44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/8/24 11:27:10 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have worked with my colleague before. Concern around double dipping is something that the member for Courtenay—Alberni and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley have raised repeatedly. It is a concern. There is a broader concern as well, which is that with a dedicated public service of people who are very qualified in their positions and who do terrific work on behalf of Canadians, we are increasingly contracting out. It is certainly something that started with the Harper government, has continued under the current government and seems to be increasing every year.
I believe, as the Auditor General has pointed to, that what we see is that often money ends up going to the corporate sector when it should be more properly invested in building the kind of public services that Canadians can depend on. We have a public service that is incredibly dedicated, and I think the member would agree with me on that. We see people each and every day who are profoundly loyal to this country and put in enormous amounts of time and effort and contribute their talents and labour to the country. Why are we farming out functions that should properly be done by the public service to corporations that often are inflating their prices? We are not getting value for money for the taxpayer.
226 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 12:31:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-2
Madam Speaker, in response to my question, the member indicated that Stephen Harper first brought in the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-2, and he was very proud of that fact.
A couple of years later, the current leader of the Conservative Party, then the parliamentary secretary to the president of the Treasury Board, was at least in part responsible for a $400-million scandal known as the ETS scandal. Members can look it up and see that it is true. I am wondering if he would reflect on that and say that the leader of the Conservative Party made a big mistake back then.
I am wondering if the member would agree that we should be focusing, contrary to what I just finished saying, a little more on the bar question, and that it is a good thing.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 1:27:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with respect to my Conservative colleague, in his remarks, he presented an incredibly myopic view of history.
In my time in this place, one constant feature of the House of Commons has been both the Liberals and the Conservatives pointing the finger over who was worse in government. It is like an extreme parody of pot meet kettle in this place about who had the worst record with scandals.
If we look at the Conservative record, the ETS scandal of $400 million was mentioned, but let us not forget the extreme outsourcing with the Phoenix pay system. If we remember, it was supposed to save the Canadian public $70 million and ended up costing over $2 billion. There are members of the Conservative caucus, who were present during the Harper government, who displayed such flagrant disregard for basic accounting principles that they do not have a leg to stand on.
It is clear that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have equally dirty hands when it comes to outpricing to consultants and flagrant disregard for taxpayers' money.
Given that the Liberals and Conservatives have both displayed such flagrant disregard for taxpayers' money, it is obviously a systemic issue. What proposals do the Conservatives have to fix a mess that both Liberals and Conservatives are equally guilty of making and have thus far been unable to fix?
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:47:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the team Canada approach is one part of that, which should take place. The Liberals are failing miserably on that because they are not getting that groundswell of support in the United States to bring that pressure upward. The real issue is that, ultimately, the American president has to force the United States softwood lumber industry into an agreement because it has legal rights to continue to pursue action. Those rights have to be negotiated away. That is what happened when we had lumber peace under former Prime Minister Harper. The only way to do that is to get the president involved.
The President of the United States will not get involved in this dispute because the Prime Minister has bungled the relationship so badly and our trading relationship has declined so precipitously that he could not be bothered. The only way to fix it would be to change the leader at the top. Thank goodness, when there is a carbon tax election, we will fix it. We will get the softwood lumber dispute resolved quickly; mark my words.
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:49:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, my colleague is bragging about the agreement that Mr. Harper negotiated, but I would just like to point out to him that people in the forestry sector lost $1 billion at the time. A billion dollars in ransom money was left on the table, so it was not exactly the best deal.
I have a fairly simple question for him. Given that disputes with the United States are ongoing, would he agree that a mechanism is needed that would at least give people in the forestry sector access to liquidity, since significant portions of their earnings are being left in the hands of foreign governments?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:59:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the Conservatives keep going back to when they were in power. They gave away a billion dollars U.S. of collected funds, which legitimately belonged to Canadian softwood lumber producers, and about half of that amount went to the U.S. lobby group that started the whole thing. In the agreement, they sent half a billion dollars to those lobbyists. Does my colleague think that was a good deal? Is that what Conservatives want to bring back?
