Mr. Speaker, let us take the example of Gaspésia. Unfortunately this case is situated in a region that is going through difficult times. Here millions of dollars were injected into a project where even the union partners recently said that they did not want a repeat of the experience. It is an example of sound use of funds that were invested and will have to be invested by the partners, including the Quebec government, of course.
That being said, when we talk about the automotive sector versus the forestry sector, there is an agreement. We signed an agreement on softwood lumber governing the business relations between our country and the United States, whereas in the case of the auto industry it is a free market. This must be acknowledged. There are rules in play, and we agreed to sign.
The latest ruling on quotas should be an example to us of the caution required when the time comes to deal with forestry issues.
I recently met with the president of AbitibiBowater, Mr. Paterson, and to a question I asked him about the impact of no longer having a softwood agreement, he mentioned countervailing duties that could range from 30% to 40%. The impact of the quota penalty is 10% on top of the 5%, which takes us to 15%, and we wonder whether our industry will pull through. Imagine if it were 30% or 40%.
So the whole forestry portfolio has to be managed with a great deal of caution so that we can get through this crisis. Companies do not close down when they can get good prices for their products. We are fully aware of this. As for the automotive industry, which represents 12,000 jobs in Quebec, no one wants to choose one province over another. If there are any who do, they are not among us in government; we do not want to create a crisis among the provinces. It is the last thing on our minds.