Debates of Oct. 19th, 2009

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his fine speech. It is clear that he is quite familiar with this issue and cares about the forestry industry.

I would like to ask him a question. I have been in this House since 2004—so not all that long—when the Liberals were in power. The crisis in the forestry sector is nothing new. It has been a problem for many years. At the time, the Bloc Québécois was calling for loan guarantees to support an industry that was beginning to crumble and lose many jobs. The Liberal government of the day did nothing and did not grant loan guarantees to the forestry industry.

Why are you willing to go ahead with them now? Why did you hesitate not so long ago, and say no to these same loan guarantees?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, this was the incentive created on November 24, 2005. I do not think I could have said it any plainer than that.

I would like to commend the Province and Premier of Quebec for providing some of these loan guarantees. I believe that they have already done it in the House as well. It would be interesting to see the fallout from this and the situation with trade infractions and the like.

One situation is AbitibiBowater. It is now under bankruptcy protection and is receiving some money and funding through certain programs. However, the problem is that it is unable to spend it because of the situation that it is in. Unfortunately, for many people across this country it would be a little too late.

The stimulus package that the government brought back in 2007 was short on detail. In effect, it had a general overall program, which I am sure my hon. colleague would agree with, but in this overall program of job creation, it did not focus on the one particular industry we speak of. Again, to answer his question, it was November 24, 2005.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is not really answering the question. I would like to ask him the same question again.

When the forestry crisis was first developing in Quebec and in Canada, many jobs were being lost. There was a problem with the United States concerning the free trade agreement. I am referring to the softwood lumber crisis. The industry was calling for loan guarantees, but the Liberal government refused to grant those loan guarantees.

Now, after listening to the member, I completely agree with him: there is nothing in the free trade agreement that prohibits the government from offering these loan guarantees, but at the time, the Liberals said no to those same loan guarantees. I would like the member to respond to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me see if I can follow the path here. We are talking about a softwood lumber agreement that the Bloc supported. I will leave that as is. He talked about the incentives that we want to do. I repeat: November 24, 2005. I will give him a date and details. I listed $60 million to $80 million investments in improving machinery and loan guarantees, subsidies for many of these mills to clean up, and environmental remediation. All of these were in there. He was elected in 2004. I am sure if he were to check the records he would find out all about it.

As a matter of fact, I would love to sit down and talk about the forestry industry with my colleague all day. We could talk about these things that we did. There were mills back in the early part of this decade that took advantage of environmental cleanups and to this day many of the mills are still standing.

As I pointed out for the member at the beginning, if he has issues with the softwood lumber agreement he should perhaps talk to the leadership of his party.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, could the member comment further on woodlots and what we could do in his riding? Second, how disappointed is he that the Conservatives sabotaged the committee on EI? Could that have helped his forestry workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Yukon who certainly has done a great deal for rural affairs since I have known him in 2004.

In the meantime, let us talk about the sabotaging of the EI bill. I will go back to the point that they keep missing. A lot of long tenured workers in the forestry sector will not benefit from Bill C-50 as the Conservatives claim they will.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, for allowing me to share his time. He did express the thought that there was some irony in the fact that as the member for Toronto Centre I wanted to say a few words in this debate. However, the reality is that the forestry industry is perhaps the one industry that unites this country. There is not a province that does not have a significant forestry industry. Certainly that is true in my own case, in Ontario.

As a former first minister of the province and leader of the opposition there for many years, I had the opportunity to visit--

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

He was a very successful leader of the opposition.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

--every single pulp and paper mill in the country. I say to my colleague across the way who is heckling me that the most significant restructuring of the forestry industry took place in the early 1990s. That was something I was very much personally involved in from time immemorial. I think probably one of the only pieces of legislation that the government of which he was a member did not repeal, and for which I was responsible, was the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. I think that act established a very successful regime in terms of managing the forest that has received a great deal of attention around the world.

However, the reason I wanted to participate in the debate is twofold. First, I want to say that of course we are, in this party, going to be supporting the motion.

