44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/8/24 3:22:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of constituents in Saanich—Gulf Islands, standing on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
The petitioners are pointing to the long-standing problem of the contribution, unfortunately, of Canadian companies, particularly those in the mining sector, in attacking human rights and being associated with environmental damage around the world.
Petitioners ask the House to consider that the people who are involved in such protests in other countries around the world, to defend their rights, are often harassed, attacked or killed. They are calling on the House of Commons to require companies to prevent adverse human rights effects and environmental damage and to require companies to do their due diligence, including by carefully assessing how their actions are contributing to such egregious human rights abuses and environmental damage. They ask for the Government of Canada and the House to work for the legal right for people who have been harmed by Canadian companies to seek justice in Canadian courts.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 3:48:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to the members for Northumberland—Peterborough South and for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, we really are at one of those rare moments I love in this place, when we are in violent agreement. We should be seeing witnesses respect Parliament and answer questions clearly. This may veer from where the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South is coming, but it is pretty clear to me that something very wrong has happened within the functionality of the civil service that this could happen at all. I do not see any long figures of partisan engagement. What I see is base incompetence and a chance to make a quick buck, which should never, ever be allowed in the culture of our civil service. Bring it on, and let us get Mr. Firth in here.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:31:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, for my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni, I have another question from Vancouver Island. I thank the member for the last round, as I was just going to ask where my hon. colleague thinks we should stand on the issue of raw log exports.
Obviously Canadians need a team Canada effort. Tonight's take-note debate lets us focus on the quite unfair and unexpected increase in duties from the U.S. Department of Commerce, but let us look at the reality: Why do we let a single raw log get exported out of B.C. when we could be putting it through a mill? I will connect this back to the issue of productivity. The more we export only products that are value-added, the more it improves Canada's productivity. A productivity crisis is enhanced when we export any resource product without value added, which is a crime against the environment and our workers.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:23:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, it is nice to have so many British Columbia MPs here tonight, standing up for our forests and for the industry. I am wondering if he would agree that while the U.S. is imposing these unfair duties, it would be a good time to ask the federal Minister of Trade to stop approving any permits for the export of sawlogs when our mills still need logs to process locally.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:37:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it is an honour to rise at this hour to speak in this important take-note debate.
I feel compelled to start with the sad news that was originally shared earlier tonight by the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola about the Hon. John Fraser, former Speaker of the House, former member of Parliament and a valiant conservation champion. He served as minister of the environment in the government of the Right Hon. Joe Clark. He served as the minister of fisheries. He was a British Columbian, a Progressive Conservative and a very close friend, and he died a few days ago. There are flowers in the hallway outside under his portrait.
We are talking about British Columbia forests and softwood lumber disputes. Over many years, John was very involved in advocating for the protection of our forests. He played a key role, as I mentioned on the floor of this place not that long ago, with the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney with respect to the logging of the old-growth forests, the forests of what is now Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve. He played a key role in that even as Speaker of the House.
I will briefly reflect that in Centre Block, in the Speaker's chambers, with a number of visiting conservationists and first nations, he proposed a toast to “the conspiracy to save the planet”. It was a non-partisan conspiracy, with Progressive Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats and members of the Bloc all working together. In his memory, I want to dedicate this reflection on the state of our forests and the ongoing softwood lumber disputes and to say how dearly he will be missed. He was 92 years old when he passed, but there is no stronger environmentalist in the history of this country than the Hon. John Fraser.
As these brief remarks and reflection might suggest, I have been following the softwood lumber dispute for some time and written much about it over the years, going back to what some Canadians will remember in the 1980s. It sounded like some kind of awful disease, that we had to deal with shakes and shingles, but it was not a joke. We have had relentless opposition from the U.S. to a fair shake for the Canadian forest industry. A very active participant in tonight's debate, my friend from Courtenay—Alberni, has reflected on the fact that it has been 42 years of being somehow unable to resolve what appears to be a long-running and bad soap opera. We have had moments of clarity and moments that fell apart.
I certainly think that the current Minister of Trade could be far more active in making it a top-priority issue when dealing with the United States, but I also think it is unfair to suggest that nothing has been done by the current government on trade disputes. I think it is quite remarkable that, again with the late Brian Mulroney's help, the current government was able to get to any trade agreement with the former U.S. administration and president. Let us hope to God we can continue to refer always to him as the former president, Donald Trump, who is, at his essence, protectionist and not really interested in liberalized trade, fair trading rules or even in the global trade regime, of which I also have many criticisms.
It is close to a miracle that we have CUSMA and that we were able to improve on the agreement by getting rid of chapter 11 and the investor-state dispute resolution processes, and to improve on the energy chapter. However, we were not able to improve on the perennial crisis of softwood lumber. We know that the deal we had did buy us quite a lot of time in 2006, but at a cost.
I should pause here again. In a take-note debate, there really is no such thing as a prize for best line of the night, so let this be a first. I wish I had a trophy, which I would not be able to use as it would be a prop, for the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni for “tax the axe”. It should go down in history.
Unfortunately, as my Bloc Québécois friends have already said, it is impossible to translate that into French, but it is a good joke.
For “tax the axe”, hats off to the member for Courtenay—Alberni. I wish I had thought of it, but I give credit where credit is due.
