Debates of Oct. 19th, 2009

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during an economic crisis such as the current one, businesses will generally be a lot more restrictive in their bargaining with employees, and disputes often last longer than usual. Very often, after a dispute is settled, the business decides to close its doors and lay off workers, even before they return to work. In this regard, Bill C-395 eliminated for benefit calculation purposes the period of time the workers were on strike or locked out.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my speaking time with my hon. colleague from Kenora.

I am pleased to take part today in this debate that is very important for the various regions of Quebec. Given my position within the department, I am pleased to rise today to go back over the pieces of disinformation spread by the party opposite.

It is important to report the real facts about this issue and make further comments to counteract this disinformation, instead of scoring points on the backs of the workers and their livelihood.

Canada's forestry industry is going through difficult times across the country. I have been in regular contact over the past few days with people from the industry in several provinces, but my comments today will focus on the provincial jurisdiction of Quebec.

Quebec's forestry industry has been experiencing problems for 10 years or so. This is not something new. Changes have occurred over time which, in some cases, have deepened the forestry crisis: the Coulombe report, the chief forester, the 20% drop in timber supply for companies, energy costs, variations of the value of the Canadian currency, fibre costs, the global financial crisis, the mortgage crisis in the U.S., the selling price of lumber, the drop in the market, and so on. It is too easy to blame the government. That is what the party opposite keeps doing anyway.

From 2000 to 2006, we no longer had an agreement with our leading financial partner, the United States, with respect to trading softwood lumber with Canada and Quebec. There were countervailing duties of approximately 30%. That is why a new softwood lumber agreement was signed. The provinces and the Canadian lumber industry as a whole asked us to sign a new agreement with our U.S. partner so that the borders would reopen. That is what we did at the time, and this has brought back to Canada nearly $5 billion that was entirely redistributed to our forestry industry.

We signed this agreement, which brought in $1 billion to Quebec. That money was then entirely redistributed to the province's forestry industry. These are important points.

When we signed the agreement with our U.S. partners, it was with the idea of pursuing this development and of respecting that deal. In recent years—that is in 2006, 2007 and 2008—before the mortgage crisis, nobody talked about the softwood lumber agreement. Everything was fine and we were getting good prices for our products. But we have to look at the market now. It is very important to do so.

When we signed the softwood lumber agreement, it brought in $1 billion to Quebec to allow its industries to modernize and to invest so as to protect jobs. Statistics for Quebec show that 50% of the softwood lumber produced by sawmills in that province is exported. Moreover, 96% of this lumber is exported to the United States. It is easy to see the impact of the mortgage crisis in the United States. Indeed, while there were close to 2 million housing starts in that country every year, there are now only 500,000. Between 2007 and 2009, the demand has declined by 65%. That is really where the problem lies right now. Moreover, the sale price of wood has dropped by close to 50%.

Between 2000 and 2009, there was a 42% drop in the demand for newsprint in North America. This compounds the major market problems that we are experiencing right now. Recently, worldwide sales for the latest Harry Potter book were greater in its electronic version than in the paper one. This is a precedent which clearly shows what is happening to the market and where we are headed.

I often hear members opposite compare the automotive sector to the forestry industry. It is very easy to do that. In fact, it is too easy.

We have an agreement with our U.S. partners on the management of the competition, on both sides of the border, in the softwood lumber sector. At the time, that agreement was signed with the support of the Bloc, to allow the Canadian forestry industry to continue to sell its products under certain rules and under a contract signed by both sides.

The automotive industry is different in that it is a free market with an agreement signed by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Ontario. Together, they reached an agreement to support the industry. They did not do that at the expense of another sector. They did it to save jobs. We also wanted to save jobs when we signed the softwood lumber agreement, and we will continue to respect what we signed.

When we talk about the market, it is interesting to look at the statements made by union leaders and company presidents. I am going to mention a few of those statements.

On October 15, last week, following a work slowdown in a plant located in Saint-Félicien, which is the town next to mine, the union leader said that, unfortunately, it was really a market issue and that houses were just not being built in the United States.

A short while ago, when a temporary shutdown was announced in June at the Fraser Papers' mill in Thurso, the company explained its decision on a weak pulp market. I could go on. Regarding the mill in Beaupré, the company said the demand had declined drastically, with a 30% drop between November 2008 and June 2009 alone. I could give numerous examples.

It is far too easy to put the blame entirely on the government for not providing loan guarantees, and more importantly, it is not true. Efforts were applauded in this House when this government provided support to Quebec's forestry industry. Efforts were also applauded when Investissement Québec, a paragovernmental organization, provided support to Quebec's forestry industry, and AbitibiBowater in particular.

The Government of Canada is continuing to support the forestry industry. On June 17, and I have the press release here, in a joint announcement with AbitibiBowater, Export Development Canada, a Crown corporation—and it is important to explain how it works—said it would be providing $42.1 million in financial support with respect to debtors in possession. These funds were provided as working capital financing to maintain adequate liquidity.

