Debates of March 10th, 2009

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am on the ground every weekend. The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord mentioned the people of my riding but he never went to these plants and these shops. I was there and I met the people.

Of course, I cannot say they are 100% happy. We have to keep on working. There is an economic crisis, there is a crisis in the forestry industry and it is a question of market. If these people can sell their lumber, they will not ask for any loan guarantees. Trucks will be running, the forest industry will be prosperous and companies will cut even more wood.

These people know that it is a market issue. Some would like to make a political crisis out of an economic crisis. People know very well that we are working for them and they want us to do more. We will keep on doing our work, fully aware of the problems these people have to contend with. I for one have chosen to be where the action is and where decisions are taken to make a difference in our future.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister. He will know that British Columbia has been seriously affected by the forestry crisis and also by the mountain pine beetle devastation that has affected many communities in British Columbia. My question is specifically about first nations communities in British Columbia.

There are 103 first nations communities within the pine beetle devastation area. These communities are very concerned about their ongoing safety. They are concerned about the forest fire danger to their communities. They have been waiting for federal government money to be transferred to the province of British Columbia to assist them in planning around the forest fire danger, setting up firebreaks around their communities, planning evacuations, and all those kinds of things.

Unfortunately, the province has not received the money from the federal government yet to do that. It has made pitches directly to the federal government for that funding, for $20 million to start that work immediately, and $5 million for ongoing work. These are communities that are concerned about their very existence should forest fires break out in this pine beetle devastation area.

My question is, what is the delay? Should people have any confidence in the ability of the government to deliver assistance to forestry communities when it is not being delivered on this very basic issue?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that the pine beetle is a major problem in the west, not only in British Columbia but also in the neighbouring provinces.

I am confident that our Minister of Natural Resources and my colleague fromIndian and Northern affairs—because these are the areas concerned—will handle this file perfectly well. In my region, my riding and the aboriginal community of Mashteuiatsh, we have achieved great things working together.

As for the future of natural resources, we are working with them on a daily basis wherever possible and we will continue to do so in the best interest of all workers. We will continue to seek the most sustainable solutions in keeping with the principles of sustainable development.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to take part in today's debate on the forestry industry.

It reminds me of the fact that my father started off as a timber scaler. He received his training in Sainte-Croix, near Quebec City. He was said to be very good at flipping the famous 2x4s over to assess their quality. He even worked at the Union catholique des cultivateurs for a wood producers union. As we can see, the forestry industry is linked not only to my family history but to Quebec's history, and that it is deeply rooted in our province. The forestry industry is a renewable resource. We are surrounded with objects made of wood in this chamber. We want efforts to be made to reintroduce wood in major construction works, so as to pass on this desire to future generations.

As the member of Parliament for Lévis—Bellechasse, I have in my riding, and particularly in the county of Les Etchemins, many forestry companies. I think of Rotobec, an export and manufacturing company — products are imported from around the world. I also think of the Audet sawmill, Bois Carvin, and a company from Lévis which was taken under the umbrella of the Ag-Bio Centre, a business incubator that received subsidies from the Economic Development Agency, and developed a biopesticide.

The forestry industry is a pillar of our economy. I have statistics here from the Quebec Forestry Industry Council. In Quebec alone, the economic activity is estimated at $12.9 billion, with nearly $4 billion going to wages and $1 billion going back to our governments. The forestry industry is profitable for governments, and it is in our interest to ensure that it does well. Across Canada, we are talking about close to 300,000 direct jobs and 450,000 indirect ones. This goes to show how important the forestry industry, an industry facing admittedly major challenges, is to our country.

In Quebec, because we export so much to the United States, a one-cent difference in the exchange rate can result in $100 million in losses to the industry in energy costs. This industry has been mismanaged over the past few years. Among other factors, there is the cost of the raw materials, whether they come from public or private forests. Several factors have combined to make our forestry industry vulnerable to plant closures—one in six in Quebec—and job losses.

Even if all Quebec companies together did $13 billion worth of business, they still would not be among the 10 largest companies. There has been some consolidation. A major global phenomenon is happening, and we want to stand by our forestry industry and help it.

I would like to cite one last statistic. Seventy-five per cent of the softwood fibre harvested is used to make lumber or newsprint. Demand for these products is declining, and they are among the least value-added forestry products. Today, I agree with those of my colleagues in the House who have said that it is important to invest in innovation and research, to create new sectors so that our forestry industry can find a niche where it can perform well. I wanted to paint a picture of this extremely important industry.

I would now like to turn to the measures we have included in our economic action plan to support the forestry industry through this crisis. As my hon. colleague, the Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec just explained, we will continue working with the forestry industry to help it get through this crisis.

This is a market problem, due in part to the problems our American ally is going through, but it is also a credit problem. We want to work closely with the industry, and that is what we are doing, to help it maintain liquidity so that it can keep making high-quality forest products and stay competitive on the world market.

Access to credit is not only key for the forestry industry, but also for all manufacturing sectors, be it mining or other Canadian companies. That is why the economic action plan is providing $200 billion for companies, all industrial sectors and families: to help them and ensure that our companies can access cash.

