Mr. Speaker, I will share my speaking time with my hon. colleague from Kenora.
I am pleased to take part today in this debate that is very important for the various regions of Quebec. Given my position within the department, I am pleased to rise today to go back over the pieces of disinformation spread by the party opposite.
It is important to report the real facts about this issue and make further comments to counteract this disinformation, instead of scoring points on the backs of the workers and their livelihood.
Canada's forestry industry is going through difficult times across the country. I have been in regular contact over the past few days with people from the industry in several provinces, but my comments today will focus on the provincial jurisdiction of Quebec.
Quebec's forestry industry has been experiencing problems for 10 years or so. This is not something new. Changes have occurred over time which, in some cases, have deepened the forestry crisis: the Coulombe report, the chief forester, the 20% drop in timber supply for companies, energy costs, variations of the value of the Canadian currency, fibre costs, the global financial crisis, the mortgage crisis in the U.S., the selling price of lumber, the drop in the market, and so on. It is too easy to blame the government. That is what the party opposite keeps doing anyway.
From 2000 to 2006, we no longer had an agreement with our leading financial partner, the United States, with respect to trading softwood lumber with Canada and Quebec. There were countervailing duties of approximately 30%. That is why a new softwood lumber agreement was signed. The provinces and the Canadian lumber industry as a whole asked us to sign a new agreement with our U.S. partner so that the borders would reopen. That is what we did at the time, and this has brought back to Canada nearly $5 billion that was entirely redistributed to our forestry industry.
We signed this agreement, which brought in $1 billion to Quebec. That money was then entirely redistributed to the province's forestry industry. These are important points.
When we signed the agreement with our U.S. partners, it was with the idea of pursuing this development and of respecting that deal. In recent years—that is in 2006, 2007 and 2008—before the mortgage crisis, nobody talked about the softwood lumber agreement. Everything was fine and we were getting good prices for our products. But we have to look at the market now. It is very important to do so.
When we signed the softwood lumber agreement, it brought in $1 billion to Quebec to allow its industries to modernize and to invest so as to protect jobs. Statistics for Quebec show that 50% of the softwood lumber produced by sawmills in that province is exported. Moreover, 96% of this lumber is exported to the United States. It is easy to see the impact of the mortgage crisis in the United States. Indeed, while there were close to 2 million housing starts in that country every year, there are now only 500,000. Between 2007 and 2009, the demand has declined by 65%. That is really where the problem lies right now. Moreover, the sale price of wood has dropped by close to 50%.
Between 2000 and 2009, there was a 42% drop in the demand for newsprint in North America. This compounds the major market problems that we are experiencing right now. Recently, worldwide sales for the latest Harry Potter book were greater in its electronic version than in the paper one. This is a precedent which clearly shows what is happening to the market and where we are headed.
I often hear members opposite compare the automotive sector to the forestry industry. It is very easy to do that. In fact, it is too easy.
We have an agreement with our U.S. partners on the management of the competition, on both sides of the border, in the softwood lumber sector. At the time, that agreement was signed with the support of the Bloc, to allow the Canadian forestry industry to continue to sell its products under certain rules and under a contract signed by both sides.
The automotive industry is different in that it is a free market with an agreement signed by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Ontario. Together, they reached an agreement to support the industry. They did not do that at the expense of another sector. They did it to save jobs. We also wanted to save jobs when we signed the softwood lumber agreement, and we will continue to respect what we signed.
When we talk about the market, it is interesting to look at the statements made by union leaders and company presidents. I am going to mention a few of those statements.
On October 15, last week, following a work slowdown in a plant located in Saint-Félicien, which is the town next to mine, the union leader said that, unfortunately, it was really a market issue and that houses were just not being built in the United States.
A short while ago, when a temporary shutdown was announced in June at the Fraser Papers' mill in Thurso, the company explained its decision on a weak pulp market. I could go on. Regarding the mill in Beaupré, the company said the demand had declined drastically, with a 30% drop between November 2008 and June 2009 alone. I could give numerous examples.
It is far too easy to put the blame entirely on the government for not providing loan guarantees, and more importantly, it is not true. Efforts were applauded in this House when this government provided support to Quebec's forestry industry. Efforts were also applauded when Investissement Québec, a paragovernmental organization, provided support to Quebec's forestry industry, and AbitibiBowater in particular.
The Government of Canada is continuing to support the forestry industry. On June 17, and I have the press release here, in a joint announcement with AbitibiBowater, Export Development Canada, a Crown corporation—and it is important to explain how it works—said it would be providing $42.1 million in financial support with respect to debtors in possession. These funds were provided as working capital financing to maintain adequate liquidity.
Frankly, what we are being asked to do is what we have already been doing through EDC.
Shortly after, on August 27, EDC made a similar contribution to Kruger, this being in the public domain. There is obviously a degree of confidentiality surrounding such dealings, but Export Development Canada announced it would be contributing $27 million in financing for Kruger. I could go on with more examples, but I will stop here because of the time allotted to me.
Through Crown corporations and various partners, the federal government is supporting the forestry industry in Canada and Quebec. In Quebec alone, over the past 20 months, Export Development Canada has made $16 billion in support, financial products, accounts receivable insurance, credit facility and loan guarantees available to 220 companies in 2009 and 226 in 2008.
What are these products? Part of the truth was spoken today. When a letter of guarantee is issued regarding accounts receivable and a company has sold trading partners anywhere in the world, say in the United States, $100 million in lumber, Export Development Canada guarantees that it will be paid. What does the company do with that letter? It is certainly not going to sit on it. It takes it to its lender and arranges for funds to be advanced. This constitutes access to credit or a loan to allow the company to continue operating. That is how it works.
So, this is $16 billion over the past 20 months. Through our pulp and paper green transformation program, commonly called the black liquor program, we provided $1 billion to support the pulp and paper industry, which produces kraft pulp, including several millions of dollars that were used in Quebec.
Earlier, someone talked about a phoney committee which is providing $235 million to Quebec. Indeed, Export Development Canada is supporting the province, but there is also the community adjustment fund, with $1 billion distributed to all the provinces, and Quebec getting about $215 million through Canada Economic Development. In the spring, we set up a Canada-Quebec working group which injected $235 million into Quebec's forestry industry, and they call that a phoney initiative. In fact, this is probably much more than the Bloc will ever do during its stint here in the House of Commons. We provided $235 million for silviculture, forest resources management, multi-use roads and product traceability, and we will continue to support the industry with $170 million for new products and new markets.
As regards work sharing, in 2009, Quebec alone is getting $928 million to support training, employee transfers and also assistance relating to employment insurance. Currently, over 4,300 workers in Quebec benefit from work-sharing agreements to help them through this period. Let us also not forget that the home renovation tax credit stimulated lumber sales. It is through programs such as those that we are helping.
All company presidents still want the softwood lumber agreement. This spring, we established a Canada-Quebec team that has begun working and that is doing a good job. That working group got together recently and defined three major thrusts, three commitments with the Quebec government. The first one is to help the industry restructure. We are not going to fill the role of the forestry industry. It has to restructure itself. This is something we agreed on with all the company presidents.
They are all asking us to comply with the softwood lumber agreement. In recent weeks and months, we have had the opportunity to meet a number of them. They represent all types of businesses, from small ones to large ones. Everyone agrees that the softwood lumber agreement must be protected and that together we will avoid a repeat of what happened with Gaspésia. In fact, some partners even said that we must respect the arrangement regarding Gaspésia.
We will continue to do the job. The fact that businesses in Quebec are integrated is a big plus. They own as many pulp and paper mills as softwood lumber mills. That is why we must absolutely protect the softwood lumber agreement.