However, I did want to say to my colleagues in the Bloc that no one should believe for an instant that the forestry industry is an industry that is confined to or exists only in the province of Quebec. In fact, it is the one industry that all Canadians understand. There are over 300 communities across the country that depend directly on the forestry industry for their livelihood, and those are only the direct jobs and communities directly involved. And then there are literally hundreds of thousands of other jobs across the country that have depended on, and that will continue to depend on, the forestry industry. It is not a matter of pitting Quebec against Ontario, or British Columbia against the rest of the country. We can look at any of northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta, British Columbia where it is certainly the biggest resource industry, northern Manitoba, northern Ontario, Quebec, or the Atlantic provinces. My colleague from Newfoundland who has just spoken has expressed very clearly the relationship that the forestry industry has with so many communities across the country. Because it is an industry that unites the county, or should unite the country, I think we need to engage once more in a discussion about the appropriate role of government, both federally and provincially, in dealing with this structural change that is under way in the industry, which has had such a devastating impact on so many communities, and what we can do to restore the industry to a position of health and indeed to a position of leadership in the world, where it will be able to define the jobs of tomorrow as it has very much defined the jobs of Canada's past.

I just want to say two things in this debate.

First, contrary to what I hear my Bloc Québécois colleagues saying, the forestry industry is not a uniquely Quebec industry. It is present in Ontario, British Columbia, the west, the east, the Maritimes, the Atlantic provinces and also Quebec, of course. As Canadians, we share this industry. It is not an industry that sets Quebec apart from the other provinces; on the contrary, it unites the country. Conditions are very similar everywhere. In fact, more than 300 cities, towns and municipalities across the country depend almost exclusively on the forestry industry. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada, even in downtown Toronto, depend on this industry. It is as important to the country's future as it was in the past.

The second thing I want to say is that it is a fundamental myth that the forestry industry is an industry of the past, because that is not true.

One myth is that it is a uniquely Quebec industry, or British Columbia industry, or whatever province, but that is not the case. The fact is the forest industry is a Canadian industry. It has helped to define our country. It has helped to make the towns and communities of this country. This is an industry that has been at the heart of Canadian economic growth and Canadian economic success for a century and a half.

Second, it is a myth that this is an industry of the past. It is not an industry of the past. It is only an industry of the past if we fail to encourage and allow industry to make the kinds of investments in the future that every industry, to be successful, has to make. In fact, I say to my colleagues across the way that I do not see this motion particularly as an attack on the government, or an attack on one partisan approach or another. It is, rather, an effort on the part of the whole House to say that this is an industry that requires innovation, change, and investment to be able to succeed.

We have had our partisan differences. I have had occasion for over a decade to serve as counsel to the Free Trade Lumber Council and I have spent a lot of time travelling across the country talking with every head of every company and every head of every union trying to look at how we could get a coalition together that would successfully withstand the American objections to the notion of free and fair access to the American market for competitive Canadian products.

The American resistance to our exports is from the industry, some of the producers of America, and not from the people of America, or from the consumers of America. It is based on the false notion that this industry in Canada receives subsidies and advantages that it does not receive in the United States. We do not have time today to document it, but this is simply not the case, and we can show that. What the Americans have shown is that when you have 50 Senators who represent less than 20% of the American population, they can put up a very strong protectionist wall against Canadian exports, and that is what they have done in the case of softwood lumber.

I disagreed with the government's decision to go for an agreement, because I felt that agreement simply entrenched American resistance to a competitive, open, and fair trading relationship. I believe that at that time it would have been far better for the Canadian government to have stood up and stood by the industry as it went through this difficult period of adjustment and change. The decision was made not to do that, but instead to rely on the Softwood Lumber Agreement as the framework that would take us forward. The fact remains that the ability of this industry to provide the jobs of the future will depend on its capacity to innovate, change, develop new products, and look for new markets rather than relying exclusively on the market of the United States.

I find it ironic as I travel and visit some of the mills and factories in the United States, as I am sure members opposite have done, to see that our mills are every bit as competitive and every bit as modern. We have as much new technology as they do in any other place. What we have not been able to do, in my opinion, is enough as a country to provide the industry with the kind of support it needs to reach new markets, develop new products, and to deal with some of the competitive disadvantages that we face.

The competitive disadvantages we face are not of our own making. They are made of a protectionist wall in the United States and of a very high dollar which is proving to be a tremendous challenge to us. We have to change the culture of the relationship between business, industry, and governments both federally and provincially, so that we can work more effectively in partnership to take us to a new step and a new stage in terms of this industry. That is what we need to do.