The $200 billion in the economic action plan has been approved. It was approved here last week with the support of my colleagues, those from other provinces and the support of my colleague from Saint Boniface as well as the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. These measures are in place, and we hope to get them off the ground to support our industry, in particular our forestry industry.

We also want to create demand. We know that there is a problem and that there is not much demand. We want to increase demand by improving Canada's building inventory and by stimulating investments in home renovations. That is why we have set aside $7.8 billion. Perhaps there is someone at home listening today who wants to renovate, invest $10,000, replace windows or finish a basement. All of these projects require wood. The government can give him up to $1,350 to encourage him to modernize and protect his assets. That will increase the demand for wood. If only one person does it, that is not much, but if there is $7.8 billion for the entire country, it means that many households can do something to stimulate our forestry industry.

As my colleague, the minister and member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, said a moment ago, we are working closely with aboriginal communities in Quebec and everywhere in Canada. There will be $400 million injected to improve housing. We know this is a major need. That too will be grist for our mill, our paper mills, as is obviously the case, and we will stimulate demand on that side.

In the economic action plan, we are investing nearly $12 billion in our infrastructures, and we hope that this will generate economic activity that will help our forestry sector. Certainly the measures proposed in the economic action plan lay a solid foundation to help our forestry product and mining sectors, and the communities that depend on them. In spite of all the measures we put in place in Canada, with the decline in demand in the United States, there may be setbacks, and that is why, in a time of economic upheaval, we have proposed measures for communities and workers, for heads of household who are directly affected by the crisis. We have instituted an older worker adjustment and community adjustment program. We have also implemented measures to promote innovation, develop markets, provide access to credit, as I mentioned, and provide tax relief.

To come back to the measure for communities, that is $1 billion. We hear the opposition saying there is only $170 million for forestry. If that money is invested well, it can help our forestry sector, but that is just one of the measures we have implemented. Those other measures include the $1 billion for communities. That money will go primarily to the forestry sector and other sectors affected by the economic upheaval. This means that $1 billion will be injected into communities that are vulnerable because of the situation we are experiencing. Those measures will help our workers make the transition, preserve their ability to keep working and, as they say, put bread on the table.

I referred to $170 million. That is the amount to be spent on innovation. We are talking about it a lot today because that is how we hope to help our forestry sector stimulate its industry.

I would also mention that nearly $440 million will be available to enable our forestry industries to invest. In the late 1970s, the forestry industry invested and that is what allowed it to make a significant recovery. In the 1980s, the paper mills also invested in treating their waste water, and that is entirely to their credit. They are good corporate citizens that got their emissions under control. So we are stimulating them and creating a favourable situation for them to be able to invest.

I also want to say that we will be supporting workers with an $8.3 billion program to help them stay in the work force, whether in the company or once they have left the company.

We will continue to support the forestry sector. On this side of the House, we will continue to look for solutions, working with our partners and with industry, so that our industry comes out of this crisis in a better position in global terms.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and found it very interesting. But he forgot to talk about one thing. Forestry companies are laying off workers and closing plants. Workers who have lost their jobs are therefore going on employment insurance. The Bloc Québécois asked the government to eliminate the two-week period during which people have to wait to receive their first cheque. Here in Canada, we are poor relations because we still have a waiting period. France has none. There, as soon as workers are laid off, they get their first cheque, with no waiting period.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that. What does he think about the Bloc Québécois recommendation to eliminate the two-week waiting period and the fact that we have a new bill that would enable people to immediately receive employment insurance, which they paid into?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Since we are talking about the forestry industry, sometimes we have to look not only at the trees, but at the whole forest. Last week, my colleague had the opportunity to support the whole forest in Quebec, because a number of measures were put forward to help workers, such as the work sharing measure we proposed. We want to keep forestry workers working. When companies decide to reduce their workforce, the work sharing period is extended. We are also extending the benefit period by five weeks. My colleague had the chance to support these measures, but unfortunately, he remained seated. I am happy I stood up to support these measures. We are talking about several hundred million dollars for worker training. My colleague had the chance to support a whole range of measures last week. Fortunately, we on this side of the House supported them.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with much interest to my colleague saying that this forestry industry crisis originated elsewhere in the world. According to him, it has nothing to do with the government policy. But everyone knows that this forestry industry crisis is a result of the softwood sellout agreement that the government signed. This morning, we heard witnesses saying that, in addition to the $68 million that Quebec and Ontario have to pay, due to the decision made last week, it is expected that the next decision will cost Canadian taxpayers between 400 million and one billion dollars due to all these problems.

Is the member ready to admit that this agreement was a sellout of the Canadian forestry industry?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from British Columbia for his question.

It allows me to remind the House of two extremely important facts for the debate today. I want to tell him that the penalties imposed on Quebec and Canada are the reason why extreme caution is to be applied in choosing the measures to put in place so as not to penalize the forestry industry even further.

The second fact is the position of the NDP member, who refused to agree to the return of $5 billion to the forestry industry. I was listening earlier today to a Bloc member who said that, without the softwood agreement put in place by the Conservatives, the whole industry would be dead by now. We support the forestry industry. We supported it in the first month after we came to power, in 2006, and we will continue to support it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is worthwhile to come back to the subject. I think that the member did not quite understand. Today, in committee, we heard that Canadians, and especially people in Quebec and Ontario, will have to pay $400 million more. That is a minimum. It is possible that as much as $1 billion will need to be paid because of this sellout agreement. That is the problem. He did not understand. Last week, we were talking about $68 million. Now, there is an additional amount of $400 million. Does the member understand that this sellout was a bad agreement?