Frankly, what we are being asked to do is what we have already been doing through EDC.

Shortly after, on August 27, EDC made a similar contribution to Kruger, this being in the public domain. There is obviously a degree of confidentiality surrounding such dealings, but Export Development Canada announced it would be contributing $27 million in financing for Kruger. I could go on with more examples, but I will stop here because of the time allotted to me.

Through Crown corporations and various partners, the federal government is supporting the forestry industry in Canada and Quebec. In Quebec alone, over the past 20 months, Export Development Canada has made $16 billion in support, financial products, accounts receivable insurance, credit facility and loan guarantees available to 220 companies in 2009 and 226 in 2008.

What are these products? Part of the truth was spoken today. When a letter of guarantee is issued regarding accounts receivable and a company has sold trading partners anywhere in the world, say in the United States, $100 million in lumber, Export Development Canada guarantees that it will be paid. What does the company do with that letter? It is certainly not going to sit on it. It takes it to its lender and arranges for funds to be advanced. This constitutes access to credit or a loan to allow the company to continue operating. That is how it works.

So, this is $16 billion over the past 20 months. Through our pulp and paper green transformation program, commonly called the black liquor program, we provided $1 billion to support the pulp and paper industry, which produces kraft pulp, including several millions of dollars that were used in Quebec.

Earlier, someone talked about a phoney committee which is providing $235 million to Quebec. Indeed, Export Development Canada is supporting the province, but there is also the community adjustment fund, with $1 billion distributed to all the provinces, and Quebec getting about $215 million through Canada Economic Development. In the spring, we set up a Canada-Quebec working group which injected $235 million into Quebec's forestry industry, and they call that a phoney initiative. In fact, this is probably much more than the Bloc will ever do during its stint here in the House of Commons. We provided $235 million for silviculture, forest resources management, multi-use roads and product traceability, and we will continue to support the industry with $170 million for new products and new markets.

As regards work sharing, in 2009, Quebec alone is getting $928 million to support training, employee transfers and also assistance relating to employment insurance. Currently, over 4,300 workers in Quebec benefit from work-sharing agreements to help them through this period. Let us also not forget that the home renovation tax credit stimulated lumber sales. It is through programs such as those that we are helping.

All company presidents still want the softwood lumber agreement. This spring, we established a Canada-Quebec team that has begun working and that is doing a good job. That working group got together recently and defined three major thrusts, three commitments with the Quebec government. The first one is to help the industry restructure. We are not going to fill the role of the forestry industry. It has to restructure itself. This is something we agreed on with all the company presidents.

They are all asking us to comply with the softwood lumber agreement. In recent weeks and months, we have had the opportunity to meet a number of them. They represent all types of businesses, from small ones to large ones. Everyone agrees that the softwood lumber agreement must be protected and that together we will avoid a repeat of what happened with Gaspésia. In fact, some partners even said that we must respect the arrangement regarding Gaspésia.

We will continue to do the job. The fact that businesses in Quebec are integrated is a big plus. They own as many pulp and paper mills as softwood lumber mills. That is why we must absolutely protect the softwood lumber agreement.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not necessarily intend to ask questions or make a comment, but in light of what the minister just said it might be appropriate to put things into context.

He spoke of Gaspésia. I would like him to elaborate because Gaspésia is a matter in which the governments got involved to help save a municipality, a company, a region. They did not achieve the desired results, but nonetheless, let us not forget that governments have to approach such matters responsibly and not have a double standard.

The softwood lumber issue cannot be viewed through rose-coloured glasses. The facts are the facts. The facts provide hard numbers that prove that there is a double standard in the current government's action when it comes to the forestry industry compared to other measures it took, for example with respect to the automobile industry.

We are simply saying that the effort made for the auto industry was indeed substantial. It was necessary because industries and jobs were at stake. The same is true in the forestry industry. It would be irresponsible of a government to say that if something happens in a certain province or a little further west it will make a large-scale effort, but if it is a little further east, in Quebec, it will leave things be. The forestry industry, to my knowledge, is present across Canada. The Bloc Québécois' intervention is not simply an intervention by a political party; the Bloc Québécois represents the unanimous consensus in Quebec.

I would invite the minister to be more moderate in his comments. Believing that everything he says is true and everything we say is false just does not work. It may be time to put a little water in the wine.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

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.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion. The great Kenora riding has long-standing been tied to the forest sector and has been particularly hard hit in this global economic recession and, in fact, for some time before that. However, this Conservative government in the last couple of years has done more for the forest sector than any other government in history. Therefore, I have to speak out against the motion.

I will preface my remarks by saying that although I will be speaking specifically about the motion and its implications for Quebec, I appreciate and recognize that this government's forest policy has been to address national concerns in the forest sector and has done very well for the province of Quebec.

