House of Commons Hansard #27 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
You are correct that in the first round there are 20 minute allocations for each caucus. It is my understanding that the NDP will be splitting its time, so there will be two 10 minute presentations as opposed to a single 20 minute presentation. My apologies if that was unclear.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Halifax West.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party will be splitting its time also and I will be splitting my time today with my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. I think he will be speaking among other things about the softwood lumber deal.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about the crisis that is facing our forestry sector. The crisis is affecting thousands of families and their communities in every region and every province.
The minister spoke a few moments ago about the situation in the economy and the government's economic plan. However, one of the things that is very disturbing to us in the opposition and to Canadians across the country is what we are not seeing and what we have not seen in recent months from the government, and that is real action.
We know that in the 2007 budget $4.6 billion was approved for infrastructure. Of that money, only a billion has been spent. If the government were truly concerned, if it were truly awake to the situation facing the economy of this country, we would think that it would have long before now started to get that money moving.
In fact, we have heard claims from the government side that when the government cut the GST nearly two years ago that was really because it knew there were going to be problems in the economy, that it foresaw these economic problems. If that were true, which it clearly is not, surely the government would have also launched spending programs to stimulate the economy to prevent us from having the problems we are now in. Unfortunately, we did not see that.
What are the results? Just last week in my province of Nova Scotia, AbitibiBowater and Minas Basin Pulp and Power announced shutdowns and layoffs that will leave hundreds of families with an uncertain future. Those people are worried about putting groceries on the table, about paying the mortgage and looking after their kids. It is the same story in dozens of communities across Canada, whether it is Domtar, Canfor or Tembec making the headlines.
Like other opposition MPs in other parties, the Liberal caucus is concerned with the fate of an industry that is vital to over 300 Canadian communities and has spinoffs in many other communities. So many of these communities are in rural areas and forestry makes up at least 50% of the economic base, particularly in those rural areas.
When we see employment in this sector fall by 9.1% as it did in 2007, we know that many of these small communities are severely impacted by such significant job losses.
Since 2006 the forestry industry has looked to government to establish a plan of action. The Bloc Québécois motion talks about some specific policies it thinks should be included in our forestry policy: refundable tax credits for research and development and measures to support energy and ethanol production from forestry waste, and we look forward to that being developed because there is a lot of research going on, as we know, into cellulosic ethanol which is a hopeful product for the future and I think that is a very good suggestion; the use of loans for loan guarantees; policies to encourage the use of lumber in construction; and the renovation of federal buildings. I think all of these are worthwhile suggestions.
The fact is the Conservative government should have already developed a plan for the forestry sector. The Conservatives have known, as I was saying earlier, for several years now that in this case, and they may have not really known what has happened to the economy over the past six months, the forestry industry was in trouble. That has been clear for quite a while.
In fact, in June of last year the Standing Committee on Natural Resources produced a report that outlined 23 recommendations but then, like now, the Conservatives failed to recognize how serious the problem was and failed to provide any meaningful assistance.
Here is a news flash. Tax cuts are not much help if one is not making a profit. All the Conservative government has delivered are empty promises, political rhetoric and recycled programs.
Several weeks ago the Minister of Natural Resources was in Sydney, Nova Scotia, where she grew up, her home town, to announce a worn over $1 billion community development fund.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. minister wants to hear the points I am making and I am sure that he will settle down and listen quietly.
The announcement of the $1 billion community development fund that she made in Sydney looked suspiciously like the same announcement made a year earlier. That is not good enough.
Instead of investing in a stimulus package over a year ago, the Conservatives sat on that $4.6 billion, that I mentioned earlier, that was approved in the 2007 budget for this current fiscal year that ends at the end of this month. Canadians cannot understand why the government was so incompetent that it spent less than $1 billion of that money, especially if, as it claimed, it foresaw all these economic problems. How is that possible? It certainly makes no sense to me and I am sure my hon. colleagues on this side of the House would agree.
In New Brunswick, there is a shovel-ready project that could put 400 people to work for a nominal cost. It is called silviculture. The New Brunswick Forest Products Association has made a request to the federal government but still has not received a decision from Ottawa. The association hopes that someone in the government across the way recognizes that this is important for an industry that has endured thousands of job losses in the past three years. It is warning all of us that time is running out to get that money flowing for the 2009 planting season. I do hope that someone in the Department of Natural Resources or in the government is listening, and that they will get moving on this request and others from across the country.
