Debates of March 10th, 2009

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that the Liberal caucus will be supporting this motion. It is a good motion and it reflects the strategic plan that we had for the forestry sector in 2005, which was $1.5 billion over five years.

The member probably heard the comments of the previous Conservative speaker who went through a litany of certain activities outlined in the budget, which was line by line what was in the motion and the provisions being called for in the motion, and basically said that the government agreed and it was doing that.

It does raise the question, if the Conservatives believe in those activities and they are doing them, why they are not supporting the Bloc motion, which is a problem.

It gets even worse. Recently, nine U.S. senators were here to complain about Canadian protectionist measures related to the U.S. stimulus package, which were meant to divert attention from Canadian violations. Incredibly, the Minister of International Trade agreed with the U.S. senators. He did not defend or support the forestry sector.

Does the member have some concern about the international trade minister not supporting our forestry sector.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question.

It is clear that both his question and his observation that the Minister of International Trade does not even defend the forestry industry in Canada and Quebec reflect this government's inconsistencies. I spoke about this. Every day, we see contradictions, and they are becoming increasingly obvious.

They head organizations like Export Development Canada, which provides loan guarantees and loans for forestry companies and says it does so in full compliance with international free trade agreements and the softwood lumber agreement. Yet in answer to our questions in this House, the Conservatives say that what EDC is doing is not compliant. The Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec says that the government cannot provide loan guarantees because they make no sense and they will prevent or delay the signing of agreements and so on. This argument does not hold water. Once again, it is evidence of the Conservatives' contradictions.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks of the lack of action we tend to see on the part of the government when it comes to the forestry industry, which is struggling to survive in different regions. For instance, in northern Manitoba, where I am from, part of the region continues to really depend on the forestry industry. The companies have not shut down, and people are still working. What concerns them is that the government is not supporting those industries that continue to operate. Attention has to be paid not only to the regions that have already lost that part of their economy, but also to supporting the regions where companies are surviving and need help.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

I totally agree. There is no doubt that it is important that the government support the regions which are still in survival mode. Companies continue to operate, but are struggling. They clearly need help. At the same time, we must not forget the regions with companies that have closed temporarily. It is important that help be provided across all these regions. The fact that an industry or company has experienced what I would call temporary difficulties does not justify letting it down.

It is important that the government realize that the forestry industry still has a bright future in Canada and Quebec.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion today. It is a very important motion that is before the House because many members of the House of Commons come from ridings where forestry is important.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley who comes from a riding where forestry is important.

I want to put a little context to this because forestry is not only important in my riding but it is an essential industry in the province of B.C.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has done several analyses on the forestry sector. In a recent analysis on February 13, it talked about the fact that B.C. has lost 65 sawmills, 4 pulp mills and 20,000 jobs in the forestry industry. With a spinoff effect of about one to three, this means a loss of about 60,000 jobs just in British Columbia alone. We must not forget about the tens of millions of dollars of revenue that is no longer being sent to government coffers to help pay for health care and education.

When we talk about forestry jobs, we are not just talking about the loss of good paying jobs for forestry workers and their families. We are also talking about the spinoff impact for all of those other industries that directly support forestry. For example, in my riding, Madill, a company that made logging equipment, went bankrupt. We are also talking about restaurants, retail shops and car dealers that all benefit from good paying forestry worker jobs.

When we take it from the provincial level down to the local level, we have had a number of closures that have had a cascading effect in my riding and throughout Vancouver Island.

Catalyst Paper announced the closure of the Crofton kraft pulp mill around the middle of February. It is shutting its doors at its 350 employee mill in Campbell River on the north island and the restructuring layoff of 127 workers at its Powell River facility. That is basically 850 jobs just in one sweep. This says that we need a coordinated response. We cannot do piecemeal responses to this.

The B.C. Federation of Labour president, Jim Sinclair, wrote a letter to the Premier of British Columbia about the importance of the forestry sector in British Columbia. He said, “It contributes close to 40% of B.C.'s exports and 25% of our GDP in the province of British Columbia”.

He goes on to say, and this is an important reminder to all of us, “Let it not be said that forestry is a sunset industry”. Jim Sinclair pointed out that “We believe a strong, sustainable forestry industry can continue to be a vital component of our economy”.

We need to ensure we are putting in place measures at the federal and provincial levels and whatever support we can provide for the municipalities to ensure our forestry sector remains strong and vibrant and a vital part of our economy, whether it is the logging operations, the processing value-added operations or the support industries that surround it.