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

Madam Speaker, we will continue to make sure that we have access to the American market. Three-quarters of the wood from Quebec goes to the United States. We will maintain our access to the American market and we will continue with good agreements. We will not use protectionist measures in the midst of an economic crisis. It would not make sense.

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

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Trois-Rivières, who does some excellent work.

As a member of the Bloc Québécois, I have the pleasure to speak to the motion put forward by our party.

Let us take the time to read together the motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois.

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.

The Bloc Québécois motion is intended to be complete in itself. Our colleagues in the other parties should follow the Bloc's example. Quebec is a diversified society in a number of the sectors of its economy. One of the major sectors is the forestry industry. My riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has one of the highest concentrations of hardwood forests in North America. We need to keep abreast of developments in the hardwood forestry industry. In times of economic crisis, that industry faces a rather difficult situation. According to this morning's, Le Droit, one of our companies has just had to apply for protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act because of the weakness of the market. The newspaper was referring to a hardwood floor company in difficulty that has a number of employees. In the Papineau sector of my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, 45% of jobs are connected to the forestry sector.

If I chose any other riding in the regions of Quebec, the figures would be more or less the same, that is somewhere between 25% and 55% of the labour force is connected to the forestry sector. The same goes for other provinces in Canada. Every day, the Bloc rises in this House to defend the interests of Quebeckers, but we are glad when it also helps other regions of Canada.

One cannot remain unmoved by this crisis, which started long before the financial crisis announced in 2008. It is more than five years since the forestry industry started to ring the alarm bells and to warn the government. We had the softwood lumber crisis and the agreement with the US, which the Bloc Québécois supported precisely because the Quebec forestry industry asked it to. The industrial sector was unanimous on this. The NDP often accuses us of all manner of things in this area, but the Bloc Québécois has always been in symbiosis with those industries. It is all very well to live in a dream world, like the NDP, but there is a hard reality: people are losing their jobs. Business owners are saying they would rather lose a billion dollars than to risk losing it all. That is the choice business made at the time, and we endorsed that choice. That is what it means to be a political party that listens to business and its needs.

This is why we are proposing this motion today. We are still listening to business. The industry has been asking for loans and loan guarantees for several years, not several months. It has been done for the auto industry, but this government is refusing to do it for the forest and manufacturing sectors although it is allowed by international law. This is the reality. Why? Because in a time of crisis, it is rather difficult to obtain financing from the banks. This is the reality. Forestry companies have been in a crisis situation for many years. Even in budget 2008, the Minister of Finance had identified the forestry and manufacturing sectors as simply being in recession. They were already in recession then. Signs were present well before the financial crisis became evident in 2008.

Obviously, when a whole segment of the economy is suffering both in Québec and in other Canadian provinces, it is impossible for us not to be on the lookout and not to try to listen. The Conservatives have proposed a stimulus package with only $170 million for this sector. This is just peanuts. Excuse me for saying this, but compared to companies' needs, this is close to nothing. This is why we are today asking the government to open their eyes. We need a true plan to help the forestry industry. There is a package for the auto industry. We are not criticizing this plan, quite the opposite. What we wanted in the stimulus package for the auto industry was protection for subcontractors because many of them are in Québec as well as other parts of Canada. We were hoping the plan would have a clause to prevent manufacturers from subcontracting outside of Canada and outside of Québec, but once more, the Conservatives did not listen.

The Conservatives made a choice by tabling a budget that provides only $170 million for the forestry sector. As hon. members can well imagine, for that reason alone the Bloc Québécois could not support this budget, because we cannot abandon workers in this sector. For example, in my riding, in the Papineau area, 45% of all jobs are in the forestry sector. We simply cannot ignore that industry. As I said, the same is true in all regions of Quebec.

Today, we are proposing loans, loan guarantees and refundable tax credits for research and development. We are not talking about mere tax credits for research and development. In order to get tax credits, one must first pay taxes. However, when companies are going through crises and cannot finance themselves, they are definitely not making profits. If that were the case, they would have no problems finding money. This means that if we only give them tax credits, these companies will not be able to benefit from them. Instead, we are asking for refundable tax credits. If a business has not made profits but is investing, then it would get a cheque from Ottawa. This would also help that company make investments.

We are asking for a policy to encourage the use of lumber in the construction and renovation of federal public buildings. This makes sense. Canada is one of the world's largest producers of lumber. It would only make sense if, in the federal buildings, some of the construction projects would involve the use of lumber. Finally, we are asking for measures to support energy and ethanol production from forestry waste, or biomass. Now is the time to do that. If we want to help these companies, we must invest. One way of diversifying their activities would be to use biomass to produce energy. This could help them increase their production.

Again, if Conservative, Liberal and New Democrat members were aware of what Quebeckers are going through, they would support the motion brought forward by the Bloc Québécois.

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

Madam Speaker, I found the presentation given by my former colleague from the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities very interesting.

