. The reality is that businesses do no have any cash.

The first point I am being asked to comment about is the loan guarantees which allow businesses to have the cash flow they need to perform better and increase their production.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the motion before the House today. As Minister of Natural Resources, I will speak against this motion for two important reasons. First, the motion itself is disingenuous and misleading. It wrongly implies that this Conservative government has done little to support Canada's and Quebec's forestry industry. Second, and related to the first reason, is that no government in the history of Canada has done more than we have to support the forestry industry.

Before I begin the main body of my remarks, I would like to recap the government-wide efforts made over the last two years to support the Quebec forestry industry alone. First, $16.7 billion in loans and grants has been committed over the last two years in support of the Quebec forestry sector; second, Quebec is also receiving a portion of the $1 billion pulp and paper green transformation program; and finally, over $928 million has already been transferred to Quebec to support and retrain the unemployed. This is in the 2009 fiscal year alone, and a portion of this will be used to support unemployed forestry workers.

These are only some of the programs that have been made available to Quebec forestry companies and to workers, and I have not even touched on the programs made available through Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. When one takes a look at these facts, one realizes that the press release issued by the Bloc last Friday is completely erroneous. It tried to claim that only $70 million has been provided in support, and as we can see, this is completely inaccurate.

As I continue, I want to focus my remarks on some of the particular initiatives undertaken by the Government of Canada in support of our forestry industry. The government has shown bold action and initiative. It has done so in many ways, and I and many others would say that this has built the confidence of the forestry industry and the many communities across Canada that depend upon this important industry.

After the sharpest global recession since the second world war, many forestry communities are still facing difficult times. However, in spite of these current difficulties, our government believes that this sector has a promising future. That is why we are working in close partnership with forestry communities and the forestry sector to realize this potential.

As Prime Minister Harper put the matter earlier this month--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

My apologies.

As the Prime Minister put the matter earlier this month, in just over 100 days, Canada's economic action plan is already protecting Canadians, stimulating our economy and creating jobs from coast to coast to coast. Ninety per cent of the funding for this fiscal year is now committed. Our economic action plan is helping create or maintain an estimated 220,000 jobs by the end of 2010.

Housing construction and renovation is up both here in Canada and in the United States. In August, housing starts increased in the United States to their highest level in nine months, and Canada's housing starts also exceeded expectations, advancing 12% in the same month.

It is also worth noting that the drop in the construction industry in Canada has been proportionately much less severe than in the United States, and indeed, much less than in the rest of the world. We are seeing early signs of stabilization and recovery.

It is clear that in Canada government-backed stimulus programs are making a difference. In our government's budget 2009, these programs included: home renovation tax credits, a substantial increase to our ecoenergy home retrofit program and market expansion programs. Together, the housing-related measures included in the EAP will increase domestic lumber demand by an estimated one billion board feet over the next two years, and by harnessing the potential of new markets in emerging technologies, Canada's industry is reinventing itself and preparing for a competitive comeback that will reinforce and sustain its international reputation as a leader in the world's forestry industry.

While the situation remains difficult, we believe that Canada's forest sector is worth investing in. The industry told us that the country needed leadership and strategic thinking. The forest industry wanted measures that would help it weather the short term but would also pay dividends down the road.

Putting it in another way, our forest well is not only our trees. It is our creative capacity to make difficult, complex decisions and the willingness of the forest industry to innovate and its flexibility to adapt. This is precisely the thinking that is behind our economic action plan.

We are seeing light at the end of the tunnel for another reason. Right from our first term, the Government of Canada has been proactive in its commitment to the future of our forest industry. Right at the start, we understood that we needed to respond quickly and effectively when challenges arose. In short, there was not time to sit around and wait for more studies. We acknowledged the challenges and we set a course of action.

Then later in 2007 in excess of $200 million was provided by the Government of Canada to help in dealing with the mountain pine beetle. When we recognized that greater assistance was needed for Canada's forest industry to become more competitive, $127.5 million was provided for a long term forest industry competitiveness strategy in 2007.

To further increase the energy efficiency and the environmental performance of our pulp and paper facilities, we also introduced a new $1 billion pulp and paper green transformation program. This program will enable new investments in pulp and paper facilities across Canada, but it will help them to become greener and more sustainable.

