Debates of March 10th, 2009

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member who asked the previous question, the Bloc Québécois has always been a strong proponent of the Quebec forestry industry. My question is not about that since my Bloc Québécois colleague clearly stated so in his response.

We realize from his speech that a number of measures should have been included in this budget to support Quebec's private woodlot owners in particular. Why is there nothing in this budget? Does he believe that the government, through some parliamentary process, carried out any consultations that would have permitted these people to be heard and to have some input?

I do not believe any were held but I would like to hear what he has to say about that.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

Just recently the Conservatives made a decision. They clearly chose Ontario's auto industry. We can understand that the auto industry needs assistance but it should not be given at the expense of the forestry industry, which is very important especially in Quebec.

Today, what is new about this debate is that, henceforth, we have to consider the 130,000 private woodlot owners in Quebec and in Canada who have been forgotten since the start of the forestry crisis. They need substantive measures to help them get through this terrible crisis.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the motion, which is a good one, but I am still scratching my head as to why the Bloc voted for the softwood lumber sellout.

How does the hon. member from Quebec feel about more value-added in the forest industry, moving from just paper and lumber to products like prefab homes, fine furniture, bio-refining chemicals and similar things? Also, would he comment on loans and loan guarantees?

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we obviously need to be looking at transformation. It must be based on good research and good development and we must, without a doubt, find solutions that are environmentally sustainable. We have to consider the industry and relaunch it on a new basis that will benefit everyone.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here to speak to this issue. However, I am saddened today as well. We are all saddened when people lose their jobs and when communities are under the gun. However, I am particularly saddened when I see people trying to take advantage of that, and that is what the opposition has done today. Some of us have worked on this file for a long time.

I am going to talk a little later about some of the work we have done. We have even worked with the Bloc in the past to try to solve some of these issues. Now it seems those members think they will get some sort of political gain out of people's misery, and that does not sit well with me.

Even when we are successful, and we often are, the Bloc members will not support us. If they did, we would see support for the integrated approach we have taken to the forestry industry over the last couple of years. If they really wanted to help their constituents, they would vote with us on the economic action plan. I will explain some of the factors at which they should take a second look. They should be moving together with us on this.

Canada's forestry sector is obviously undergoing an important number of changes and even a restructuring due to the challenges it is facing. I think if one talks to the industry representatives, they will say that very clearly. They will say that they are asking the government to join with them to work together to overcome those challenges so the forestry industry can lead the way in the future. That is the anticipation in the industry. When we see our way through the times that they face right now, Canada will be the leader in forestry around the world. There are a number of reasons for that, and I hope to get to some of those later.

First, I want to talk about some of the work we have done. I have been on the natural resources committee both in the last Parliament and in this Parliament. Last spring, we decided we wanted to undertake a major study of the forestry sector. For three months, the natural resources committee focused on the forestry sector issues. We spent a lot of time on it. We did our work. I was glad to see that, in the end, we were able to come up with a unanimous report. As all of us in the House know, this does not happen very often. However, all the parties were able to agree on the recommendations. We were able to agree that there was a way forward that would work. We made recommendations to the government and the government put a number of those recommendations into our economic action plan.

This is one reason why the Bloc should be supporting us instead of opposing the best interests of their constituents by working against the economic action plan.

I want to go through the committee recommendations and then go through what the government has chosen to do.

Recommendation 1 was to call a forestry summit to bring people together. Right after the report was tabled in the House of Commons last spring, we had a national round table. We brought folks in from across the country. We sat down and asked them what they thought about our report. We had consulted many of them when we were preparing it. They gave us their input and talked a bit more about the future. Once again, they felt there was a strong future for the industry. Since I began working on this file, I have appreciated the fact that there is this understanding that our country is going to play a major role in forestry around the world for many decades to come. The government acted on recommendation 1 very quickly.

Recommendation 2 was that we establish a national forest industry innovation fund and that this fund be provided with sufficient resources to ensure the industry could be central in the development of the new bio-economy.

Several of the recommendations called for funding for research and innovation. We met this recommendation by putting together FPInnovations. We will talk a bit more about that great development later, as well as the money that has been committed to it and the tremendous work it has done in Quebec and across the country to bring new innovation to the forestry sector.

Recommendation 5 was that the Government of Canada, in partnership with provinces and territories, should actively pursue policies that would encourage value-added manufacturing. We did that by addressing issues regarding access to credit and by extending the capital cost allowance. We will talk about that a bit later as well.

