44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/8/24 6:58:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I appreciate the fact that the member took the initiative to show up in Washington and to work on behalf of all Canadians, including those from Quebec.
In fact, the forestry workers in Quebec should be the most upset with regard to this file. They made the changes to their system to meet the requirements that the U.S. set, yet the government has not been able to take the sacrifices and the changes they made in Quebec and to sell it across the line. What happened? They still pay a tariff. It still comes back to president to prime minister and prime minister to president.
If the Prime Minister does not know what he is talking about, if he does not have the political will or does not have the initiative to support Quebec forestry workers, I will guarantee one thing: prime minister Poilievre would.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:10:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I remember when this first came up. Quebec had done the right thing. It changed its process. It changed the process it used to collect fees from logging within the province to comply with U.S. requirements. It relied on the federal government to negotiate on its behalf, whereas the Irvings, out of New Brunswick, said they were not going to trust the government and would do their own negotiation. The result was that the people who had relied on the federal government paid a tariff of around 21% or 23%, or somewhere within that range, and for the Irvings it was around 3% to 5%.
Would the member like to explain how he feels and how Quebec forestry producers must feel knowing the government let them down so badly? The proof is in the difference in the tariffs between what the Irvings paid and what other producers had to pay.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:11:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, Quebec is obviously tired of these punitive tariffs, these countervailing duties that keep coming back. As my colleague knows, when we talk to American elected officials, they too would like this to end, but often these decisions are made by the administrations. Many will say that they look forward to the court's decision and that will be good, except for some states where this topic is more political.
I remember one meeting with the U.S. trade representative, they assumed and admitted that this was a political issue. People from his office said that a number of forestry producers are fiercely in favour of countervailing duties, but the opponents of these countervailing duties are home builders. This raises a major electoral issue.
Nevertheless, we have the burden of proof: We need to show the Americans that this penalizes them as well. This certainly penalizes Quebeckers and Canadians, but it also penalizes Americans. It is up to us to do the work now.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:15:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it is simple, quite simple in fact.
First of all, forestry accounts for 11% of Quebec's exports. That alone makes it an important industry and an economic driver in the regions. Such is the case for my colleague's region, which was ravaged by forest fires almost a year ago. How time flies. It stands as a reminder of how important forestry is in her riding. I recall that she was often away from the House because she had to be there, on the ground. It cannot have been easy, and I want to assure her again that she has my support; I congratulate her on the work she has done in this regard.
That said, the forestry industry is extremely important to the regions and to workers. Yes, cases have been won, and the next case will be won as well. However, and I must stress this point, in the time leading up to the tribunal's ruling, all kinds of abuses are being committed to constantly push back or delay the date of the tribunal's ruling, and this is where the harm is being done. This delay is creating a situation where our industry fails to modernize, becomes less competitive, keeps losing money and workers, and is heading for bankruptcy. This is how this situation leads to absolutely devastating consequences.
226 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:57:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I think a very good point was raised. It is something that is urgent for people in northern Ontario, Quebec and right across the country, but the government has really been dragging its heels on this. The member points out a very obvious example. The fact that we are even here debating it all this time later, after eight years, is perhaps the greatest example of all that the government has been largely ignoring this issue and has been absent from this issue.
As I said, even if we take the government's word for it that it has been working on it, then it is clearly incapable of delivering on this issue because it has had eight years to get it done. It is definitely time for change. The Conservatives are going to bring it home.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:17:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleagues' speeches, including the speech by my colleague who just spoke on behalf of Quebec's forestry industry.
This evening, we heard that an agreement had been reached under the Harper government that left something to be desired. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. We want to conclude an agreement with the United States, but not at any cost. I would like my colleague to say a few words about a future agreement.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:28:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech, and I understand that the forestry industry is very important in her riding. I understand that very well.
Earlier, several of our colleagues said that the past agreements were not good enough and that $1 billion was even left on the table during the Harper years. We understand that we need to reach an agreement but not at any price. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about the team Canada approach, where we work not only with the federal departments but also with the provinces, Quebec and the industry when dealing with our American counterparts.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:29:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, there are solutions for the forestry industry in Quebec and Canada. The lethargy we are seeing right now is a result of the fact that nothing has been done for 20 to 40 years. The federal government does not stand up for our forests.
We all know what is happening with the forest fires and flooding. With the forest fires, think of the families who are worried and who do not know whether they will have a home. The animals in northern Quebec and Nunavik are not there any more. The caribou are disappearing. Black bears are now in Kuujjuaq and elsewhere.
These are things we need to think about. This is not normal. The government needs to act quickly.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:30:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, this is a very serious issue. Since 2016, 183 companies in the forestry sector have gone bankrupt, and tens of thousands of Canadians in British Columbia, Quebec and all over Canada have lost their jobs.
Tonight, in this debate, we have heard the critic from the Bloc Québécois speak to this matter and we have heard the Conservative trade critic speak to this matter, but we have not heard from the minister of international trade from the government, nor have we heard from the parliamentary secretary to the minister of international trade.