I am pleased to report today that 24 companies, representing 38 pulp and paper mills across Canada, have qualified for credits under this program and that many others across Canada will also benefit from investments financed through the program. Complete details regarding specific mill and company allocations under this program are available on the Natural Resources Canada website.

The Government of Canada will continue to implement this program as expeditiously as possible and we are now working with recipient firms to ensure that the funding flows to eligible projects in forest communities across Canada as quickly as possible.

We are certain this investment in Canada's pulp and paper sector is value for money and will yield dividends for Canada's forest communities for years to come. That is why we are ensuring that every credit paid out under this program is being invested at mills in Canada in projects that are going to improve environmental performance.

Another important element of our strategy for the forest sector is to develop new and different forest products and new and different markets for those products. Therefore, budget 2009, our economic action plan, committed a further $170 million to assist industry in developing new products and processes and in exploiting new and diverse market opportunities.

We need to sell more to the world not just one country. The $170 million are not spread out over several years. It is an investment over two years because the industry's needs are now and we need to ramp up our efforts on diversification immediately.

We are pleased to report that over 80% of this year's $70 million in spending for this fiscal year has already been committed. Therefore, let me bring the House up to date on the progress being made in the forest sector because of the economic action plan.

First, enhanced funding has gone into the Canada wood program. There are now 129 projects under way which are designed to expand export opportunities for Canadian wood product producers in expanding overseas markets. These projects are valued at $8.4 million, are up and running in countries such as China, South Korea, Japan, Australia, the Middle East and among member countries of the European Union.

Although growing overseas markets for wood is long term work, we are seeing some encouraging results. Since 2005, we have seen exports of lumber to South Korea and China increase by 20% and 108% respectively, creating and maintaining hundreds of jobs in Canada's forest sector.

Funding from the economic action plan has also gone to the North American wood first initiative. The goal is to expand the use of wood outside the traditional residential housing market.

Wood first is helping 44 projects, worth a total $5.94 million, which promote the use of wood in non-residential construction such as school and health care facilities both in Canada and targeted regions of the United States. It is through these projects we are making inroads into realizing the multi-billion dollar opportunity to use more wood in Canada and in the United States outside of the residential sector.

As well, we have recently developed partnerships in China and Korea to construct large-scale wood demonstration buildings that will showcase Canadian products and technology, further helping to develop emerging wood markets for our wood products.

These initiatives are helping the forest sector make inroads into new multi-billion dollar markets where greater demand for high-quality Canadian forest products can translate into more jobs in Canada's forest sector.

A transformative technologies program has also received increased support from the economic action plan. This investment is supporting research and development of emerging technologies that will broaden the range of products produced by Canada's forest sector.

Research areas include new materials using nanotechnology, new energy and chemical solutions from forest biomass and next generation building solutions. For example, because of transformative technologies program support, FPInnovations, which is Canada's national forest research institute, has been working with a national network of university experts on the development of paper-based biosensors. These can detect, report and destroy toxins and pathogens such as SARS and listeria.

Progress is made with bio-products research, such as nano-crystalline cellulose as well. The aerospace and automotive sectors have shown interest in using this cellulose in advancing lightweight, high strength composite materials.

Our transformative technologies program has also been investing in new uses and markets for wood. Until just a few months ago, building codes did not permit construction of wood buildings more than four storeys anywhere in Canada. Thanks to research funded through this program, we have a six-storey wood building being constructed now in Quebec City and a second planned in B.C.

Because of research being done on cross-laminated timber, known in the industry as X-Lam, we may one day soon see buildings constructed from wood of 10 storeys or more. There is a growing interest in the manufacture of X-Lam. This product can be used in floor, roof and wall systems.

The economic action plan has also provided $40 million in a complementary initiative to develop pilot-scale demonstrations of technologies and products developed under the transformative technologies program that we launched in budget 2006.

Natural Resources Canada, in collaboration with the provinces and industry, are working together to identify potential sites to build operational pilot plants. Construction is expected to begin next year and it will contribute to the commercialization of emerging technologies developed through the transformative technologies program.

There are other programs supported by the economic action plan that are having a beneficial effect on Canada's forest industry as well. The $1 billion community adjustment fund is creating jobs and maintaining employment in communities affected by the global economic downturn, which very much includes forest-dependent communities.