The motion does talk about the fact that we need to be solutions oriented. It talks about the elements that need to be in place for our forestry plan. I want to touch base on a couple of those and I want to pay particular attention to the value-added sector.

The CCPA wrote a paper back in June 2007 called “Wood Waste and Log Exports on the BC Coast”. These are important numbers because they say that roughly one in three logs from coastal forest lands failed to be run through provincial mills. One-third of all timber cut in British Columbia failed to be processed in British Columbia. That is a significant number. In its analysis, it did the cost of not turning those logs into lumber and other wood products here in B.C. The loss was estimated to be 5,872 jobs in 2005 and 5,756 jobs in 2006.

It goes on to talk about raw log exports. Anyone from British Columbia will be very familiar with the need to change the raw log exports policy in British Columbia. CCPA did an analysis on the raw logs and the impact it was having on both our communities and the public purse. It talks about the fact that raw log exports from public and private forest lands in coastal B.C. have been a long outstanding concern. Since 2000, when annual log exports stood at 2.68 million cubic metres, out of province raw log shipments have risen by more than 75% to 4.7 million cubic metres. This increase alone amounts to 57,714 highway trucks of raw logs, enough wood to keep two sizable sawmills supplied for a whole year.

That is criminal, I would argue. Over 90% of the land in British Columbia is crown land. That means it is owned by the people of British Columbia; yet the people in British Columbia are not benefiting from this resource. We are shipping those logs out of the country, south of the border and overseas for processing while one sawmill after another closes its doors, laying off workers.

There used to be something called a social contract in British Columbia. That meant that if a company had the right to cut the trees, they had to mill them close to home. That social contract has been broken. I would argue that one of the solutions to some of the problems facing British Columbia would be to reinstate that social contract.

We could name any number of mills we have seen close. One that this paper cited was the New Westminster sawmill. The cessation of production at that site cost 284 workers their jobs.

In talking about solutions, one of the things I talked about was raw logs. I want to talk about the immediate situation for just one moment. One of the things that we know has to happen to help out forestry workers in British Columbia and throughout this country is that we have to do something about the employment insurance program.

I am very proud of the fact that New Democrats put forward a motion last week asking for this House to support EI, and we will be voting on that important motion tonight. I would urge every member in this House to talk about eliminating the waiting period, reducing the eligibility requirements to 360 hours, and dealing with some of the regional anomalies.

Some regions are linked up with another region where the unemployment rate is higher. For example, my own region is linked into Vancouver, where the unemployment rate is much lower. Our workers actually get fewer weeks of employment insurance.

We need to do something immediately for those workers and their communities. We know that when workers have that social safety net, they spend the money in their local community on food, shelter, the necessities of life, and it helps keep our local economies going.

I talked about the raw logs and the need to ban raw logs. We also need to look at support for value added, and there are a number of ways we can do that. We can look at refundable tax credits. We can look at elements around research and development. Again, that important social contract that says raw logs will be processed closer to home would be really a way to encourage value-added manufacturing in the province of British Columbia.

One of the things Mr. Sinclair pointed out in the letter I read was about the deindustrialization of British Columbia. As we continue to ship our resources somewhere else to be processed, it means we are losing some of our own manufacturing capacity. That manufacturing capacity is an important element in keeping the economy of British Columbia viable.

In the longer term, provincial New Democrats under the leadership of Carole James have proposed a detailed plan on what could help out our ailing forestry sector. I do not have time to go through all the elements of that plan, but I do want to touch on a couple of points.

They have a five-point plan where they flesh it out. The first one is to create a green plan for B.C.'s forests, and there are a number of elements under that.

The second one is to develop an innovative 21st century forest product industry.

The third one is to create a community and worker stability program, and it has to do better than the community trust fund that we saw in this House, because many workers were simply left out in the cold.

Even though in British Columbia we have a forestry sector that has been in crisis for years, many of the workers, because they had been laid off prior to that date that was set in 2007, were simply not eligible. Yet they had spent 30-some odd years working in the forestry sector. If we are going to look at creating a community and worker stability program, it actually has to take a look at all of the workers.

The fourth one is to establish a permanent commission on forestry; and the fifth one concerns softwood lumber and forest tenure reform. New Democrats have spoken on this in the House many times. We were adamantly opposed to that softwood lumber deal. We are now seeing the impacts in our communities.