To highlight some of the things we have done in Quebec over the last two fiscal years, $16.7 billion in loans and grants have been committed over the last two years in support of the Quebec forest sector. In addition, Quebec is also receiving a portion of the $1 billion pulp and paper green transformation program, a program I had an opportunity to announce on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources in Thunder Bay and the great Kenora riding last week. It was very well received by stakeholders in that riding and in Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

Finally, over $928 million has been transferred to Quebec to support and retrain unemployed workers, people affected or displaced by the forest sector's current challenges. This is in the 2009 fiscal year alone. This policy was developed very much with the forest sector in mind and is now occupying itself with long-tenured workers who have been displaced, for example, in some critical mass in the forest sector.

When we look at the support by the Conservative government across the entire country, there can be no doubt, and this is the kind of feedback we have had in the great Kenora riding, which shares a certain makeup as some of my colleagues from the northern parts of Quebec, that it has really made the forest sector a top priority in its policy platform.

It is clear that having a wealth of natural resources is no longer the only ingredient for economic success. The forest sector, in fact all our resource sectors, must build on Canada's other strengths to transform our resources into value-added products and to keep high quality, high skilled jobs in Canada.

We know that economic success in today's climate requires the right combination of resources, people, knowledge, expertise and systems. Our government is determined to ensure these economic fundamentals are firmly in place to reinforce the competitiveness of Canada's natural resources economy, to support sustainable industry and to provide a clean, healthy environment.

Today, while Canada's economy remains strong, or stronger than most, global pressures are being felt particularly by the forest sector and forest-dependent communities, many of which are in the great Kenora riding. In the face of these pressures, staying strong depends on supporting innovation and on industrial and entrepreneurial creativity. We must develop skills and expertise, create new products, find new value in untapped forest resources and establish new markets.

To meet these challenges and to make the most of the many opportunities that they present, the Government of Canada continues to work closely with provincial and territorial governments, with communities and within the industry. Indeed, in the great Kenora riding I have been very active with other levels of government and stakeholders in the private sector to work to diversify within the forest sector in the riding. This requires a commitment to research.

Therefore, in 2007 we established the $127.5 million forestry industry long-term competitiveness initiative, which is already leading to some significant achievements. For example, Canada's forest research institutes have now been consolidated into FPInnovations. This has produced the largest ever public-private forest resource organization in the world.

FPInnovations will help the forest industry to spur innovations in ways that will produce results now and reap ever greater benefits later on. Evidence of its success can be easily seen in the number and variety of initiatives that are appearing in the forest sector today. As well, through Canada's economic action plan we are continuing to build on early successful initiatives.

Budget 2009 provides a total of $120 million over two years to advance innovation in the forest sector by accelerating promising research and development that will help transform and diversify the forest sector. This funding includes $80 million over two years for the transformative technologies program that is administered by FPInnovations. It also includes an additional $40 million to develop pilot-scale demonstration projects of new products for use in commercial applications.

The transformative technologies program supports research and development in emerging advanced technologies that will broaden the line of products manufactured by Canada’s forest sector. Research areas include new materials using nanotechnology, energy and chemicals produced from forest biomass, and next-generation forest products.

For example, thanks to support from the transformative technologies program, FPInnovations, Canada’s 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 being made with bio-products research, such as nanocrystalline cellulose. The aerospace and automotive sectors have shown interest in using this cellulose in advanced lightweight, high-strength composite materials. These and other technologies, where the Government of Canada is supporting world leading forest sector research, hold the potential to revolutionize the way we think about and the way we use wood fibre, while creating exciting new economic opportunities for forest communities across Canada.

Our transformative technologies program has also been investing in new uses in markets for wood. We heard talk in the debate earlier today not only about the need to strengthen our position in North America but to also look beyond the borders of North America into the world. Until a couple of years ago, we did not have the confidence that we could be competitive and now we do.

Thanks to the research funded through this program, we are able to do a bunch of things in Canada that demonstrate our capacity to take products to the world. For example, we have a six-storey wood building being constructed now in Quebec City and plans for one in British Columbia. Because of the kind of research we are doing on cross-laminated timber, we may soon see buildings constructed of wood for buildings of 10 storeys or more.

There are a number of other pilot projects I would like to highlight, but there are too many to list in the confines of the 10 minutes graciously extended to me by the Speaker.

However, the economic action plan has also provided $40 million in a complementary initiative to develop pilot-scale demonstrations under the transformative technologies program.

Canada’s economic action plan is also providing $50 million to develop and diversify markets for Canadian wood products and to expand the North American lumber market. The creation of new markets in North America is a priority for Quebec lumber producers.

We are taking other federal measures, supported by our economic action plan, that are having a beneficial effect on our forest sector. We are taking decisive action to support the transition of the pulp and paper industry in Quebec and across Canada, as I highlighted earlier.