For example, Canada Economic Development Quebec and the Quebec government have joined forces to help forest-dependent communities with a $230 million package. Of this package, the federal portion of $100 million for silviculture and $15 million for restoration of multi-resource access roads came from the community adjustment fund.

Our extraordinary financing framework is expanding the availability of credit to businesses, including forest companies.

The Canada skills and transition strategy is helping workers with enhancements to employment insurance and funds for skills and training.

Also, Bill C-50, which is currently before the House, seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act to increase the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants.

The Government of Canada is providing $9 million to establish an invasive species centre in the province of Ontario. This centre will work in partnership with the province on research related to alien invasive species. This will strengthen Canada's ability to manage invading pests, such as the emerald ash borer.

Furthermore, the leadership for environmental advantage in forestry program, or LEAF, a two-year, $10 million initiative in budget 2008, supports collaboration between Natural Resources Canada and the Forest Products Association of Canada in promoting Canada's sustainable forest management practices.

Canada has shown strong leadership in sustainable forest management and in environmental performance. This investment in LEAF will allow us to turn our world-class record into a market advantage.

We are aware that the Unites States government has announced another energy-targeted subsidy program, known as the biomass crop assistance program, that will pay subsidies to producers of wood biomass, such as softwood lumber and wood pellet producers.

The Government of Canada recognizes the challenges that the forest sector is facing and appreciates the potential of the biomass crop assistance program to disadvantage Canadian producers and distort the markets. We have formally raised our concerns about the impacts this initiative would have on the Canadian forest industry with the United States Department of Agriculture. I took the opportunity last week to bring it to the attention of the secretary of energy in the United States as well.

The Government of Canada has discussed this issue with its provincial counterparts and is consulting with industry. We are assessing all our options, while continuing our advocacy activities in the United States.

I could go on, but I suspect I have made the point. The Government of Canada is committed to Canada's forest industry and helping it to succeed, both in the short and long term.

From the beginning, our government has taken swift action to assist the forest industry as challenges have arisen. We have listened to the industry and we have listened to others. We have responded with programs devised to help strengthen and diversify Canada's forest industry, both for today but also for tomorrow. Because of programs like these, we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Judging from these bold initiatives our government has devised in support of Canada's forest industry, the motion put forward before the House is evidently unfounded.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I am pleased to see that the minister reads the Bloc Québécois press releases as this means she is quite interested in this issue. I would like to point out that the figures cited in Friday's press release were provided by the federal government and are found on page 122 of the third progress report. Thus, these are very real figures.

Last week, during constituency week, I again had the great privilege and pleasure of touring my riding and meeting with people and groups of producers such as Coopérative forestière Haut Plan Vert in Lac-des-Aigles and Club Agri-Tech 2000 in Saint-Éloi. These people have a keen interest in biofuels and processing forest biomass and agricultural residues.

I will ask the minister a question. Is the minister and the government interested in investing as much money in biofuels as they are currently investing in the oil sands?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the question with respect to biofuels.

Our government has a stellar record with respect to biofuels. Fundamentally, we have put $1 billion into the production of ethanol and biodiesel. We are buttressing it with the ability to have mandatory amounts of biodiesel and biofuel in gasoline mixtures.

More important, we have earmarked a further large sum of money to take a look at the biomass and biofuel issues to which the hon. member speaks, which is going from the first generation of using the traditional feedstock for biofuels and taking a look at different ways of doing it in the next generation of biofuels.

It is a very exciting area. This government has been funding that for the past year. We look forward to the exciting projects that are being administered with respect to biofuels.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I come from an urban riding and I can say that if half of what the minister has said has been implemented, I do not think the forestry industry has anything to complain about.

My constituents want to know, while she was making all those announcements that she said she made, was she holding up, displaying or wearing the Conservative Party logo?

She said that no government in the history of Canada has done more for the forestry industry. She is right, because no government in the history of Canada has ever given away $1 billion to the Americans. The Conservatives gave $1 billion to the Americans to do what? To fight our forestry industry.

For those who do not remember, the Conservatives pressured those in the forestry industry by saying that if they did not sign the deal, the Conservatives would penalize them by taxing them. What does--

[An hon. member]

Shame.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Shame, indeed.

