--every single pulp and paper mill in the country. I say to my colleague across the way who is heckling me that the most significant restructuring of the forestry industry took place in the early 1990s. That was something I was very much personally involved in from time immemorial. I think probably one of the only pieces of legislation that the government of which he was a member did not repeal, and for which I was responsible, was the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. I think that act established a very successful regime in terms of managing the forest that has received a great deal of attention around the world.
However, the reason I wanted to participate in the debate is twofold. First, I want to say that of course we are, in this party, going to be supporting the motion.
However, I did want to say to my colleagues in the Bloc that no one should believe for an instant that the forestry industry is an industry that is confined to or exists only in the province of Quebec. In fact, it is the one industry that all Canadians understand. There are over 300 communities across the country that depend directly on the forestry industry for their livelihood, and those are only the direct jobs and communities directly involved. And then there are literally hundreds of thousands of other jobs across the country that have depended on, and that will continue to depend on, the forestry industry. It is not a matter of pitting Quebec against Ontario, or British Columbia against the rest of the country. We can look at any of northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta, British Columbia where it is certainly the biggest resource industry, northern Manitoba, northern Ontario, Quebec, or the Atlantic provinces. My colleague from Newfoundland who has just spoken has expressed very clearly the relationship that the forestry industry has with so many communities across the country. Because it is an industry that unites the county, or should unite the country, I think we need to engage once more in a discussion about the appropriate role of government, both federally and provincially, in dealing with this structural change that is under way in the industry, which has had such a devastating impact on so many communities, and what we can do to restore the industry to a position of health and indeed to a position of leadership in the world, where it will be able to define the jobs of tomorrow as it has very much defined the jobs of Canada's past.
I just want to say two things in this debate.
First, contrary to what I hear my Bloc Québécois colleagues saying, the forestry industry is not a uniquely Quebec industry. It is present in Ontario, British Columbia, the west, the east, the Maritimes, the Atlantic provinces and also Quebec, of course. As Canadians, we share this industry. It is not an industry that sets Quebec apart from the other provinces; on the contrary, it unites the country. Conditions are very similar everywhere. In fact, more than 300 cities, towns and municipalities across the country depend almost exclusively on the forestry industry. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada, even in downtown Toronto, depend on this industry. It is as important to the country's future as it was in the past.
The second thing I want to say is that it is a fundamental myth that the forestry industry is an industry of the past, because that is not true.
One myth is that it is a uniquely Quebec industry, or British Columbia industry, or whatever province, but that is not the case. The fact is the forest industry is a Canadian industry. It has helped to define our country. It has helped to make the towns and communities of this country. This is an industry that has been at the heart of Canadian economic growth and Canadian economic success for a century and a half.
Second, it is a myth that this is an industry of the past. It is not an industry of the past. It is only an industry of the past if we fail to encourage and allow industry to make the kinds of investments in the future that every industry, to be successful, has to make. In fact, I say to my colleagues across the way that I do not see this motion particularly as an attack on the government, or an attack on one partisan approach or another. It is, rather, an effort on the part of the whole House to say that this is an industry that requires innovation, change, and investment to be able to succeed.
We have had our partisan differences. I have had occasion for over a decade to serve as counsel to the Free Trade Lumber Council and I have spent a lot of time travelling across the country talking with every head of every company and every head of every union trying to look at how we could get a coalition together that would successfully withstand the American objections to the notion of free and fair access to the American market for competitive Canadian products.
The American resistance to our exports is from the industry, some of the producers of America, and not from the people of America, or from the consumers of America. It is based on the false notion that this industry in Canada receives subsidies and advantages that it does not receive in the United States. We do not have time today to document it, but this is simply not the case, and we can show that. What the Americans have shown is that when you have 50 Senators who represent less than 20% of the American population, they can put up a very strong protectionist wall against Canadian exports, and that is what they have done in the case of softwood lumber.
I disagreed with the government's decision to go for an agreement, because I felt that agreement simply entrenched American resistance to a competitive, open, and fair trading relationship. I believe that at that time it would have been far better for the Canadian government to have stood up and stood by the industry as it went through this difficult period of adjustment and change. The decision was made not to do that, but instead to rely on the Softwood Lumber Agreement as the framework that would take us forward. The fact remains that the ability of this industry to provide the jobs of the future will depend on its capacity to innovate, change, develop new products, and look for new markets rather than relying exclusively on the market of the United States.
I find it ironic as I travel and visit some of the mills and factories in the United States, as I am sure members opposite have done, to see that our mills are every bit as competitive and every bit as modern. We have as much new technology as they do in any other place. What we have not been able to do, in my opinion, is enough as a country to provide the industry with the kind of support it needs to reach new markets, develop new products, and to deal with some of the competitive disadvantages that we face.
The competitive disadvantages we face are not of our own making. They are made of a protectionist wall in the United States and of a very high dollar which is proving to be a tremendous challenge to us. We have to change the culture of the relationship between business, industry, and governments both federally and provincially, so that we can work more effectively in partnership to take us to a new step and a new stage in terms of this industry. That is what we need to do.
I am very much in support of the motion being put forward by my colleagues of the Bloc, because I think it will allow this House to express its strong support for the industry.