The community adjustment fund continues to have real impact in communities affected by the global recession and its impact on the forest sector, with a special emphasis on those communities.

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

We have a sophisticated Canada skills and transition strategy to help workers with enhancements to employment insurance and funding for skills and training.

The Government of Canada is providing other important research, such as that in the invasive species centre in the province of Ontario. This centre will work in partnership with the province on research related to alien invasive species.

Again, these are a number of examples of the kind of leadership we are taking in the forest sector. There are a number of other commitments that we have made.

The Government of Canada recognizes the challenges facing the forestry sector, and realizes that the biomass crop assistance program may put Canadian producers at a disadvantage and distort the markets.

The Government of Canada has discussed a variety of issues with provincial and municipal governments around the forest sector. We continue to believe that we are taking the right steps. That is what we are hearing. We are standing up strong for the forestry sector and its communities.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my friend just north of me in theKenora riding knew I would stand and ask a question, so he is no doubt prepared.

He mentioned the billion dollars for pulp and paper, which some, most or part of may not be spent. He mentioned the $170 million for research and outlined a couple of projects. However, anything else that the member talked about is money that has simply not been spent. For example, companies pay for the insurance they get through the EDC, $14 billion, but that money has never been spent.

Would the member for Kenora tell me exactly where he gets his numbers?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was a great pleasure for me last week to make the announcement on behalf of the minister to a number of pulp and paper mills throughout northwestern Ontario. I am often tasked with the affairs of northwestern Ontario, not just the great Kenora riding. I had an opportunity to speak to senior officials in some of the pulp and paper mills who were positively affected by this, and I will share this with the member so he knows.

In one case they were over the moon about this news. They assured me they would be putting those resources, those credits to good work in an effort to not just reduce the environmental footprint, but to deal with some structural defects in the northwestern Ontario forest sector, namely to reduce overall energy costs, incentivizing black liquor as an environmentally friendly but competitive way of meeting our energy demands, in some cases by 100%, we hope, is the result of those announcements.

Those are the numbers. They are not from the phone book from which the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River is reading.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my hon. colleague. He seems to be well in tune and he outlined some of the programs that currently exist, so perhaps he would like to give me a detailed answer to this question.

In my nearby hometown of Grand Falls—Windsor, the AbitibiBowater mill shut down, affecting 1,000 people, plus. It is hoping to diversify with a wood pellet plant as a source of energy and a source of heating. It is very popular in Europe. Export markets are possibly there. Exactly what program can those people avail themselves of to help get this plant going and helping put people back to work?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would not qualify that as a brief question, but certainly there are programs available with respect to opportunities to diversify within the forest sector. I might add that it is important for the Conservative government to continue to work with the provinces and—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I asked for a program. You don't know.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I assume the member for Kenora wishes to finish his response.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is important to diversify within the forest sector and provide opportunities for hard closures to make transitions into other areas within the forest sector, and we believe our government is doing that. There is a number of examples in the Kenora riding. I would be happy to share those with the member at some point in time.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest as the member for Kenora talked about the announcement made a little while ago in Thunder Bay about AbitibiBowater, when $33 million from that $1 billion fund was promised. However, there are a couple of complications that the government apparently is either not aware of or unwilling to deal with.

First, why does the member think announcing $33 million for AbitibiBowater in Thunder Bay is a good thing when there is no obligation for it to spend that $33 million? Second, AbitibiBowater is in creditor protection and it is not allowed to spend the money anyway.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on anything but what the officials from those companies told me. They were very enthusiastic about the announcement and very confident that this would significantly contribute to their competitiveness within the pulp and paper mills. Fort Frances and Thunder Bay operations in particular were very enthusiastic.

I would encourage the member to get behind this important announcement for the benefit of the communities and the workers at those mills who we have been working to support in a myriad of different programs and strategies. That is an invitation to treat.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from the riding of Québec.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and also on behalf of the citizens from all regions of Quebec.

The Bloc motion seeks to raise the awareness of this totally apathetic Conservative government, to wake it up. This government refuses to accept its responsibilities in an unprecedented crisis that has affected a sector found in many, if not all, Quebec regions.

Let us not forget that there are pulp and paper workers even in downtown Montreal. In fact, Quebec paper companies have head offices and regional offices in that city.

I would first like to quote Mr. Guy Cheverette, President and Chief Executive Officer, Quebec Forest Industry Council (CIFQ), who appeared before the Subcommittee of Canadian Industrial Sectors on March 12. He stated:

The [forestry] crisis is just as big, even more so, than that in the automotive sector, since it affects 825,000 workers, compared to 500,000 [auto industry]workers. It seems to me you have to make an effort to be coherent, an effort to use common sense.