One of the important parts of Carole James' plan is that we need a complete, comprehensive assessment of the resources that can be derived from B.C. forests. That includes eco-system services, timber resources, and non-timber resources. We need to have this comprehensive review.

In the last decade or so when forestry was in a lot of trouble, we used to talk about “stump to dump”. We need a plan that looks at our forestry sector right from the time the trees are planted, all the way through until we are looking at waste products. It is that kind of innovation and research and development initiative that will keep a healthy forestry sector and well-paying jobs in our communities.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would thank the hon. member for pointing out some of the issues on Vancouver Island, which I certainly identify with since the same issues are happening in my riding and some of the same concerns, with the loss of jobs and mills closing down.

She mentioned Catalyst in Crofton and Campbell River. We have one mill remaining in Port Alberni that is still functioning, but it is more or less on life support with the downturn in the pulp industry right now. So I appreciate the member pointing out those losses and the job losses right now.

The member raised the log export issue. She would know the complications with private lands and public lands, and of course, with federal and provincial jurisdictions. However, the real problem we are faced with is the collapse of the market. With the terrible downturn in the U.S. and its surplus of houses, the Americans are not building homes. They are not using our products. They are not buying them right now. That is the problem. That is why the products are not moving.

I want to ask the member whether she feels that the $170 million that the government is putting forward to help in forestry initiatives that are directed at diversification and forest innovation are not the very things that she is asking for to help get our forest industry going again.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the member is well aware, being from British Columbia, that the job losses in B.C. did not start with the downturn in the U.S. economy. Those job losses have been going on for several years. People such as the CCPA have been talking about the fact that we need a proactive strategy for forestry in British Columbia.

The member rightly points out that, with raw logs, there are different issues between public and private lands. What I am urging is that the provincial and the federal governments work together to address their respective responsibilities around how raw logs continue to flow out of our province and are processed somewhere else.

When it comes to the elements that are in the current budget around forestry, certainly we welcome those elements, but they do not go far enough. I talked specifically about short-term responses to workers' needs, and employment insurance was an element that was absolutely not dealt with in terms of the way forestry workers are being impacted. The five weeks at the end does not help the forestry workers who simply do not qualify because of the number of hours that are required and being tied to a different labour market.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear the hon. member speak on issues in her area.

The problem here started with the cancellation of the 2005 strategy of the then Liberal government on forestry assistance. The Conservatives overturned that strategy and then carried on with the flawed softwood lumber deal, as the member well knows, where billions of dollars were left on the table. Although the government said it would be dealt with and there would be no more court problems, the fact is that we are back in court today.

I have listened to the last Conservative speaker outline all the provisions of the budget that he feels would assist the forestry sector, and it turns out that his party is still not supporting this particular motion.

Since 20,000 jobs have been lost in the forestry sector under the government's watch, would the member agree that the Conservatives are not getting the job done?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an easy answer. No, they are not getting the job done, and the softwood sellout is sinking jobs in our province.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for pointing out some of the challenges faced in her riding, challenges that are very much a reality in the riding that I represent—for example, in the community of The Pas, Manitoba.

The Pas is an example where the province, the municipality, the steelworkers, headed by Chris Parlow, the president of the United Steelworkers, and also the neighbouring chief and council have come together to bring about a solution to the problem. In all of this, the underlying theme is that the federal government has been absolutely absent. I would like her to speak to the existence of that in her region.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to see workers losing their jobs and being threatened with losing their homes. So, clearly, the strategy that the Conservatives have proposed is not working for people in my riding and for people in Churchill and other ridings in the country.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I thank the Bloc Québécois for raising the issue of forestry, there was a pretense of doing so while having supported so many of the measures that got us into this trouble in the first place.

Forestry unfortunately has become a symbol of the hollowing out of Canada's manufacturing sector, whether we look at steel or the auto industry. Even aspects of the value-added mining industry have gone away from our country.

For Canadians to understand how critical this is for our economic future and where we pick ourselves up from this recession and go forward, it is pivotal to understand that these are the very industries that built this country, that in fact built this place, and enabled governments for generations to provide the health care, education, and spending on things we care so much about. They found their home in many of these industries.

I cannot help but think of Houston, British Columbia, a relatively small town consisting of 3,000 people. They have very minimal health care, barely adequate education, yet every year, doing their part and pulling their weight, being part of the fabric of Canada, they pour millions and millions of dollars into the coffers of provincial and federal governments.