What does the forestry industry want? It wants to be treated as fairly and equally as the auto industry or any other industry. Give the forestry industry the money it needs.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually touched that the hon. member cares to know what I was wearing on certain days. It is difficult being a minister, making sure one is wearing different clothing, especially being a woman in this field. I can assure him that the one thing I do wear very proudly is my Canadian pin or the Canadian Forces pin that I am wearing today. Those are the two things that are important as we work for Canadians here.

With respect to the total plan with respect to forestry, there is no question that forestry is important. It is important in Ontario, as well as in Quebec and across the country. That is why these programs are targeted nationally, in effect. It is looking at the entire country, in terms of where forestry is important, and it is important in different ways in different provinces.

I had the ability, in preparation for the economic action plan, to speak to all my counterparts across Canada, including the minister in Ontario, about the best things that we could be doing. That is why I was very excited to be able to announce with her, in Sault Ste. Marie, the invasive species centre. That is very important in terms of dealing with the real effects on the forestry industry here in Ontario which has to do with invasive species and making sure that we are looking after the forests that we have here and being stewards of the forests as well.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this past week in my riding of Timmins—James Bay, it became known that Grant Forest Products, which is one of the largest players in the forest region in the north, is now in a court-ordered bankruptcy protection. It might be taken over by the U.S. multinational Georgia Pacific. We saw how the Conservative government rolled over when Vale walked away with respect to Inco. We know the government will do nothing to protect the resources of a Canadian company.

I would like to question the minister on some of the more far-fetched claims she has made in terms of the government's commitment.

The government's main commitment to dealing with the forestry industry was to sell us out the very first chance it got with the softwood lumber deal, where it gave $1 billion to our competitors, where it crippled our markets, where it threatened that if our companies stood up and continued to defend their interests, they would be penalized.

Now we see the spectacle of the government having to come back, cap in hand, having given up every right that we wanted, every trade negotiation, and we are now being told we are going to have to pay another $60 million to $70 million for the government's complete mishandling of the file.

When the minister comes into the House and asks for this Parliament's support, I would like to ask her two questions: number one, will she apologize to this House for the campaign of misinformation that her government ran in terms of promoting this bogus deal; and, number two, when will she bring this in? I want to be able to stand in this House and say there is no way that on our watch we are going to pay another $70 million so that our competitors can continue to tool and retool and come against our industries.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite disheartened by the hon. member's comments with respect to the softwood lumber agreement. Clearly, there is one true fact here, which is that this agreement brought stability and is welcomed by the community of forest products, without question.

I had the great ability to go across the country and speak to the individual --

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. minister was asked a question and I think the House would be well served if we could hear her give the answer.

The hon. minister.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was indicating, I had the ability during the past year to travel from coast to coast to coast to speak to the people in the industry, to speak to the people with respect to working in the communities in forestry. They unequivocally indicated that this was a good deal for Canada. It was the right deal for Canada.

It was this government that delivered on that deal. Maybe that could be the problem that the hon. member has. It has brought stability. It has given $5 billion back to the industry. It has been an extreme success.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the minister for her hard work on so many different programs that I can say have really helped the forestry sector in northwestern Ontario. They are working to correct some of the structural defects and the challenges that we face in northwestern Ontario which are somewhat unique.

I want to ask the minister a question about the pulp and paper green transformation program. On her behalf I had the chance to make those announcements for all of northwestern Ontario, as I often do for the interests of stakeholders from Thunder Bay to the Manitoba border. They were delighted with this program. Frankly, it has more benefits than just lessening the environmental footprint of pulp and paper mills.

The technology transformations that will take place have other benefits. I was wondering if the minister might just speak to those for the benefit of this House.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kenora for all his hard work and constant encouragement with respect to doing the right thing regarding the forestry industry in Canada.

The pulp and paper green transformation program is unique in that it is there in order to help industry become more competitive by greening the industry's own activities, making it more sustainable, and lowering their costs by lowering the total amount of energy going into the plants as a result of bringing in greener transformation technologies.

Picking up on the last point, this is exactly what industry wanted. This is the tool that industry indicated would make it more competitive and would make it more prosperous in the future, and industry would in turn be able to supply jobs and sustainability to the communities.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to this motion. This motion addresses a long overdue concern and it is certainly required in light of the government's lack of action.

