Debates of Oct. 19th, 2009

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster used the words in French “complètement malhonnête”. “Dishonest” is a word that has been deemed unparliamentary if he is referring to another member. Maybe he would like to withdraw the remark.

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

Mr. Speaker, I said that the hon. member is very honest, but that the Liberal Party's position is not. If that was unparliamentary, then I apologize.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. member for that clarification.

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's support, but perhaps he was not in the House the day the agreement was adopted. The Liberal Party voted against the softwood lumber agreement and the Liberal Party has always been against that agreement. We do not support it and we maintain that the agreement does not benefit the industry. It could not be any clearer.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her speech. It was very insightful.

However, my question is about what the minister mentioned. She mentioned stability in this industry.

When I look at the industry, I see Thunder Bay with a mill that lies basically inoperative. Its line of credit did not work and it could not keep going. Smooth Rock Falls is in the middle of tearing down what it had of its mill. Dryden has a big field where a mill used to be. Now Grant Forest Products in Englehart is having a hard time, and it looks as though it is going to go to American owners. We are losing what we have.

When I hear the word “stability” coming from the minister, I am not sure but she is probably the type that goes into a graveyard and finds it very peaceful. That is not the kind of peace I want in northern Ontario.

I would like to ask the hon. member about the Conservatives' opinion of what stability is and what she thinks of the minister's comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I cannot speak for the minister or try to define her concept of stability. It is clear that an industry that has lost 20,000 jobs in the past three years is not a stable industry. It is an industry that continues to see entire communities disappear, or just about. I do not really see where stability comes into the picture. It is certainly not in support for the industries in terms of loan guarantees or loans. I do not know what her concept of stability is.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative minister told us there has been this great economic recession. Our towns were being wiped out before the recession. They were being wiped out because of unfair trade practices with our number one competitor. Yet the government's solution was to cripple access to our number one market.

Now Conservatives are telling us that they have a little project here and a little project there. However, if they were to talk to the workers at Tembec or in Opasatika or the Abitibi region, they would say their industry has been completely wiped out. There is not an operating mill pretty much anywhere in northern Ontario, other than a small mill left in Elk Lake. That is an unprecedented situation.

The government abandoned the forestry communities. It abandoned one of the largest industries in this country, and it signed away our access to our only market. We are going to have to pay another $60 million or $70 million in fines on top of this, thanks to the agreement that the government signed on softwood.

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

And that is just the beginning.

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

This is the first stage of what will be many penalizing attempts to shut down our industry as we try to retool.

I would like to ask the hon. member if she will stand with us and vote against the government when it comes back one more time to squeeze money from our industry to pay to our competitors in the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. The government's inaction with respect to the forestry industry has been disastrous.

There was absolutely no initiative to help the industry when it would have made a difference. Obviously the decisions of the international court in London have made it even worse for the whole of the industry.

The Bloc motion is asking the government to open its heart or its finances to help the industry at this very crucial moment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must go back to that question. The Liberal senators made sure that this agreement was adopted by the Senate. In committee, the Liberal members opposed all amendments and put an end to all discussion and all debate on this softwood lumber sellout agreement. Because of the Liberal Party, Canadians now have to be governed by this scheme which caused the loss of thousands of jobs across Canada. They had to pay an initial penalty of one billion dollars. And, as my colleague from Timmins—James Bay just mentioned, they will have to pay additional fees and penalties of $68 million.

Do the members understand that this sellout agreement was adopted by Parliament because of the Liberal Party? If not, they just have to consult the record—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry but I have to interrupt the honourable member.

The honourable member for Brossard—La Prairie has only 30 seconds left.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat that the Liberal Party voted against the agreement submitted to Parliament. We voted against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River, who is very familiar with this issue.

I will start by talking about the Liberal Party’s agenda and the impact of that party’s support for the Conservative Party on softwood lumber. There were 110 votes on the softwood lumber agreement, and the Liberals voted in favour of that agreement 108 times. I would like to clarify something about the softwood lumber agreement: the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois all voted in favour of it. Now the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois are trying to distance themselves from this bad decision they made in the past.

Today we are discussing this motion on the forestry sector and the crisis it is suffering because of this vote three years ago on the softwood lumber agreement. At the time, the NDP very clearly stated that if this bill on the softwood lumber agreement was passed, it would be at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs in Canada and thousands of jobs in Quebec. Essentially, we said that we would be obliged to shut down our softwood lumber industry. The NDP said this very clearly, and we also heard it from witnesses from Quebec, British Columbia and other parts of Canada. In spite of everything, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of that agreement. That was irresponsible. It was irresponsible at the time and it still is today.

In my own riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, we have lost Canfor, Western Forest Products and International Forest Products — three softwood mills that had to close down because of this agreement on softwood lumber. Today, even though we will support this motion, it is very clear that responsibility for the collapse of our softwood lumber industry continues to lie with the members of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois. They supported an agreement that killed our industry and provoked this crisis.