I am very much in support of the motion being put forward by my colleagues of the Bloc, because I think it will allow this House to express its strong support for the industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the lofty words of my colleague across the floor, and he may not remember, but we have had dealings in Thunder Bay with the old Provincial Papers and a number of other things. I do know that he understands the forestry industry, certainly in Ontario, quite well.

I would ask the member, if he were Prime Minister, what he would do with the American reluctance to stop their black liquor subsidy now. Further, what would the member do with the new super subsidy that is coming very shortly from the American government?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would say to the hon. member is that one of the difficulties with trade law is another country can subsidize all it wants and can still complain about goods that are coming into its country.

However, I would certainly be challenging what the Americans are doing at the WTO. I would be taking every step that we could to do that. Then I would be saying to our American friends that for every subsidy they place on us we will have to do the same. We have no choice and no option but to provide a similar benefit to the companies that are having to do business with them, and to work hard to see that in taking those steps we would arrive at a negotiated result that would not put the industry at such a disadvantage.

I say to my colleague, knowing that he followed the softwood lumber debates very closely, I think the difference that existed between those who were opposed to the agreement and those who were in favour of it is that those who were opposed to the agreement were prepared to continue the fight. However we also understood that to get into that fight even further would have required further government investment and government expenditure.

I do not think we can shy away from that, because unless we are prepared to put that forward, we are not going to arrive at a healthy conclusion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Withdrawing from the deal would require further investment.

We know that on October 13, 2006 we had the decision of the Court of International Trade subject to only one final appeal. It gave every single penny back to Canada and allowed for unfettered free trade on lumber sales. Therefore we had that in hand. Unfortunately the Liberals working with the Conservatives and with the Bloc pushed the bill through on October 12. On October 12 the agreement was implemented and took away the advantage that we had through the courts.

We have the $68 million that we had been penalized. We have a potential for $200 million to $300 million in the Quebec and Ontario subsidy case that is currently part of the softwood lumber appeals. Now everyone fears another billion dollars on B.C. stumpage. Therefore we are paying the cost.

Would the member not agree that we need to withdraw from the deal because the costs of continuing are much higher than the cost of re-establishing our legal position?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member on every occasion, but I would say to him that if he followed my public and private record on the softwood lumber agreement, he would know that I had strongly advised against its adoption. I was consistently opposed to it and I remain opposed to it.

I think we all have to understand that withdrawing from it will in and of itself lead to significant challenges in the United States and with the United States for the very reason that I have given. The industry in the United States is determined to resist fair and free competition from Canada.

However, I would make the point to the member, and through him to my colleagues, to say one of the great illusions of the last five years on trade was the Prime Minister of Canada coming in and saying, “I've got peace in our time. I've got an agreement that's going to give us peace in our time”. It was not true in 1938 and it is not true today. We did not get peace in our time with the softwood lumber agreement. We simply got another base, another platform from which the Americans can continue to harass and challenge every step of the way, every provincial policy and every federal policy, because the key issue for them is that they never want the Canadian industry to reach a point of competitiveness where it is able to get the products it wants and needs into the United States at their expense. For them it is a zero-sum game and that is the problem--

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first of all like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

It is with great pleasure that I take the floor today, on this Bloc Québécois opposition day which is dealing with an issue of great importance for Quebec.

I would like to say to the hon. member who has just spoken that we are well aware that this is an issue that also affects all of Canada. However Quebec has been particularly affected by this crisis.

The motion tabled today criticizes the inaction of the Conservative government, as has been said in this House, in dealing with the forestry crisis. We have had some measures that are flatly inadequate to support the development of this industry and its workers, such as Bill C-50.

While the federal government has allocated the forestry industry some $70 million, it must be said once again, the Conservatives have granted the automotive industry over $9.7 billion. It is shameful. It is not that providing more support to the auto industry is shameful. We are not against support for the auto industry. But that support has been provided without consideration for the needs of the forestry industry in Quebec. That is our objection.

Granting $9.7 billion to the auto industry versus $70 million to Quebec’s forestry industry in a crisis situation is simply unfair and unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois. Let us not forget that the crisis in the forestry industry affects 825,000 workers, compared with 500,000 workers in the automotive sector. It would be entirely justified to support the forestry industry as much as the auto industry, but that is not what has happened.

The Conservative government had partisan electoral interests in Ontario when it tabled its latest budgets. In its choices, the Conservative government has decided to abandon the forestry industry and focus on the automotive industry, which as we know full well, also had certain needs.

