44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 1, 2021 02:00PM
- Dec/1/21 7:31:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I can understand my colleague from Winnipeg North wanting to depoliticize the debate because what both the Conservatives and Liberals have done for the forestry industry is pathetic.
Earlier, I was listening to my colleague say that it was powerful U.S. lobbyists who managed to get the tariffs imposed. He said that members of the House should not be pointing fingers at one another. He is saying that because the current government and the successive governments have done absolutely nothing for the forestry industry. Lobbyists in Canada are oil industry lobbyists.
The forestry industry is a natural resources sector that is underestimated. Ask anyone in the industry. There is no federal program available to help diversify the forestry industry. That is the problem. We depend on the United States and now this industry, which is the economic base of many regions in Quebec, is becoming more vulnerable. That is the problem.
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 7:47:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I found it rather surprising that my colleague is patting himself on the back for the agreement reached in 2006. For the people in my region, the 2006 deal was a disaster.
The Conservatives never brought in a liquidity program for people in the forestry sector, so they were struggling and were eventually forced to accept a sellout agreement.
What my colleague failed to mention is that, in 2006, the forestry industry left $1 billion on the table. That $1 billion can never be recovered.
Now that agreement gets held up as an example of what not to do. We are asking the government to bring in a liquidity program and, above all, to never negotiate a sellout agreement again, as was done in 2006. My colleague should know that.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 8:00:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I look forward to working with her on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
My colleague spoke a lot about the relationship with the United States. This relationship is a big part of the issue we are discussing tonight. However, we cannot ignore one of the major issues for the forestry industry, which is that there is no support for secondary and tertiary processing.
The forestry industry is a great industry to combat climate change, but the federal government's programs are pathetic. This industry accounts for $20 billion in exports for Quebec, but it receives just 0.2% in financial support from the federal government. Furthermore, 75% of that support comes in the form of loans. That is beyond pathetic; it is dreadful.
Does my colleague agree that the federal government's support for the forestry sector is extremely lacking?
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 8:32:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his speech. We will be working together on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
He ended his speech by asking what we were going to do for workers in the industry. I would like to tell him that what we can do has a lot to do with secondary and tertiary processing. Unfortunately, industry stakeholders are telling us that the federal government does not have a meaningful program to develop this value chain.
I would like to offer my colleague a potential solution. Would he agree that there is no meaningful program because the federal government decided to put all of its eggs in the oil basket? We are now saddled with a massive deficit, and it is time to invest in more worthwhile energy resources or environmental sectors, such as the forestry industry.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 10:49:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, everyone knows that I am a fair-minded person, and I am not going to bug my colleague, with whom I shared a lot of good times at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. However, he talked about the Conservatives' 2006 softwood lumber agreement and said that we need to be firm. I would simply tell him that the people in the forestry sector think that the 2006 agreement was a bad deal. They lost $1 billion. The people in the forestry sector are now saying that they never want to have that kind of sellout agreement ever again.
What the people in the forestry sector want is for the government to be prepared to give them a liquidity program to help them weather the storm and for the U.S. to never again impose tariffs intended to wear the sector down into accepting a sellout agreement.
I would like my colleague to say whether he realizes that the deal signed in 2006 was a sellout agreement.
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 10:59:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I always enjoy listening to my Green Party colleague.
I would just like to ask her if she believes, as I do, that part of the solution for the forestry industry is to further develop what is known today as the bioeconomy, which significantly reduces the carbon footprint of many sectors of activity. I do not know what she thinks of that.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 11:14:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I will be frank. In the House, I often hear the phrase “team Canada” and the idea that we should should be working as team Canada. I am not particularly interested in team Canada, and I will tell you why.
Canada has two main economic sectors: the oil industry and the automotive industry. The federal government is totally absent when it comes to softwood lumber.
Today we have heard about negotiating international treaties and about our relationship with the United States. That is one of the problems, but there has never been any serious negotiating, and I have some simple proof of that.
Quebec once again had some issues with the federal government during CUSMA negotiations because the aluminum industry was not protected. Canada's chief negotiator appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and I asked him a question about the forestry industry. He replied that the forestry industry was not a priority for him at that time.
In 2006, I heard a bunch of people bragging about a deal that had been signed. However, if we talk to people in the industry about that, they are furious because, in 2006, they lost $1 billion. It was a sellout deal. That is one of the problems in the forestry sector. We are too dependent on the United States and, unfortunately, we do not have a government that is prepared to do economic battle with the United States, which means that the sector is left out. That has been proven tonight, over and over again.
The other big issue is the secondary and tertiary processing sector. There are some federal programs to support it. We have the notorious IFIT, for example, a program that aims to transform the forestry industry. As we all know, we no longer consume as much paper, and the pulp and paper industry needs to pivot somehow. Year after year, there are more applications to IFIT than the program can provide in capital. People in the sector have come to me and said that they no longer even bother applying to IFIT because they know they will be turned down.
The funding power that the federal government is putting into supporting the transformation of the sector is pitiful. Anyone in the sector can tell us that.
There is another program that supports softwood lumber exports. Quebec is the largest player in Canada's forestry sector, yet 80% of the budget is earmarked for British Columbia. Members will understand why talk of Team Canada leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Here is another basic fact. As we know, many sawmills in Quebec are coming to the end of their useful life. Given today's labour shortage, sawmills that are not automated are unable to survive. If these people applied for help from Canada Economic Development, they would get nothing. Why?
It is because Canada Economic Development refers them to Global Affairs Canada, which would tell them that it unfortunately cannot support them because that would go against international trade treaties.
Once again, this activity sector is receiving absolutely nothing from the federal government. To add insult to injury, the forestry sector is probably the most promising sector when it comes to tackling climate change.
The investment in the forestry industry in Quebec is just $71 million a year. However, 75% of that is provided in the form of loans, which means that around $17 million is actually invested in the forestry industry.
My region of Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean brings in $81 million a year for the federal government. What is even more insulting is that year after year, the oil and gas industry is given around $14 billion. That is something to be pissed off about, as my father would say.
639 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