People will say there are other factors as well, but the collapse of our industry and the forestry crisis began when we started to implement the sellout agreement on softwood. That was when Quebec workers started to lose their jobs. That was when the workers of British Columbia started to lose their jobs. That was when the mills in northern Ontario started to close their doors. In Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, mills began shutting down. Since the fateful day of October 12, 2006, tens of thousands of jobs have been lost. The crisis was unfortunately provoked by the adoption of that agreement.

As the members of the NDP said many times three years ago and continue to say today, we did not have to adopt that agreement. That agreement was implemented on October 12, 2006. The job losses were immediate because of that vote by the Bloc, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party—the three brothers who voted together to kill our companies.

One day later, on October 13, 2006, the U.S. Court of International Trade—for, naturally, we were obliged to apply to an American court—found completely in our favour. It said that the $5 billion stolen by the Americans would have to be returned to Canada, returned to the Quebec industry, returned to the British Columbia industry, returned to the Ontario and Manitoba industries and to the Saskatchewan and Alberta industries. Those illegal duties imposed at the border would have to be removed. We won hands down. Every member in this House should have known that this decision was coming soon.

Instead of listening to the NDP members, who said very clearly that we should wait for this decision—a decision that proved we were totally right—the hon. members from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of this sell-out, this softwood lumber agreement, which started costing jobs the moment it was passed.

That is the big problem in all the regions of Quebec, for example in the lower St. Lawrence, in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, in the Mauricie and the Outaouais. We started losing jobs the minute the vote was held. While the Bloc was voting for the motion, jobs were being lost in Quebec. As soon as the Liberal Party members who helped pass this bill—this sell-out—voted in favour of it in committee and the Liberal senators voted the same way in the Senate, jobs were lost in northern Ontario. As soon as the Conservative Party members from British Columbia voted for the bill, jobs were lost in their province. The effect was immediate, instantaneous. There could be no better proof that the NDP’s position was right—that is, to wait for the decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal rather than giving everything and putting everything on the table, as we did.

What has happened since? An unprecedented crisis in the forest industry: dozens of mills and plants closed all over the country, tens of thousands of jobs lost. Now we are starting to see the consequences of the decisions that were made in this sell-out, one after the other: there is the $68 million in additional penalties that the working people of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan will have to pay, and that is only the start.

The second consequence is going to cost the working people of Ontario and Quebec $200 to $300 million, and that is before the next step that we know the Americans will take regarding the fee issue in British Columbia. Some people estimate this at about $1 billion.

The members of the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party who voted in favour of this agreement completely forgot to read the anti-circumvention provision. We told them at the time and industry representatives told them too: this provision means that every time the Americans do not like something, they can challenge it and they will win. This agreement was bad and poorly written.

I fail to understand how anyone representing Canada could have voted for such a bill. It was Mr. Emerson, the former Liberal minister who crossed the floor and became a Conservative, who introduced the bill and said all was well and we would not have these effects. Now we know that the effects are very serious and are getting worse by the day. It is not as if the agreement will get better in a few years. It is getting worse and worse.

It does not make sense for the Bloc to table this motion today without mentioning the softwood lumber agreement. We cannot simply ignore the fact that the Quebec members of the Bloc and the Liberal Party support a motion that undermines the Quebec industry, just like the Conservative members from British Columbia, who voted for a bill that undermines the industry in their province.

I know that my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River is going to talk about the amendments we are proposing so that this motion makes sense. We know for sure there is a crisis. What Canadians are realizing more and more, though, is that it was caused by the members of the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, who joined forces to bring our softwood lumber industry to its knees.

What we need to do now, and what the NDP is doing here today, is make improvements and adopt a strategy that will really help the working people who still have a job in this industry.

That is what we are doing today.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was just going over some notes. The hon. member speaks very well. He has passion and really gets into his speech. He is there to blame everyone around him for what is going on.

However, when we talk about the lumber agreement that took place in October 2006, it was a confidence vote. It was something that really made a difference and it really affected all people who were involved in the forestry industry including my riding and northern Ontario.

When I listen to the NDP members, it is like they are out there saving the world, they are out there to protect everyone. I have one question. Why did they abstain on that vote?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think northern Ontarians very clearly said how they felt about the softwood lumber agreement and how they felt about the Liberals being the henchmen of the Conservatives on getting the bill through the House.