However the forestry industry, the forest workers of Quebec and all the forest workers of Canada are worth more than this.

The Quebec forestry sector is made up of close to 88,000 Quebeckers who work in sawmills and pulp and paper mills, representing about a third of Canadian jobs in this sector.

In Quebec, approximately 230 cities, towns and villages are primarily dependent on this economic sector, including 160 small, rural villages which are exclusively dependent on the forest. At the moment they are being devitalized and torn apart by cuts. They have not been listened to by this government.

The softwood lumber crisis, which we remember very well and which preceded the present economic crisis, did much more harm in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada. On this subject I would have liked to respond to my colleague from the Liberal Party who spoke earlier.

No fewer than 10,000 Quebec workers were directly affected, collectively losing the equivalent of 3,200 years’ pay. That is not nothing.

Collectively, sales in Quebec fell four times more than the Canadian average. That was due not only to the broader economic crisis, but also to a lack of support for the forestry sector from the government.

Since April 2005, it has been worse still. The forestry industry, if we include related activities such as forestry and transportation, has lost an additional 25,000 jobs.

Today, the forestry industry is experiencing a major crisis that presents a serious threat to some of these communities, which are experiencing a loss of vitality and a major population exodus.

In the riding I represent, hundreds of workers have lost their jobs. Communities like Saint-Gabriel-de-Brandon, Mandeville, Saint-Alexis-des-Monts and Saint-Mathieu-du-Parc, which are rural municipalities, are experiencing job losses in the forestry industry. Those industries need support from the federal government to modernize their equipment. We have talked about loan guarantees. They need help, and this government has turned a deaf ear.

To enable all of these workers to survive while they wait for this crisis to end, the Bloc Québécois is of course proposing that employment insurance be made more flexible, to provide the workers hard hit by this crisis with a decent income. As we have seen, that is not what is done by Bill C-50, introduced in this House by the Conservative Party with the support of the New Democratic Party. That bill provides employment insurance for people who have essentially not had to claim employment insurance in the last 10 years. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are still refusing to provide support for the unemployed.

What is even worse is that the Conservatives have turned a deaf ear to what forestry workers and people losing their jobs are asking for. They are also trying, in Bill C-50, to define certain categories of unemployed workers.

Some workers or seasonal workers in the forestry and manufacturing industries have had the misfortune of having to claim employment insurance several times in recent years. Those people will not receive the same benefits as people who have not had to claim employment insurance as often in recent years. This means that those workers will be further impoverished. And that is of course why we are voting against this bill.

In short, the measures announced would have little effect in Quebec because they are not accessible to seasonal workers or forestry workers.

As well, in the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé, there is a category of workers not covered by the bill. I am talking about the entire situation of workers in the tourism industry. Here again, these are seasonal jobs. These people do not have access to any support. If the waiting period for employment insurance had been eliminated, these workers would have been penalized less; they would have been less impoverished, unlike the situation with the measures proposed by this government.

In addition, to enable the sawmills and factories that are having problems and that could employ these workers to get through the crisis, the Bloc Québécois proposed a set of measures that has been on the table for several months. Today, we continue to press ahead to help this industry, one of the most important in the economy of Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois has laid out a set of demands in its recovery plan for the forestry industry, including loan guarantees, for example. We have been calling for this for years. We asked the Liberals for them, in their day, and we have continued to ask the Conservatives for them. We are calling for loan guarantees so that more efficient production equipment can be acquired. We are calling for massive investments or tax measures to promote innovation and research and development in the industry. We are proposing that the research and development tax credit be refundable, so that even companies that are not making a profit will be able to innovate and develop new products.

It is also important to note that all these measures are consistent with the softwood lumber agreement, whatever the Conservative ministers and members might say.

I will conclude today by saying that the purpose of this motion is to provide support for the forestry industry and our workers in that industry. That is why we have introduced the motion in this House.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his excellent analysis and presentation, which truly impressed me.

I was truly astounded when he spoke of the number of workers in the auto industry compared to the number in the forestry industry. I want to be sure that his figures are correct.

