44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/8/24 7:45:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, it would be funny if it were not so sad. Here is a member of a government that has done absolutely nothing, and I just proved it. The minister responsible did nothing for six years, even as evidenced by Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade secretary. It did nothing when we got it done within six months.
Here is a government that has done absolutely nothing. It has been the government for almost nine years, and it is still not there. We got it done within six months. We did pretty well. My hope is that the officials get to the U.S. and negotiate a softwood lumber agreement.
With respect to the mills that I talked about, I am seeing jobs being lost by the hundreds in my very own riding. Mills are being shut down by the hundreds. Is it for a lack of trees? I fly over our forests twice a week, and there are lots of trees in British Columbia. We just need to make sure that the companies have a reason to go in and log.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:47:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I cannot speak to what the Bloc's plan is for equity in the forest sector, but when I had my job as a 19-year-old working on a construction site where we were building a pulp mill, the company did not need the equity. It got it because there were good business cases for developing a lumber mill or using the residual fibres from a lumber mill for making paper and other products. It was not necessary.
We had a great, flourishing forest sector, especially after we had our softwood lumber dispute settled in 2006. We need to get back to having a government that cares about our softwood sector, cares about our forests and wants to better manage our forests. However, what I can see with the environment minister and the fisheries and oceans minister is that it is all about shutting it down.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:49:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, it is an honour to rise on this important issue this evening.
Of course, forestry is a major employer and economic driver for people in my region of northwestern Ontario and right across northern Ontario. I think about the people in Dryden, Kenora, Ear Falls and Ignace, along with a number of first nations across Treaty No. 3 that have partnered in groundbreaking partnerships and revenue-sharing agreements to find prosperity in the forestry industry. It is an industry that provides powerful paycheques to many people across northern Ontario. It is also an industry that is very environmentally positive and environmentally sustainable.
I heard a few comments about that already today, that the forestry industry is one that can help mitigate the effects of climate change. It can help to mitigate the effects of fires if we are able to harvest forests and harness the carbon dioxide that has been absorbed through the trees. Unfortunately, it is also an industry that has been under attack by the current NDP-Liberal government.
I want to just share one related issue of caribou in northern Ontario. The environment minister had, last year, issued an ultimatum saying that he was going to block harvesting thousands of kilometres of Ontario forests. It was through the guise of caribou protection. He was saying that and doing so without any acknowledgement of what has been happening at the provincial level or what has been happening with first nations and their local knowledge and local leadership to ensure that there is a protection plan in place for caribou. The minister was planning to move forward with that order just to block development. He seems to have this personal vendetta against development of any kind. It was very sad to see that the government was planning to move forward on that. We will see where that stands going forward.
It is important that any plans that are put in place have to account for the provincial, territorial and local plans that are already in place and that are already working to help ensure that we can harvest forests in northern Ontario and across the country in an environmentally sustainable way and in a way that provides good jobs and good economic growth and, of course, is viable from an environmental standpoint as well.
I share that because it is just one example of how the government has failed the forestry sector. I could go on, but unfortunately I am limited for time. Another issue is the softwood lumber issue we are dealing with right now.
This dispute has had real ramifications for people in my riding. It has led to people losing their jobs. It has led to idling of the former Kenora Forest Products mill and the eventual bankruptcy of Prendiville Industries as a result of that. We are happy that GreenFirst is now involved in that operation, but these tariffs and this trade dispute continue to hang over the heads of the workers across northern Ontario. Unfortunately, it is only going to get worse because the U.S. plans to increase these tariffs from the current 8% to over 13% on our softwood lumber industry. That will bring even more economic devastation to people across northern Ontario. This has already also cost billions of dollars to our industry, Canadian companies. It is first nations that have stakes in this industry that are now without those funds as a result of the government's inaction.
It was mentioned already that, under the previous Conservative government, there was an agreement reached within six months. The current government has had over eight years, yet has still not been able to come to an agreement. The best the Liberals can say is that they are working on it. They are raising the issue. They are talking about the issue. We do not know if that is even true. One thing is true. It is either that they are completely ignoring the softwood lumber issue or that they are raising this issue with U.S. counterparts and getting nowhere through two different administrations. It does not seem to matter who is in the White House as the current government has not been able to get a deal done competently. It is completely unable to fight for Canadian workers and Canadian industry.
Canada's Conservatives are going to continue to stand for Canada's forestry sector and the hard-working people who make it thrive.
745 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:08:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, my colleague from Richmond Centre said it very well. The government actually recognizes that we have to create well-paying jobs. However, in order to have those jobs, we have to protect our environment, we have to clean our air, and we have to have practices that are sustainable so we will have a continuous and robust forestry sector for years, decades and millennia to come. If we do not amend those practices, if we do not protect our forests, if we do not have practices to protect and preserve our forests, we will not have a forest sector in the future. Therefore, our government is doing both hand in hand: It is fighting to create the opportunities and fighting to protect our forests and create a future for our children.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:29:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, there are solutions for the forestry industry in Quebec and Canada. The lethargy we are seeing right now is a result of the fact that nothing has been done for 20 to 40 years. The federal government does not stand up for our forests.
We all know what is happening with the forest fires and flooding. With the forest fires, think of the families who are worried and who do not know whether they will have a home. The animals in northern Quebec and Nunavik are not there any more. The caribou are disappearing. Black bears are now in Kuujjuaq and elsewhere.
These are things we need to think about. This is not normal. The government needs to act quickly.
123 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 9:51:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that our forests are not adequately protected. Also, does she agree that the government needs to support the forestry sector and stop ignoring it? Does she also agree that the government needs to stand up for that sector when dealing with the Americans?
I would like to hear her thoughts.
64 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