Recommendation 9 was that the Government of Canada extend that capital cost allowance. The committee recommended five years, but the government chose to do it for two years. It has been extended through 2010-11 and we will evaluate it further at that time.

Recommendation 15 was that the Government of Canada continue to work with first nations and other aboriginal communities to enable them to become active partners in the development of Canada's forests. We are certainly willing to do that. We are working with them. This spring a number of government members on the Natural Resource file were able to tour communities. One thing we heard regularly was that the process of consultation was important, one that needed to be productive and beneficial to all.

Recommendation 21 was that we work with the provinces and territories to provide full support for certification of Canadian forestry products. Anyone who is involved in the forestry industry knows that has been an important component, both for the industry and the government, so we continue to work on that.

That was only one of the things we did about year ago, which was very important. We brought forward those recommendations. The government went through them during summer and the fall and when it came to our economic action plan, a number of those were included.

This spring, as I mentioned, we also toured the country. The minister felt it was important that we not only listen to what was going on in Ottawa in regard to the forestry sector, but that we get out across the country. Before the House came back this spring, we did that. We fanned out and covered the country from one end to the other to hear what communities, individuals and companies involved in the forestry section had to say, what their concerns were, what the pressures were. I think that was beneficial for all of us.

I found it interesting that we were in the ridings of a couple of opposition members. We were there ahead of them and heard the concerns and problems of their constituents. They told us that the opposition members would be holding some hearings in the next couple of weeks.

Those consultations directly fed back to our economic action plan. The minister mentioned that this morning. We were able to bring the information and the concerns back to Ottawa, to the minister, and many of those things were brought forward and implemented in our action plan.

That action plan is an integrated approach. It is a package for the whole country. That is the thing we need to remember today. It is done for Canadians.

I want to talk about a couple of the general things in that action plan.

First, everyone has heard about the $4 billion new commitment for infrastructure. That has been greeted across the country with a lot of interest. That is on top of the $33 billion that was committed previously to the infrastructure funding. There is a new $2 billion university fund that goes toward supporting universities and colleges, updating and renovating some of the facilities, bringing them up-to-date. There is a $1 billion clean green fund that will be put in place to encourage sustainable energy. All of these things will have good impacts and opportunities for wood and for wood manufacturers.

Through our economic action plan, we have brought in support for a whole number of areas. I want to break them down, one component at a time and talk about them so people get an understanding of how broadly based this plan, this integrated approach, is.

Once I have done that, perhaps the Bloc will have a better understanding. I understand some of the Bloc members may have been too busy to read the economic action plan. Once they hear about all the areas it reaches into, they will probably consider voting against their motion today, joining with us to support what we are doing for our country and for the province of Quebec as well.

We have committed support for communities across the country. We have heard a little about that today. This did not only start in the last month. Bloc members decided in the last few weeks that they had to bring forestry up every day. We were aware of this a while ago and we did some things a couple of years ago to address it.

Last year we put $1 billion into the community development trust. That money was given to the provinces. They had the choice of how they would spend it. For example, I am told the British Columbia spent $129 million of that money directly on forestry.

The Bloc members should ask their provincial government to tell them how much of the development trust fund was spent on forestry. Then they can perhaps help it to direct more money into the forestry sector if that needs to be a priority in their province.

Obviously this year we have come forward again with the community adjustment fund, another $1 billion to try to mitigate the effects of the economic downturn. Again, Quebec does very well with these funds.

I should just point out that Quebec was entitled to about $216 million in the community development fund. It is projected it will get about another $211 million or $212 million out of the community adjustment fund. The first one was a development trust; this year it is a community adjustment fund. There will be a total of about $428 million that can then be put toward forestry, if that is what it determines to be the most important area that needs it.

I should also refer to some of the past initiatives. With respect to the pine beetle initiative, this government committed $200 million in order to help communities adjust to some of the new realities of having to deal with an environment where the pine beetle has devastated so much of the area and the economy. We had a chance to see some of the impact of that when we were on our tour in northern British Columbia.

It is important that this money be delivered for communities, that it be delivered for infrastructure and that it be delivered for programming. That is why we put in place the development trust, the adjustment fund. That is why we committed money in the past to these communities in order to help them through these tough times.

We have also made some commitments to the companies that are involved in the forestry sector. As I mentioned earlier, we have accelerated the capital cost allowance. We have extended that for another two years. That has been very important for companies. It has given them the ability to buy new manufacturing processing machinery and equipment and then to depreciate that. This has worked very well for them on the tax side.