Did he really say that there are 500,000 workers in the auto industry, which received $9.7 billion from the Conservative government in financial support, and that there are 825,000 workers in the forestry sector, which received only $70 million? Is that true or is he mistaken? That seems to be so discriminatory towards Quebec. I do not know if it is a question of incompetence, partisanship or re-election, but if those are the right figures could he provide an explanation?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question.

These are the figures we arrived at with our research. They definitely show, as I mentioned in my speech, an unfair situation that we cannot tolerate in this House.

Not just the Bloc Québécois, but all parliamentarians who defend the citizens of Quebec and Canada cannot accept this situation. The member hit the nail on the head: they helped the auto industry—we are not against that—and I believe they did so in an attempt to gain support in Ontario with an eye to being re-elected, all to the detriment of Quebec and the other provinces of Canada, such as British Colombia, which is highly dependent on the forestry sector. That is what we are condemning.

It is high time to provide more support for the forestry sector in Quebec and to assist our workers by improving the employment insurance system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate my colleague on his speech and say that the Bloc Québécois' position has to do not only with the past and the present, but also with the future.

A massive intervention to help the forestry industry would say that we still believe in a future for that industry. At present, the government seems to want to completely rule out any future development of the forestry industry. The industry has to be well positioned for the coming recovery. If nothing is done, that will be too bad, but when the recovery comes, there will be fewer workers and less industry in the municipalities in question.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the future of the forestry industry.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

We have to modernize our sawmills with an eye to the future. We need measures to promote the industry more. All sorts of measures are being put forward to protect and develop this industry.

There are many forests in Quebec, and we have learned to develop this industry and run it harmoniously and sustainably. The forestry industry can continue for many years to come if it is supported. If it is not supported and companies close, who will run our forestry sector in Quebec? We will not let just anyone run the forestry sector. This is important. There will be a recovery, and we must find ways to support our forestry companies.

If we were a sovereign state, we would have supported the forestry and manufacturing industries in Quebec more. But we are in Canada, and the federal government is boycotting and turning a deaf ear to our forestry industry and our workers.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise, as several of my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois have before me, to comment on this motion introduced this morning by our party. I will take a moment to read this motion again for your benefit, madam Speaker, and that of the people watching us. It 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, with assistance which is 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.

I am not in the habit of waving around documents published by the Conservative government, but I think this one is worth it. Copies of Canada's economic action plan have been distributed to all the members of this House. Page 127 deals with supporting industries and communities. One may try to put words in our mouths, of course, but the fact remains that this is a document that was published by the Conservative government. On page 127, we find a table entitled “Supporting Industries and Communities”. It lists the 2009-2010 stimulus values, the authorities in place and the stimulus committed. The first item of support for industries concerns the automotive sector. I can understand that. The Conservative government wanted to show how large an investment it was making. Support for the auto sector is $9,718,000,000, and the stimulus committed is $9,718,000,000. This document was published in September. The government was basically indicating that all the money promised to the auto sector had been committed.

In terms of the forestry industry, it is worth mentioning. There is something for agriculture, mining, small business, tourism and shipbuilding. In forestry, $70 million will be invested in 2009-2010 as stimulus measures. The figure committed is $57 million. The government did not manage to spend the entire $70 million. It spent only $57 million. There lies the problem.

The forestry sector generates 825,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada, compared with the 500,000 jobs in the auto sector. My party and I have no objection to the investments in the auto sector. Our party does not object to the investments in the oil sector. What we have decried for years, for at least five years since the crisis in the forestry sector began, is why the government gave so much. Obviously, it began with the oil sector. Then it helped the auto sector. Why did it not provide the same measures to the forestry sector?

It is clear that most of the production in the forestry industry occurs in Quebec. There are in Quebec over 1,000 municipalities—cities, towns and villages. There are 230 municipalities where the local economy has ties to the forestry sector. There are 160 towns and villages whose economy is based solely on the forestry sector. Those are called one-industry towns. In total, 230 of Quebec's more than 1,000 municipalities base their livelihood on this sector. It is important, because this is the life of the regions. It is always hard to hear Conservative MPs making proposals, such as the one to do with EI to establish measures to improve benefits or increase them by 20 weeks for long-tenured workers. In their view, these are the people who have not drawn EI benefits for more than 35 weeks in the past five years. That is not the case in the forestry sector. The industry has been in crisis for five years.