However, I do not understand one thing. Though this motion, which we will support, the Bloc is trying to fix what it destroyed by supporting the Conservative Party softwood lumber sellout. My hon. colleague will respond that that is what Guy Chevrette wanted. However, in Mr. Chevrette's testimony before the committee at the end of August, he explained that the industry in Quebec is currently being wiped out by this Conservative government. What he wanted was loan guarantees. What did that take? It took an opposition willing to work to stop the softwood sellout and put in place something that would have been more sustainable in the long term.

Quebec lost thousands of jobs because of this softwood lumber sellout. Since last week, Quebeckers and Canadians are now being forced to pay an additional $68 million. Now we are learning that there is more. Because of this softwood sellout, another $400 million in penalties will be imposed on Quebeckers in a few weeks.

Is the member ready to publicly admit what the Bloc Québécois members admit in private, which is that it was a mistake to support the softwood lumber sellout and to help it pass—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, this question allows me to set the record straight.

First of all, I am pleased that the NDP has decided to support the Bloc Québécois motion. It will now stop living in the past. The problem is that the NDP members are always living in the past. in this case the Bloc Québécois is not to blame. An entire industry and not just one man—Guy Chevrette or whoever—wanted the agreement. The entire Quebec industry wanted it. In fact, not just the Quebec industry, but the Canadian industry as well.

As I mentioned, we can always go back over the past but in these international debates, the pattern never changes. The Americans know very well that by the time the winners lose they will all be dead. That is what will happen and what they are doing. They know very well that in the end Canada will win. However, they are sucking the life out of the industry. For that reason we must have loan guarantees. That is the reality. No matter what Americans may think, let us get going and help our companies. If we can support our industries and get them through this crisis, the winners will triumph in two ways: they will have weathered the crisis and they will have money in their pockets. In addition, there will be a nice surplus allowing them to increase employees' wages. Perhaps the NDP should step into 2009 and stop living in the past.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the $170 million over two years for the Canadian forestry industry as being peanuts. That is exactly what it is: peanuts in comparison to the needs expressed by the people in the industry. In my view, he could also call that peanuts in comparison to the amounts given elsewhere, which nobody denies. A total of $2.7 billion was given to the automotive industry and to banks, without any accountability measures. Three billion dollars will go into the pockets of the Prime Minister for him to spend as he pleases, without being held accountable to the Parliament. The forestry industry really gets only peanuts. I would like my colleague to confirm that.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague for Drummond is absolutely right. And he knows the situation very well. What is worse is that the workers in the forestry sector know the situation very well. They are very bitter about the position of the government, and I understand them. If anyone has been following the evolution of this crisis for the past four years, it is the employees from the forestry sector, for whom I have a good thought today. It is not easy for spouses and children when people lose their job. That is the reality. They are the ones members should have in mind when they make decisions here. It is sad to see that the Conservatives, supported by the Liberals, have decided to abandon a whole area of the industrial sector and a whole group of workers.

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

): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today in the House to speak about the forestry industry.

Many years ago, Trois-Rivières was the world capital of paper, and there are still many jobs in the paper mills, which are currently in such difficulty. The Mauricie in general has very large numbers of people who work in the forestry industry. An entire segment of our industrial base is redefining itself and trying to find new niches and novel ways of doing things. That is the main reason why we are proposing this motion today in support of this industry.

It is going through very difficult times. The recent economic and financial crisis has only aggravated a situation that was already very alarming and that the Bloc Québécois has been condemning and debating in the House for years. We certainly must condemn this laissez-faire policy, which prevents us from providing adequate support to this important part of the Quebec economy. In providing only $170 million over two years in its last budget, Ottawa has flatly turned its back on the entire forestry industry, with the connivance of the Liberal Party.

Over the years, the Bloc Québécois has brought forward a number of ideas to deal with the crisis. For reasons that are often unfortunately purely partisan or ideological, our proposals were ignored, to the detriment of Quebec and its regions. We have suggested a number of specific measures, including loans, loan guarantees, refundable tax credits for research and development, policies to encourage the use of wood in the construction and renovation of federal public buildings, and measures to support the production of energy using ethanol and forestry waste. All these measures should help the industry emerge from a crisis that has lasted too long and should ensure sustainable, viable, profitable development for all the Quebec economy and Quebec society.

I want to say a bit more about these loans and loan guarantees. Ottawa refused to help the forestry industry during the entire softwood lumber crisis. It thereby prevented the industry from modernizing its means of production and improving its productivity. The industry was unable to invest in new equipment and in the development of new products. These investments are necessary, though, for the very survival of the industry. So now the forestry companies are left without resources, totally unable to make the necessary investments. It is all especially obvious in our region of the Mauricie.

Yesterday, Monday, workers in total support of our demands demonstrated in favour of loan guarantees for the industry. AbitibiBowater—the Laurentian plant in Grand-Mère—is asking for special measures to guarantee loans to the forestry industry by the end of March. Last year, the company renewed loans worth $350 million. Since then, the market has been in trouble, as everyone knows, and demand has shrunk significantly. That is why the employees found themselves out on the street. If loan guarantees were given to this industry, we could keep our workers on the job.