Within the forestry sector in particular, we know it is hard, demanding, and dangerous work. Folks expect over time to put in a hard day's work and receive fair pay. Unfortunately, the very industries that built this country are now being thrown away, chipped away, sold off in negotiations like we saw with softwood, sold off at various times as we in Canada no longer stand up for the values and beliefs that we once held, that there was a national interest.

There are many who would point out and are going to take what I might call “the convenient truth” in their eyes that the only reason we are facing this calamity is because of a world recession, a meltdown in the U.S. housing market. However, those of us who come from forestry communities across Canada have seen the slow and steady erosion of that base across the board. This is not a new phenomenon. It did not start when the housing bubble popped in the U.S. It did not start when the Canadian dollar started to gain value compared to the U.S. This started a long time ago.

Policies were put in place, perhaps with the best of intentions, but had effects on the overall workforce and the overall productivity and efficacy of our forestry sector. This debate is about both the past and the future.

[Richard Harris]

Which policies?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My Conservative colleague is heckling. One of pertinence that was brought out by the province—this is a policy I am naming for my Conservative colleague, if he does not mind being quiet for a moment to hear it—was actually a Socred, right-wing policy in B.C. that said, wouldn't it be a neat idea if we tied the value of the resources nearby to the communities that rely on those resources? That was later scrapped by another version of the Socred Party.

What we see in northern B.C. is full logging trucks passing each other every day, going six, seven, eight, or nine hours down the road to super mills, which was the model that was meant to save us if we just allowed consolidation of the industry.

We saw that with the federal government, which was no longer asking the departments that were meant to stop anti-competitive behaviour in places like Burns Lake, Fort St. James and Mackenzie. That anti-competitive behaviour built up communities that no longer had the adaptability to adjust when one company ran into trouble.

As my colleague on the Conservative benches will know, when a couple of announcements popped up in Mackenzie, it virtually killed the town. It put the entire town into a state of seizure. If we look back 10, 20, or 30 years ago, we had a much more adaptable and flexible forestry industry.

This debate is about both the past and the future. There are going to be disagreements in all corners of the House about how we got to this place. Some of us will look at the fact that we gave a veto to a foreign government in the softwood lumber agreement and allowed it to decide which measures we were taking were anti-competitive and which ones were not.

Then we allowed it to slap us with tariffs, which it did, which we predicted it would do and will do again to British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. It hit our industry with punitive damages on policy directed by the provinces, where even the federal government has no jurisdiction or role. Somehow Washington has something to say about it. What kind of agreement is that when we start to muddle the jurisdictions that are instilled and enshrined in our Constitution? These are fundamental differences of opinion that I have with colleagues across the way.

Whether it was due to a fixation on U.S. housing markets, with mega mills focused there and only there, we urged the government year after year to please allow for a greater diversification of where our markets go, to put more money into marketing Canadian wood to other markets.

We saw the housing market bubble grow and grow year after year, and we saw the over-dependence on the Canadian supplier side to that market. There were those of us both in the House and in the forestry sector who said this was a dangerous formula.

If we have an industry that is dependent upon an economy that creates a bubble and the bubble inevitably pops. However, the good times were good times and we had to keep going with the policies that got us there.

We cannot use the convenience of a global recession to say that this is what is going on in forestry or manufacturing. We have seen, as has been noted, the successive de-industrialization of our country, year after year. These are flat-out statistics. My colleagues can argue as to the reasons why or why not, but the fact of the matter remains.

It was pointed out that a study showed raw log exports went absolutely crazy in British Columbia. The federal government had nothing to say about the international trade policy on this one, for some strange reason. We saw that 5,800 jobs in 2007 simply were not there. Those are 5,800 value-added jobs that each of us would die to have in our constituencies, even 1,000.

I am sure my colleagues from Nanaimo—Cowichan and Nanaimo—Alberni would be celebrating if the front page of his paper stated that a 1,000 value-added jobs were created in his riding. It would be a great thing because those jobs are hard to come by and they are hard to create. Meanwhile we have policies that direct us not to create those jobs, rather to export those raw logs. We are made to feel that this is a sound and wise policy for the country's future. It is not.

We now have to look also to the future. Communities have stepped forward time and time again. I have watched my communities in Terrace, Prince Rupert and Hazelton absolutely go through some of the most devastating and punishing economic news imaginable.