In this House, the government has tried to have us believe in all sorts of solutions. It was going to resolve the softwood lumber crisis, which was going to resolve the problems in the forestry sector. All of the businesses and the workers' representatives were telling us that settling the $4 billion issue in the softwood lumber dispute was simply a band-aid on the recession our industry was facing.

It tried, each time, to buy tiny bits of help in an effort to say that the market situation would resolve itself. “Markets” became the buzz word. No industry was more affected by the market than the auto industry, because people were not buying cars. So the government decided to help the auto industry and cover its losses so it could continue.

This is what the forestry sector has been requesting for five years now. There is a major economic crisis in this sector, which acts as a precursor. Often what happens in construction precedes what happens in the economy. When construction goes, everything goes. Difficulties in construction indicate an approaching economic crisis. Things had been going badly in the forestry sector for five years. The economists knew it, as did the government. The problem was that it was not of political interest. The government had decided that the forestry industry was not important. It waited for the real crisis to help other sectors that landed in an economic crisis at the same time, such as the automotive sector. But it left the whole forestry sector high and dry.

Workers in the regions of Quebec are not eligible for the Conservative assistance programs—such as the program to extend EI benefits by 20 weeks—since these workers, the men and women employed in the forestry sector, have received more than 35 weeks of EI in the past five years. It is clear; it just jumps out at you, only the Conservatives do not see it. But that is their problem.

They have also come up with measures and programs to help those who change jobs. The Conservative government wants our most experienced workers—those who have devoted their lives to a particular manufacturing sector—to find jobs in other sectors. Forests and trees will keep growing. That goes without saying. Oil is not renewable. That too goes without saying. I have no problem with investing in the oil industry, but I would like to know what the Conservatives plan to do when the oil runs out. Fossil fuel energy is not renewable, but forests are. We can justify helping the forestry industry because the trees will keep growing.

I can see why workers in these regions say that they want the government to invest in measures for private woodlot owners in regions where there are both private and crown-owned woodlots. We want the trees to keep growing, and we want our industry to benefit from the experience and abilities our workers have acquired over the years. We want to continue to take advantage of that.

Of course the Bloc Québécois members, who have such deep roots in their regions, are going to rise every day in the House of Commons to tell the government that it cannot justify ignoring an entire industry that employs more workers in Canada than the auto industry, just by saying it is a market issue. Other countries have decided to invest, simply because the loans and loan guarantees they are offering are allowed by the WTO and international trade rules.

No matter how often we talk about it in the House, the Conservatives keep using opinions from their own lawyers to insist that this is not the way to help the industry recover. The government will not provide loan guarantees or working capital. As a result, companies lack liquidity and cannot pay their employees or their suppliers at the end of the month. One by one, companies are closing up shop.

If all parties in the House were to support this motion, we could, once and for all, ensure a future for an industry that has made Quebec what it is today. Without the forestry sector, Quebec would not be as prosperous as it is today, and neither would Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the auto sector has been mentioned a number of times. Coming from an auto sector town, I would like to ask an important question when we look at the overall situation that took place.

The crisis in the financial markets was caused by mismanagement, greed and speculation and much of it has not yet ceased today. Workers in manufacturing plants across Canada have suffered dramatically, including in the auto sector. Prior to that situation, it is interesting to note what the United States had been doing with public policy.

Even under George W. Bush, the United States put aside an alternative vehicle financing facility that looked at its auto sector and provided $25 billion in low-interest loans. In Michigan people have been taking advantage of these loans. Michigan has the new procurement strategy necessary to attract new industry and several battery plant facilities and electric vehicles will be coming online. In fact, overseas operations are reconstituting in Michigan.

Meanwhile, Canada has set up a $50 million fund over five years for a total of $250 million.

What does my colleague from the Bloc think about how we will build a deal with the United States, not only in terms of the auto sector but also the forestry sector, when it had massive subsidization even before this crisis took place?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right to mention the fact that other countries, in matters of international trade, were not shy to help their industries. When the Bloc Québécois members introduce a measure such as the one for loans and guaranteed loans in this House, you can be sure that the Bloc Québécois always checks carefully before making a proposal.

What we are proposing and what we have been proposing to the government for five years with respect to loans and guaranteed loans is allowed under the World Trade Organization rules. It is allowed and the intention is in fact to support companies going through difficult times. That is the purpose. The Conservatives are trying to change that into what EDC—Export Development Canada—does, which, for decades, is to guarantee the accounts receivable of Canadian suppliers and exporters, in all sectors, not just in forestry. That is okay. There are manufacturers that sell part of their production to countries or companies located in countries where it might be difficult to collect the accounts receivable. It is reasonable to have a measure that helps them out.