Obviously the work share changes, the extensions that have been made, are being well received across this country. I remember in my own area in the early 1980s, we had a very tough time. A form of work share was put in place in the local factory. It meant that people could stay in our small rural community and continue to work. It made a huge difference for our community. I know that is going to make a difference across the country as well.

We have also moved to provide access to credit. When we travelled across the country we heard that it was very important that there be improved access to credit. Our changes in the economic action plan will provide up to $200 billion of credit to address gaps in credit markets. This is for individuals and businesses. There is increased funding for the Business Development Bank of Canada. There is increased funding for the Economic Development Agency of Canada in the Quebec region.

This morning the EDC was at the finance committee. It said that last year, of the $80 billion it had committed, $14 billion went specifically to forestry.

There are a lot of different avenues that companies now have in order to access credit and financing.

I should also point out that we have actively reduced tariffs, which means about $440 million in savings to industry over the next five years.

Technology, of course, plays a huge part in the forest industry and forest products. We believe that technology is actually going to lead the way in the renaissance of the forest industry in Canada. There are a number of initiatives the government is involved in, in terms of bringing new technology to the market.

The Canadian Wood Fibre Centre has been put in place to find newer and higher value products and uses for woods and fibres. It is focused on developing new products, on stimulating innovation.

There is a value to wood program, which encourages value-added manufacturing. It promotes the transfer of technology from labs and research centres directly to the workplace.

Budget 2009, our economic action plan, commits $120 million over two years to support innovation in forestry.

I would be remiss if I did not mention FPInnovations and the tremendous work it is doing. We had the opportunity to tour its lab in Vancouver. Money has been committed to it and it is moving ahead on transformative technologies. We saw some very fascinating projects. It is working on developing technology that will allow buildings to be much larger and several storeys higher than in the past. There is a huge machine that can actually shake down the structures. It will be able to tell where the stress points are on the structures. It has been working with other countries to develop that in terms of protection in earthquake regions. It is working on projects where it mixes wood fibre with other new chemical compounds, making completely different organic substances, in order that there will be products in the future that were never even thought of in the past.

It was exciting to be on that tour and to see the $80 million that has been put into a transformative technologies program and another $40 million that has been put into pilot scale demo projects. The FPInnovations lab in Vancouver has a huge CT scanner to scan large logs. It can get down to the finest micro-scale development of the uses of wood. It is fascinating to see that taking place. The lab is focusing on emerging technology, forest biomass utilization, nanotechnology, a pile of things that many of us do not even understand but that hold a valuable and exciting future for forest products and their use.

We have been supporting workers in a myriad of ways. This is very important to this government because, as I said, no one wants anyone to lose his or her job. We have put about $8.3 billion toward the skills training and transition strategy which involves a number of things. I mentioned the work share program. It is something that impacts workers and their families directly. It impacts their ability to remain in their communities which many people want to do.

We have also funded the EI changes through that program. Those changes have been welcomed across Canada. We listened to what Canadians wanted in terms of changes to the EI program and we put them in place. There are more people applying for EI. We have committed more resources to try to make sure that those folks have quick service and that they can get the money that is coming to them.

Again we come back to the community adjustment fund, the community development trust, which have a direct impact on communities that have gotten money from them. They have directly impacted the workers as well. That is about $428 million for the province of Quebec.

Another initiative that has been really popular is the home renovation tax credit. That provides up to $1,300 in tax relief for people who undertake home renovations. Obviously that is something that is going to encourage the use of wood, the use of forest products. We think that is a great initiative. It creates jobs. It will stimulate local economies. In my rural area there are a lot of people who are looking forward to doing those projects. That tax credit is going to allow them to move ahead with that. It creates a demand for wood. I am told that it is going to provide for up to one billion board feet this year in Canada alone to meet the requirements of that project. That seems to be an awfully large amount of wood.

There is $50 million in credit that is available for mortgages that was not available prior to our economic action plan. We have also been working on developing markets. Members can begin to see that there is a complete strategy here, obviously. Markets are very important. We put $50 million into expanding markets around the world to emphasize our wood product use and to move ahead with that.

The softwood lumber agreement has been a point of discussion today. I think one thing we can all agree on is that it did stabilize the Canadian lumber industry. We received over $4 billion back in penalties that had been taken. That has created some stability in this country in terms of understanding what we can do in our relationship with the United States.

