SoVote

Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC)

Apr/8/24 6:51:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I rise today to speak to the softwood lumber dispute between the United States and Canada, and the over $8 billion in tariffs that the Americans have collected from Canadian businesses. As adviser to the leader of the official opposition on Canada-U.S. relations, I wish to give my unique perspective on what I have learned in Washington and on the challenges that the Liberal government has created in reaching a negotiated deal. This situation is one of the Prime Minister's own doing, and it is reflective of his lack of care for the forestry sector as a whole and for the thousands of Canadians who are impacted. There has been $8 billion in tariffs collected as a direct result of the Liberal government's failure to prioritize Canadian workers, indigenous communities and our natural resource sector. It did not need to be like that. There is a desire on both sides of the border to resolve this matter, as Americans and Canadians recognize the importance of the industry. There is no excuse for not reaching a negotiated deal. Over the last 42 years, Canada and the United States have reached agreements on softwood lumber. The most recent agreement, softwood lumber agreement five, was in place from 2006 to 2016. SLA 5 was in place because the former Conservative government understood the importance of the forestry sector to Canada. We understood that the forestry sector was mutually beneficial to both Canada and the United States. When we went to Washington, we made sure that we worked collaboratively with our American partners to reach an agreement. The Liberal government has done the exact opposite. It has completely ignored the situation and has refused to address the dispute at the highest levels of government. When the agreement expired in 2016, the Liberal government should have made it a priority to negotiate a resolution with the Americans, but instead, it delayed and looked the other way. As the years passed, the hon. ministers of international trade blamed the American government, claiming there was no desire to resolve the dispute in Washington. I wish to contest that point. Over the years, American legislators, associations and companies have publicly made it quite clear that they want the softwood lumber dispute resolved, and for good reasons. The United States does not produce enough lumber for its own needs. In a letter dated May 17, 2021, addressed to the United States Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, over 90 members of both parties in the House of Representatives urged the U.S. federal government to resolve the matter with the Government of Canada, saying, “We now call upon you to represent American interests on this critical issue by pursuing a balanced agreement with Canada. We, as Members of Congress, stand ready to discuss this issue and potential solutions with you.” Additionally, on May 12, 2021, members of the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations wrote to the Secretary of Commerce and USTR Tai, saying, “We write to urge you to take action to resolve the longstanding trade dispute between the U.S. and Canada on softwood lumber” and also saying, “These imports are vital to support the ongoing housing boom”. It has not been American denial. It has been the Liberal government's refusal to acknowledge the issue at the highest levels of government and to advocate effectively for a solution to the softwood dispute. Most interestingly is that the Standing Committee on International Trade published a report in November 2023 analyzing the problem and the possible remedies. During those hearings, Government of Canada officials noted that the Minister of International Trade raised the issue of the current dispute directly with President Biden. She raised the issue. According to officials at Global Affairs Canada, the Prime Minister also emphasized the harm of American tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber producers and employees, yet in the report, recommendation 4 states, “achieving an agreement with the United States regarding trade in softwood lumber products ultimately will occur only through direct head-of-government negotiation”, and it also says, “the...softwood lumber dispute should be made a high-level priority in dealings with the U.S.” They had the President of the United States in Ottawa last March, yet again, the Liberal government failed to advocate for Canadian jobs and Canadian interests adequately. This report, the timeline and the situation we currently find ourselves in demonstrate that the Prime Minister has routinely failed to resolve the dispute and has failed to make the interests of Canadian workers a priority when dealing with the United States. The previous Conservative government successfully negotiated a deal, yet the Prime Minister has failed to provide the attention this dispute so desperately requires over the last five years. Why has he continued to fail to negotiate a deal if these Canadian jobs are so important to the Prime Minister? Why does the Liberal Government not give the issue the attention it desperately needs? The softwood lumber dispute will not resolve itself overnight. It requires actual leadership to get it done. We, as Conservatives, know that we can get it done. We also know that the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

879 words

Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24

Mr. Randy Hoback

Apr/8/24 6:56:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I give the member credit for being here tonight. I appreciate her being here and showing interest in the industry, even though it is not in her riding. Twice in the current Liberal government's history, it came close to negotiating a deal. Both times, it required the Prime Minister to step up and get it across the finish line. He had a chance in 2021, and he did not do it. He had a chance in 2017, when it was down to disputes over the amount of wood over quota and lack of supply in the U.S. that Canada could fulfill. Ambassador MacNaughton almost got it done. If the Prime Minister had paid attention, it probably would have been done. That is the problem. When it was done in 2006, President Bush, Jr., and Prime Minister Harper sat in a room, negotiated and got it done, president to prime minister, prime minister to president. In reality, it does not matter what one does for the team Canada approach with regard to this file; it comes back to those two people having the political will to do it. The Prime Minister has not shown that political will.

200 words

Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24

Mr. Randy Hoback

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

Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24

Mr. Randy Hoback

Apr/8/24 7:00:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the reality is we had 10 years of bankability in the forestry sector under the Harper government. Right now, there is $8 billion tied up with the U.S. government. A lot of that belongs to first nations. That money could have been used in first nations. The Prime Minister has not shown up. Does he care? He does not care. I am trying to get that point across to people here in Canada. If we had a Prime Minister who actually cared, this deal could have been done in 2016 or 2017. He does not care. The reality is that Canadians pay for it. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

115 words

Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24

Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC)

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