Is it any wonder that people do not trust the Conservative government when we hear of things like that? The latest performance report for natural resources shows the Conservatives have a history of not getting the job done that goes well beyond its infrastructure investments or the lack thereof.
The NRCan performance report states that “funding for the Forest Industry Long Term Competitiveness Initiative in the amount of $10.4 million was deferred for future year spending”.
That is a little hard to imagine. I was just talking about, and we heard it earlier today, what is happening in the forestry industry. The recent economic problems have added to it, but it is not a brand new problem. There have been problems and difficulties in the forestry industry for the past number of years, and yet here we see that the government, rather than using the money that it has allocated and promised to use to support the industry, has put it off for later. What the heck is that about? How is that competent management of the industry or of our economy? Why would any competent government defer spending on an industry that was obviously facing severe challenges?
I believe this speaks volumes about the government's lack of commitment to a vital sector of our economy and the thousands of families who keep asking why the government has abandoned them in their hour of need. As I said earlier, it is no wonder that Canadians do not trust the government.
Unfortunately, Canadian forestry workers, whether they live in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia or elsewhere, are the ones suffering as a result of a government that failed to invest in their futures, that failed to understand the importance of research and development, and a government that negotiated a sellout softwood lumber deal, about which my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie will speak further.
The fallout from the Conservative softwood lumber sellout continues to plague the sector. Saw mills in four provinces are now subject to a 10% export tax. Even in the face of mill closures in Quebec and Ontario, the Conservatives refuse to admit this is a bad deal. Ontario companies will have to pay in excess of $68 million to meet the 10% export charge imposed because of bad decisions by the Conservatives. It is why we are here today.
Canadians know the Conservative government abandoned the forestry sector by not preparing the industry for the current economic downturn several years ago. In contrast, in November 2005, the Liberal government committed $1.5 million for the strength and sustainability of Canada's forestry industry. This strategy included new funding for workers, the industry, communities, long-term innovation, and provided immediate assistance as well.
I see my time is at an end. I look forward to comments and questions.
Opposition Motion—Forestry IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Saanich—Gulf Islands B.C.
Conservative
Gary Lunn ConservativeMinister of State (Sport)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record for the hon. member.
At the beginning of his speech, he was talking about $1 million in the community adjustment fund. He was confusing it with the community development fund. In fact, it was $1 billion, not $1 million. Maybe the hon. member was doing it in error, but they are two separate funds and he is confused on that matter.
In fact, on those funds, we had the support of the vast majority of the provinces that put out that money. I know in my home province of British Columbia, Premier Campbell put out that money on a number of different initiatives to help the forestry communities and workers.
Our government has been investing from the very beginning across the forest sector. There is no question that sector is in very challenging times. We know that. We understand that. We have sat down on numerous occasions with forest products executives and asked what we can do. We have listened and are making those investments in what they have been suggesting. We are working very closely with them. We are bringing the research institutes across Canada all under FPInnovations, under one leadership, and putting funds in there.
I would ask the member to make sure that he puts the facts out there correctly.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we agree it is important to have funding to support communities that are in need, which have had shutdowns, but what we have been talking about primarily here is how to prevent those shutdowns, how to invest in the industry to keep it alive and thriving. That is what we have not seen.
I was talking a moment ago about the $1.5 billion committed by the previous government, the Liberal government, in November 2005. That $1.5 billion program was cancelled by the Conservative government.
I talked a few minutes ago about the kind of funding that the government had available, even in this fiscal year, the $4.6 billion it has not been spending. It is very disappointing to people across this country that in an economic downturn like this one, the government has not responded and has not foreseen what was needed. Many Canadians could understand and foresee certainly by last fall what was happening, and the Conservatives were still denying it.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I get along well, but we have a bit of a contention on how the forestry sector got into its present state. There are two critical things and his party has supported the government on both of them.
One is on the pine beetle funding, which we looked for in this budget and could not find. In fact, we have had it confirmed from the Canadian Forest Service that there is none. Folks living in my region of northwestern British Columbia are still watching the devastating effects of the pine beetle, which has been a contributing factor. The government has turned its face away from this disaster and his party is supporting it.
On the second point, which is very important, when Canada so-called settled the softwood lumber dispute, it left not only $1 billion-plus in America, but it did not insist that any of the $4 billion coming back to Canada would be invested in Canadian mills.