In the St. Maurice Region, the Smurfit-Stone plant in La Tuque applied for protection under Quebec financial legislation. Now we have another 250 employees in the street. This is very disturbing. In the case of AbitibiBowater in Quebec, there are 7,600 employees and 8,900 retirees.

As we can see, therefore, the Bloc's motion today hits the nail on the head in terms of workers' concerns. These investments are important.

Respecting the trade agreement on softwood lumber with the United States was not easy. It was a necessary evil. The government must now, in the wake of the difficulties created by the agreement, help the industry with loans and loan guarantees. It has to support the industry.

This form of assistance, I might point out, is in compliance with the softwood lumber agreement and with NAFTA. The government keeps saying that it can do nothing and is bound by the agreement. We do not think that is the case. We are still awaiting an answer from the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean on the number of the section preventing such forms of assistance.

Right now, the forestry industry is considered high risk by the bankers. This industry therefore pays a high risk premium when it turns to the financial institutions. The result is that a number of them are unable to get funding. This is why the federal government must guarantee loans. In almost all cases, this measure costs next to nothing. It is not a subsidy. The company repays the money at term. So it is hard to understand the government's refusal to act.

According to the Quebec Forestry Industry Council, if the government guaranteed the loans by the banks to the forestry industry, the rates of interest would be more reasonable, and new projects might even be undertaken. For this reason, the Bloc Québécois, the sole defender of the Quebec forestry industry in Ottawa, is presenting this motion to correct the errors of both the Liberals and the Conservatives and to have the federal government grant loans and loan guarantees to the businesses hit so hard by the crisis in the manufacturing sector and for so many years.

Let us now talk about the second measure proposed in this motion, namely refundable tax credits for research and development. Research, innovation and development are the pillars on which an industry shapes its future. Increasing productivity, discovering new products and accessing new markets are critical to the development and survival of the Quebec and Canadian forestry industry.

During a crisis such as the one that the forestry sector is experiencing, the industry cannot be left to fend for itself. That is why, in our stimulus package, in our motion today, and in fact since the beginning of the crisis, the Bloc Québécois has been proposing refundable tax credits for the forestry industry.

I want to say a few words on measures to support energy and ethanol production from forestry waste. All the governments have come to realize that in order to find our way out of the crisis—as we can see in the United States—we must not only intervene in the economy, we must also help and fund tomorrow's economy, so that it will create jobs and opportunities for the future. The U.S. administration understands that and is investing in green and renewable energies.

Producing energy and ethanol from forestry waste is a perfect example of a traditional economy trying to develop new markets. For example, the Mauricie is one of four regions in Quebec that have been selected for calls to tenders to use forestry biomass to gradually replace fossil fuel. I should also mention that, as early as in 2010, the Amqui hospital centre, in Quebec's Matapédia Valley, is going to be heated with forestry biomass. It will be the first facility to do so in eastern Quebec.

In the Mauricie region, and elsewhere, we have reconciled the economy and the environment. Using that approach allows us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, diversify opportunities for our forestry industry, and make our region wealthier. Implementing measures to support energy and ethanol production from forestry waste would help diversify markets for forestry companies, revitalize regional economies that depend on this resource, reduce our dependency on oil, lower our energy costs, and give our entrepreneurs the help they really need in their plans for the future.

In conclusion, we must realize that the moneys committed to the Conservative trust in 2008 are inadequate. The distribution of the money from that trust between the provinces is unfair. Quebec is getting $2,300 for each job lost, while Alberta is receiving $25,000. Let us not forget that 40% of all communities that depend on the forestry sector are located in Quebec. That is why I am urging hon. members to support this motion presented by the Bloc Québécois. The solutions that it proposes will help this important industry in all of Quebec.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I agree with a lot of what my colleague had to say in her speech. The forestry industry has been a disaster over the last number of years. Approximately 20,000 jobs have been lost and I do not see anything being done in the House. This did not start with the recession. It started three or four years ago with the softwood lumber agreement, which was a major disappointment. It provided $1 billion to the American competition to fight us and that will probably be used for the next 10 years. I see us being shut out of that market or our capacity diminished greatly.

The member talked about the $1 billion community development trust fund. I analyzed that and I did not see any conditions or strings attached to it that indicate it would help any forestry worker or any town that was affected by the downturn in the forestry industry.

Since it looks like we will have difficulty in the American market right now, does the hon. member see any new markets that Canada should be exploring on this issue?

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

Madam Speaker, certainly new markets could be explored, and that is why we are calling for loan guarantees and loans for our companies to do research and development, which will help them to stabilize. As well, when we talk about the 2009 budget and the $170 million granted for the forestry sector, we can only lament the low priority the government is giving it, when we know that $2.7 billion is being given to the auto industry in Ontario.

We have to understand that the auto industry represents 500,000 workers, but the forestry industry represents 825,000 workers. We can see that their priorities are misplaced. We can see that when the government created this trust fund and this assistance for communities, it allocated the money unfairly.

We also understand what the member is saying, that the amounts are inadequate.