Does my colleague agree with me that this shows just how unimportant this matter is to the Liberal government and that this is a big reason why this dispute has not been resolved?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:33:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, look at what happened last summer with the forest fires. The government did not take action after the forest fires in northern Quebec. We know that nearly all of northern Quebec went up in flames. The government needs to act quickly when there are disasters like that. I do not understand why the government cannot take action. It seems to act faster when things happen in western Canada than when they happen in Quebec. What is it doing for Quebec?
The best solution to all our problems would be for Quebec to become a country.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:41:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, there is a key factor at play in the softwood lumber issue. Because of the decision to consider the softwood lumber issue unilaterally from coast to coast to coast, everyone everywhere is subject to the same constraints.
My colleague comes from British Columbia. Obviously, we know how important the softwood lumber industry is to British Columbia. However, B.C. is the one imposing constraints that hurt Quebeckers.
Would my colleague agree that each province should exercise its own sovereignty in entering agreements with the U.S.? That way, we in Quebec would not be penalized for compensations in British Columbia.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:50:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, the name of my riding will soon be Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville. That is coming, even though the opposition voted against my proposal to change the name, but that is another matter.
I listened to my colleague's speech. He talked a bit about the agreements that were signed under Prime Minister Harper. We know that recently, when our government was negotiating NAFTA, Mr. Harper once again gave the same advice, just as he did when he capitulated on softwood lumber in the past. Quebec was really the big loser in all of this. Is that really the kind of agreement my colleague would like to see?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:52:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable. The current government is not doing much to support the forestry sector. Even worse is that no government has ever done much to help the forestry sector. Under the last agreement that was negotiated by the federal government, $1 billion was left on the table.
To me, the future does not look bright, because if there were to be a Conservative government, I am not sure anyone in it would be interested in the forestry industry. Never in my life have I seen a single member of the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party show up at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and try to advance the issue of wood. I have never seen them there. I have never heard them there. I live in a forestry region. I have never seen them take part in any activity about caribou, tariffs or the forestry sector's urgent request for support. If the past is any indication, I fear that the same thing will happen under a Conservative government. I hope that my colleague can reassure me on this.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:53:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I would like to point out to my colleague that the member for Carleton was the first to rise in the House to speak out against the Minister of Environment and Climate Change's desire to create a whole saga around woodland caribou. We expected the leader of the Bloc Québécois to ask a question about that, but he did not.
There is something else that I would like to add. My Conservative colleagues on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources have shown up and have been very clear and very vocal in defending the softwood lumber industry. We make a great team, and we are able to work together to defend the interests of Quebeckers.
As it states in their platform, the Bloc Québécois's number one interest is to achieve Quebec sovereignty. Its members are applauding what I just said. We can therefore be certain that they will do anything they can and take every opportunity to try to stir up trouble, while we are trying to find solutions for producers, those I spoke about in my speech. In Quebec, 50% of forestry producers are basically going bankrupt because this government is incapable of finding solutions to the softwood lumber crisis, which has been affecting them for far too long.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:26:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States has been going on for decades, generating significant trade tensions. If the temporary direction of the U.S. government holds, the countervailing and anti-dumping duties it imposes on Canadian wood would go from 8.05% to 13.86%, which would cause considerable harm.
Of all the forestry companies in Quebec, nearly 250 are from first nations communities. These experienced entrepreneurs know the forestry well. We underestimate the concerns of these entrepreneurs during the forestry industry crises, which bring their own set of uncertainties. Think of how hard it is for the communities to get funding when their businesses are shaken by these crises. These problems are exacerbated. Think of the programs that are not adapted to the reality of first nations and to which these businesses are often ineligible because they are not incorporated under law, because they cannot be. When the forestry industry goes through a crisis, the most isolated first nations communities are the ones that are affected and impoverished.
Indigenous communities' involvement in the forestry industry is both economically and ecologically beneficial as a result of their deep ancestral connection to forest lands, which encourages sustainable and responsible practices. The companies help create local jobs, train qualified workers and diversify the economic opportunities available in remote or economically fragile regions. Over 80% of indigenous forestry companies are very small businesses, but they are are also essential to our communities' economies. Only 20% of indigenous companies have the ability to offer greater employment opportunities in indigenous communities.
On another note, I want to reiterate that the Quebec forestry regime meets the requirements of international trade agreements and respects the principles of free trade. This is a very frustrating situation. The problem is not Quebec. The allegations that our companies practise dumping and benefit from backdoor subsidies are unfounded and completely unwarranted. The rulings of international courts have systematically rejected the Americans' arguments, but the United States continues to maintain these unfair, punitive tariffs. That jeopardizes our Quebec and indigenous companies and consequently, our jobs.
In light of this critical situation, the Bloc Québécois is proposing meaningful action and solutions to support our forestry industry and communities.