Does he regret that decision? Does he regret that no mills are receiving the money back from the softwood lumber sellout and that the investment which has been absent has contributed to the downfall we are now seeing in the softwood industry?
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, I think we all know the situation in relation to the budget. There are certainly elements about it that we are not at all pleased with. On the other hand, it is clear to me from Canadians that they want to see stimulus get out the door. There is no sign the government is doing anything so far in terms of stimulus. Of course, as the Conservatives know, their own proposal is not to spend a dime of the budget money until April 1 or perhaps later. There are reasons for that, as the member knows.
In relation to the minister's comment previously, and I think my colleague will find this worthwhile as well, we did not see in this budget anything to really change the employment insurance system to ensure that people in communities that are affected by mill closures, et cetera, can more easily get access to that program.
I agree with my hon. colleague that there are many problems with the softwood lumber deal, and the fact that those funds were not invested in mills to help them thrive was an important problem.
Opposition Motion—Forestry IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, first of all l would like to thank the hon. member for Halifax West for his insightful comments.
I thank my Bloc colleague for his motion and want him to know right off that I share his opinion on the need to establish a plan to help the forest industry. My party therefore supports the spirit of this motion. However, my colleague will not be surprised to hear me say that the plan should apply to the industry as a whole and not just to the portion of it in la belle province of Quebec.
The forest industry in Quebec, the Maritimes, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia is facing major challenges these days. If we think back, we will remember that the Liberal government itself put forward a forestry strategy in 2005.
On November 24, 2005, the Liberal government announced, in partnership with forest industry stakeholders, a true plan for the forestry sector, a forest industry competitiveness strategy committing $1.5 billion over five years. This strategy included: $215 million for the development of new technologies in areas such as the pulp and paper industry to enhance its competitiveness; $50 million to support the forest industry to develop bioenergy and cogeneration power technology; $90 million to support innovation in value-added wood products; $66 million in wood product market development; $10 million to enhance workplace skills in the forest sector; $150 million to help forest dependent communities diversify economically; $800 million in loan support to help Canada's forest companies invest to improve competitiveness; and $100 million in loan support for small forest sector businesses.
We can see that the Liberal government had anticipated quite a bit of what is happening today. Upon forming government in 2006, the Conservatives, however, cancelled the plan. Today Canadian forestry workers are paying the price for that action. Instead of investing then in improving technology, skills and competitiveness to strengthen the industry and to save jobs, Canada now faces tens of thousands of job losses. Since the Conservatives took over government, Canada has lost 18,000 forest sector jobs. Not only that, they negotiated a poor settlement on the softwood lumber dispute and we are paying the price today.
As regards the softwood lumber agreement with the United States, the Liberal Party of Canada has always supported a two-step approach to resolving the dispute over softwood lumber—arbitration by the courts and negotiation.
On September 19, 2006, the Liberal Party voted against the agreement on softwood lumber, and, on December 6, 2006, against Bill C-24 on the softwood lumber export fees. The Liberal Party wanted to be sure the Conservative government would respect the North American Free Trade Agreement and keep its election promise to recover all the customs duties collected illegally by the United States.
We believe the softwood lumber agreement is full of holes for the following reasons.
It is a reversal of the position adopted by successive federal governments and supported by NAFTA and World Trade Organization trade panels that our softwood lumber sector is not subsidized.
It compromises Canada's chances of helping a sector already in difficulty, by handing part of our sovereignty over our natural resources to our American competitors. The fallout of such capitulation will be felt in future disputes, which will no doubt arise not only in the softwood lumber industry, but also in other sectors facing the same accusations by our American competitors.
It creates an export tax, which, at the current rate, is in fact higher than the illegal American customs duties of the past.
It strips NAFTA of any credibility as arbitrator of trade disputes and voids the principles governing such discussions.
It drops $500 million into the hands of the American forestry sector, which uses it to fund legal and political attacks against the Canadian industry and another $500 million into the hands of the American government.
And, finally, it contains anti fluctuation provisions that will deny the Canadian industry the flexibility it needs to deal with the unexpected, such as the infestation of the pine beetle.
The Conservatives claim that their softwood lumber agreement put an end to the dispute, but the United States began consultations questioning the forestry policies of Ontario and Quebec within seven months of signing the agreement.
Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Alberta face the same attacks. It is the $500 million the Conservatives handed over to the Americans that is being used to finance these attacks. On April 4, 2007, the Liberal Party announced that a Liberal government would organize a national summit on the forestry sector bringing together the stakeholders—public officials, the localities involved and the forestry sector—to work out responsible measures for the environment and protect jobs in the Canadian localities.
