44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/8/24 6:30:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it was wonderful to hear PMO speech number two.
It is interesting that we are debating softwood lumber, which is something that has been going on for eight years. It has cost tens of thousands of Canadian jobs, and the United States is holding 10 billion dollars' worth of duties, which is crippling our softwood lumber industry. The Minister of International Trade does not participate in the debate; that shows how important the issue actually is for the corrupt Liberal government.
The trade committee produced a report that said that the only way the softwood lumber dispute would be resolved is through direct head of government negotiations. Therefore, after eight years, the failure for there to be a resolution is because of the failure of the Prime Minister on this file, just like on every other file. Does the member agree with the trade committee that the reason the dispute is not resolved is the failure of head-to-head government negotiation, and that this lies at the feet of the Prime Minister?
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:40:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Prince Albert.
What we have here with the softwood lumber dispute is—
27 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 6:48:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the Liberals keep coming back to the possibility that they maybe might win a dispute here or a dispute there, and that would resolve the issue because it has resolved it in the past. What the member does not know is that the United States used to group these disputes together. If one was won, it would say that it would resolve all of them. However, it is not doing that now. It is saying that it does not care if we won the dispute from 2019, because we are then going to have to litigate the disputes from 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024. It is ragging the puck. It is not interested in resolving the disputes.
We can get these little victories, but they will not matter because of the mismanagement of the relationship by the Liberal government. The only way we will resolve this, more than ever, is with some real leadership. Unfortunately for Canadians and for the softwood lumber sector, we have no leadership in the Prime Minister, the missing trade minister or the Liberal government.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:50:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I fundamentally disagree. We had a good deal that returned almost all of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties to the softwood lumber industry. It was able to use that money to innovate. In addition, we secured market access in the United States and had lumber peace for nine years. That is a great deal. It is a deal that the Bloc Québécois will never sign because it will never be government.
We have to get the Prime Minister, or a new one, who will come soon, to find ways to repair the relationship with the United States. The only way we are going to resolve this dispute is if there is political will to do it. To get that political will, we have to repair the relationship.
134 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 7:15:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech.
We know full well that the softwood lumber dispute is causing considerable harm. I would like my colleague to say more about this harm and about the impact that the U.S. administration's findings and decisions since February 1, 2024 are having on the softwood lumber industry.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:16:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, here we are again, and it is back to the same old blaming and pointing of fingers.
For 42 years, Conservative and Liberal governments have been failing the forestry sector miserably and eroding our market share in the United States. This is causing inflation for American citizens. Most Americans are not even aware that the lobbyists who are blocking this are actually causing more harm to their own people.
Does my colleague agree that Canada needs to do a better job of educating American citizens about the impact of this dispute? As well, does my colleague agree that there has not really been a team Canada approach? We have not been flooding the United States and those states that are impacted with information. Does he believe that we need to have a full-court press on this issue?
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:48:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's speech and his passion on this. Again, we need a team Canada approach, but he keeps going back to the agreement under the Harper government. That agreement gave away $1 billion U.S. of collected duties, which legitimately belonged to Canadian softwood producers. About half of that amount went to the U.S. lobby group that started the dispute.
Therefore, it is an agreement that sent half a billion dollars U.S. to those who started the whole thing, and they are our opponents if we want to call them that. They are not really partners when they are taking that approach. Is that the kind of agreement that my colleague wants to reinstate?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:00:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, Canada and the United States are close neighbours with an unprecedented, mutually beneficial relationship when it comes to trade. That said, as we all know, even among good neighbours, irritants are bound to arise. The softwood lumber dispute with the United States is a long-standing trade irritant that, unfortunately, has resurfaced on several occasions. We are in the fifth round of the dispute since the 1980s. In past rounds, we have seen a certain pattern develop.
First, unfair U.S. duties are imposed against Canadian softwood lumber products at the behest of the U.S. lumber industry. Canada then prevails in contesting these unwarranted duties in neutral international fora. Finally, a negotiated outcome providing predictability and stability to the sector is reached. Right now, we are in the second phase, a phase of active litigation to vigorously defend the interests of our world-leading softwood lumber industry.
Members should make no mistake: This trade dispute negatively impacts the Canadian softwood lumber industry, which is a key component of our highly integrated forest sector. Nowhere is it more important than Surrey Centre, a riding that has the highest number of softwood lumber employees per capita in Canada, or at least in British Columbia. The softwood lumber industry provides thousands of jobs across the country and is an economic anchor to many communities, particularly in rural regions.
Canada is a trading nation, and our softwood lumber industry is no different. Almost two-thirds of the total softwood lumber production in Canada is exported. The United States is our largest export market. Unfair U.S. trade measures on most of Canada's softwood lumber exports not only undermine our industry's competitiveness in the U.S. market but also affect communities and workers at home.
Our government recognizes this burden; at every step of the way, we have supported our industry, our communities and our workers. Our government is mounting a strong legal defence of Canada's interests against the U.S. duties, in close collaboration with provincial governments and industry stakeholders.
That is why Canada currently has a total of 13 ongoing legal challenges against the U.S. duties. The hon. Minister of Export, Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development recently announced the latest of our challenges, which contests a biased U.S. decision to maintain both anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian products instead of revoking them.
The government has contested every single U.S. decision that has led to the imposition or maintenance of unfair trade measures on our softwood lumber industry. These legal challenges are being heard through various venues. Most of Canada's challenges are proceeding under chapter 19 of NAFTA or chapter 10 of its successor, CUSMA. We have two ongoing challenges through the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and one that is being heard by the U.S. Court of International Trade.
Through the many iterations of this dispute, Canada has consistently been found to be a reliable and fair trading partner, while U.S. duties have repeatedly been judged to be inconsistent both with U.S. law and the United States' international trade obligations. We are confident that this will ultimately be the outcome once again. In fact, we have already seen a number of decisions in Canada's favour in the current round of this dispute. We know that the facts and the law are on our side, and we will never waver in our support of Canadian businesses and our workers.
581 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:06:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, does my colleague not find it odd that at no time in the minister's mandate letter, when it talks about trade disputes, is there any mention of the words “softwood lumber”?
Is that not a clear admission that the Government of Canada does not care about the softwood lumber dispute and that it is trying to use the regions of Canada that live from the forestry sector as a bargaining chip to secure the automobile sector with U.S. partners?
Does my colleague interpret the absence of the words “softwood lumber” in the minister's mandate letter as clear evidence of what I just described?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:30:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, this is a very serious issue. Since 2016, 183 companies in the forestry sector have gone bankrupt, and tens of thousands of Canadians in British Columbia, Quebec and all over Canada have lost their jobs.
Tonight, in this debate, we have heard the critic from the Bloc Québécois speak to this matter and we have heard the Conservative trade critic speak to this matter, but we have not heard from the minister of international trade from the government, nor have we heard from the parliamentary secretary to the minister of international trade.
Does my colleague agree with me that this shows just how unimportant this matter is to the Liberal government and that this is a big reason why this dispute has not been resolved?
131 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