The current crisis has struck at the very heart of Quebec regions and a number of Quebec communities. I rise today to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. My colleague for Berthier—Maskinongé in the Mauricie region, my colleague for Laurentides—Labelle, who is from a region which employs forestry workers, especially in the Upper Laurentians, or others, such as my colleague for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine who is present, can bear witness to the fact that their regions have also been affected by the forestry crisis.

Eighty-eight thousand Quebeckers work in logging operations, sawmills and pulp and paper plants. Their jobs account for one-third of all Canadian forestry jobs. Quebec has 70 cities and towns and 160 villages that are highly dependent on the forestry industry. Some of those listening to us currently live in villages that are entirely dependent on forests.

In my riding, in Haute Côte-Nord, Scierie Jacques Beaulieu, a family operation, was sold to Kruger. It is the main employer in Longue-Rive, in the Haute Côte-Nord area. Kruger recently closed down its operations in three sawmills in the Côte-Nord area, two in Haute Côte-Nord and one in Moyenne Côte-Nord.

The village of Hauterive currently has a totally unacceptable unemployment rate of between 22% and 24%, a direct result of the forestry crisis.

This government chose to use its budgets and its economic stimulus measures to help the auto industry, which is located primarily in Ontario. It is providing some $10 billion in subsidies to the auto industry.

In the Conservative Minister of Finance's latest budget, the amount allocated to the forestry and manufacturing industries, $170 million over two years, was peanuts. This is a double standard. Everything for Ontario and its auto industry, and nothing for the forestry industry and forestry workers. Let us not forget that 160 communities rely directly and exclusively on forestry.

Since April 2005, over 25,000 jobs have been lost in Quebec's forestry sector and related industries. I know what I am talking about because I spent 14 years working in the pulp and paper industry for Abitibi-Price, AbitibiBowater's predecessor. The situation has deteriorated since 2005. Workers in the industry are entitled to their fair share. Let us not forget that Quebeckers pay $54 billion per year. When Quebeckers ask the federal government to invest in Quebec, they are not asking for charity, they are asking for respect.

This is what we call dignity of work. Pulp and paper workers are proud people devoted to their jobs and their companies. But the fact is that right now, the industry is in crisis. During a crisis, the government must provide suitable solutions. But the Conservatives are not stepping up. The Bloc Québécois proposed a comprehensive plan to help the forestry industry, a plan with three main goals, the first of which is to provide immediate support to the industry via loan guarantees, among other things. We have talked to people in the industry who say that they do not necessarily want subsidies, they want loan guarantees.

When a person is deep in debt and goes to the bank or credit union, chances are the banker or the credit union manager will refuse to lend that person money because his or her industry or company is too unstable. That goes without saying. So we are asking the government to provide loan guarantees. It is legal, for crying out loud. I do not know why the Conservative government is so stubbornly refusing to help the industry. These measures are legal, pure and simple.

We also want to help the workers who are affected. That is one reason why we have proposed various employment insurance measures, such as immediately eliminating the waiting period. Thus, workers who have the misfortune of losing their jobs, either permanently or temporarily, could receive employment insurance benefits immediately. The two week waiting period must be eliminated. Eliminating that waiting period will immediately put money back into the economy. In fact, this would mean that account payments to credit unions and other creditors would continue coming in. Someone who has lost their job would therefore not have to tell the manager of the credit union that he or she had to stop making payments for five or six months. We are familiar with the amount of debt people are carrying at this time. People cannot tell Visa or Visa Desjardins or another credit card company that they are stopping their payments and they will begin paying again when they find another job. The bills continue to come in, which is one of the reasons why we are calling for an elimination of the waiting period.

The Bloc Québécois action plan also aims to help a third sector, namely, to help modernize the forestry industry, to make it greener and more productive. This afternoon the Cascades plant in Lachute announced that it had invested $33 million, thanks to help from the Government of Quebec, to go green. This is something this industry really has to do and it deserves help.

Since I only have a moment left, I would like to close by saying that, because of its ideological decisions, this Conservative government has turned its back on the Quebec forestry industry and has focused its attention on the Ontario auto industry and the western oil industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, the current crisis in the forest industry was caused largely by the sellout softwood lumber agreement, which was signed and instituted by this Parliament, by the Conservative Party with the support of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois.

A few weeks ago, we saw the communities that depend on softwood lumber forced to pay $68 million in fines. Now the Americans have brought another suit that will probably result in $200 million or $300 million in fines to be paid by the working people of Ontario and Quebec. They will have to pay these fines because the softwood lumber agreement is so poorly worded that the anti-circumvention clause can be used by the Americans for anything at all, including loan guarantees.

My question is very simple. Earlier today, the NDP tabled an amendment to the Bloc’s motion. It said that Canada should withdraw from the softwood lumber agreement. We are already paying too much in legal fees and too much in penalties and fines. We have to go through an American court to achieve some balance.