Instead of being proactive in investing to strengthen the industry, the Conservatives are now being reactive, announcing band-aid programs. The Conservatives' lack of vision has led to this crisis in the forest sector and caused many Canadians their jobs.
For our softwood industry, the Conservatives' softwood lumber deal has also been a failure. The Conservatives rushed into a flawed agreement that left $1 billion in the pockets of the United States. The Conservative government said that the softwood lumber agreement would put an end to litigation, yet Canada is back in court.
Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal Party believes that there is a role for government to play in helping these sectors and the workers who depend on them.
My party has long recognized that action is essential. Accordingly, it is prepared to support a real plan to help the forest industry, a plan that would include a series of specific measures to ensure sustainable development.
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. If he were made Minister of Industry tomorrow morning, what real action would he take to help the forestry industry, the aerospace industry and other industries in terms of investment?
Since we are talking about forestry today, I would like to know where he would stand and what his recovery plan would be. I would like to hear what he has to say about that.
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague for his question. I will repeat what I said during my presentation. In 2005, the Liberal Party announced a major strategy for the forestry industry, worth roughly $1.5 billion over five years. A number of the components of that strategy that I mentioned are covered by the Bloc motion. In that sense, we are on the same wavelength. In addition, the Liberal Party continues to support that approach to the forestry industry.
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, when members are on one side of the House, they may say a lot of things, but when they are on the other side, they seem to lose their memories just like that. I would like my colleague to tell me whether his memory will remain intact if he should one day become Minister of Industry and find himself on the other side of the House.
In 2004, when the Conservatives were on this side, they promised us the earth and supported our proposal to modify the employment insurance program. When they crossed over to the other side of the House, they forgot all that and developed Alzheimer's.
Will my colleague also lose his memory when he crosses to the other side of the House, or will he remember what is happening today?
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, if I should ever forget the importance of the forestry industry for even a moment, I am absolutely certain that my Bloc colleague would jog my memory. I will add that the Bloc member knows that I sit on the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology that is looking at industrial sectors. When I talk with my Bloc colleague, we agree on the importance of the forestry industry.
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether my colleague is aware of the London Court of International Arbitration's February 26 ruling. The tribunal found that we had exported more than our quota to the United States. In its ruling, the court recommended introducing a 10% export tax on softwood industries.
The industry reported that Quebec was responsible for 40% of the over-quota exports, while Ontario was responsible for 60%. As such, we do not feel that Quebec should have to pay 50% of the amount owing. If a 10% export tax is instituted, we will have to pay 50% of the amount owing, even though we are responsible for only 40% of it. I would like my colleague to comment on that.
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the matter the Bloc member just raised. There is no doubt that the softwood lumber agreement negotiated by the Conservative Party contained serious flaws. There are international mechanisms regulating the market and international trade. It is clear that Canada will have to move forward boldly to protect its interests.
The issue the Bloc member just raised is one of many serious issues. Canada must continue to negotiate in its own best interest.
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.
As the New Democrat critic for forestry, I thank the Bloc Québécois caucus for tabling this motion and for putting the interests of our forestry industry, our forestry dependent communities and our forestry related workers on the legislative agenda.
For many inside and outside of Quebec, the size and importance of this industry and the depth of the crisis in which it is mired is simply not known. I have some facts about this important industry. The forestry industry is an $84 billion a year industry. It directly and indirectly employs 863,000 Canadians. Forestry related manufacturing accounts for a full 12% of Canada's total manufacturing output, and there have been more than 45,000 layoffs and job losses in the industry since 2003.
Between January 2003 and June 2008, there have been at least 26 permanent mill closures in Quebec alone and more than 54 indefinite closures. Together, these closures have cost the forestry industry, communities and the families of Quebec more than 11,000 well-paying jobs. The number of mill closures and job losses related to the forestry industry in Quebec during this period were more than the share of any other province in Canada during this period.
We must make no mistake, the forestry sector in Canada is in a crisis and the forestry industry, communities and families in Quebec are suffering a great deal. I find much I am in agreement with in this motion by the Bloc.
The $170 million for the forestry sector in the budget pales in comparison to the nearly $4 billion in assistance for the auto sector. That is not to say that the auto sector does not clearly need it, but the forestry industry has been completely ignored by the government. These two industries are roughly the same size but the forestry industry employs nearly 400,000 more people and it has had more than four times the real and potential job losses of the auto sector.
