Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak.
I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, for today's motion.
It is a very important matter for us in Newfoundland and Labrador, for the east coast of Quebec and all of Canada.
Here we are today debating a motion that deals with an industry in crisis.
At this time I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Toronto Centre. That, in and of itself, provides a taste of diversity: one member, completely rural, myself, representing 170 towns, debating with the member for Toronto Centre, not so rural. Nonetheless, here we are talking about an industry that is vital for me and this country. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this motion to the House.
The opposition motion, in part, states:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should act urgently to provide the forestry industry, which has been hit hard by the economic crisis....
I would go even further to say that this crisis started well before that, certainly in the newsprint industry because of the fact that the average price for newsprint, which was just over $500 American per ton, put it in a grave situation. The demand has been lower and lower for the last 10, 15 to 20 years, coupled with the fact that over the past two or three years the Canadian dollar has been above 90¢ American. That, of course, hurts our exports.
In the particular situation of the riding of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, therein lies Grand Falls—Windsor which is the largest town in my riding. It boasted one of the largest, most successful newsprint mills on the east coast of this country, a mill that was 100 years old since its inception in the early part of the last century. It was started by interests in England who came to Newfoundland and Labrador for the sake of the rich forests to provide them with a product in order to produce their papers in Europe.
The reason I think it is so important that we are debating this today is because of the lack of action in this particular case to some of the key measures that we are proposing, some of which are outlined in this motion.
I will go back a step to just a few years ago. I was elected in 2004 and in 2005 we were very proud to be working on a bill, certainly an incentive for the forest industry, that we thought was ideal for this country. At the time, we announced a real plan to make the forestry sector more competitive. We were saving jobs through loans, supports for research, new technology, skills development and community adjustment.
The Reform-Conservatives, however, cancelled that plan upon forming government in 2006. At the time, they came out with a $1 billion plan, a price tag that was roughly close to ours, and they created what they called the community adjustment fund. They even made the announcement in front of a logging mill in New Brunswick.
The problem with that was that the program was an incentive for communities that had failed. In other words, if the major industry of that particular town had disappeared, had folded, then they could avail themselves of projects or, what we commonly refer to in Newfoundland and Labrador, as make work projects and people could obtain employment that way.
The mill in my riding was functioning at the time in 2005 and it could have availed itself of a service that provided some of the incentives that were contained in our package. This was introduced on November 24, 2005. It included: $215 million for the development of new technologies to enhance competitiveness; $50 million to develop bioenergy, cogeneration power technology, that would have been a great incentive for the mill in Grand Falls—Windsor; $90 million to support innovation; $66.3 million for wood product market development; and $800 million in loan support to help forest companies invest to improve competitiveness and to help diversify the community.
The other thing we talked about at the time and what we push now is the fact that a lot of these mills are old. As I mentioned earlier, the mill in my riding that was shut down recently spanned 100 years. An incentive for it, and an incredible incentive it would have been, would have been to allow the mill to make investments to improve its machinery because it was so old at that time. This is not just the idea of a tax cut. This is also introducing the idea of a subsidy to create more efficient machinery involved in the business of paper making. That is one example. It also included supporting investment in new equipment, which I mentioned, and supporting skills and training programs for forestry workers.
I will now talk about the EI situation. A little while ago, Bill C-50 was introduced for long tenured workers. The problem was that the situation with long tenured workers in this particular bill did not apply to loggers because they are seasonal workers. This bill did not cover them.
In addition to that, if the mill had shut down for a period of, on average, seven weeks of the year, people in that mill also did not qualify because they had claimed EI for too much of the year. Therein lies another problem. Indeed, it is a shame. In this particular case, that is why we think Bill C-50 falls flat. I would impress upon my colleagues down on the left of the House, pardon the expression, the NDP, because they, too, play a role in allowing people to access EI easily, much easier than what it is right now.
We would indeed re-establish Canada's leadership in the world and we would have opened up markets for forest products.
I saw some of the debates earlier and I was reading some of the transcripts of what has been said in the House about the SLA. The Conservatives claim that the government cannot support loan guarantees to forest companies because it would be in violation of the SLA, the softwood lumber agreement. However, that is not entirely true. They, themselves, are arguing in the London court of arbitration that loan guarantees are not a violation of the SLA. They have in fact posted their legal defence of loan guarantees on the DFAIT website.
It is give here, take here. The argument is here. We cannot do that. We cannot push forward with strategic loan guarantees, similar to what was done in other sectors, because of trade agreements. That is not necessarily true. They even refuted their own argument on the DFAIT website.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves, which is why I am glad we are having this debate today. We can point out to all the Canadians working in the forest industry just what the Government of Canada can do for the entire industry.
Going back to a situation I spoke of earlier, diversification, I would like the government in this particular situation to make it accessible and easier for some of these companies to be larger players in the world of forestry products. I will give an example, which I mentioned earlier.
The town of Grand Falls-Windsor is now hoping to get into the pellet industry. It is small little wood pellet but a great source of energy. It is cheaper, more environmentally friendly and, for us, it could create an industry of exports. Right now in Europe, that industry has reached a maturity in many countries and, therefore, it is incumbent upon us to aid that industry. Currently, however, it is extremely difficult to get access to capital in this particular situation because it does not have the component of a strategic subsidy, companies with loan guarantees.
The ongoing trade dispute is hardly a shock to the government. We and many members of the opposition repeatedly warned the government that the softwood deal amounted to a sellout of Canadian interests and that would see the erosion of Canadian control over its own industry.
I was taken aback by a comment that was put out there by BMO Nesbitt Burns analyst, Stephen Atkinson. He claimed that the agreement effectively handed U.S. companies veto power over provincial forest policies. Well, that is very interesting because last year, when AbitibiBowater declared bankruptcy, because of issues of severances, of timber rights and water rights, which are resources belonging to the people, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which I congratulate it for doing so, expropriated those, as well as provided the severance payments for the individual workers. There is a province that had to pick up where the federal government was behind and continued to turn a blind eye to this particular situation.
Therefore, I would compel the entire House to vote for this motion because it widens the debate and allows us to bore down to particular issues that will help failing mills. My mill no longer exists but a lot can be done to help mills in places like Kenora, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta. So much more needs to be done but so far we have seen so little. For the vast number of forestry workers across this country, this is such an imperative time to do that.