The Bloc rejected this amendment. Why did it reject an amendment whose purpose was to have Canada withdraw from an agreement that has cost the jobs of thousands of Quebeckers?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were in a certain situation at the time. I admit that the agreement may not have been the best, but it was better than nothing at all.

I worked in labour relations for 16 years. I also practised law. There comes a time for reaching a settlement. This issue was really hurting workers in the forestry industry in Quebec. My colleague represents Ontario, where they are talking about the fines that have been imposed for exporting too much to the United States.

I would like to hear in a future speech from the NDP members whether they agree with the Bloc’s proposal that these fines should be pro-rated to reflect the companies that exported to the United States. According to our figures, 60% of the companies that exported too much to the United States were from Ontario. As a result, Ontario should assume 60% of the $68 million in fines, rather than having it shared equally, as seems to be the case under the current settlement. I would like the hon. member to ask one of his colleagues in the NDP whether he agrees that Ontario sawmills should pay 60% of the $68 million bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my view, the $68 million bill should be paid by the members of the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party who foisted this sellout on working people in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

As everyone knows, I am not from Ontario; I am from British Columbia. My riding lost 2,000 jobs as a result of this sellout. It was obvious that there would be massive job losses in Quebec, as well as in British Columbia and Ontario. It was very predictable. We only had to read the agreement to know that the anti-circumvention clause meant that the Americans could take anything that the provincial or federal governments did as an excuse to impose huge penalties on the workers and communities that derive their living from softwood lumber, as well as on all Canadians. Quebeckers have seen an awful lot of that.

My question is very simple. Why is the Bloc Québécois refusing an amendment that would enable us to start—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member has 30 seconds to answer the question.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the member knows his riding and his home province much better than I do. His French is so good, I had forgotten that he is a member from British Columbia. He is bilingual and studied at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi. Many Conservative members would do well to follow his example when it comes to knowing French.

I stand by what I said earlier, which is that a flawed agreement is better than none at all.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Richmond Hill, Afghanistan; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Aboriginal Affairs.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Québec.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate today is very important to Quebec as a whole. As my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord said, it is a debate that affects the regions of Quebec, where companies have closed and pulp and paper plants have slowed production. My colleague also condemned the situation in which all these communities find themselves. What we are asking for today is that the government provide the forestry industry, which has been hit hard by the economic crisis, with assistance similar to that given to the automotive industry concentrated in Ontario, and primarily through tax credits, loans and loan guarantees so that companies have immediate access to cash, and tax measures for private woodlot owners.

The automotive industry has received $9.7 billion in assistance. In comparison, the government has provided only $170 million to help the forestry industry, which has been in trouble since 2005. We are asking for loan guarantees, but also in the area of research and development so that these companies can modernize their equipment.

It is clear that the Conservatives have completely forgotten an important industry in Quebec. They are not in action mode now; they are in study mode, with a Quebec-Canada committee that will come out with a report in May. It is not a report that is needed. What is needed is for the government to wake up now to what is happening and provide appropriate financial assistance for all the industries across Quebec that are being forced to close their doors or scale back production, which is what is happening in my colleague's riding of Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

Last week, he and I met the industry's spokespersons. They told us that if there were, and if there had been loan guarantees and assistance provided for research and development, they would make it through the current crisis much more easily. Clearly, the Conservatives do not at all see this reality in the same light. Currently, the government is getting agitated, it is meeting people, but it is not making decisions. We listened carefully to the speech of the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. He talked about the help provided to the forestry industry. However, that help is not something like loan guarantees, not at all. That type of help was provided through the Canada Economic Development office, and it was also provided to other businesses in other sectors.

Let me provide an overall picture of what the forestry sector represents in Canada. It is an important industry that provides 850,000 jobs, compared to 500,000 for the automotive sector. This is why we were justified in expecting something else. The spokespersons representing that industry in Quebec, including Mr. Chevrette, asked that it be treated respectfully and that we should support it considering what it is going through. Over 88,000 Quebeckers work in the forestry sector, which includes sawmills and a number of pulp and paper mills. Close to one third of Canadian jobs in that sector, or 32%, are located in Quebec. This percentage speaks volumes. That is why we are still asking the government to help. We are putting pressure by tabling this motion in the House, so that the government realize the importance of this issue. Forty per cent of the towns and villages that are affected by the forestry crisis, and they are located in Quebec. This means 230 towns, including 160 that are totally dependent on that industry. According to the Quebec Forest Industry Council, which provided these figures, in Quebec 25,000 jobs have been lost in this sector since 2005.

This crisis is not new or recent. It is not like we caught the government off guard. It was asleep. It was asleep at the switch, while businesses in that industry were shutting down day in and day out. The numbers clearly show the importance of the forestry industry. For that reason, the government could also have been much more proactive with a true reform of the employment insurance program.