Conservatives taxed our producers with that deal, and I have not heard them come forward with a proposal that is not going to revert back to their failed deal when it was Prime Minister Harper or Prime Minister Mulroney. That is 42 years of failure. They cannot absolve themselves of it.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- 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 7:12:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, my colleague is trying to work on some solutions to move forward.
Back in 2006, the Bloc supported the Harper softwood agreement, which saddled Canadian softwood lumber producers with both an American import quota and a Canadian export tax, while paying the U.S. lumber lobby half a billion dollars. Does my colleague support reverting back to that approach, which creates more taxes?
The member is right, in that the Conservatives have not blamed this on the carbon tax yet, but we are still early in the debate, and I imagine that is coming. However, does he support the approach where, I think, the Conservatives would tax the axe if the Conservatives were to get their way?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:13:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, my colleague made a play on words when he said “tax the axe” instead of the Conservative's usual “axe the tax” line. I was listening to the French interpretation, which was probably not as punchy as the original English. I will have a chat with my colleague about this later.
Having said that, no, I do not support the Conservative approach at all. We do not. We have said it before, and we have no problem saying it again: This agreement was problematic during the Harper era. It was bad for people, for the industry and for everyone. It ended up just deferring the problem. That is not the approach we want at all.
We are after a long-term solution. Some things can be done in the short term. For example, Ottawa can invest in secondary and tertiary processing to reduce our dependence on exports to the United States.
However, I do think I provided a good summary of the many missed diplomatic opportunities in negotiations and meetings with the United States. Canada could have threatened retaliation against the United States, but never did. The Canada-United States-Mexico trade agreement is supposed to be renegotiated in 2025, if I am not mistaken. Those negotiations may end up presenting an opportunity worth seizing.
221 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 7:37:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, 42 years at the negotiating table is a long time. If I were the government, I would not be patting myself on the back or blaming another political party. Certainly, we know the Conservatives' approach did not work. Like I said earlier, it is taxing the axe, because their motto was tax from both sides of the border, which they agreed to. It was a billion-dollar hit to the B.C. lumber industry and producers in British Columbia, and half a billion of that went to lobbyists. That is what Stephen Harper negotiated.
The Liberals dragged this out. There has not been a full-court press on the issue. Clearly they have not negotiated well, and we need a different approach. We need to keep as much of our fibre as we can in Canada. We need to supply our mills. We need to end raw log exports. We need to add value to our fibre. We need to retool our mills. We need to invest heavily into ensuring that we keep up with the international market and are supplying the needs of countries that do not have access to fibre, as well as with emerging markets, where there is huge opportunity. There is mass timber, which we talked about.
We have seen some great models in British Columbia of small players that cannot access fibre. This is ridiculous. The federal government allows international trade and export of our fibre, and our local mills cannot get access. This is just absolutely bonkers. I cannot think of any country in the first world that is managing its forest sector like this. It is unbelievable.
The opportunity is here. It is right now. I hope next week, in the budget, that the federal government is going to take a different approach and is going to look at mass timber, value-added product, retooling and putting more money on the table. Catalyst mill in my riding received the most federal money ever in the history of the riding to retool the mill so we can make food-grade paper and replace plastic paper. When one goes to Costco and gets a hot dog, the packaging is from my riding. Eight times the value per tonne is what we are getting now because of that retooling. Let us do more of that.
391 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 8:04:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for reading PMO speech number six.
Where we are is that this is catastrophic for the softwood lumber industry in Canada. While these members talk about how the wheels are in motion and how the dog ate their homework, 183 companies in the forestry sector have gone bankrupt since 2016, with tens of thousands of jobs, real livelihoods. In 2016, we had the expiration of the softwood lumber agreement that was put together by former prime minister Harper.
What they are doing is not working. It has been almost nine years. This has cost the sector billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
What are they going to do differently, other than talk and talk?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:09:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, again, over 42 years, we have had 13 consecutive governments now that have not been able to figure this out. Liberals choose litigation. Conservatives choose to tax producers on their way out and agree, actually, that Americans can hit us on the way in. It is unbelievable. In fact, under the Harper government, we saw a billion-dollar takeaway from softwood lumber producers. Half of that billion dollars went to the very lobbyists who started this whole thing.