The economic action plan includes $50 million to diversify markets for Canadian wood products. We are looking to expand the North American market as well.

We have been in the Chinese market. We went into the Wen Chuan earthquake region. We went in with wood and have been in there doing projects. We have explained to the Chinese that wood is much safer than some of the products they had been using prior to the earthquake. We have built some buildings, and I understand that clinics, schools and homes have been put in place.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot more that I would like to say, but I see that you are indicating that my time is almost up here. I am going to try to wrap up.

The motion today calls for a number of things. The motion calls on us to provide loans and loan guarantees. We have extended credit in a huge way. Again I will point out that $14 billion of the EDC's $80 million went into forestry last year. It calls for tax credits for research and development. I have talked about the incredible investment that we made in research and development. It talks about encouraging the use of lumber. We have done that through the home renovation tax credit. It talks about measures to support energy and ethanol production. We are doing that through the $1 billion green fund.

I think it is time to quit trying to create division and despair. We have a plan. We are pushing ahead. We welcome the other parties to join with us on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively when my colleague from the Conservative Party spoke about today's Bloc Québécois motion and it shocked me.

It was surprising to hear him say that the Conservatives listened to what citizens wanted in terms of measures to improve employment insurance. They say that they have improved the system by adding five weeks. But we know that, particularly in the forestry sector, job loss is cyclical. In any case, I have not heard anyone in my riding, and very few in Quebec, say that the Conservative government consulted them about this. On the contrary, people are telling us that the right thing to do would have been to eliminate the two week waiting period because, as I said earlier, these people have cyclical work. They will work for 25 or 40 weeks and then will be temporarily laid off for 10 or 15 weeks. It really is the two week waiting period that hurts them the most. In addition, quite often a couple works for the same company, so they are doubly penalized. What the government has proposed does not really help them.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this just proves what I said earlier, that even when we do things that work very well, the opposition is not willing to support them.

In this instance, we did move to extend EI and that is something that has been very popular across Canada. We also have moved, as I mentioned earlier, to extend the work share program, to expand the conditions and the opportunities for that.

The member opposite should be thanking us rather than criticizing us for what we are doing. We are willing to work with those members. We want them to work with us. Unfortunately, it seems that we are just not on the same page.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 20,000 forestry jobs have been lost since the Conservative government took office. I think it is fair to say that the Conservatives are not getting the job done.

It did not start just with the economic crisis that we are facing. It started with the flawed softwood lumber deal.

The member rattled through quite a large number of items that collectively are proposed as being the solution, but it is like throwing marshmallows at a brick wall and trying to break it down. It has to be more substantive.

The member went through the provisions of the motion. It is very similar to the strategic plan for forestry that the Liberals brought in in 2005, and which the Conservatives cancelled when they formed government in 2006.

The member said that they have done all these things. If he has done all the things that are in the motion, and all these things are good and helpful, why is the Conservative Party going to vote against this motion?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like revisionist history, especially coming from a Liberal.

Members will recall the mess we were in when the Liberals were done with the lumber file. I do not think anybody in this country was happy with what happened on that file for 13 long years.

The Liberals were willing to leave $4.5 billion in the United States. They were willing to penalize our industry to the tune of $4.5 billion. This government was able to reach a softwood lumber agreement, get that money back here and provide stability in the forestry industry. We continue to work on those issues. We are getting the job done.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

I have been making phone calls to the office of the hon. Minister of Industry, and I have been asking again and again in the House how we can get loan guarantees or some other form of support that will save the industries in Longlac, Geraldton, Marathon, Terrace Bay and 300 communities across Canada.

We are about to lose markets. We are about to lose skills. We are about to lose workers and families, mills, corporations and communities, 300 communities across Canada.

My sincere question for the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands is, since his Minister of Industry will not do it, will he please direct me to the sources of funding? We need $25 million to $50 million for selected mills with long-term potential and sustainability to save those industries and to save those jobs. Will he please tell me whether his government really wants to save those industries and exactly which programs have the potential to do so?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have enough time in the next couple of minutes to answer all of these questions, but I can give him part of the answer.

I am going to talk about the credit access. There is support for the forestry sector in the economic action plan. I am going to list some of the measures in our economic action plan that offer direct support through credit access.

We have made a commitment to expand the small business financing program. We have set up the Canadian secured credit facility to help consumers and businesses finance the purchase of vehicles and equipment to the tune of $12 billion. There is a business credit availability program which extends credit, giving BDC and the EDC greater lending powers, another $5 billion.