To begin, I wish to get right to the point and confirm that the Liberal Party will be supporting this motion. This issue is too important to be indecisive about and to try to play politics when the viability of a whole national industry is at stake.

We must act immediately to provide the necessary resources to safeguard the thousands of jobs and expertise that the forestry industry provides our country. The government must understand that blaming world markets and sitting pretty, as it has done throughout the forestry crisis, is not the way a governing party should run our country.

Enough of blaming others. Enough of playing politics. The time to act is now. This motion provides a clear directive.

I received a copy of the motion and reviewed it carefully. Two things jumped out at me. The first is that this motion is good for Quebec. Of course, that is not surprising, as it is a Bloc Québécois motion.

As a member from Quebec, I am always looking out for my province's best interests, and this motion and its directives would most certainly help our forestry industry. The second thing that struck me was that this motion is manifestly good for Canada.

I do not think the Bloc members had this intention in mind when they drafted it, but this motion is helpful for all of Canada.

Mainly because the forestry sector is entrenched throughout the country, every corner of Canada is affected by this industry. It is one of the four founding industries of our country. It is hard to think of a Canada without a forestry industry.

As a country, we pride ourselves on natural resources. With the second largest land mass in the world, it is easy to see why. So, it is no surprise that our forestry industry is a cornerstone of our past, present and hopefully future economic greatness.

The Liberal Party understands this. The Liberal Party has tried to look at the long-term success of this industry, but the party opposite has consistently thrown roadblocks at these attempts.

On November 24, 2005, the Liberal government, together with forestry industry stakeholders, announced a concrete plan for the forestry sector known as the forest industry competitiveness strategy, with a budget of $1.5 billion over five years. The strategy included $215 million to develop new technologies to improve competitiveness, $50 million to develop bioenergy and cogeneration capability, $90 million to support forestry innovation and value-added products, $66 million to grow wood markets, $10 million to enhance professional skill levels in the forestry sector, $150 million to support economic diversification in communities that rely on the forestry industry, $800 million in loans to help forestry companies be more competitive, and $100 million in loans to help small businesses in the forestry sector.

When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, they tossed the plan out. Now Canadian forestry workers are paying the price for that decision. Instead of investing in improving technology, skills and competitiveness to strengthen the industry and save jobs, Canada is now losing tens of thousands of jobs. Canada has lost 20,000 forestry sector jobs since the Conservatives came to power.

These job losses and lack of vision on the part of the Conservative government hurt more than just the forestry industry. They hurt the people in the communities who rely on the forestry sector to survive. This is why we are here today. We are here to help the people, families and communities that rely on this industry throughout Canada for their very survival and future growth.

If we look back at the TV coverage of those critical days during the automotive collapse, the cameras often focused on the hard-working men and women walking out of the factories with long faces of despair and worry. It made a great 30 second clip on the 6 o'clock news. Now, do not get me wrong. I am not saying that the automotive industry was not in crisis and that it did not require government intervention. What I am saying is that the same thing is happening in the forestry sector. However, no one has brought to light the worried and concerned faces of the thousands of men and women facing this terrifying and unnecessary loss of a way of life.

These small rural communities do not attract the attention of the big television networks, and all we hear about are big companies that are trying to restructure financially in order to stay afloat. Small family-owned businesses and community forestry operations need our help, and they need it now.

Many people living outside these communities do not even realize that if the forestry industry ceases to exist, entire established communities will perish in turn. One feeds the other. These communities depend on the forestry industry, and if the main source of income dries up, the local restaurant will close as well, followed soon after by the corner store, which will likely be forced to close after the owner has laid off the only employee. The local grocery store, the garage and the gas station, all these small businesses will also watch as their clients leave to look for jobs elsewhere. Families will struggle to make ends meet at the end of the month, communities will struggle to keep their people, and young people will lose hope and leave to find work in major urban centres. Communities that used to be prosperous and independent will turn into ghost towns, deserted by the people who used to live there, where only a few die-hards hold out hope for renewal.