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

Madam Speaker, I always listen to the member from Trois-Rivières with great interest. Usually, what she says makes sense, but today, it makes somewhat less sense. It is the decision by the Bloc to support this sellout agreement of the Conservative Party’s that brought about the disaster in Quebec’s forestry industry. Several thousand Quebeckers have lost their jobs, and now they are begging the Bloc to reverse its position. Why? It is simple. The anti-circumvention clause is now so broad that the Americans will challenge any decision made in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada to assist the forestry industry. Loan guarantees would provoke a reaction from the Americans, and it would be coming out of Quebeckers’ pockets again: $68 million last week, and another $400 million to come.

Is the member prepared to admit in public what the Bloc Québécois members admit in private, that supporting this agreement was a monumental mistake?

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

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that my colleague is not as pleased with my remarks today, but I could say the same thing about his.

What we have to understand is that the softwood lumber agreement is behind us. The industry strongly recommended and asked that we support that agreement, because people were genuinely going hungry. Certainly battling the Americans is like David and Goliath, and the solutions are indeed not very simple. That is why we have to look ahead now. We have to look at where this industry is going and what we can do to support it. We have neglected it for too long. Certainly, in our opinion, loan guarantees are the essential element of all the measures we are suggesting in this motion. I was pleased to hear just now that the NDP will nonetheless be supporting the motion. There is a desire to support the forestry industry, and that is a very good thing.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House today to discuss this very important issue.

Coming from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, forestry certainly plays a great role. In my hometown of Bishop's Falls, which is in the Exploits Valley next to Grand Falls—Windsor, the major centre, forestry has played an essential role for my family, as well as others in my community.

Over the years, whether it be through the sawmills, the newsprint industry itself or the lumberyards, forestry has been an essential component to the economy of the area I represent, which is so rich in its natural resources. Yes, we do have the fisheries as one of our mainstays, and it has been described as the backbone of the economy of the outport of Newfoundland and Labrador, but forestry has played a role in that as well.

I will comment on the history, where we have been and eventually explore where we are going in a few moments but first I will discuss the motion that was introduced by my hon. colleague from the Bloc.

The opposition day motion states:

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....

To a great extent, I understand where the Bloc members are coming from and I understand the gist of what they are saying but it leaves a lot of the more vulnerable people in the forest industry out there. It leaves them sort of tethered to hopes that have been vanquished in recent years because of the economy and because of the industry itself. Even before the recession that we have slid into, there were always problems with the newsprint industry with the onslaught of modern communications and technology advances being what they are. Obviously, this has been become a key issue for the entire industry, and not just for Quebec in this particular situation.

I understand this is a major issue in Quebec and, on a per capita basis, there certainly is a greater dollar value than probably any other jurisdiction in North America. However, it also reflects on the entire nation and the entire continent of North America.

I have mentioned before in this House the fact that we have a closure upon us in the town of Grand Falls—Windsor that will affect the bottom line of the entire province given that its output was so great. That mill was owned by AbitibiBowater. It decided a few months back to close the mill after 100 years of existence. We can all imagine how important this is. It will put close to 1,000 people, including loggers, mill workers and the stevedores in the town of Botwood, out of work. This will have a lasting impact.

That is the major reason I am talking about this issue today but I also wanted to reflect upon why we are here, which is to voice the concerns of our constituents in the case of this particular industry. I do believe the government has a great role to play in this industry.

Moving along on this particular motion, it also talks about a plan for certain areas in which it hopes the government will invest, which would certainly be of benefit to the region. However, the question now becomes whether it goes as far as it should and, personally, I do not think it does.

The Bloc motion does put forward some particular measures that I feel are very important, such as the sustainable development measures. We are dealing with a renewable resource, one that has anchored many communities in rural Canada for the last 100, 200, 300 years. Some communities were built upon it. Communities exist today because of it and will continue to proceed whether they have a large newsprint mill, a paper production mill or an integrated lumberyard. Opportunities still exist for them.

However, the government has a role to play here and one that I believe is key. I do not want to divide this debate into what is a bailout as opposed to an investment. That is where we come in. Where the two sides of the House may differ on this argument is on exactly what they consider to be a bailout. There is always the connotation in a bailout that it is some kind of a waste of government money. I do not know whether that is true or not. I do not think we as politicians sit down and weigh the pros and cons of each particular investment to the point where we decide whether it is good or not for our constituencies.

The other thing the Bloc motion talked about was the refundable tax credits for research and development, which is absolutely key. A wood product has so much value and so many areas go untouched, areas that provide so much potential for all these communities, not just for the particular companies or individuals who own sawmills or lumberyards, but for the entire community itself. We are talking about year-round employment that provides a great deal of income for families to sustain larger families. We all know the traditions by which paper towns grew up. The children of many of the people who have great jobs in mills also get the same jobs and so on and so forth.

The mill in my riding has been around for 100 years and, as I mentioned earlier, it sustained my family and my neighbour's family. This is why we are here to talk about this important issue. I applaud the initiative that is coming from the Bloc and just how important this is. However, I would caution the Bloc members to expand it beyond just one particular jurisdiction. I hope they will address that in the next little while.

The motion also calls for 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. That is a very good idea and a good option at hand that we do not talk about too much.