The Conservatives are trying to say something about the guarantees that manufacturers are asking for with respect to their accounts receivable in foreign countries. It is insurance, like the kind CMHC provides for those who borrow money to buy a home. A fee has to be paid to the government to ensure that the government will reimburse the lender if they are not paid. We are told there is $10 billion in guarantees. The government is certainly not going to lose that $10 billion, far from it.

In times of economic crisis, there are a few more losses, but every account receivable has to be analyzed and every company has to be audited before the guarantee is provided. The manufacturer's bank has to verify the quality of the purchaser. That is business. What we are asking for is something completely outside all that, the way it was done for the automotive sector. Things are going badly. We are in a crisis. The auto industry was given a $9.7 billion bailout in order to pay its employees and get back up and running. That is what we want for the forestry industry. We want to modernize the businesses and provide tax credits. What is more, we want loan guarantees for working capital, in order to relaunch businesses so that they can pay their employees and restart production.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of informing you that I will share my time today with the member for Okanagan—Shuswap. This member from British Columbia comes from a riding where the forestry industry is equally important. In fact, the head office of Tolko, the fifth-largest forestry company, is in his riding. This company is also found in Alberta.

Of course, the forestry industry affects all of Quebec, and also the people of Lévis—Bellechasse and Les Etchemins. I am thinking about manufacturers of sophisticated equipment for processing and handling wood, log handling, like Rotobec, about the private woodlot owners in Bellechasse and Les Etchemins, and about the sawmills in the province, the companies that help with marketing, like Kheops in Lévis, the companies in Sainte-Camille-de-Lellis, or Sainte-Rose-de-Watford. In short, the forestry industry is a pillar, an energy, a renewable resource. Every time wood is harvested, the forest regenerates, and the forestry sector is certainly not sheltered from economic storms.

I am quite surprised that the Bloc members are talking to us today about the forestry sector. In recent weeks and months, every time we have had the opportunity to take concrete action here, in this House, they remained seated. When we introduced the economic action plan, when we introduced specific measures to help the regions hardest hit by the recession, the Bloc members remained seated. And today, on opposition day, the Bloc members rise to complain, to criticize, but when the time comes to take real action, where are they?

Fortunately, on this side of the House, that is not the case. I am thinking about the actions of my colleague, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, the Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. He is aware of the challenges and difficulties, but he is taking concrete action. I am also thinking about the member for Jonquière—Alma, who is working hard with our partners to find solutions.

Yes, the Canadian government is helping the Quebec forestry industry. Over the past two years, some $16.7 billion has been allocated to support the forestry sector and its exports. That is the amount for Quebec alone and, of course, these mechanisms can be found throughout the province.

Of course, there have been specific measures. Indeed, although demand from the United States is dropping, it is important to support and develop new, innovative products in the forestry sector. That is why we supported an initiative worth nearly $40 million that will ultimately allow us to invest in what is known as the North American wood first initiative. It will help forestry companies sell innovative products in international markets. Consider, for instance, everything that can be done with composite materials.

We are also helping communities. Some $1 billion is being invested to support the communities hardest hit by the crisis. When the time comes to rise in this House to pass these concrete measures, we, the Conservative members from Quebec, stand up—we rise—which is how we will get this assistance to the communities, while unfortunately, we see the members across the floor sitting, just sitting on their hands.

Another program exists because we care about the environment. Some $1 billion is being invested in the pulp and paper green transformation program, which will support the sector and, while modernizing production, will allow the pulp and paper sector to reduce its environmental footprint. This is another concrete measure, another example of financial assistance. Here on this side of the House, we believe that it is important to adopt these measures. Unfortunately, we do not see this kind of support from the other side of the House.

It is not enough to talk about the forestry industry alone; we must also talk about the people affected by these upheavals. Our economic action plan allocates a number of large investments in this area to support worker training, for example, and career transition, as well as to amend and extend employment insurance programs, and make them more flexible, without affecting premiums. That is in Canada's economic action plan.

