44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- 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 9:09:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I come from a forestry region where a number of towns were severely affected by the softwood lumber crisis of the 2000s.
After I was elected, I had the opportunity to accompany the Minister on a mission to Washington precisely concerning U.S. surtaxes. I thought this would be a great opportunity to talk about softwood lumber. Strategic critical minerals and electric vehicles were the main topics of discussion, but I felt it was important to raise the matter with the Americans. The response was surprising. They were told that their surtax would simply mean that fewer houses would be built under plans like the Build Back Better Act. Even with all that money, if lumber was more expensive, they were going to build fewer houses. It would be a lose-lose situation for them and for us. There was some openness. Two years later, however, here we are having to bring this debate before the House of Commons for discussion.
One of the very simple issues that I would like my colleague to commit to defending in his capacity as parliamentary secretary is the review of the infamous benchmarks that put Quebec at a disadvantage. Quebec has a forestry regime that takes into account the North American Free Trade Agreement, is respectful and should not have a surtax. If British Columbia wants to make its own choices, that is its prerogative. However, Quebec is suffering the consequences. Will my colleague undertake to raise this issue with the Americans so that we can stop putting this Quebec sector at a disadvantage, specifically an industry that is very underfunded compared to western oil?
274 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 9:32:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I would especially like to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his question and his concern about the forest fires. This had a major impact on forestry entrepreneurs in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, northern Quebec, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the north shore. These forestry entrepreneurs had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment that they had placed in the woods and that was ravaged by the forest fires.
Unfortunately, the federal government has not stepped up to provide compensation. As a result, that wood must be harvested quickly. The government did not give these entrepreneurs any room to manoeuver, any cash or liquidity to recover their machinery and equipment, to recover the wood and revitalize the industries.
Some EI assistance was also needed. The weeks lost by the workers could not be made up at the end of the summer. These people did not receive adequate compensation through EI. These are solutions. The federal government will have to find major solutions when it comes to investing in climate change programs. In agriculture in particular, compensation will be absolutely crucial, because people are suffering on the ground.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:34:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from British Columbia for his thoughts for the workers and the business owners.
In this case, we are talking about a dispute that is political. Who is being political? It is the federal government, who should be there to defend us. If it does not, then it should pay the bill. It is not for the business owners to do that. It is not for the workers to pay with their jobs for the political risk that the government took because it did not want to go into battle with the Americans. It is not for the business owners and the workers to pay the cost of the Canadian government choosing to invest in the oil industry instead of the forestry industry, which is renewable. At some point, it will have to take action and give priority to sustainable, truly sustainable development.
If there is a political cost to pay, the workers should not have to cover that cost. If there is an economic cost to pay, it is simple. The money needs to be put in a fund and the workers on the ground need to be compensated. Obviously we are going to win against the Americans because we always win when we know that what they are doing is illegal. When the legal battle is won, the government will be reimbursed. Its pockets deep enough to do that.
236 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:36:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague for his comment. It is indeed very important for me to talk about the indigenous file. Enabling indigenous communities to have better alternatives is part of reconciliation, so yes, that involves reviewing programs to invest in communities for and by indigenous people who will develop the forest in a very sustainable way. Just look at the forestry companies in Kebaowek, a very inspiring example in my riding.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:55:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I heard my colleague make a very interesting pun. I am not sure if it was intentional or not.
First, some context. We have a proven and documented environmental measure that works, which is the carbon tax. We often hear MPs say “axe the tax”. He switched that up a bit. In this debate, what we should be saying is “stop taxing the axe”. We need to stop taxing the axe, because that axe is carried by our forestry workers, by the people who work in the forestry industry, and that is important.
The government's priority should be to stop taxing the axe, to promote jobs in our regions, to allow investment in our regions, should it not? There needs to be a meaningful environmental commitment. Investing in the forestry industry is also investing in the planet and sustainable development.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