However, it is not just about the construction of buildings. I will give the House a fine example. In Europe right now there is a tremendous market for wood pellets as a source of energy and heat. This is one area, at least in my area of the country, that we have not explored to its fullest. When we think about it, with energy costs rising, wood pellets provide a cheaper alternative, depending, of course, on the price of the product one is buying, the actual wood pellets.

Therefore, the industry of developing, marketing and the production of wood pellets needs to evolve and mature to a place where we can provide a low cost product when it comes to energy. That is a good example where government can play a huge role. It could give subsidies to the individual consumer, which the provincial government did recently, but also incentives for the industry to basically make a greater profit.

One of the ways the industry can do that is for the government to be a good valued customer for wood pellets. It is possible not only in federal government buildings but some of the incentives that the government talks about when it comes to home renovations. This could be used, I hope, for this particular scenario. It is environmentally sustainable and it is a renewable resource. I hope the federal government as well as the provincial governments across the country will look at this as a good opportunity for economic development. That is one example that this particular industry can lend itself toward not only creating jobs but also reducing energy costs for the individual and for industry itself.

I would like to talk briefly on the history of the forest industry in my province. A lot of this will parallel many of the other situations across the country on just how the forest industry has evolved to create such great value added products.

For the first 400 years after the discovery of Newfoundland and Labrador, the forest was used almost exclusively as a support for the fishery. It became this tertiary activity to support a much larger effort. In addition to the construction of premises, wood was essential for fuel. It was then and it is today. It was also used for boat building, the construction of stages and flakes that, 400 years ago, were so essential.

We will find that a lot of communities, as I stressed earlier, were based upon their ability to take the wood from the forest and turn it into something else for the value of other industries. That is essentially what we havecome down to. The industries in my area, all over the province and all over Atlantic Canada still take full advantage of that.

By the mid-1800s, it was apparent that the fishing industry could not support the population entirely. Therefore, to assist in diversifying the economy and developing the forest and mineral resources of the interior of Newfoundland, a railway was constructed across the island. The trans-island railway was completed in 1898 and it had two major influences on the province. One was access to the interior and two was the 145 blocks of land comprising nearly 4,000 square miles granted to the reconstruction railway. However, it also allowed interior regions of my province, much like others, to develop the forest industry 100 to 150 years ago. That was an essential component to the development of a lot of our economies.

That is the historical impact of the forest industry. I know we have debated this issue so much because it means so much to us. It is not just a rural component or issue. This also helps develop the cities in which we live and the entire economy itself. A tremendous amount of workers across the country rely on the forest industry and, in many cases, they get unheralded.

I do not mean to take away from other industries that are also lining up for stimulus money and for investments from the government to allow their industry to flourish, and I speak of the auto sector and agriculture. However, the forest industry, with its historical context alone, should tell us that this should always be at the forefront. On every agenda, whether it is a federal agenda, a provincial agenda or a municipal agenda, forestry should always be in that front part. There is so much value added into these products and we have so much to gain from this.

I commend the people from all parties who have spoken already on this. They truly know the importance of this industry.

Up until the early 1900s, it was not considered necessary to protect the forest resource. I guess it is one of those things that maybe has suffered from neglect because the debate was always about other industries and forestry was sort of just shoved to the side.

Unfortunately, in many situations that happens to this day. That is why we stand in the House and argue so vehemently for the right investments in this industry. I cannot think of a better time to be talking about this than now, during the economic crisis that we are under. One thing we have to realize is this. If we are to harvest a resource, if the people we represent are to be the principal beneficiaries of every natural resource, then it is a responsibility for us to allow industry to develop a product to its fullest. Value-added products, whether it be the fishery, manufacturing, textiles or forestry, is where we fit in to allow these people to extract as much profit as they can from this resource but, at the same time, to sustain the communities and the resource. That is what is imperative to us.

I do not think government should just get out of the way. Let us talk about that right now.

A lot of people will say that if the forest industry is what we say it is, then it will survive on its own. That is not necessarily the case. The problem is communities die as a result of this. It is so labour intensive and it takes so much from our land. It is not only about the wood; it is about the power we harness on the rivers in order to fire up the mills. It is also about the community living structure, the social structure in which we live. To me that represents the key to this argument. That is why we have to get involved and play a role. That is why we stand here today and debate.

We can talk about the fine points. We can talk about the profit margins for a particular company. We can talk about the fact that we want to provide the incentive for a lumber yard to branch out into other types of products. That is what is key. We operate on the margins, but the bulk of the industry relies on the people who work day and night in our forests and also in the mills and in the ports that ship it out. This is why we stand here today.

I will take a moment to bring forward a few quotes.

These are some of the points I received in an email from Bob Dingwall, president and CEO of Jamestown Lumber. I would rather bring his points out than just my own because he is someone who is absolutely hands-on with the entire industry. He writes that forestry, of course, is the mainstay of rural economies in many parts of Canada. He says, “Canada's forestry infrastructure, which includes huge amounts of human-skilled capital, in addition to the physical assets associated with the production of forest products cannot be allowed to further dissipate. It can't be pulled off the shelf for the next generation's benefit in the future global economy”.

That is very true. Forestry cannot be thought of in two, three, four-year increments. We have to start talking about generations of rural Canadians, urban Canadians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We have to plan for the next generation forestry workers. Will they be different than today's workers? Most likely, yes, but at some point we have to grasp the vision as to what this industry will be. It is essential for that community. There is no way around this.