There is one measure that companies in the forestry sector have made particular use of, and that is work sharing. There are 107 forestry companies that have taken advantage of this program, which has preserved 4,364 forestry jobs here in Canada. It is a measure that was supported on this side of the House by all the Conservative members, including the Quebec Conservative team. But the Bloc preferred to abandon these people for ideological reasons, for partisan reasons. It decided not to support these practical measures and this assistance for people who need it.

Of course, five weeks of employment insurance benefits have been added for all workers, including those in the forestry industry. And there is currently a bill before the House that would make the EI system more flexible by adding five to 20 weeks of benefits. Of course, it also applies to the people in the forestry sector.

Training is another important area, and nearly $19 million has been earmarked for older workers in Quebec. These are people who are benefiting from programs and receiving benefits and who can consider a new career. They can develop their skills thanks to the economic action plan. These are measures supported and introduced by our government. Significant funding has also been provided for initiatives such as workforce development programs. Obviously, these programs are helping the companies and workers in Quebec that are affected by the crisis.

One thing that should be pointed out is that we have worked with the Government of Quebec to address the problems in the forestry sector with practical solutions. In April 2009, we decided to take additional steps because of the impacts of this crisis. In partnership with the Government of Quebec, we set up a Canada-Quebec task team that is coordinating efforts to support Quebec's forestry industry.

Several sectors were identified as key areas requiring intervention, areas in which measures have been taken—forest management and silviculture, for example. In addition, we have helped forestry workers, ensured access to credit, supported technology, innovation and value-added manufacturing and helped develop markets for wood products. In each of these areas, initial measures taken by both governments arose from joint efforts on the part of the various departments involved, including, at the federal level, Natural Resources Canada, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Export Development Canada and the Business Development Bank of Canada, and at the provincial level, the ministry of natural resources and wildlife, the ministry of economic development, innovation and export, and Investissement Québec. Both governments have been submitting progress reports. Reports were released in May and July. One of the working group's concrete outcomes was investment in silviculture to promote sustainable forest management goals and create or maintain jobs in communities that rely on forestry.

In May 2009, $200 million in funding was announced to support silviculture activities in Quebec. When I was in my riding earlier this summer, I met with private operators, members of the Regroupement forestier de Bellechasse et des Etchemins. They told me that the federal contribution was making a difference, enabling them to plant trees and reforest logging areas. That money is getting to the regions, and people appreciate it. That money is supporting community sustainable development and the industry in crisis.

What we have not heard about today is why this crisis happened in the first place. We know that there are various factors, such as the strength of the dollar and the recession in the United States.

In conclusion, on this opposition day, the Bloc is standing up for the forestry sector. We, in contrast, have been standing up for forestry industry workers and businesses and taking action every day for the past year.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member who just spoke a few questions that will be easy to answer. In his speech, he mentioned that Bill C-50, which is currently being studied, would help forestry workers.

I would like him to identify these forestry workers: in which regions do they live and how many are there?

Bill C-50 actually does not benefit those forestry workers. I imagine he could reconsider what he said. I would just remind him that Bill C-50, supported by the New Democrats, will help people, but only those who have not drawn more than 35 weeks of benefits over the past five years.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

As I was saying, our government has implemented a number of measures, not only measures introduced when Parliament resumed, but also measures that we introduced in our economic action plan, measures that he clearly opposed.

I am talking about training for workers, for example. I am talking about freezing premiums, so businesses are not forced to pay additional surcharges. I am talking about programs for older workers. I am also talking about increasing employment insurance benefits for all workers.

Several measures have been implemented and others will come. We also hope to introduce measures this fall for self-employed workers. Many forestry workers are self employed. We are committed to them. That is in our action plan. Introducing measures for self-employed workers is one of our commitments.

I therefore invite my hon. colleague to stand up in this House when the time comes, to support the measures that will help workers, to support measures introduced by our government.

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

Madam Speaker, not a single member from Quebec rose to speak out against the sellout softwood lumber deal. Not a single Conservative rose to say that it was not in the best interests of Quebec or Canada to sign this sellout deal.

Now, there is $68 million in additional penalties. There will be $200 million more that taxpayers and the communities that depend on softwood lumber will have to pay to defend this sellout deal. It might cost another billion dollars, since another case is coming up.

Does the member regret supporting this sellout agreement, or is he prepared to spend another $200 million, $300 million or even another $1 billion to support a political deal that auctioned off our softwood lumber industry?