44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/8/24 9:21:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, for many years, as a parliamentarian, one frustration has been the issue of softwood lumber. It is an issue that comes up far too often, but to say that it is the fault of the Government of Canada verus, let us say, the previous government and former prime minister, does a disservice to how the U.S. lumber barons control the market in the United States to the degree that it has been devastating for many companies here in Canada.
I would like to suggest to the member that we need to be talking about ways in which we can continue to walk with our producers and others, industry stakeholders, to protect Canadian interests from those large lumber barons in the United States. Could the member provide his thoughts on those barons?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:25:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I know my colleague comes from a region where softwood lumber is an important issue.
Does he agree with me that the renegotiation of NAFTA, which became CUSMA, represents a major missed opportunity and that, when it comes time to renegotiate in 2025, we must not miss out on such an important opportunity?
55 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 9:31:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I have been listening to industry and hearing about the impacts of wildfires on the lumber industry. As we know, wildfires have destroyed thousands and thousands of acres of forest land. When we talk about supporting industry and innovation, the conversation should also be about climate change and how we can help mitigate its impacts on industries such as the lumber industry.
What more can we do in working with the industry, according to my colleague, to ensure that we are supporting and protecting our environment?
88 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 10:02:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, supporting the softwood lumber industry through innovation and diversifying trade is one of our key priorities, but it is also to stand up for lumber industries and the workers in the industry. Therefore, we are advocating and will continue to advocate. The Prime Minister has raised this on many occasions. The Minister of International Trade has raised this on many occasions. We will continue to make sure that we fight for our lumber industry, because we know it supports over 200,000 jobs across Canada, whether in Quebec, B.C., Alberta or the other provinces.
In terms of innovation in the lumber industry, what more does the member opposite think can be done to ensure that our state-of-the-art products, which people around the world are paying premium dollar for, get out to markets around the world?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 10:03:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the first thing I would say is, what can we do now? For 10 years now, since this party came to power, something has needed to be done about softwood lumber. The Liberals are talking about state-of-the-art products, but it is already hard enough to offload our two-by-fours.
The government needs to do two things. First, it needs to talk about the issue. I am not sure that it has. I have never heard the government talk about it. Perhaps the government discusses it behind closed doors, but I think that when a government wants to engage in diplomacy, it must ensure that the media relays its message so that people know that the issue is one of its priorities. I have never heard anything about that. Second, the Bloc Québécois has reminded the government many times of the measures that could be taken. We are prepared to work together and discuss the issue, but not like this, not in a way that I feel is very out of touch with the reality of our workers. I would invite people to come to my riding when workers are suffering because they are no longer able to sell their lumber, when shifts have to be cut, when people are sent home, when small towns think about shutting down. They will not talk the same way. I want the government to discuss the situation with us. We have all kinds of solutions. My colleagues all talked about them earlier.
258 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
- Apr/8/24 10:08:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it is an honour to rise once again in the people's House to share about a very important subject that is near and dear to my heart. This dispute has been ongoing for now over eight years without resolution. Quite frankly, for all of the rhetoric saying that this is a top priority of the government, that it needs to be resolved and that the government is seized with the issue, we are now eight years out and there is still no solution. Workers across the country in the forestry sector are wondering at what point it will be resolved. They wonder what the future is for their livelihoods and for their families.
In the region that I represent in western New Brunswick, there are several forestry-related jobs at mills and factories. In fact, it is quite personal to me in that my father worked in a pulp and paper mill for over 50 years of his life. He carried a bucket to work every day with his lunch in it, the old lunch pail, the aluminum one. I have it in my office on my shelf as a reminder that I am here because of people like my dad who carry those buckets every day, who work hard in the forestry sector and keep our mills going. They keep the lumber moving and keep products going overseas to help nations over there, but they also provide good employment for people here at home.
I will never forget the time in the early 2000s when the mill went down. My dad, at that point, had worked over 30 years in the pulp industry. What does a man do after working in that one sector for over 30 years and then, all of a sudden, losing his employment plus his pensions and everything he paid into? Overnight it disappeared. It was devastating for that community, where several hundred jobs and several thousand indirect jobs were affected. The community was reeling. Thankfully, through some direct intervention and people getting very active, another company came in and took over. A year later, the mill was up and going again.
My dad was able to get back to work. He worked another 20 years there and was able to get back on his feet. Throughout those years, he was able to make a good living for our family. Whether it is a pulp mill in Nackawic, a softwood lumber mill in Florenceville-Bristol or the one in Plaster Rock, there are literally thousands of people in western New Brunswick whose livelihood depends upon a healthy forestry sector. These are good-paying jobs, and hard-working men and women work in the factories and mills to provide for their family.
We can no longer just talk about getting to a solution, getting to the table and perhaps someday seeing a solution come to this issue. We need a proactive government that will prioritize this. It can be done. We know what happened under the previous government when former prime minister Harper was in place. That government got to a resolution within 79 days. If it could be done then, it can be done now, but we need a government that is going to be at the table, aggressively fighting for the Canadian worker. The health and vitality of our rural communities depends upon, in part, a healthy forestry sector, including the softwood lumber trade.
Tragically we have seen, in the last eight years, over 183 forestry-related and logging-related companies go bankrupt. How many thousands of jobs does that represent, not only on the west coast or the east coast but across the country? The time for prioritizing our forestry sector and getting to solutions around this issue, as it relates to the softwood lumber dispute, is now. How does that happen? It happens through direct engagement, through making it a priority and being relentless in our pursuit. Do not say it is a priority; prove it is a priority. Get to the table. Be forceful. Make sure something happens.
I know that our American friends are very much aware of the fact that their housing costs are increasing, in part for a reason. It is about supply and demand. Canada can help supply much-needed additional lumber for the construction of houses there that would help with their housing prices. There is a case to be made economically for more Canadian lumber getting into the U.S., and we can make that case.
I know from my conversations with some U.S. counterparts, on a personal level as I am in a border riding, that they have an appetite and a willingness to talk about that. They recognize the challenge and know how Canada can help meet their resource needs. The U.S. has resource needs; it is a big and growing country. Canada is its most valued trading partner and we are the closest in proximity. Canada can be the supplier of these things.
Let us get to the table and get this resolved as quickly as possible.
850 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 10:13:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, we know the Conservatives say that the Liberals have not made the softwood lumber agreement a priority, but I can tell members that the Conservatives have made partisan politics a priority.
I want to talk about solutions. I will read from a letter I sent to the minister calling for the federal government to support the biomass proposal that it did put in the fall economic statement. I cited that “With one-fifth of Canada's clean energy businesses being indigenous owned, biomass investments reassert Canada's commitment to their 94 Calls to Action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous-owned biomass facilities, such as the [Natural Resources Canada]-supported Whitesand Bioeconomy Centre, can create hundreds of...jobs for local Indigenous communities while simultaneously meeting local energy needs.”
Hopefully, we can actually get back to solutions. I want to know if my colleague supports expanding the indigenous national partnerships program and funding for companies like Iskum, the new consortium on the west coast of British Columbia. Does he believe that we should be prioritizing investing in indigenous-owned businesses and that we should be working toward solutions that are outside the box, instead of the 42 years of pointing fingers? Obviously, we need to do our due diligence on international trade, but we also need to change what we are doing here at home.
234 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 10:17:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, as members know, the lumber industry supports thousands of jobs and communities across the country. We are working collectively to make sure that we are protecting our softwood lumber industry, but I would like to know why the Conservatives, including the member opposite, voted against funding to support the softwood lumber industry that our government put forward.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