The OECD said that to get through the financial crisis, we needed to help people who were losing their jobs and prevent them from falling into extreme poverty. Once again, the government did the complete opposite. It introduced Bill C-50, which is woefully inadequate.

With this bill, the Conservative government targets long-tenured workers. But we could probably talk about long-tenured or long-lasting unemployed workers in the forestry industry.

Naturally, the Bloc Québécois cannot support Bill C-50, because it will exclude too many people. With this bill, 35% of people who receive EI will not be eligible, particularly because they will have had to receive less than 36 weeks of benefits in the last five years to qualify.

Many other people will be excluded: women, part-time workers, young people, and workers who have been laid off intermittently. A worker will have to have worked almost permanently and have had few claims for employment insurance. That is why the Bloc Québécois thinks is it a poor measure to help this sector of the industry, which has been seriously affected.

According to the government, this measure would apply to 190,000 people. But we disagree with that figure. It would be closer to 60,000 people, because, to be eligible, a worker would have had to use up all regular benefits. But in reality, only 25% of unemployed workers use all of their regular benefits. Thus, it would not cost the government $935 million, but would instead cost $300 million.

The government is playing with the numbers, and will tell people anything at all. This bill falls far short of what is needed to help those who are losing their jobs, and especially those who will be excluded from Bill C-50. Real reforms would have made it possible to do more and to help all workers, not just those in the forestry industry, but those in other sectors as well.

We also would have liked the reforms to increase the benefit rate from 55% to 60% of earnings.

The Bloc also recommended that insurable earnings be increased to $42,500 and be calculated based on the 12 best weeks. It also recommended eliminating the waiting period.

Adding weeks to employment insurance is nice and all, but people are still not getting employment insurance benefits from day one to help pay the bills. We have every right to ask why the government came up with measures that fall so far short of meeting needs and helping people cope with the reality of job loss.

I do not have much time left to discuss the 2009 budget, in which the government gave far more to Ontario than to Quebec. In 2009, they talked about $4 billion for measures targeting Ontario. So far, the auto industry has received $9 billion.

I could also have talked about other forestry industries. The government could have come up with green initiatives to help them. It could have promoted the use of wood in the construction of federal buildings.

There are many things this government could have done to help forestry companies diversify their product lines to keep production up.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her speech.

I would like her opinion on the fact that at least a year ago, the U.S. government subsidized pulp and paper mills for what is called black liquor. If black liquor is mixed with diesel you get a green substance, which is odd.

They received those subsidies, but our government did not react immediately. There is finally a bit of help going to that sector, but, in the meantime, there are mills like the ones in my riding that were losing money competing with U.S. mills and they refused to pay taxes to the City of Castlegar because of it.

Could the hon. member tell me why this government is reacting so slowly, or not at all, when there are U.S. subsidies? Why were Canadian subsidies not given immediately to help our mills?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is quite clear: this government is not interested in helping the forestry industry in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada.

My colleague is referring mainly to the loan guarantees. The government has shown bad faith on that and is giving the American lawyers arguments to defend the softwood lumber agreement. In fact, it has been said that this government's ministers provided arguments in defence of countervailing duties and the snap-back provision if ever the forestry industries received help.

Solutions could have been found to provide our companies with loan guarantees. It is quite clear that the government does not want to help the forestry industry.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak.

I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, for today's motion.

It is a very important matter for us in Newfoundland and Labrador, for the east coast of Quebec and all of Canada.

Here we are today debating a motion that deals with an industry in crisis.

At this time I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Toronto Centre. That, in and of itself, provides a taste of diversity: one member, completely rural, myself, representing 170 towns, debating with the member for Toronto Centre, not so rural. Nonetheless, here we are talking about an industry that is vital for me and this country. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this motion to the House.

The opposition motion, in part, states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should act urgently to provide the forestry industry, which has been hit hard by the economic crisis....

I would go even further to say that this crisis started well before that, certainly in the newsprint industry because of the fact that the average price for newsprint, which was just over $500 American per ton, put it in a grave situation. The demand has been lower and lower for the last 10, 15 to 20 years, coupled with the fact that over the past two or three years the Canadian dollar has been above 90¢ American. That, of course, hurts our exports.

In the particular situation of the riding of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, therein lies Grand Falls—Windsor which is the largest town in my riding. It boasted one of the largest, most successful newsprint mills on the east coast of this country, a mill that was 100 years old since its inception in the early part of the last century. It was started by interests in England who came to Newfoundland and Labrador for the sake of the rich forests to provide them with a product in order to produce their papers in Europe.

The reason I think it is so important that we are debating this today is because of the lack of action in this particular case to some of the key measures that we are proposing, some of which are outlined in this motion.