The government has shown little interest in Canada's forestry industry, our communities and our workers, and I am glad that this motion states as much.
The Bloc is correct in noting that the forestry industry urgently requires loans and loan guarantees from our federal government. Small and large producers began having their credit lines cut three years ago, so the payroll cuts that have occurred during this period are no surprise. Loans and guarantees will help Canada's modern and efficient mills keep operating, which will keep our small communities active and keep our hard-working families housed and fed during this downturn.
We also need a made in Canada policy for federal procurement so that Canadian lumber is used in all federally subsidized building projects in order to keep our lumber and wood product inventories turning over.
We also need more research, development and utilization of biomass technology and products. The Atikokan Bio-Energy Research Centre is within the boundaries of my riding. If any members of the House, including the Minister of Natural Resources, would like a tour, I would be more than happy to show them around.
I am in broad agreement on each of the points in the motion but I wonder why the motion did not state what so many stakeholders and parliamentary committees have stated in the past, that Canada needs a national forestry summit to help our forest industry, communities and families cope with this crisis in the short term and come out of this crisis stronger in the long term.
I do not speak without knowledge, interest or passion about this issue as I am from a forestry dependent community and represent several others in my riding.
Fort Frances counts upon forestry for 67% of its economic activity and wealth. The main employer in Fort Frances is the AbitibiBowater pulp and paper mill. It has a cutting edge biomass furnace just coming on-stream that reuses wood waste to create heat and energy for the processing of pulp and paper. It is as efficient and modern as any plant in Ontario and it has just laid off its entire workforce for the second time in six months.
Ainsworth in Barwick struggles to stay open, even though its value-added product retails for one-third of what it did a few years ago.
Buchanan's Longlac mill, a modern plant, is closed. Ken Buchanan worked hard over the years to stay in northern Ontario and invested in northern workers. In fact, 85% of the labour force at this plant was from first nations communities.
Nickel Lake Lumber, which only sells a value-added product, has 16 employees. It could expand its operations with a little help from the government.
Northern Hardwoods in Thunder Bay, as I speak, is in the process of turning off the lights and heat. When the market improves, it will cost millions of dollars to start up again. It does not need to be this way.
As members can see, the forestry crisis has hit home personally for me. I feel the pain that is being felt in industry towns and households in Quebec. The federal government needs to provide leadership on this issue and develop a plan to assist, not just the forestry industry but the communities and households that are dependent upon the industry for their livelihoods.
I hope the entire Bloc Québécois will support my call for a national forestry summit that will bring together all levels of government in Canada, a variety of ministries and opposition representatives at the federal and provincial levels, industry and union representatives, academics, aboriginal stakeholders and environmental groups interested in sustainable forestry management. Such a national summit would help us find ways to help the forestry industry, dependent communities and working families survive the crisis and prosper once demand for forestry industry products increases to more normal levels.
I thank the Bloc Québécois for putting forward this motion and for putting the national forestry crisis on the legislative agenda. I agree with its position on this matter and hope it will support my call for a national forestry summit to help the Quebec forestry industry, communities and households that have suffered through this crisis. I will be supporting this motion.
Opposition Motion—Forestry IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Cypress Hills—Grasslands Saskatchewan
Conservative
David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, I take exception to some of the things the member said. He talked about the fact that forestry has been hit hard in his riding and surrounding area. Why he is not supporting the government when it is moving to make the changes and improvements that need to be made in these areas? I will go through a few of them and later today I will give a speech that will cover this in a little more detail.
He talked about communities in his riding being hard hit and yet the NDP, without seeing the budget or the economic action plan, made the decision to vote against EI changes, to vote against work share improvements and to vote against $1 billion to be put into communities across this country.
The NDP made the decision to vote against more access to credit, which we have heard is a big problem across this country for this industry. It made a decision that to vote against the home renovation tax credit that encourages people across the country to renovate their house, use wood products and get the forestry sector moving again. It made a decision to vote against the new technology commitments that we made.
Why is it that the NDP members pretend to be concerned when all they are is critical, never constructive in their suggestions?
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that $170 million, while welcomed by the forestry industry, the money is not nearly the kind of help that it needs.