We need a new approach, and we are not hearing the government talk about a new approach. We heard that the Conservatives want to revert back to tax the axe, which is language they will understand. However, does my colleague not agree that we need a transformational change in how we approach things?
Also, in terms of our fibre supply, raw log exports need to stop. We have mills that are starving for fibre, and the current model is not working. It is not sustainable, given the threats of climate change and given the threats to our mills.
I want to hear solutions. Is the member going to work on ending raw log exports? Is he going to work on mass timber? Is he going to support the motion that was passed in the House so that the federal government could actually procure using locally milled lumber and roll it into a national affordable housing strategy, and we could build homes out of local fibre?
245 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 8:45:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, since my riding bears the name of our national emblem, which is a tree, I am especially interested in the softwood lumber debate, even though maple is not a softwood. Softwood lumber plays an important role in all the regions of Quebec.
It was high time that we had a debate like this one in the House of Commons to talk about the importance of softwood lumber and the Liberals' incompetence and lack of ability and will when it comes to finding a solution to the dispute we are in with the U.S. over countervailing tariffs on softwood lumber.
This is nothing new. Since the early 1980s, the United States has been desperately trying to keep Canadian lumber out and to enable Americans to benefit from top-quality wood at very good prices by imposing unfair and unwarranted countervailing duties.
Since the 1980s, there was a time when we had an agreement with the U.S. and things were going well. That was under the Harper government, from 2006 to around 2016. However, unfortunately, right after the current Prime Minister got elected, we saw the government's will to find a solution for this industry, which is important to all regions, especially in Quebec, wither away to nothing.
The forestry industry is important to Quebec's regions. In the Lower St. Lawrence, there are 33 municipalities where the forestry sector accounts for 10% or more of local jobs. In Chaudière-Appalaches, there are 28 municipalities like that. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, there are about 20 municipalities where more than 10% of workers are directly employed in the forestry sector. In the Eastern Townships, there are 17. In Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, there are 15. That is the reality. These are people who have to live with the daily reality of U.S. countervailing duties. Every day, they wonder if these duties will end up killing their industry, their future and, by the same token, their community.
If we look at the share of employment in Quebec's administrative regions and look at the number of jobs in these regions compared to all Quebec regions, some regions clearly stand out. In the Lower St. Lawrence, it accounts for 6% of jobs. In Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, the number is 8%. In Quebec's capital region, it is 6%. Yes, even the Quebec City area is impacted. People think that lumber is only produced and processed in remote regions of Quebec, but that is not true. In the Eastern Townships, it accounts for 8.4% of jobs. In my region, Chaudière-Appalaches, it accounts for 12.3% of jobs. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has not had the will to find a solution since being elected in 2015. It is sad because these are jobs in the regions. Is it because the Prime Minister prefers to represent people in big cities, where there are more elected officials from his political party? It would be a shame to think so. Unfortunately, the facts bear this out.
I may be about to tell my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle, the only one speaking for the Liberals this evening, something she never knew. We have not heard from any ministers or parliamentary secretaries about this situation, about the problems facing the softwood lumber industry in Canada and Quebec. Let me give a few figures. Since 2016, there have been 183 bankruptcies in the softwood lumber industry. In 2020, there were 14 bankruptcies, including 12 in Quebec. In 2021, there were 12 bankruptcies in Canada, including seven in Quebec. In 2022, there were 29 bankruptcies in forestry and logging. Of the 29, 18 were in Quebec. The numbers speak for themselves and demonstrate the urgent need for action.
We cannot allow the situation to run its course just because the market price makes it cost-effective enough for us to still get by. That is not how it works. Someday, the price will drop. Someday, all of these companies being kept alive on life support because of artificially high prices caused by inflation will shut down too.
I implore the Prime Minister to take action, find a solution and reach an agreement. Lastly, I implore him to step outside his office for a bit and go see his U.S. counterpart to come up with a solution for the sake of all regions of Quebec.
747 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