We did not really protect our forest industry in the deal that bought time in 2006, and since it expired in 2015, we have had nothing in place instead. We keep winning. Let us be clear that we win in the World Trade Organization, before NAFTA panels and against the efforts of the U.S. Department of Commerce in saying that our industry is somehow unfair to the U.S. industry. On those arguments, with a fact-based approach in response, we win in the courts; however, the U.S. Department of Commerce is a domestic and political organization.
Again, if I were giving a prize, it would be to the champion lobbyists. The U.S. Lumber Coalition is able to come back over and over again. Tonight, we have a take-note debate, and again I am backing up to give credit where credit is due, to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and to say thanks.
I thank him for his attempt to hold an emergency debate on softwood lumber on February 5.
There was an attempt made by the Bloc in early February to have an emergency debate. Back in February, the U.S. Department of Commerce said that the duties it had been applying at about 8.05% were going to go up to 13.86%. That was just what it was doing, and it did not need to have a reason.
It is often the case that I look at the United States of America and say that Barack Obama is not George Bush, and George Bush is not Donald Trump, but the United States of America is the United States of America; it just keeps doing what it does. It is not fair or right, and Canada should be able to do something more. It is not nothing to go back to another international tribunal, as our government is doing, to complain of the unfairness of the situation and that it is not right to keep hiking duties. However, I will focus on solutions, as we have heard quite a few tonight.
Let us look at the solution that was originally put forward in the Bloc request for an emergency debate. In the budget coming up on April 16, let us put some money forward so Canadian industries that are being unfairly impacted by this can receive some compensation from our government. We will eventually try to get it out of the U.S. some other way, to keep our industry afloat and keep it whole.
The amount of U.S. structural lumber going into the U.S. has been going up steadily. That is why it is raising the tariffs. Over the last couple of years and the explosion in demand for construction materials, we are getting more of the pie for Canada than we did, say, even five years or six years ago. This is why American manufacturers in the lumber group are upset about it and looking for more duties to hit us hard.
What else could we do? We could make sure that Canadian structural lumber is used more in Canada. We could stop raw log exports, because that requires a federal permit. We could make sure our mills in Canada are not lacking for fibre supply to keep our workers going on triple shifts seven days a week if they want to. Shipping out raw logs is wrong.
Recently, at COP28 in Dubai, essentially all the countries on earth embraced something I do not think has been spoken of in this House. It is called a “circular economy”. The rip and strip idea, which is exemplified by logging in places that need to be protected, and particularly old growth forests, is that we just rip and strip and get that out, ship it someplace else and not create the jobs here. If we are serious about raising Canadian productivity, we want a circular economy.
If we are serious, I know we could stop raw log exports and make sure we take better care of the ecological health of our forests while also protecting our workers. Lastly, we need to act on the climate crisis, because the biggest threat to our forests is not the U.S. Lumber Coalition; it is the climate crisis.
1494 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:48:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, whether the parliamentary secretary intended to or not, he did allow me to sneak in something I ran out of time to mention, which is that the forest industry quite neatly overlays rural and remote areas of Canada, and a lot of indigenous territories and indigenous communities.
Yes, we need to do a better job protecting our forests. The forest industry in Canada, despite their press, is not perfect. The government could do a better job on its environmental performance. We could sequester more carbon in our forests.
Again, what I think of the Conservatives' lack of policy on climate is a long speech of nothing, but I am afraid that if I told the Liberal member what I think of the Liberal climate policies, he would not be very pleased either, so I will end it there.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:50:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, there is no question that in this country we tend to have a default preference for people who describe themselves as professionals, as opposed to people who actually know what they are doing. I have always liked the quote, “Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.”
I do think we should bring to the table people who have intergenerational experience in managing their own lands, thinking of the seven generations and not thinking only of rip and strip.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:51:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my friend and colleague from the Bloc Québécois.
Absolutely, I think we need subsidies, with a preference for Canadian industry, at a time when the U.S. government wants to punish our industry. This is a good opportunity for the federal government to provide financial support to this sector.
At the same time, we must work with the United Nations and with indigenous peoples to better protect Canada's forests, the boreal forests. That is what we need to do to protect our forests in the future.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:53:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the issue of forestry in the Canada-U.S. debate is structural. Let us recognize that most of our forest products are produced from land that is called Crown land, and in the U.S. it is from private land. The stumpage fees we charge are viewed by the U.S. as an unfair subsidy.
Let us strip all of that away. It is indigenous land. If it is called private land, who was it stolen from? If it is called Crown land, where did we take it from? What if we focused our efforts around forests on justice and reconciliation, on land back and economic value, while thinking about the seven generations around projects like the one that my friend, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, just mentioned and Chief Watts' impact there.
We also need to re-examine our Constitution. It is widely assumed that because in 1867 someone wrote down that provinces are in charge of forestry, the federal government should have very little to do with it. Let us back up and say that in 1867 we were not talking about climate change or indigenous rights. Yes, in terms of annual allowable cuts and logging allowances, forests are clearly provincial. However, the federal government has a much bigger role here for biodiversity protection, for reconciliation and for climate action.
Let us take off our 1867 blinkers and figure out how we get everybody into the same canoe.
243 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:56:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I have very little to add because I absolutely agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague.
I think it is important to point out that the debates we have here about carbon pricing are almost futile compared to the critical issue of the climate change threat. At the moment, we know that there is no greater threat, except perhaps that of nuclear war.
We need to do more. We need to have debates based on science, evidence and the reality of our current situation, which is so serious for our children and grandchildren.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