I do realize this is a worst case scenario. It is definitely doom and gloom. However, it could happen and it has happened, and all from a lack of government direction and a will to act. These stories need to be heard. These stories are the consequences of the government's lack of initiative to assist the people it represents when they are in need. The Conservatives do not want to believe that their own demagogic and narrow-minded refusal to intervene has led to this situation. They would rather blame it on all sorts of outside factors which, while real, are hardly the whole story.

The Conservatives are wrong in that they could have prevented it; they could have made a difference. Should they accept this motion as the right thing to do, they could still help these people and communities emerge from these tough economic times better positioned and better off to fight another day.

There are ways to help, there are ways to assist and there are ways to make a difference. I know that we want to make a difference for all Quebecers and all Canadians.

How can we make that difference? For starters, we have to listen to them. I am happy to say that my party has done just that. I have personally visited Quebec and British Columbia and listened to forestry sector representatives talk about what they need. I have spoken with company owners, plant supervisors, employee groups and numerous associations. I have been struck by how they have to struggle in these difficult economic times.

I have listened to their solutions for the present and their dreams for the future. My colleagues have also travelled and listened to similar stories and concerns in the Atlantic provinces and northern Ontario.

What is surprising about all these meetings, visits and consultations is that no one in the forestry sector expects the government to hand them a blank cheque. The industry has never asked for gifts or handouts. What the industry needs is tools. It has asked for these tools so that it can fight, survive, modernize operations and keep companies open and effective. That is how it is going to keep its skilled workers and keep communities viable.

The industry has asked the federal government for tools in the form of tax credits, loans and loan guarantees so that its companies would have access to the much needed capital to keep the lights on, the saws running and their employees paid. It did not ask for a free ride. It asked to have the chance to fight and that is what this motion is all about. More important, this is exactly what my party has offered the industry since 2005.

I will now go back in history somewhat and discuss the softwood lumber agreement. We all know that the government likes to rewrite history. If one stands idle a tad too long these days, history just seems to disappear from government websites.

The Liberal Party has always supported and encouraged a two-pronged approach to resolving the softwood lumber dispute: both adjudication in the courts and negotiations.

On September 19, 2006, the Liberal Party voted against the softwood lumber agreement, and on December 6, 2006, it voted against Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act.

The Liberal Party wanted to make sure the Conservative government would adhere to the North American Free Trade Agreement and keep its campaign promise to recover all customs duties illegally collected by the United States.

The Liberals believe that the softwood lumber agreement is deeply flawed, for the following reasons.

It represents a reversal of the position taken by successive federal governments and supported by NAFTA and World Trade Organization trade panels, that our softwood lumber industry is not subsidized.

It jeopardizes Canada’s ability to help industries that are already in trouble by handing over part of our sovereignty over the management of our natural resources to our American competitors. The consequences of that capitulation will be felt in future disputes that will certainly arise, not only in the softwood lumber industry but also in other industries against which the same charges are levelled by their American competitors.

It creates an export tax that is in fact higher, at the current rate, than the illegal American customs duties of the past.

It strips NAFTA of any credibility as the arbitrator of trade disputes and cancels out the principles that govern this trading relationship.

It forfeits $500 million to the American forestry industry, which is using it to fund attacks on the Canadian industry in the courts and the political arena, and forfeits another $500 million to the American government.

It contains anti-fluctuation provisions that will deny the Canadian industry the flexibility it needs to deal with unforeseen circumstances such as the pine beetle infestation.

Despite our strong legal position, backed up by many decisions of international and national trade tribunals in Canada and the United States, the Conservative government rushed the negotiations by setting arbitrary deadlines to get the most political mileage out of the agreement for the Conservative Party of Canada.

The Conservatives’ campaign platform took precedence over the interests of an industry that has a major influence in all regions of Canada. The Conservative government issued an ultimatum to force the hand of Canadian producers: accept this agreement or the government will cut you loose. The loan guarantees put in place before the 2006 election were cancelled and the Conservatives made it plain to the industry that it would not get any federal aid if it decided to assert its rights in the courts instead of accepting the agreement.

What it agreed to do—and this is what the Liberal government had proposed—was to accept a negotiated settlement or continue the fully justified legal actions, which we would have supported by providing loan guarantees, reinvestment support, community and worker adjustment and assistance with legal costs.