Unfortunately, being involved in politics, where we run on four-year mandates, or in this Parliament maybe one or two-year mandates, we have to realize that the long-term vision is key to what we debate. If we lose sight of that long-term vision, our rural communities and the entire nation in general does not have anything on which to hang. Sometimes, as I said earlier, we push forestry aside to its detriment.

We are not asking for a nationalized institution for the way forestry is run. We want to encourage private investment, but there has to be a positive influence by all levels of government.

Mr. Dingwall brought up other points. One was Scotiabank's commodity price index, which is a very important fact. In some of the other industries, such as metals and mining, the commodity price index assigns an index weight. Metals and mining is 16.6% as an index and oil and gas is 16.8%.

According to Scotiabank's commodity price index, what is its assignment of an index weight? It is 39.8%. That is how much value is placed on what we produce. Many people rely on this industry and that one piece of lumber, that one tree, and the harvesting of it.

Yes, we cut it down. Yes, we can create wood pellets and byproducts of wood, such as wood shavings, wood chips, the actual lumber itself, which is the massive part of this, and, on the back end, newsprint, paper products. All of this stuff is taken from a renewable resource.

One thing the federal government has neglected in the past little while is silviculture. I hope that in the near future we will have a debate on the role of the federal government involved in silviculture, which is why I endorse the idea of a national summit for the forest industry.

Some people might ask why we would gather all these people in one city to talk about forestry. That is where can have a frank discussion among government, industry and the unions as well, such as the Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union. These are the stakeholders. They have a vested interest in seeing this resource replenished and in ensuring we get the value from this resource.

I also want to talk about the situation in Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. As I mentioned, it has been around for about 100 years. Earlier this year the mill closure was devastating news. However, keep in mind that the resource at the very base of this mill belongs to the people. Should we expropriate the rights on the river to harness the power and to go into the forest to cut down trees for profit? Yes, we own it and we have to be the stewards of that resource. We are the ones who have to protect the concept that the principal beneficiary of this resource is the collective, the people who put us in power.

I would like to make that point clear because I think a lot of people have lost that point. Industry has a role, but it is not the be-all and end-all of harvesting this resource.

Hopefully I will get some time following question period to continue my thoughts. I thank the House for listening to me and I welcome any questions or comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. I assumed that at some point in his 20 minute oration he would request the House to allow him a do over on his vote in support of the softwood lumber agreement. Unfortunately, the predictions the NDP made were correct. The contract designed by the Liberals and then implemented by the Conservatives with the Americans allows the Americans to decide when they do not like what a province does.

I can recall Liberals and Conservatives alike saying that this would allow for peace in our trade relations with the U.S., that the Americans would no longer apply tariffs to our wood. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been charged to Ontario and Quebec and future charges will be charged to British Columbia and the others.

Is there no regret at all in the hypocrisy of standing in the House and saying that he will be defending softwood lumber and lumber industries across Canada when it is coming to bear right now? At present, the cumulative effect of this perfect storm, a terrible agreement, a downturn in the housing market is destroying mills across northwestern British Columbia and Canada. This agreement allows the Americans to apply punitive damages against Canadian companies and provinces at their own discretion.

I enjoyed the member's comments, and we are good friends. However, is there no sense of regret over having rushed that bill through, having agreed to absolutely fall down with the Conservatives when it came to defending Canada's interests in the softwood lumber market?

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

Madam Speaker, certainly notable exceptions have taken place with the softwood lumber deal. I agree with him that the money was left on the table and problems have been created as a result of that in this trade dispute. I suggest that he and others to go back to what I talked about earlier, and his party supports a forestry summit, and that is to talk about this industry in the context in which we are. He brought up the fact that we were in the context of a downturn. That started well before the recession took over.

One of the issues I had with the other side was the community trust fund. The accountability record on the community trust fund has been abysmal.

I will ask the government this. What does the community trust fund do for someone who has been laid off and is now looking for work in the town of Grand Falls--Windsor? My local newspaper, the Grand Falls Advertiser, recently did a story about Mr. Glen Frampton. After working so long in the mill, he is unable to find work, but also the accreditation to continue the skills he learned in the mill. How does the community trust fund help out a person like Mr. Frampton when it is for industries that have failed?

This debate should be about how we protect those failing industries. The investments we make should maintain the mills. My mill is closing at the end of this month. What will the trust fund do to keep this mill open? Probably very little, and that is the debate I want to bring to the House.

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

Madam Speaker, Liberals have been rising in the House to criticize the softwood lumber sellout that they put through the House and the Senate. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley asked a very valid point. This whole agreement has blown up in the faces of those who pushed it forward: $68 million charged last week; an anticipated $400 million in charges coming in a few weeks, as my colleague mentioned; other lawsuits coming toward British Columbia and Alberta; and thousands of lost jobs.

I know the member to be a fair man. Could he simply rise and apologize to those thousands of Canadians who have lost jobs because of the softwood sellout. Could he apologize for the hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties that Canadians have been forced to pay? Could he just rise and apologize on behalf of the Liberal Party for inflicting this on Canadians?