44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/8/24 2:05:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is tax season. Across the country, thousands of volunteers are hard at work helping other citizens fill out their tax returns.
In Châteauguay—Lacolle, soon to be Les Jardins-de-Napierville, people at the Centre d'action bénévole du grand Châteauguay and a volunteer organization known as “au cœur du jardin” are rolling up their sleeves and giving citizens some much-needed help so they can qualify for all our excellent programs, such as the Canada child benefit, the Canadian dental care plan, the GST credit, the disability tax credit, the Canada caregiver credit and many others.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:21:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important take-note debate and to speak about the significant actions the government has been taking to support Canada's interests in the ongoing softwood lumber dispute with the United States.
First of all, I can assure members that we are in constant dialogue with the U.S. government at all levels to convey the importance of reaching a satisfactory resolution to this long-running dispute. We have made it abundantly clear that Canada believes a negotiated settlement with the U.S. is in the best interests of both our countries. However, we will only accept an agreement that is in the best interests of our softwood lumber industry, our workers and our communities. Such an agreement has to make sense for both sides.
Reaching an agreement that protects Canadian jobs is a priority, because the forestry industry plays a vital role in the Canadian economy. Domestically, it helps create jobs for hundreds of thousands of Canadians and generates significant revenues for rural and indigenous communities across the country. What is more, it provides essential commodities that are used in a multitude of industries, from construction to paper to lumber products.
In Quebec specifically, the forestry industry is a major economic pillar that supports tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in various regions such as Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, the north shore and the Gaspé. It also contributes to the vitality of regional communities by providing economic opportunities and promoting regional development. In short, the forestry industry is much more than an economic sector. It is a key aspect of the identity and prosperity of Canada and Quebec.
Historically, the United States has always relied on imports of Canadian lumber to fill the gap between its domestic production capacity and domestic demand for lumber. Canada has always been a stable and reliable supplier of high-quality products for American consumers. For example, imports from Canada have historically met about one-third of U.S. demand for softwood lumber. In 2022, 90% of Canada's softwood lumber exports went to the United States, at a value of $12 billion. Now more than ever, Canadian softwood lumber products are essential for addressing insufficient production and the affordable housing shortage in the United States.
It is clearly counterproductive to impose unwarranted duties on such a large portion of U.S. consumption when the U.S. is trying to combat rising inflation and housing costs, which is also an issue in the United States.
The U.S. National Association of Home Builders has indicated that duties on Canadian softwood lumber exacerbate already high lumber prices and directly increase costs to consumers. American legislators on both sides of the political spectrum have even written to their government to say that a softwood lumber agreement is key to predictability in the housing market. Maintaining unfair duties on Canadian softwood lumber directly contradicts the United States' goal of making housing more affordable.
What is more, these unfair duties benefit third parties to the detriment of our supply chains and our very resilient and integrated economies. Since imposing these duties for the first time in the current round of this dispute, rather than protecting jobs and companies at home, the United States has seen a surge in overseas imports from suppliers in Asia and Europe to fill the gap between supply and demand in the U.S.
It is therefore easy to see that a negotiated settlement, which would bring stability and predictability to the softwood lumber industry, is the best outcome for everyone involved. That is what the current government has consistently advocated for, and that is what we will continue to do.
Therefore, it is truly unfortunate that certain businesses in the U.S. lumber industry encourage some American decision-makers to impose duties on Canada's lumber exports and to refrain from meaningfully engaging in negotiations, preferring the continued disruption to lumber supply caused by these duties, to the detriment of U.S. consumers. The domestic U.S. lumber industry, as a pretext, contends that Canada is responsible for injury to its producers. Time and time again, neutral and impartial international tribunals have found that Canadian softwood lumber producers respect our international obligations.
Nevertheless, our government continues to encourage the United States to return to the negotiating table to find a mutually acceptable agreement. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development have repeatedly stated that Canada is ready to hold constructive discussions on realistic solutions that would be acceptable to both parties. Minister Ng regularly discusses the softwood lumber dispute with her U.S. counterpart, Trade Representative Katherine Tai. Just recently, the minister stressed the importance of expeditious and impartial dispute settlement procedures under CUSMA as a means of resolving the situation. Unfortunately, we have yet to see any willingness on the part of the U.S. to commit to a lasting resolution of this long-running dispute.
Furthermore, the Minister of Foreign Affairs raised this issue with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, while senior Canadian officials, including our ambassador to the United States, Kirsten Hillman, remain in constant contact with their U.S. counterparts. As we repeatedly continue to urge the United States to negotiate mutually acceptable terms, we are not just standing idly by. Canada is defending our industry, our communities and our workers and is actively using every other means available to resolve their disputes, including the remedies provided under international trade agreements, while supporting Canada's softwood lumber producers and the communities that depend on this sector. Our efforts have yielded results in the past and we are getting there again.
Throughout the entire process, we have worked and will continue to work closely with provinces, territories, indigenous partners and industry stakeholders to ensure a united pan-Canadian approach to the dispute.