The Conservatives claim that their softwood lumber agreement put an end to the dispute, but the United States began consultations questioning the forestry policies of Ontario and Quebec within seven months of signing the agreement.

Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Alberta face the same attacks. The $500 million the Conservatives handed over to the Americans by signing the softwood lumber agreement is what is being used to finance these attacks.

On March 4, 2008, the London Court of International Arbitration handed down its decision concerning the first lawsuits the Americans filed against Canada with respect to the softwood lumber agreement signed in 2006. The court ruled that Canada had violated the terms of the agreement by calculating the quotas incorrectly for the first six months of 2007. The court's ruling forced Canada to remedy those violations within 30 days and imposed a 10% export tax on the provinces in question, to a maximum of $68 million.

That ruling was a direct result of the fact that, in 2006, the Conservative government agreed to the imposition of quotas and taxes on the volume of wood exported to the United States, when the price of softwood lumber was generally under $355 U.S. per thousand board feet.

We have lost all credibility on the international stage. The government sold out our forestry industry for political gains and is now claiming that global markets are the cause and effect of the problem. The irony in all this is that the Conservatives now claim that the government cannot support the requested loan guarantees to forest companies because it is a violation of the softwood lumber agreement.

I am sorry to dispel their illusions but the Conservatives are being dishonest. Government lawyers are arguing as we speak in the London Court of International Arbitration that loan guarantees are not a violation of the softwood lumber agreement. They have in fact posted their legal defence on loan guarantees on the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's website.

One could be mistaken in believing that the story ends here. However, in the spring of this year, a report from the subcommittee on industry dealing with the difficulties that numerous industrial sectors are facing concluded with the dissenting opinion of the subcommittee on the forestry industry. It says:

In relation to a recommendation on the forestry industry, the Liberal Party of Canada supports a recommendation as follows: “That the government of Canada establish a credit facility specifically for the forestry industry”.

The Liberal Party continues to work actively with the forestry sector to assist it. We also realize that this is not a new problem, unlike the government which has stuck its head in the sand in the hopes that this problem will go away.

We must do more to support this industry on behalf of the thousands of men and women affected by this crisis. We must act now. We need solutions now.

We must help an industry in crisis, and we must do so immediately, with no more excuses. It is time to get the job done, and to make this Parliament work for the well-being of our struggling industries.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Liberal colleague for her most interesting speech.

I can see that my colleague listened carefully to the concerns expressed recently with regard to the crisis in the forestry industry. We in the Bloc Quebecois and I especially have listened too.

Today there is something new in this debate. Yes, we are talking about the crisis in the forestry industry, but we are also adding to that private woodlot owners. Since the beginning of 2009, I have had the opportunity to meet a large number of private woodlot owners in Quebec as well as groups who represent them.

Who are these private woodlot owners that we are talking about today? Most of them are farmers with a forestry component; some of them are people who own woodlots in the countryside; there are even some people from our cities, large and small, who own woodlots. Those are the people who have been forgotten since the crisis hit the forestry industry.

As I was saying earlier, I had the opportunity to go around my riding and listen to what these people had to say. I can assure the House that they too want loans and loan guarantees to help them get back on their feet or stay afloat.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question as such in what the member said, but he is right about what I was referring to with respect to smaller communities.

There is more than softwood lumber per se involved. All the supporting industries, including private woodlots, need this support. I am totally in favour of extending loans and loan guarantees to them as well, but they must have access to competitively priced loans that they will be able to repay.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I really like the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. I know that she is a hard-working rookie. Unfortunately, her remarks are completely dishonest with respect to what actually happened in this House. I realize that her speaking notes came from the Liberal Party, but it was the Liberal Party that forced this sellout softwood lumber deal through.

It is well known that, at committee, the Liberal members were the ones who made sure that we were saddled with this sellout softwood lumber deal, and that the Liberal senators made sure that it was passed by the Senate.

The reason why the Canadian people and communities that depend on lumber now have to pay tens of millions of dollars in charges and penalties is because of the Liberal Party. It is obviously because of the Conservative Party, but also because of the Liberal Party.

Now that she knows that the Liberal Party is to blame for the softwood lumber agreement being passed by the Parliament of Canada, is the member prepared to apologize on behalf of her party to those Canadians feeling the impact of the softwood lumber agreement?