To answer his question directly, we simply do not trust the government. If we look at the softwood lumber deal, the government made some choices in that deal that are now costing softwood lumber producers in the province of Ontario and three other provinces $64 million to $65 million because it made a mistake. We do not trust the government. We all need to work together to ensure that the forestry industry gets back on a solid footing.
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the House are quite moved by the very valid and comprehensive overview that the member has given on behalf of his constituents and those suffering in the forestry industry.
Is the member aware, though, that, in its last sitting, the natural resources committee conducted an exhaustive series of hearings and came out with a report that was to set the stage for the summit that the member is calling for? It gives an overview historically of what happened with respect to the sector. It talks about an action plan, such as the procurement approach that the member is suggesting.
I have more of a leading question. Would the member take a look at that report? After looking at the report, he may be satisfied that that would be the foundation for the summit that he is asking for and that the government really can get on with the action that is in that report.
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, if I recall, that committee refused to go to Thunder Bay, so I am not sure how exhaustive it was.
Afternoon round tables with some businesspeople are not enough. I am talking about a national forestry summit with all stakeholders, including first nations, workers, business and innovators, who can move the forestry industry forward and put it back on a solid footing. I believe, as does the member, that this is a renewable industry and it is very important for Canadians.
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief.
I listened to my colleague and I agree with much of what he is saying, except when it comes to the idea of a summit. I am worried because I think we need to get the government to act immediately to help the forestry industry. There are things that could be done right away. Would having a summit not get in the way of any possible immediate action and put if off until later?
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Something should have been done before, but the House was prorogued and nothing happened then. In fact, I have been calling for a national forestry summit since before the last election.
I hope, as I continue to talk about it and as we put it on the agenda and in the national media, people will begin to realize how important the forestry industry is and how important it is that we put it back on a solid footing.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to speak about this issue, which is important not only for the people of my riding, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, but also for many other communities across Canada.
This motion is timely, but it is sad that the government was not aware that it should have used the budget it so recently tabled to respond to the forestry industry's concerns. The government is letting an opportunity go by and if it were not for the opposition parties, the challenges facing the forestry industry would not be raised.
The forestry industry was one of the first sectors to feel the current economic pinch. When the housing bubble broke in the United States, the effect was seen in the dropping sales of forestry products long before the remainder of the economy began to feel the fallout of that contraction. It would have been a good time to act and then to stem some of the bleeding. It was a time to be proactive and show Canadians that their government was working for them, that it was out to protect them, that it recognized the warning signs and had a plan to help them.
However, the government does not operate that way. To be fair, it is hard to notice these kinds of trends when people have their heads stuck in the sand. Instead, the government is acting as if all is well in the forestry sector. It would like to have people believe that there is nothing but sunshine as a result of the softwood lumber agreement it reached with the United States. It turns out that the softwood issue was a bit of foreshadowing on things to come from the United States. Increasingly, the U.S. has become protectionist, abandoning the nuts and bolts of trade agreements and hiding behind state laws that allow for protectionist procurement.
We see this right now with respect to the steel and iron exports and have seen a protectionist agenda at play with the flawed deal the government negotiated for softwood lumber exports. Now that we have entered a global credit crunch, we see just how bad that agreement is. We also see just how unprepared the government is to deal with real financial challenges. It has no idea what it is meant to do. It throws money at construction and trades and ignores our resource-based jobs. It has a cart on a different track than the horse.
The government is so far off the mark with its stimulus. With only $170 million over two years, there is little in the way of recognition of the severity of the problems that face the forestry sector.
I have done something that I hope many other members have done as well. I have met with forestry companies in my constituency and have discussed the challenges they face. I say hope because I cannot see the evidence that shows me many government MPs have in fact done this. I do not believe the government's response to the sector matches what I was told it required to get through the credit crunch we are experiencing.
First and foremost, companies are asking for access to reasonable credit to keep their operations above water. They are not asking for a bailout. They are only asking for a leg up. However, it will take much more than the $170 million over two years. They are asking for tax incentives for investment and innovation. They are looking for investment to help with developing and promoting products. They would like to see waste from the industry become part of a green solution for our energy needs.
These seem like reasonable requests from an industry we are absolutely certain will rebound from this downturn. We truly believe it is important to keep this sector working. We have too many examples of what can happen when the mills shut down. In northern Ontario, there are many shrinking communities and a pressing need to reverse this trend. We will climb out of this recession. When we do so, we are going to need these communities. We are going to need these workers as well as the forestry products.