We enhanced the CDIC's ability to protect Canada's financial system, which should provide access to credit. We have given authority to the finance minister to provide loans and lines of credit, and there is flexibility in private pension funds via the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

Some of those things should impact his community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his excellent speech and pointing out how important it was that we actually got the deal done in the softwood lumber agreement that brought $4.5 billion back to our industries. I hate to think where we would be if legislators were pushing it now with the market collapsing in the U.S. and our industries not receiving that money back. I want to compliment the member for pointing out so many of the good programs in terms of helping businesses by extending the capital cost allowance, providing work share extensions, and the many good points that he brought out.

With the program that has been introduced by the government to expand forest initiatives, diversification and forest innovation, I wonder if the member could comment on the breakdown of the $170 million in federal investment, and what programs might receive federal funding under the expanding market opportunities of that program that would help our industries.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I talked a bit about that during my speech, so if the member does not mind I want to talk about some of the other initiatives that we brought forward that I did not get to during my speech. I will certainly talk to the member a little later about the specifics, if he is willing.

I want to point out that we put money into a number of other initiatives. There are $12.5 billion to support a national forest pest strategy and another $10 million over two years to demonstrate our leadership on environmental innovation and forest sustainability.

We worked really well with the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. Both ministers of natural resources who I have been privileged to work with have been leaders in that area, in bringing together implementation on things like a national wildland fire strategy, the forest pest strategy that I mentioned, and a vision for Canada's forests.

One thing that has been very interesting to me in being part of the natural resources file is the geomapping that Natural Resources is responsible for. There is funding through geosciences and GeoConnections for forestry-related projects in terms of mapping and those kinds of things.

That combined with many other things, including the $9 billion in tax relief that we brought to the forestry sector, gives me a lot of hope for the industry. We need to look forward and continue to develop those markets and new technology, and then we can move ahead successfully.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give my hon. colleague a heads up that my own brother was the number one person on the IWA seniority list. He finally left the Canadian white pine mill in Marpole after 45 and a half years of service when my family came to Canada. One of the thing he was always concerned about was the fact that B.C. liked to export raw logs. When raw logs are exported, jobs are exported.

The hon. member indicated that we received $4.5 billion back on the softwood lumber deal, but he forgot to mention that we left $1 billion behind that was owed to Canadian companies. I want to know why we left $1 billion behind in the softwood lumber deal and also, what is his view on exporting raw logs to the United States, which in many ways exports our jobs?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear in news reports this morning that the B.C. provincial government has actually come out with a long-term forestry strategy. I believe there were 28 or 29 recommendations and points of discussion, one of which was the export of logs. I think there is going to be a fulsome discussion in British Columbia about this issue. It seems to me the provincial government was arguing that were some benefits of log exports, as well as negatives. I think the people of British Columbia will have that discussion.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

I would like to remind the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands of one of his speeches concerning income splitting relating to the settlement of the softwood lumber crisis two years ago. It is a bit of an embarrassment to bring that up now, because at that time $23,000 was allocated to provinces that did not really need it, and provinces where workers were really badly hit by the crisis received only $2,300 per lost job. That was highly discriminatory.

Today the Bloc Québécois is presenting a motion in reaction to the planned assistance to the forestry industry. This wishy washy and mediocre plan for $170 million announced in the 2009 budget is spread over two years and is for all of Canada. It is intended as assistance to a forestry sector that is in crisis and one that is, let us not lose sight of this, mostly in Quebec and the eastern part of the country. This amount is laughable and clearly inadequate. It does not in any way correspond to the industry's needs. It will just melt away like snow on a sunny day before it can do any good. This is far from being my personal view of the situation, or even that of the Bloc Québécois.

The vice-president of the Abitibi-Témiscamingue regional conference of elected officials, the mayor of a municipality affected by the forestry crisis, made the following comments the day after the budget:

We thought there would be plenty of money to help the forestry industry. But, with $170 million for all of Canada, Abitibi-Témiscamingue will not get more than a few crumbs to help the forestry industry, which has experienced many job losses.

In fact, all that this assistance is doing is prolonging programs that had already proven unattainable and unworkable as far as counteracting the effects of the softwood lumber crisis is concerned, programs that this government had not managed to adapt in the past and seems still unable to adapt. It seems there is a lack of understanding on the part of the Conservative Party as far as the present forestry crisis is concerned, since it has not managed to learn from its mistakes in order to correct them at last, even partially, in order to make it better suited to meeting the needs of the industry in this time of crisis.