I will go back a step to just a few years ago. I was elected in 2004 and in 2005 we were very proud to be working on a bill, certainly an incentive for the forest industry, that we thought was ideal for this country. At the time, we announced a real plan to make the forestry sector more competitive. We were saving jobs through loans, supports for research, new technology, skills development and community adjustment.

The Reform-Conservatives, however, cancelled that plan upon forming government in 2006. At the time, they came out with a $1 billion plan, a price tag that was roughly close to ours, and they created what they called the community adjustment fund. They even made the announcement in front of a logging mill in New Brunswick.

The problem with that was that the program was an incentive for communities that had failed. In other words, if the major industry of that particular town had disappeared, had folded, then they could avail themselves of projects or, what we commonly refer to in Newfoundland and Labrador, as make work projects and people could obtain employment that way.

The mill in my riding was functioning at the time in 2005 and it could have availed itself of a service that provided some of the incentives that were contained in our package. This was introduced on November 24, 2005. It included: $215 million for the development of new technologies to enhance competitiveness; $50 million to develop bioenergy, cogeneration power technology, that would have been a great incentive for the mill in Grand Falls—Windsor; $90 million to support innovation; $66.3 million for wood product market development; and $800 million in loan support to help forest companies invest to improve competitiveness and to help diversify the community.

The other thing we talked about at the time and what we push now is the fact that a lot of these mills are old. As I mentioned earlier, the mill in my riding that was shut down recently spanned 100 years. An incentive for it, and an incredible incentive it would have been, would have been to allow the mill to make investments to improve its machinery because it was so old at that time. This is not just the idea of a tax cut. This is also introducing the idea of a subsidy to create more efficient machinery involved in the business of paper making. That is one example. It also included supporting investment in new equipment, which I mentioned, and supporting skills and training programs for forestry workers.

I will now talk about the EI situation. A little while ago, Bill C-50 was introduced for long tenured workers. The problem was that the situation with long tenured workers in this particular bill did not apply to loggers because they are seasonal workers. This bill did not cover them.

In addition to that, if the mill had shut down for a period of, on average, seven weeks of the year, people in that mill also did not qualify because they had claimed EI for too much of the year. Therein lies another problem. Indeed, it is a shame. In this particular case, that is why we think Bill C-50 falls flat. I would impress upon my colleagues down on the left of the House, pardon the expression, the NDP, because they, too, play a role in allowing people to access EI easily, much easier than what it is right now.

We would indeed re-establish Canada's leadership in the world and we would have opened up markets for forest products.

I saw some of the debates earlier and I was reading some of the transcripts of what has been said in the House about the SLA. The Conservatives claim that the government cannot support loan guarantees to forest companies because it would be in violation of the SLA, the softwood lumber agreement. However, that is not entirely true. They, themselves, are arguing in the London court of arbitration that loan guarantees are not a violation of the SLA. They have in fact posted their legal defence of loan guarantees on the DFAIT website.

It is give here, take here. The argument is here. We cannot do that. We cannot push forward with strategic loan guarantees, similar to what was done in other sectors, because of trade agreements. That is not necessarily true. They even refuted their own argument on the DFAIT website.

This is the situation in which we find ourselves, which is why I am glad we are having this debate today. We can point out to all the Canadians working in the forest industry just what the Government of Canada can do for the entire industry.

Going back to a situation I spoke of earlier, diversification, I would like the government in this particular situation to make it accessible and easier for some of these companies to be larger players in the world of forestry products. I will give an example, which I mentioned earlier.

The town of Grand Falls-Windsor is now hoping to get into the pellet industry. It is small little wood pellet but a great source of energy. It is cheaper, more environmentally friendly and, for us, it could create an industry of exports. Right now in Europe, that industry has reached a maturity in many countries and, therefore, it is incumbent upon us to aid that industry. Currently, however, it is extremely difficult to get access to capital in this particular situation because it does not have the component of a strategic subsidy, companies with loan guarantees.

The ongoing trade dispute is hardly a shock to the government. We and many members of the opposition repeatedly warned the government that the softwood deal amounted to a sellout of Canadian interests and that would see the erosion of Canadian control over its own industry.

I was taken aback by a comment that was put out there by BMO Nesbitt Burns analyst, Stephen Atkinson. He claimed that the agreement effectively handed U.S. companies veto power over provincial forest policies. Well, that is very interesting because last year, when AbitibiBowater declared bankruptcy, because of issues of severances, of timber rights and water rights, which are resources belonging to the people, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which I congratulate it for doing so, expropriated those, as well as provided the severance payments for the individual workers. There is a province that had to pick up where the federal government was behind and continued to turn a blind eye to this particular situation.

Therefore, I would compel the entire House to vote for this motion because it widens the debate and allows us to bore down to particular issues that will help failing mills. My mill no longer exists but a lot can be done to help mills in places like Kenora, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta. So much more needs to be done but so far we have seen so little. For the vast number of forestry workers across this country, this is such an imperative time to do that.