As recently announced by the Prime Minister, the government has renewed its commitment to a team Canada approach and is engaging with the United States to ensure the continued prosperity and well-being of Canadians.
Our strategy for ending the dispute centres on legal victories, strong partnerships and relationship building. With our allies in Canada and abroad, we are confident that we can reach a solution with the United States that benefits producers, workers and communities on both sides of the border.
1075 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:31:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, this has been an ongoing problem since the 1980s. I believe we are on the fifth round of negotiations around softwood lumber. It is an important issue in the province of Quebec, and it is certainly one I am following closely. Indeed, we have seen the Prime Minister and our ministers engage very closely with their counterparts on this issue.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:33:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I have been following this dispute since I came into this House as a member of Parliament. The thing that struck me was, at the core of the long-standing dispute, the differences in how our two governments handle forest lands and the product thereof. In Canada, they are public lands and there is a stumpage fee that is charged to companies. In the United States, they are privately held interest.
I think that basic decision, which must have been made at some point many years ago, shows the difference. Here in Canada, this is a natural resource that belongs to the country, whereas the United States chose to go a different way. As it turns out, it is hurting its own citizens and consumers by not availing itself of Canadian lumber.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:36:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the team Canada approach that was critical in our government being able to arrive at NAFTA 2.0 was one that was widely hailed as being extremely innovative.
When I think of U.S. consumers and producers using Canadian softwood lumber, many of them are not aware and many of their state representatives are not aware of how important those industries are to them. The win-win solution for both sides is to understand that there is a mutual win when we work together, our two countries, in making the best use of this industry.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:37:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I believe the hon. member is talking about the former president, Barack Obama, and not a prime minister. I get it that he is speaking to the strong relationship that the two leaders had at that time, and indeed it continues as a friendship, as with the current president.
As we know, it is not just friendship alone that is instrumental in international trade agreements. There are many interests at stake. I think that is where the team Canada approach is a very important one, where we work federally, provincially and territorially, and also with industry partners, again, reaching out to counterparts in the United States who may not realize that there are certain private interests that are trying to capitalize on this trade dispute to their own detriment.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:39:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I really appreciate my colleague's question, but I think he has it wrong.
This government has put a lot of effort into defending the forestry industry in co-operation with the Government of Quebec. At the same time, we are supporting the industry with many investments both in the industry and in communities.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:48:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I listened to the speech of the hon. colleague with great interest. Regarding the international tribunals, I would like to hear his comments about how the international trade dispute mechanism works or does not work.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:55:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, there were a couple of things in his speech. This is something that is not going to happen overnight, but indeed, it has been a long-standing dispute for a number of reasons. However, Canada has won in the arena of the neutral international trade dispute organizations.
I would like to hear his comments about that, and also hear why Conservatives voted against supports, time and time again, that our government put forward for the softwood lumber industry.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:09:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague for such an interesting speech.
I do have some questions. We heard the Conservatives say that their party negotiated an agreement when Mr. Harper was in power. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that agreement.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:36:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the member is clearly very knowledgeable on the topic. On this side, we have always believed that the best deals are reached at the bargaining table. The government is prepared to negotiate in good faith with our American counterparts, but we are not willing to just accept any deal at any cost. When the government was renegotiating CUSMA with the Trump administration, former prime minister Harper urged the Canadian government to fold and capitulate. I wonder whether the member recalls that and can comment on it.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:45:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I listened to the speech of my colleague with great interest. Clearly, he wants to tell us that he supports the softwood lumber industry, and I know the Conservatives in general talk a big game when it comes to supporting the industry and Canadian workers, but unfortunately it is all talk and no action. We hear a lot of buzzwords, and we hear a lot of slogans, but the simple fact of the matter is that, when it came to voting for funding support for the management of the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber file, every single Conservative in the House voted against it. Therefore, I would like to know how the member can defend that vote to the companies and workers they care so much about.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:55:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech and just say how grateful I was to hear the term “climate change” mentioned by a Conservative member. There were even a couple of other words in there, such as indigenous knowledge, and something to do with acknowledging that wildfires are an issue in this country and need to be addressed.
This government has made significant investments in supporting the forest industry, especially as global demand for sustainable forest products grows. As the hon. member mentioned, the forestry sector continues to innovate, grow and support good jobs for Canadians.
Why did he vote against our investments in budget 2023 of over $368.4 million over three years to renew and update the forest sector's support?
130 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 8:39:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, like many of the speeches we heard from the Conservative members tonight, there were lots of slogans and buzzwords, but no actual substance. While our government was providing historic supports for the forestry sector, with over $368.4 million over three years to renew and update forest sector support, over $130 million to accelerate the adoption of transformative technologies and products, and over $12 million to provide economic opportunities for indigenous communities in the forest sector, the Conservatives did nothing but oppose. I would like to hear from the member opposite why, if the Conservative Party truly cares about our softwood lumber industry, it dogmatically opposes any efforts to help support it.
114 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
