Madam Speaker, I thank my loyal listener, the member from Lac-Saint-Jean, for reminding me that I am sharing my time with the delightful member for Repentigny.
I believe that the Alberta government was very misguided to invest $1.5 billion in a project that may have been doomed to failure. In my opinion, it created a frenzy of support for the fossil fuel sector that many Canadian politicians joined because it seemed like a winning political move in the west. We may occasionally win by lying to people, but it never pays off in the end.
I want to point out that I really empathize with Alberta's workers. I also want to mention how shocked I was when I arrived in the House of Commons in October and heard many Conservative colleagues repeatedly shout, “Build the pipeline!” This call to build pipelines was being repeated constantly, and I want to remind members that this was at a time when Canada was divided. We were being told that there were deep divisions between the west and the east, and the east did not understand that the west wanted to sell its oil. Having followed what happened to the forestry industry very closely, I have to say that this bothered me, since I have extensively studied a phenomenon known as Dutch disease.
In the early 2000s, the Quebec economy was completely destabilized by the Canadian oil economy. The rising dollar meant that Quebec's manufacturing sector was no longer competitive. If I am not mistaken, 55,000 jobs were lost in Quebec from 2002 to 2007. The Quebec economy very much paid the price for the oil industry.
The story I keep hearing, that the generous equalization payments made possible by Alberta oil have helped fund social programs, would make the average Quebec nationalist's hair stand on end. In fact, the hon. member for Malpeque has told me a few times that Canadian taxpayers are not Quebeckers' ATM card, which is along the same lines.
There are many things about the oil industry that might be irritating to the average Quebecker and cause grievances, but let us not focus on that too much. I believe we should instead put our heads together and find a solution for Alberta's economic transition.
There is a solution. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources held six meetings on the forestry industry, where we heard from many stakeholders who spoke about the bioeconomy. The bioeconomy involves recovering forestry and agricultural waste to replace almost all petrochemical products. Stéphane Renou from FP Innovations spoke about a wonderful opportunity for Albertan expertise, since Alberta already has a workforce of chemical engineers. What a wonderful opportunity for these people to get involved in the energy transition, be part of a new niche and develop an economy that will no longer rely solely on fossil materials.
Unfortunately, Canada's strategy in that regard is non-existent. We all know, and many stakeholders confirmed, that the transition to the bioeconomy requires a lot of capital. Companies cannot make that transition alone. A national strategy is needed. Canada implemented this sort of national strategy in the late 1970s or early 1980s. As members may have guessed, the national strategy in question sought to make the oil sands profitable because we did not have the technology to do so at the start. In all, $70 billion was collectively invested, 20% of which came from Quebec.
Why not make the decision to support Alberta's economy in a different way by promoting the bioeconomy and getting involved in industries that are less harmful to the environment and have a smaller carbon footprint?
In closing, I have been having some fun with these numbers over the past few months. I did some research into what has been invested in the oil industry and the forestry industry over the past four years, and I came up with two numbers.
Over the past four years, the federal government has given the oil and gas industry $24 billion, $12 billion of which was used to buy the pipeline. The government invested $950 million in the entire Canadian forestry industry over that same period.
Crunching those investment numbers, it turns out that 75% of that amount is loans. These two natural resource sectors prove that there really is a double standard.
I have just a minute left, so I will quickly close with a simple warning. If a member of the House suggests replacing Keystone XL with Energy East, I promise that member will run up against the Bloc Québécois.