The House will recall that before the election that was held immediately after the softwood lumber sellout there were a couple of very strong NDP members from northern Ontario, from Sault Ste. Marie and from Timmins--James Bay. People in northern Ontario from Sudbury, Algoma to Thunder Bay, right across northern Ontario, with only two exceptions, said that the NDP was the one that had credibility on the issue of the softwood sellout and it was the one that was standing up for northern Ontario. That is why there was a sweep of northern Ontario by NDP candidates in the last election. It was because the people of northern Ontario understood that the NDP was standing up for them.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague that his simplistic way of looking at problems—as he has just demonstrated—gives people only a partial view of the situation. We must understand that markets have collapsed, particularly for paper companies, since, among other things, less newsprint is being used. This brings about challenges for the industry, which needs restructuring. The main problem for the industry is not the softwood lumber agreement, but access to credit through banks, at a reasonable rate.

When businesses asked for help from the Bloc Québécois members, they said they wanted loans and loan guarantees. As for the softwood lumber agreement, even though it left much to be desired, businesses, workers and unions asked us to find a settlement. The industry was at the end of its rope and could not survive anymore.

Thus, I would like the member to try reflecting a little bit on that and to change his point of view.

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

Mr. Speaker, I like the member but I disagree with her. The Bloc Quebecois should have apologized to all workers in Quebec for the position it took on this. We are talking about thousands of jobs. Thousands of Quebeckers lost their jobs because the Bloc refused to stand up for them and say that the agreement was not in the interest of Quebec workers and the Quebec industry and it would vote against it.

Had Liberal and Bloc members from Quebec join the NDP at the time to vote against that agreement, it would not be in place. Winning our case in court on October 13, 2006 would have ensured that we would have fair trade with the United States today. We would not have had to pay $1 billion, then $68 million, and then maybe $200 or $300 million in fees and penalties.

It was to be expected. The NDP said that this would happen. The Bloc may very well say that it is not its fault, that it is someone else's fault, that Mr. Charest said it had to support the agreement, and it did. The fact is that thousands of families in Quebec lost their jobs because the Bloc did not do its job on this issue. I cannot change my position. The Bloc is responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs in Quebec. I am sorry, but the Bloc Quebecois was wrong and I would very much like to see its leader apologize to Quebeckers for this bad decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague for bringing the motion forward. It is an interesting motion. I will be supporting the motion. I will be suggesting to my colleagues in the NDP that they support the motion and I would suggest to the government that it also supports the motion.

It is an interesting motion, not necessarily for what it says but also for what it does not say. I would like to begin by speaking about what it does say. Part of the motion reads, “--with assistance which is similar to that given to the automotive industry--”. That is an interesting thing to say in the motion, and I would like to spend a few moments with some statistics regarding the forestry industry and the automotive industry in Canada.

Let me say at the outset that it is wonderful that the automotive industry is restructuring. I hope it is on its way up. It will be competitive and remain competitive for many years, and it is wonderful that it has received the support it has.

By contrast, the forestry industry has not received support. Indeed, the Government of Ontario has said quite frankly that forestry is a sunset industry in the province of Ontario. I dare say the government believes the same thing. That is most unfortunate because when we look at the statistics, it is quite surprising to see the contribution that forestry has made to the Canadian economy. For example, the total revenue from forestry is about $84 billion a year. The total revenue from the car industry just before its troubles was about $94 billion a year. The total exports are also in the tens of billions of dollars for both the automotive industry and the forestry industry.

The interesting statistic is the percentage of the GDP contribution. Forestry is about 3% of the total GDP. The auto industry is also about 3% of the total GDP. In terms of direct jobs, there are more than twice as many jobs in the forestry industry, about 300,000, as opposed to the automotive industry, which is about 135,000 before its most recent troubles. Most telling, when we put the direct jobs and the indirect jobs together, we are looking at almost 900,000 direct and indirect jobs in the forestry industry, as opposed to about 440,000 direct and indirect jobs in the automotive industry. We could probably say that both of these industries in terms of dollars are somewhat comparable.

I am pleased to see in the motion put together by the Bloc that it talks about the automotive industry and about assistance that is similar to the automotive industry because they are much the same.

Another point I would like to make is this. When we look at not just the total GDP but the total GDP of manufacturing, the forestry industry is about 12% of the Canadian manufacturing GDP. The auto industry is also about 12% of the total manufacturing GDP. I am glad to see that in the motion.

Unfortunately, there are a number of things missing in the motion and I would like to address them. It is interesting that the government talks about the billion dollar package for the forestry industry. Back in June I made my views quite clear on it, that while any support from the government for the forestry industry was welcomed, it was not exactly what was needed in terms of black liquor subsidies, and that I would continue to work to ensure that we had a forestry package to reposition, over the next couple of years, the forestry industry, and I clearly illustrated that it was very valuable to Canada's economy.

It is interesting that there was a round a recent announcements. For example, $33 million for AbitibiBowater was announced in my riding, in which it has two operating mills. They are not operating at capacity, naturally, but I do not think any mill anywhere in Canada is operating at capacity. The $33 millions is part of the $1 billion forestry package announced by the government in June.