The softwood lumber industry has been going through major difficulties for a number of years now. It has had to cope with the imposition of antidumping duties and countervailing duties by the US, coupled with rising energy and raw material costs, and in particular with the higher rate of exchange of the Canadian dollar.

Today, with the economic slowdown in the States, the number of construction starts has fallen, causing a drop in demand for wood products. As sawmills supply the pulp and paper industry with wood chips, the drop in sales of softwood lumber means fewer wood chips. Second, third and fourth stage processing industries are also closing their doors, industries like pulp and paper, particle board, wall panelling, cogeneration plants, transport companies and forestry companies with many of their specialty suppliers.

We can only criticize the current government's lack of foresight and point to the lack of courage on the part of the Quebec members, who have been incapable of suggesting ways that might revive the industry. This obvious lack of courage has highlighted the ignorance of the leaders of this party, or of this coalition, should I say, since the Liberals supported this budget.

It was not a problem for the Conservatives because at that point, when the budget was tabled, what counted was tripping up the Liberal party, the other party of the coalition, by making such an offer to the automotive industry that it could not reject the Conservative budget without attracting the wrath of Ontario voters. And by rewarding western voters with sumptuous tax credits to the oil companies, a sector still bubbling at the moment, Canada was gratified. Quite a message to Quebec and the Maritimes. Are the Conservatives so calculating that they consider these provinces negligible?

This is why the Bloc rises and proposes specific measures to meet this crisis. The forestry crisis means jobs lost for thousands of workers, with all of the human drama that entails. It also means dire consequences for other sections of the population. The impact of the forestry industry on economic and local development is crucial. The pay of forestry workers has a considerable impact on regional consumption.

In addition, other sectors, such as transport, supply and subcontracting, local businesses and services are feeling the effects of the crisis in the forestry industry. According to Service Canada, for each job lost in the forestry industry, nearly six-tenths of a job will be lost indirectly in local business.

The forestry industry is a major employer in Quebec. Forestry operations and management, primary, secondary and third stage processing of wood and research activities generate economic benefits in a number of resource regions.

Faced with the inaction and deaf ears of the federal government, the Bloc Québécois is demanding a comprehensive assistance package to support the industry and help it get over the downturn. This plan should include specific measures to ensure sustainable development, including loans and loan guarantees, refundable tax credits for research and development, policies to encourage the use of lumber in the construction and renovation of federal buildings, measures to support the production of energy and ethanol, and assistance for research into the best uses of forestry waste.

The forestry industry provides more than 6,860 jobs in Abitibi-Témiscamingue alone, as well as hundreds more in the Nord-du-Québec region. Many families in my riding are affected by this crisis, either directly or indirectly. The unfortunate recent plant closures for indeterminate periods will result in about 2,300 factory job losses in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and Nord-du-Québec.

As a result of the poor economic conditions in Lebel-sur-Quévillon, a town of 3,000, Domtar closed for good its plant employing 425 people. If this figure is transposed to a city like Montreal, it is the equivalent of 550,000 lost jobs. Just imagine the economic impact. As if that were not enough, the Comtois sawmill also located in Lebel-sur-Quévillon has temporarily ceased operations, putting another 286 people out of work, or the equivalent of 300,000 jobs in Montreal. Not even Alberta or the Conservatives could stand up to that.

The difficulties in the pulp and paper industry are prompting a company like AbitibiBowater to take tens of thousands of tonnes of newsprint off the market every month because of low sales. The Tembec sawmill in Senneterre has also had to cease operations, as it announced today. The forestry industry is closed down once again for periods running from three weeks to a month. Senneterre is another forestry town that has had its share of job losses.

The forestry industry needs help right now. Not tomorrow; now. The Conservative government still has not grasped this, as can be seen in the fact that the Minister of National Revenue just suggested holding a forum to find some solutions. I would like to remind him that 400 people met in Quebec City a year and a half ago for the Summit on the Future of the Quebec Forest Sector. As the minister responsible for Canada Economic Development, he set up advisory committees before the summit and still consults them, although without proposing any solutions to the crisis.

The solutions are well known, however. As Guy Chevrette of the Québec Forest Industry Council said recently: “The troubles we are currently experiencing are a liquidity and refinancing problem. They know that”. We hear the same story at Tembec, where they say that the funds allocated in the budget may be of help in the long-term but these industries have needs right now.