I would like members to try to appreciate the effect this would have at home. We are talking unemployment rates of 70%, 80% and 85% when one or two mills go down. I want people to contemplate that and understand what it is to see eight or nine out of every ten workers out of work. It is devastating not just on brute economics, but on the social fabric of the community and the hope that young people do not feel as they go through school.

Recently I was at a graduation ceremony in Hazelton. I did a quick straw poll with the 60 or 70 graduates students. I asked who was planning to go away to school and then come back to the community to set up a family, a home and a life. Out of those graduates, one hand went up. That is for a reason. There is no hope for them.

Communities are coming forward time and time again with ideas and proposals, yet we see the government do something so callous, and I hope the Conservatives will stand up and answer this question.

We looked through this year's budget to find the funds dedicated to the pine beetle crisis in B.C. I hope my colleague from Prince George understands this. A commitment was made by the federal government to B.C. and its residents to assist in with the pine beetle. When this announcement was first made by the former minister of natural resources, I congratulated him in the press. I told him that it was a good thing and that we needed to get that money out the door. As we heard from the chief forester of British Columbia today, we cannot find money in the budget. It has been rolled in and the accountability is gone.

Folks are saying that British Columbia is in the middle of one of the most ecologically devastating things ever seen. The government made a serious, honest and binding commitment to the people of British Columbia to come forward with that money. We have looked to see where and to whom that money has gone. So little money has flowed out and what little was promised, no longer appears present.

We also know the forestry industry has the potential to be reborn. Someone said that we should not call this a sunset industry. Know that mill managers, town councils and chambers of commerce are coming together with ideas and proposals to diversify what happens at their mills. There is the possibility of energy generation. There is value added in different sectors. There is the ability to see this industry in a new light.

We are begging the federal government to speed it up. In the first round of announcements on money, it was 16 months before proposals were even ready to go out the door. Mayors, municipalities and plant managers were furious that it would take 16 months to get a proposal together for a so-called crisis.

We know the industry can improve and recover. It will change and it will look different, but we have to understand that the policy of a tax cut for a company going under does not allow it to make it to the next quarter. It does not allow it to have hope for the next year.

We need to have more than just one bullet, but when all we have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. The government has been ill-equipped. There must be some responsibility. The federal government has an enormous amount of power. With that power, comes responsibility. There is a responsibility in this case to own up to failed policies and half attempts and to recognize what is needed. Without this, the devastation will continue. We simply cannot do that if we are to be elected leaders of the country.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is concerned about his constituents as are the rest of us in British Columbia. We are dealing with a forestry industry that is in tremendous transition. The interior has been hammered hard by pine beetle and that will change things for decades.

The whole industry has changed since the gravy days of the 1980s to which the member referred. He is right that there have been tremendous changes. The downturn in the U.S. economy in the last half a year has been the final hammer in a whole series of changes in the forestry industry. The latest slam is really devastating our industry. However, we are competing today against inferior products from other parts of the world. We still have the best coastal timber in the world on the coast of B.C. The challenge is in the interior.

We are competing against inferior wood from other parts of the world. The wood is bound together with glues and resins, which are structurally as sound as our best coastal timber. The challenge we face is that we have to find higher-value products for our wood products. The industry itself is in transition. We cannot go back to the past, so we have to transition into the future.

Will the member acknowledge that, since we cannot go back to the past, we have to find the value added and the innovative ways to use our forest industry? It will change—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will have to cut the hon. member off there so we can have time for a response.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know he is keen for the response, so he would not want to ruin my time.

In terms of looking at the past, there are measures and elements that we have to recognize. No one projects going back to 1980. The circumstances have changed.

However, things were done then that are of value. There is a great story, and I would ask the member to take a look at Lax Kw'alaams, Port Simpson. It has been running a small, community-owned operative. It is putting 250 people to work on a consistent basis under the principle that we do not waste a stick of wood, under the principle of those who were guided by the elders in that first nations community that we must derive the greatest value added.