Unfortunately, there is a clarity issue. First, no strings are attached to it. In other words, AbitibiBowater does not have to spend that $33 million on AbitibiBowater in Thunder Bay or, indeed, on AbitibiBowater in Fort Frances. As we know, AbitibiBowater is in creditor protection.

Second, there is also no indication as to when and how this money can be used to keep people working in northern Ontario and in particular in my riding. What I am endeavouring to do is to ensure that the forest industry, in my riding, in northwestern Ontario across Canada, as this repositioning and reconstruction happens, is absolutely in a position a year, or two or three years from now to compete on the world stage. Unfortunately, the government is falling short. It would have been nice to have a little more clarity on that issue in the motion.

We have another round, if I am not mistaken, of corporate tax cuts coming early in the new year. Unfortunately, those tax cuts, although some on the government side might claim that they will help the forestry industry, only help if companies are making money. If companies are not making money, or if they are in creditor protection or bankruptcy, they do not help.

We need to ensure that the forest industry has the ability to move forward. Tax cuts are not the way to help the industry at this point in time. I guess the tax cuts will be good for big oil and gas, banks and those sorts of industries, but they will not do anything for the forestry industry. That is most unfortunate.

The softwood lumber agreement has already been mentioned a couple of times. A minister of revenue claimed that the federal government could not provide loan guarantees. He said that they would contravene the softwood lumber agreement. He also had strong objections because he was worried that various American organizations, lobby groups and others would sue the government or would go to the World Trade Organization, which might impose fines as has recently happened.

Those tens of millions of dollars will be paid by the taxpayers. The latest fines in the softwood lumber agreement, and there are bound to be more, the taxpayers will pick up the tab. Why? Because forest companies do not have any money, and they could not pay the fines anyway.

Given what I have said about the motion and, unfortunately, what is not in the motion, the motion could be improved. Therefore, I wish to move the following amendment: That immediately following the words “urgently to” add “proposed to end the softwood lumber agreement in order to be able to”, and after “private woodlot owners” add “and negotiate an immediate end to the U.S. black liquor subsidy, including introducing compensatory benefits to Canadian producers retroactive to January 1, 2009.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques if he consents to this amendment being moved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not consent.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is no consent. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the NDP for his comments during his speech. I am happy to see that he agrees with the Bloc Québécois about the fact that it is inconceivable that billions of dollars are being invested in the automotive industry, while the forestry industry receives only crumbs.

However, I would like to ask my colleague a concrete question.

Today, we are talking about private woodlot owners. What does my colleague think of the proposal from the Bloc Québécois that fiscal action be taken so that private woodlot owners would have special status in the Income Tax Act and be able to deduct their expenses for silvicultural work? What does he think about a registered silviculture savings plan to help owners plan the sustainable use of private woodlots in Quebec and in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not completely conversant with the private woodlot issue in Quebec. I can only assume that it is inserted in the motion because it is a very important and perhaps even a controversial issue in Quebec. I have no problem voting for the motion if the member believes this is good for ordinary working families in Quebec.

There are private woodlot issues elsewhere in the country that do not involve tax credits or other things. We have a bit of a problem in northwestern Ontario. Because many private woodlots are close to the border, wood is cut and then sent directly to the United States for processing. I personally believe that is a problem.

With regard to Canadian wood, whether it comes from crown land or from private woodlots, we should make every effort to process that wood in Canada, first, before it is exported.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of experience with private woodlots in our region in northeastern Ontario. Private lands are being cut right down to the water and being shipped over to the mills in Quebec. We would never see a reciprocal agreement with our Quebec neighbours because they would not allow that to happen. Therefore, I certainly have concerns.

However, I want to comment about the decision by our colleagues in the Bloc not to work with us on a motion about the black liquor subsidy, which would help industry. Their position on the softwood issue is they will get more money and some loan guarantees. There is not an industry that the Bloc knows of in Quebec that should not be given money. For example, look at the rotting old Quebec asbestos mines. Those guys will ship this poison around the world and insist that people subsidize it.

What we need are markets and access to them.

When the Bloc Québécois voted to crush our access to the U.S. market, the members voted knowing that part of the agreement was we would not be able to give loan guarantees. Nor would we be able to retool our industry. Every time we would do that, the U.S. competitors would go against us, which is what they have done.

Now we are paying $70 million in fines thanks to the myopic vision of the members of the Bloc Québécois, who could have stood and said that opposed to Canada having a say in their domestic forestry planning, they were giving it over to the U.S. Therefore, Quebec's forestry planning now gets to be vetted by the U.S., just like Ontario's, just like B.C.'s, and we pay through the nose any time we attempt to help.

On an issue like the black liquor subsidy, why are our forestry workers once again being sold down the river and being sold a misplaced bill of goods from the Bloc, which has sold us out on the softwood lumber issue?