moved:
That, in the opinion of the House, by providing only $170 million in funding over two years in the latest budget to assist the forestry industry, the government is showing once again its lack of concern for the Quebec economy, which has been hard hit by the forestry crisis, since this amount falls well short of what this industry needs to see it through the current crisis, especially since this funding will serve to extend programs that are ill-suited to the needs of the industry in crisis; the government should therefore establish a real plan as soon as possible to help the forestry industry, a plan including a series of specific, sustainable development measures, including loans and loan guarantees, refundable tax credits for research and development, a policy to encourage the use of lumber in the construction and renovation of federal public buildings and measures to support energy and ethanol production from forestry waste.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, I come from a region, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, which, in recent years, has been hard hit by the forestry crisis. Quite a few of my colleagues from Quebec and Canada are experiencing similar situations. In our respective regions, whenever the sawmill shuts down, the entire local economy is affected.
When I was elected as the member of Parliament for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in 2004, the forestry industry was going through tough times. In 2004, Abitibi-Consolidated shut down its Port-Alfred plant in La Baie. This resulted in 640 workers being laid off, and the impact could be felt throughout the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. Since then, almost 4,000 direct jobs have been lost in the region. That is right, 4,000 jobs. It is as if 15,000 jobs had been lost in the city of Ottawa over the past five years.
The Bloc Québécois has chosen to have an opposition day on the forestry crisis and possible solutions to it because the government has completely failed to support the forestry sector, which is in dire need of support.
The fact is that the forestry industry has been struggling for several years. First, there was the softwood lumber dispute that started in May 2002 and ended in the fall of 2006. During that time, Ottawa systematically refused to support the industry and provide the loan guarantees it needed to stay afloat. As a result, 10,000 jobs were lost in the forestry industry in Quebec between May 2002 and April 2005.
Since April 2005, a further 21,000 jobs have been lost in the forestry industry in Quebec alone. What is worse, the situation is deteriorating each week. AbitibiBowater has just announced temporary closures of its mills in Amos, Dolbeau-Mistassini and Baie-Comeau. That is not including the pulp mill in Saint-Félicien, the lumber mills in Girardville and Saint-Fulgence, Arbec forest products, Coopérative Forestière de Petit Paris and many others that closed for a few weeks or have drastically cut their production.
We are in the midst of a terrible crisis and we have a government that prefers to ignore the plight of the thousands of workers and families.
This is such a serious matter that two weeks ago the president of the Quebec Forest Industry Council testified before the members of the Standing Committee on Finance here in Ottawa to ask for urgent assistance since the industry is at the end of its rope. He came to ask the federal government to establish a refinancing program and a support program in order to be ready for recovery.
According to the president, a number of companies need to do major repairs but they cannot currently access credit. A number of them would like to take advantage of the crisis by innovating but simply cannot invest because they have no money.
The president of the Quebec Forest Industry Council is not the only one raising the alarm: the message is coming from all sides. Last week, Michel Routhier, president of the FTQ Conseil régional du Haut du Lac-Chibougamau-Chapais, said that the budget is not helping the industry and that there is less help now than when there was no crisis.
The crisis being as serious as it is, equipment providers are also calling on the government. Robert Dionne, president of the Association des propriétaires de machinerie forestière du Québec, which represents 250 forestry entrepreneurs, said that his members are worried. They are scrambling to stay afloat. Last week Mr. Dionne said that more than 50 entrepreneurs went out of business in Quebec in 2008 and that the outlook for 2009 is not much brighter.
Lastly, Alain Michaud of Saint-Ludger-de-Milot, whose business is located in the riding of the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) and member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, stated that we need to go back to the time when there were tax credits for equipment purchases.
The message in the community is unanimous: the federal government must adopt programs to support forestry entrepreneurs.
The Canadian and Quebec forestry industry is in no less difficulty than the auto industry. It represents 300,000 direct jobs in Canada, and another 450,000 indirect ones, while the figures for the auto industry are 158,000 direct and 335,000 indirect. Nevertheless, the Conservative government's aid to that sector is far higher than that announced for the forestry industry: $2.7 billion for the auto sector but only $170 million for the forestry industry in all of Canada, over two years. Yes, that is disgraceful. Do you see the disproportion in assistance?
As members of Parliament, we are duty bound to find solutions to help thousands of families. Our fellow citizens have asked us to represent them here in Ottawa to defend their interests. Unfortunately, certain members have chosen to promote their party's position rather than to come to the aid of their fellow citizens and relay their message here to Ottawa, to this House.
Among the biggest offenders in this are the members for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and Jonquière—Alma. The Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) has been stating at every possible opportunity that he cannot, under the softwood lumber agreement, provide any loan guarantees. Yet he is incapable of stating exactly which section of it prevents him from doing so. Even yesterday in question period he was unable to clearly specify which part of the agreement it was, because there is no section that bans such a service of providing loan guarantees to businesses. Unfortunately, the member is obliged to defend the indefensible to back up his party, the Conservative government, since that government is refusing to provide loan guarantees to the forestry sector for purely ideological reasons.
Even the president of the Fédération québécoise des municipalités, Bernard Généreux, has commented on the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), “It is a matter of bad faith or lack of imagination. It is unthinkable that, with the billions of dollars of support handed out in the last federal budget, to the auto industry among others, they could not have found some money lying around somewhere to invest in the forestry crisis.” Those were the words of Bernard Généreux, a resident of Lac-Saint-Jean, in the riding of the minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.