Richard Fahey, the VP, communications and public affairs, at Tembec, said that the challenge they were facing was that people are looking for short-term measures to see them through the crisis.

It is imperative that we get the point across to the Minister of National Revenue and his government that the time for talking or holding a so-called forum is passed and that now is the time to act.

I would like to go over the consequences of this crisis. In my riding, heavy equipment dealers and forestry workers are seeing their income shrink, and their work weeks get shorter, that is when they can hang on to their jobs. These people have no hope of seeing this government consider giving them back, through the EI program, a portion of the money that was deliberately diverted from its original purpose.

That said, I will give the next speaker the chance to make his remarks.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question similar to the one I asked the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. When Canada exports raw logs or raw materials to other countries, in many ways we are exporting our jobs. I would like the member's viewpoint on what happens when provinces decide, for whatever reason, to export raw logs to the United States or elsewhere in the world. Does he not believe that exporting raw logs is actually exporting our jobs?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was a union advisor in a previous live and, as such, I certainly find it appalling to see our country, our provinces, export unprocessed materials. Even softwood lumber alone is too much. We should finish and refine our products before selling them abroad. Encouraging the export of the primary resource is the wrong approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the member from Nova Scotia raising the issue of exported raw logs from British Columbia. If the member were aware of what is going on in B.C., he would know it is actually a very complicated issue, as it is in Quebec, where logs are imported from the U.S. Moving the logs across the border is a complicated issue.

One of the main aspects in British Columbia is the difference between crown land and private land. Crown land is provincial. It is regulated by the province, which controls natural resources, but when it comes to exporting logs from private lands, that is an international trade issue and is regulated by the federal government. However, regulations cannot be imposed by the federal government without cooperation from the provincial government.

It is a complicated issue. I appreciate that the member would probably not expect the member from Quebec to understand exactly what is going on in British Columbia. Perhaps it would be better for him to direct that question to someone from British Columbia.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very well that I spent my first 23 years in British Columbia. I worked in private mills myself and I understand the--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. I would like to remind all hon. members that this is the question and answer period for the member who made the presentation.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for St. John's East.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou whether the experiences in Quebec are similar to those in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We had a mill that operated for 100 years. There were negotiations going on in Grand Falls-Windsor concerning the continuation of the mill and some restructuring, but what was required was support from the Government of Canada for older worker adjustment so that they could support a restructuring that would keep the mill going. I raised this issue in the House in December. Nothing was forthcoming from the government. Conservatives talked about the communities fund, which helps after the mill closes, but there was nothing to keep the mill open.

Does the member have similar experiences in Quebec with any mill closures in recent weeks or months?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

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

At the same time, I would also like to respond to the Conservative Party member who asked a question earlier. As for the first question, I would point out to the House that when I was at school—perhaps not many people remember that long ago—I remember I was at boarding school and the fathers taught us that the Americans became rich by minding their own business. As I got older, I realized that nothing was further from the truth, since the Americans preached a buy made in USA policy. The day when Canada is able to do that and teach elementary school children Canadian nationalism and Quebec nationalism, we will be that much better off.

To answer the question asked by my hon. NDP colleague, apart from adapting or transferring workers to the western provinces, which greatly needed workers in recent years because of oil and gas activities, very few offers were made involving the retraining of workers in their own field. Instead, they were told they should take part in training programs for jobs outside their region or they were simply told to move in order to work in another region, which is harmful to Canada overall.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Culture; the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, Forestry Industry.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on the Bloc Québécois motion. First, I would like to congratulate my colleague who spoke before me. He made an excellent presentation, outlining clearly several issues the forestry industry is facing, in his region especially.

I would add that my own region, the riding of Saint-Maurice-Champlain that I represent, is also a region that includes many workers who make their living from the forestry industry. There are also numerous municipalities. I had intended to name them all but I see that there are a great many.

There are workers who depend on the forestry industry in all of the municipalities in my riding: Grand-Mère, Shawinigan, Saint-Tite, Sainte-Thècle, Lac-aux-Sables, La Tuque, Parent, Notre-Dame-de-Montauban, La Bostonnais, Saint-Séverin, Sainte-Adèle, I could name them all.

These people realize that they are in a very difficult situation. That is why the Bloc Québécois has presented this motion today. The Quebec forestry industry is in a crisis, as many others have said. We are all agreed that we are now in a recession, but the Quebec forestry industry has been in a crisis since 2005.