However, we have been running policies that leave slash piles in the bush that are taller than most houses in which people live. Those policies eventually come home to roost. We cannot have these inefficiencies. We have to look at completely new models of financing. The large conglomerate, highly leveraged forestry companies presented a weakness when they were over-dependent on one sector, the U.S. housing market. When that leaning happened, we saw that when it fell, it fell hard. This will continue. The government must not say that rosy times are around the corner because they are not. It is unfair and irresponsible to say otherwise.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that nine U.S. senators from both parties had written to President Obama to complain that Canada's complaints about the protectionist measures in the U.S. stimulus package were meant to take attention away from Canada's own alleged violations of the agreement. Interestingly enough, not only is the Minister of International Trade not going to support this important motion, which is supported by the majority of the House, but he is not defending the position of Canadians in this regard and is, in fact, supporting the position of the senators.

Would the member care to speculate on why the Minister of International Trade prefers to support the position of the United States rather than the forestry sector in Canada?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would only suggest that he does so out of habit. The support of the American position at the trade table has gone on for far too long. The Americans come forward and, while signing agreements like NAFTA with Canada, set up a protection measure around their steel industry. Why? Because they want to protect their steel industry under the auspices of NAFTA. Did we have any problem with that as Canadian negotiators? Apparently not.

However, when the elected representatives in the House stand and make similar suggestions, we are called insane and crazy. We cannot do such a thing. When the Chinese government proposed to buy Noranda, our largest mining outfit, and all its resources, we had a finance minister tripping over himself, excited by that so-called investment. The Chinese came forward during those negotiations and said that their plan was to smelt less of the materials than Noranda traditionally did in Canada and smelt more of it overseas, taking added-value jobs overseas.

It is perplexing to me and it is not comprehensible to most Canadians. Why is there this pattern of not standing up for the interests and rights of Canadians? Negotiators like that are why our industrial strategy fails us time and again.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today. I hope I can be heard over the roar of approval from the American southeastern softwood lumber producers as they listen to the NDP talk once again about scrapping the softwood lumber agreement.

There are visions of prosperity going rampant down in Georgia and those southern states. Without a softwood lumber agreement, they could simply impose whatever punitive penalties they wanted on Canadian products coming across the border. Given the recession in the U.S. housing industry, those folks down there, who cheer for the NDP on a daily basis, could probably supply almost all the softwood lumber for constructing houses down there. As that cheer for the NDP gets louder about killing the softwood lumber agreement, I will try to talk about some positive things that our government is doing.

There is no doubt that the forestry industry has some serious challenges. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley did not mention that the current softwood prices are somewhere in the neighbourhood of $155, $158. Some of the mills were selling it off for $130 just to get it out of their yards.

The member also knows that the break-even point is somewhere in the high three hundreds for a mill to be profitable. Yet that is fault of the Canadian government. He chooses to blame the government, not the fact that there is a recession in the U.S. The housing starts are down the tube and the price is at a point where the mills in Canada are losing money on every stick.

Notwithstanding the so-called disparities in the softwood lumber agreement, about which the member talked, if the prices are at $158, no mill in Canada will make any money anyway, even if there were no tariffs.

The government has a role to play and Canada's recent economic action plan will help industrial sectors like the forest industry. We are investing $8.3 billion to help retrain and upgrade the skills of our workers in the forestry industry and other industries. That is our Canada skills and transition strategy to address the most pressing needs of workers who are facing layoffs so they can transition into a different type of employment.

That is good news. There are $8.3 billion going into that program. The NDP does not like good news, let us remember that. Also, let us remember that NDP members have not read the budget, yet they said they would vote against it. The NDP members will vote against the $8.3 billion to retrain and help upgrade the skills of our workers in the forest industry.

Canada's economic action plan will also temporarily provide additional support to workers and the unemployed facing transitions through some tough economic times. I am proud to talk about some of the measures we are taking. This is all good news.

Of course the NDP will not like it, but we will provide nationally the benefits for the current five week pilot project that has only been provided in the highest of unemployment areas. We have increased the duration of the EI benefits by another five weeks, raising it from 45 to 50 weeks at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion. The NDP voted against the extension of the EI program. We are not voting against it. We are supporting it. We brought it forward. That is in our budget, but the NDP does not care about that because it is good news and NDP members do not like good news.

We are providing another billion dollars over two years for provinces and territories through the existing labour market development agreements for skills training. They have a closer contact with the real needs of the workers in their communities. That is good news, but the NDP is voting against that as well.

I would like to wrap up by talking about the work-sharing program. We are extending it by 14 weeks. We are allowing mills in the forestry sector that have had their work-sharing program expire to have another whole year, another 52 weeks. NDP members are voting against billions of dollars in that program as well. I would like them to tell that to the workers who are facing layoff in the forestry industry--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.