The position of the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma is also very disappointing. Seeing that his own government will not help the forestry sector, he is now calling for an emergency summit on the forestry crisis. I cannot help but wonder where the minister has been for the past couple of years. This feels a little like putting smoke detectors in your house after it is already on fire. It appears that the members wants to buy some time. The forestry industry does not need time; what it needs is tools to get through this crisis.
I see today as an emergency debate on the issue, to communicate the message and call attention to the reality facing entrepreneurs and workers in the forestry industry.
In our motion, we are proposing four concrete solutions based on a sustainable approach for the forestry sector. We are proposing these four solutions because the funds announced in the federal government's last budget are far from sufficient and do not meet the needs of the forestry industry.
The motion calls on the government to:
...establish a real plan as soon as possible to help the forestry industry, a plan including a series of specific, sustainable development measures, including loans and loan guarantees, refundable tax credits for research and development, a policy to encourage the use of lumber in the construction and renovation of federal public buildings and measures to support energy and ethanol production from forestry waste.
I am going to focus on a policy to encourage the use of lumber in the federal government's construction projects. Such a policy would increase the demand for lumber on the domestic markets of Quebec and Canada, and it could make us less dependent on the United States as regards this resource. When the United States stops building houses or lowers its production, lumber sales in that country go down. We are dependent on that market. When residential construction picks up, the Quebec and Canadian lumber is once again in demand. We must reduce our dependency on the U.S. market and increase lumber demand on the domestic markets of Quebec and Canada.
It is easy to talk about problems, but we should also propose solutions. One solution that would be both useful and symbolic would be to have the federal government encourage the use of lumber in the construction and renovation of its own buildings. Let us not forget that the federal government owns a huge real property inventory. We are talking about 13,782 buildings, including 198 that were built in 2008.
This means that, each year, the government spends a significant amount of money on the construction and maintenance of its own buildings. In 2007-08, the Canadian government's maintenance expenditures for Defence, Public Works, Correctional Service Canada and the RCMP alone totalled $827 million.
A number of governments have come to realize that using more lumber in their buildings was not only a concrete way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that it also provided direct support to the industry. The list of governments that have their own policy on the use of lumber is already quite long and includes Quebec, France, Sweden, Norway, Austria and Finland.
Why does the Canadian government not have its own policy to promote the use of lumber in renovation and construction projects, instead of steel or concrete? It could set an example for private owners of buildings by forcing itself to review in a fair fashion the solution provided by lumber for structural and cosmetic purposes, through its bids and those of its corporations and organizations. If lumber is a relevant option, and if it is beneficial to a project as a whole or to some of its elements, the government's policies should give priority to its use.
By using more lumber, the government itself could reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released by its buildings. For each cubic metre of lumber used instead of concrete or steel, we produce one tonne less of greenhouse gases. For example, during the life cycle of a typical four story building, we could avoid producing 154 tonnes of CO2 by using a structure made of lumber, instead of concrete.
That is the equivalent of driving a car for 36 years.
Forestry resources can be a lever for development, provided we find alternative uses, focus more on processing and use forestry as a tool to foster the development of new market niches. Forestry resources must be used to generate more employment and more wealth by increasing processing activities and the production of energy from wood. We must foster research and development for new products and make the R&D tax credit refundable. We must stimulate the creation and development of new processing businesses. We must support the modernization of companies through a loan and loan guarantee program that will allow them to purchase new, more efficient production equipment and to diversify production. We must restore the funding to diversify forest economies, which was cut by the former Minister of Economic Development, the member for Jonquière—Alma in the fall of 2006, and appoint regional stakeholders to manage it. We must improve the employment insurance plan to prevent workers from leaving the region when their income disappears. When a worker loses his job, becomes unemployed and eventually exhausts his benefits, what does he do? He looks at all possible options, even the possibility of leaving the area, which must be prevented by improving the employment insurance system. We must also put in place an income support program for older workers who are difficult to retrain. We should consider changes to tax rules for private woodlot owners so they can deduct forest management expenses and take advantage of income averaging, particularly when a high income follows a natural catastrophe.
Those are some of the solutions the Conservative government should consider to support the regions and the forestry industry.
I would like to conclude by asking the members of the House, particularly those in the Conservative government, whose ridings are feeling the pinch because of the forestry crisis, to persuade their colleagues to pass the motion I presented this morning.
I would point out that this motion urges the government to implement a real plan to help the forestry industry, and quickly. Things are tough in the auto industry, but the government should be helping the forestry industry too.
Let us not forget that the boreal forest is located on Quebec and Canadian soil. As such, this resource belongs to Quebeckers and Canadians.
Before I wrap up, I would like to summarize the motion, which refers to $170 million over two years. That alone is not enough to help the forestry industry. That amount will not meet the needs of the forestry industry and its workers. The motion proposes a four-part plan: a tax credit to help and support the forestry industry; a loan credit; promoting the use of lumber in construction and renovation; and using forestry waste to make energy.
I would like to conclude by pointing out that, in Quebec, 150 towns are fully dependent on forestry, and another 100 towns are 80% dependent on it. I am therefore asking the members to be compassionate and set aside partisan politics. The industry needs our support, and we are in a position to help.