It has been suffering the effects much longer than many people in other areas who have just lost their jobs. We agree that it is difficult. It is always a shame when people lose their jobs. However, entire towns have been deprived of income for many years. Families no longer have jobs. In some cases, both parents have been laid off by the same company. People are suffering.

There are 88,000 workers in the Quebec forestry industry. They are, in effect, the economic engine of many regions in Quebec. This crisis is hitting them with full force. I just said this has been going on since 2005. During the last four years, people have been struggling with these situations. Processing plants, sawmills and other plants, have been closing their doors, one after another, sometimes for good and sometimes temporarily. There is nothing in this Conservative government budget to really help the workers who are losing their jobs.

They boast of having added five weeks of employment insurance, but in terms of effectiveness and as a support measure for people who lose their jobs, it is practically meaningless because almost 75% of the people who lose their job will find a new one before the Conservative government issues their 45th or 46th employment insurance weekly benefit.

So, it is not a very effective measure. Once again, the Conservative government has introduced this measure to try to make political capital. However, if it had abolished the two week waiting period, then it would have done something to really help workers.

This is not the first time the Bloc Québécois has put forward a plan. We did it last year, to support the entire forestry industry. I will come back to that later. Last year, the Bloc proposed several measures that are still very relevant. In proposing them again last November, we had hoped that the Minister of Finance would have considered them before introducing an ideological economic statement. We did propose them again, but, unfortunately, he did not take them into account.

We know the federal government has the necessary resources. We know that, and its budget is supporting the auto industry in Ontario with $2.7 billion in funding. For the forestry industry, however, it is offering $170 million for all of Canada. This is a catastrophe. Quebec's forestry industry is an important driving force. Yet there is nothing in this budget to really help that sector.

The Bloc Québécois has already asked the government several times, and we are asking once again, to give these businesses and these workers some support. We are calling on the government to grant loan guarantees and assistance to modernize their equipment.

We know—at least we all hope—that the recovery will come one day and that people in many places want to be ready for it, but the federal government refuses that idea. It objects, saying that it would be in violation of the softwood lumber agreement and the free trade agreement, and that it would only create a host of problems.

However, at the Standing Committee on Finance today, we learned directly from Eric Siegel, president and chief executive officer of Export Development Canada, that his organization—a financial branch of the federal government—has granted loans and loan guarantees to businesses in the forestry sector. I told him that I assumed that when he was doing business with those companies and when he was granting the loans and loan guarantees, he was doing so in compliance with international agreements like the free trade agreement and the softwood lumber agreement. Mr. Siegel told us that, yes, he could not do business any other way and that he could not ignore those agreements.

So on one hand the government is telling us that it is illegal, that giving loan guarantees is not in compliance with the softwood lumber agreements. And, on the other hand, we see that the president and CEO of EDC, a federal government agency, is saying the opposite, that his organization is doing this while fully respecting the softwood lumber agreement. This seems to me to be such an obvious contradiction that it makes no sense.

The current Conservative federal government must review its position and admit that it has been completely wrong, that it misled us and that it must allow loan guarantees for forestry businesses. For some, that would mean avoiding bankruptcy, and for others it would mean continuing progress. It would also mean that the forestry industry would become more innovative and competitive, particularly in Quebec.

If we were to listen to the Conservatives, the forestry regions would be left to die. I am sorry, but there are still people and workers who are very productive, people who are well trained and who are not willing to say that their region is dying. They want to keep contributing to their region's growth and to the growth of the economy in their communities. However, what we are hearing and what we can understand from the reactions of the Conservative government and its elected members, is that, for them, it as though the regions are dying and have no future and so these regions must give in to the mass exodus of youth and to high unemployment.

But we are saying—and this is what those people are saying too and this is what they want to hear—that forestry can provide significant leverage and we have not explored all of the options.

Earlier, I listened to the question put to my colleague about the processing that should be done here. When we export unfinished products, we are exporting jobs too. We have to do something about this. We must invest energy and large sums of money in research and development, so that Quebec's raw materials—the wood from our private and public forests—can be processed here, as close as possible to the people who cut down the trees and take them to the closest town, and so that new products can be developed and marketed from there. That is what we need, but at the same time, we have to support companies with loan guarantees, we have to enable them to buy new equipment so that they can compete internationally. That is how we will really support them.

Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer any questions.