The population is dropping at an alarming rate in places like White River. If we do not take the time to protect these small communities, we will have to spend even more to bring these communities back to the vibrant places they are, or have been recently, where a family can live and workers do not have to worry about the basics and can concentrate on putting out a good product. There are tools to help retain these communities. There are ways to ensure that a town does not have to disintegrate because a plant shuts down or a mill closes.
We can use their products as much as possible. We can ensure that the employment insurance system works to keep these workers in their communities and help keep these communities vibrant so they will be there when we need them. We can implement income support programs for those older workers who will have the most difficulty relocating. Economists like to think in terms of market rationalization, cheap, portable labour. These all sound like great concepts until workers realize that they are cheap, portable labour and that the death of their own towns and destruction of their way of life is the market being rational. It is a story that is repeated time and again in northern Ontario and it does not have to be this way.
I am not naive. I realize there will be situations where workers will simply have to go and find another place of employment. We could do something to help with that as well.
The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union is calling for the establishment of a national adjustment fund for workers, their families and communities in the event of closure or restructuring, but we have heard nothing from the government about this. Shame on it.
CEP is also calling for the Prime Minister to call a national summit on the future of the forestry industry. We would welcome such a move and would see it as a sign of recognition from the government that there is a problem and that it has a role to play in the remedy.
This makes great sense. The forestry sector is vital to the Canadian economy. It is very comparable to the auto industry, yet is not receiving the same level of attention from the federal government. Perhaps we should be considering government assistance on a level similar to that being proposed for the auto industry. We have to remember that the forest products sector is one of Canada's leading industries, shipping over $40 billion of goods annually. We have to keep our eye on the fact that forestry provides hundreds of thousands more jobs across Canada than the auto industry.
We also must remember that forestry jobs are good jobs. The average wage per employee was $46,300 in 2005. The national average per employee is $37,900. Each of these jobs creates an estimated four spin-off jobs. Most important, we have to remember that the forestry sector is an integral part of our identity and our economy and will require a collaborative effort from industry, labour and government, to create the conditions in which this sustainability can flourish and keep these important jobs in our communities for generations to come.
In my riding I have seen many mill closures and others are just struggling to survive. We really need the government to step up to the plate and provide them the reasonable credit they need and also help them with regard to their energy needs because that is sinking them.
I could go on and on about forestry closures.
The impact of EI in these communities certainly has been great as well. To keep workers there and hopefully find employment, while we look at the return of the forestry sector to what it needs to get to, we need to ensure we have changes to EI. That is fundamental to assist workers when they need it the most.
I cannot tell members too often the importance of the spin-off effect on these jobs. Companies have told me that they will no longer be able to exist and that they will not be able to function properly or even start up again should they close. The government is not coming forward and assisting them. If we lose our forestry sector, the spin-off jobs will be detrimental, not only to Canada as a whole. The government has helped the auto industry, but who will buy cars if our people are unemployed?
I thank the Bloc for its motion.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct in the amount of mill closures that have hit her riding, probably some of the worst that we have seen across the country. Yet when we hear the Conservatives speak this morning, they probably are grateful for the economic collapse. They are hiding behind it and using it as an excuse to cover off the deliberate mistakes they made in forestry policy in the last Parliament.
The Conservatives are now trying to present it as this is some kind of global problem, which they had no hand in. Yet when we debated the softwood lumber sellout, we saw how they gave up a billion dollars of our producers' money. Under clause 10 of the bill, they imposed on our industry a 15% export tax, which was higher than what the Americans were dinging us. Written into the bill were charges against companies that tried to do value added. Now we have lost markets and we have the Americans coming back at us. The government has crippled our industry.
What does my hon. colleague feel is the impact that the deliberate decisions of the Conservatives have had on the mills in her riding?
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, we have seen mill closures in Opasatika, Wawa, White River and Marathon. We are seeing mill closures across the country. Shame on the government for not coming forward.
One of the questions on this issue that was answered on the government side a while ago was about giving $172 million and the fact that the NDP is actually voting against the budget. We know the government is not going to deliver. It is putting stipulations in the budget. The fine print is what we have to look at.
In terms of the retrofit project that is supposed to stimulate the forestry industry, the retrofit project will not be approved until autumn. People should actually be doing their retrofits in the spring. I think that is a shame.
These are agreements that the government talks about. It says it is going to abide by these agreements. It cannot even get Xstrata or Inco to abide by the agreements already negotiated, or the softwood lumber--