First, the federal government must implement a loan guarantee program sufficient to cover the amounts withheld by the United States through taxes. Second, it must officially recognize the Quebec forestry regime because it meets the free trade standards. The federal government must also amend the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement so that the litigation process is better regulated and leaves no room for unfair delay tactics. The government must also request a tax exemption for private lumber. These measures are essential to protect our jobs, our businesses and our resource regions from the United States' unfair trading practices.
It is time to take decisive, concerted action to defend our forestry industry and guarantee its prosperous future. In our regions, small towns like Nédélec have been hard hit by the softwood lumber crisis. They have suffered greatly as result of a government that invests billions of dollars in the oil industry while providing only tens of millions of dollars, mere peanuts, to Quebec's forestry industry. That has an impact on small towns in my region. Close to 26,000 jobs were lost in Quebec as a result of this dispute.
What is even more frustrating is that Quebec has developed its auction system, which means less investing. We are the victims. If ever there was an argument for how Quebec sovereignty would be an economic game-changer, particularly in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, it would be the fact that we could have our own free trade agreement with the United States, and we would not be penalized for British Columbia's decisions.
I should also say that I cannot wait for us to invest in processing so we can offer more than just planks, perhaps by driving a nail or two into them to create an item with some added value. We could eventually offset certain elements of the free trade agreement. Why not dream of creating a Quebec IKEA in La Sarre? Quebec's forestry industry can dream big.
711 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:57:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I am pleased to be here this evening to talk about softwood lumber. I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac. I have had some good discussions with him on the issue of natural resources.
Speaking of natural resources, I would also like to thank my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois forestry caucus, including my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the international trade critic, and my colleague from Jonquière, the natural resources critic. I am also thinking of the members from Abitibi, Trois-Rivières, the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and Lac-Saint-Jean, because there certainly is quite a bit of forest in Quebec.
Quebec accounts for 20% of softwood lumber production. This industry supports entire communities. It is the backbone of the economy. I commend my colleagues. I also commend the Quebeckers who are keeping that economy, these communities, these workers, these unions and these businesses going.
I am beginning my ninth year as an MP. I was elected in 2015, a year that could have given us hope. In 2013, Quebeckers had adopted a new forestry system, one that we had worked on for several years. At the same time, an outdated agreement that had been signed by the Conservative government of the day expired. We were expecting something to be done about that.
However, it has been nine years, and I have to say that nothing has been done yet. We are still at the same point, despite the opportunities we have had. I think that every one of my colleagues talked about it in the House this evening. There were many opportunities, including NAFTA and CUSMA, but none of them were taken.
Being here tonight with my colleagues, I feel as though I should say that this is what the Bloc Québécois is all about. We are the only ones bringing this debate to the House. We almost never hear about forests. We do not hear about softwood lumber or countervailing or anti-dumping duties. They come up at times, such as every time the United States says it is going to impose these duties, then a minister stands up and says that the government is not going to let it happen this time, that Canada is not going to take it. Six months later, when the duties are imposed, the minister says the same thing, that the government will not let it happen and that it does not make any sense at all.
However, since 2015, unless I missed something, nothing has changed, but I am open to being corrected. Sometimes, I have seen strokes of genius. We figured that we were truly dependent on the United States and that the Canadian market depended on the United States, and we wondered what would happen. There was talk of diversifying the Quebec market and turning to Asia. There were programs like that and I specifically remember a minister who offered that. However, to us, that changes absolutely nothing.
The Bloc Québécois has asked for several measures, including loan guarantees. However, I talk to my industries. I am thinking of Mr. St‑Gelais from Boisaco, who I talk to quite frequently. What we are asking is for the forestry regime to be recognized.
How is it that, on the other side of the border, no one says a word on this issue? I was listening to my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot earlier. He said that every time he goes to the U.S., he meets with congressional representatives and several people from the industry, including members of the National Association of Home Builders. He meets with them. The members of the National Association of Home Builders raise the issue, but the Canadian delegation members do not.
I am somewhat concerned that the same thing happened during the NAFTA renegotiations. I fear that softwood lumber was used as a bargaining chip. The government may have defended the auto sector and Ontario, but it could not be bothered to defend Quebec. New Brunswick does not have much to say regarding countervailing and anti-dumping duties. The same goes for British Columbia. Only Quebec seems to find this really difficult, but the government is saying too bad, that it is going to protect the auto sector instead.
Understandably, a debate like tonight's brings the softwood lumber issue to the fore once again. I would like the official opposition and the government to step up and say that they are going to do something. As my colleague from British Columbia said, for the past 42 years, which is nearly my age, nothing has changed and our businesses are still paying the price because they cannot invest, modernize or expand. Quebec is the one paying the price, because of both the official opposition and the government.
833 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 10:05:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, indeed, not having a solution to offer the lumber industry and Quebec, I would say, is a failure of all governments. In my mind, it is just one more reason to gain independence.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
