SoVote

Apr/8/24 6:31:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, this has been an ongoing problem since the 1980s. I believe we are on the fifth round of negotiations around softwood lumber. It is an important issue in the province of Quebec, and it is certainly one I am following closely. Indeed, we have seen the Prime Minister and our ministers engage very closely with their counterparts on this issue.

62 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/8/24 6:32:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I think this is such an important issue, especially where I live in Port Alberni and the Alberni Valley, and on Vancouver Island. It is an issue where we actually need all sides to work together. This should not be a partisan issue. This should be all of us hammering Washington. Over the last four decades plus, we have seen both Liberal and Conservative approaches in terms of their failed resolution to the softwood lumber dispute. The Liberal approach can be described as winning in court, but still losing as the U.S. has continued to levy tariffs against Canadian softwood lumber. The Conservative approach can be best described and characterized as appeasement through agreements, where Canada would not only impose an export tax on softwood lumber, but in return, the U.S. would remove its duties. What new approach is the government going to bring? The sense of urgency is real. We have the first new mill in 15 years on Vancouver Island in my community, and it is struggling right now. The tariffs are crippling, and the sense of urgency is real.

186 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan

Apr/8/24 6:33:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I have been following this dispute since I came into this House as a member of Parliament. The thing that struck me was, at the core of the long-standing dispute, the differences in how our two governments handle forest lands and the product thereof. In Canada, they are public lands and there is a stumpage fee that is charged to companies. In the United States, they are privately held interest. I think that basic decision, which must have been made at some point many years ago, shows the difference. Here in Canada, this is a natural resource that belongs to the country, whereas the United States chose to go a different way. As it turns out, it is hurting its own citizens and consumers by not availing itself of Canadian lumber.

134 words

Mr. Gord Johns

Apr/8/24 6:34:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, that is still not good enough. We are looking for a strategy. The whole reason we are staying here late tonight is a sense of urgency. I am still not hearing anything new from the government. As I cited earlier, there is a company in my community that employs literally hundreds of workers. There is already a fibre supply issue being dealt with in my community. We know the mills in my riding still need more money to retool and new markets. The government is moving at the pace of molasses, despite the fact that this is having such a huge financial impact on my community. The multiplier effect is massive. Catalyst Port Alberni Mill, one of the mills in my riding, contributes 15% of the tax base to Port Alberni, just the mill itself. It is critical that we get a sense of urgency. What new ideas are the Liberals going to talk about tonight?

158 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan

Apr/8/24 6:36:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the team Canada approach that was critical in our government being able to arrive at NAFTA 2.0 was one that was widely hailed as being extremely innovative. When I think of U.S. consumers and producers using Canadian softwood lumber, many of them are not aware and many of their state representatives are not aware of how important those industries are to them. The win-win solution for both sides is to understand that there is a mutual win when we work together, our two countries, in making the best use of this industry.

97 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Apr/8/24 6:36:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the NDP members, particularly from B.C., should talk to their provincial government about getting more access to fibre. That is entirely a provincial problem and one of the NDP's own making in British Columbia. On the one hand, we have NDP governments limiting access to fibre, and on the other hand we have a Liberal government that is limiting our ability to market the softwood lumber around the world, particularly to the United States. I do recall something that was called a “bromance” between the Prime Minister and Barack Obama when he was the prime minister. It was a complete failure by the current Prime Minister to get a softwood lumber agreement when Obama was in power. What does the member have to say about that?

132 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan

Apr/8/24 6:37:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I believe the hon. member is talking about the former president, Barack Obama, and not a prime minister. I get it that he is speaking to the strong relationship that the two leaders had at that time, and indeed it continues as a friendship, as with the current president. As we know, it is not just friendship alone that is instrumental in international trade agreements. There are many interests at stake. I think that is where the team Canada approach is a very important one, where we work federally, provincially and territorially, and also with industry partners, again, reaching out to counterparts in the United States who may not realize that there are certain private interests that are trying to capitalize on this trade dispute to their own detriment.

131 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Apr/8/24 6:38:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, my colleague talked about a team Canada approach. The problem with that is that the federal government does not listen to the province that is paying the most in terms of U.S. softwood lumber tariffs. Quebec accounts for 20% of Canada's softwood lumber exports to the United States, but it pays 48% of the tariffs. The federal government never wanted to lead the softwood lumber fight. Its main strategy in the dispute with the Americans was to protect the automotive industry to ensure that Canada can sell electric vehicles to the United States and benefit from the same tax credits. The federal government has never wanted to lead the fight. That is symptomatic of the problem that we have. We do not have enough leverage. Not one Liberal member is capable of defending Quebec's forestry industry.

141 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan

Apr/8/24 6:39:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I really appreciate my colleague's question, but I think he has it wrong. This government has put a lot of effort into defending the forestry industry in co-operation with the Government of Quebec. At the same time, we are supporting the industry with many investments both in the industry and in communities.

56 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

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

The Deputy Chair

Apr/8/24 6:40:43 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share his time? Some hon. members: Agreed.

15 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Apr/8/24 6:40:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, what we do is look at the softwood lumber dispute, but not in the vacuum of the dispute itself, because this is now an eight-year dispute. Within 79 days of Prime Minister Harper being elected in 2006, the softwood lumber dispute was resolved, and we had lumber peace for nine years. That agreement expired, and then the current incompetent government took over. We are now eight years down the road, and $10 billion in duties have been collected and tens of thousands of jobs have been lost. If we actually look at the bankruptcies in the forestry sector, since 2016, 183 companies have gone bankrupt in the forestry sector as a result of countervailing and anti-dumping duties and as a result of the complete failure of the Liberal government and the Prime Minister to resolve this. The consequences just continue. In 2024, at the Terrace Bay pulp mill, 400 jobs were lost. At West Fraser, in February 2024, 175 jobs were lost. In 2023, at the Canfor Prince George pulp and paper mill, 300 jobs were lost. These jobs are continuously being lost because of the absolute mismanagement of this issue. If members do not believe me that this issue has been mismanaged, all they have to do is look at the trade committee's report on this and the recommendation in that report, with which five Liberal members agreed. Five Liberal members actually agreed with the statement that “an agreement with the United States regarding...softwood lumber...ultimately will occur only through direct head-of-government negotiation.” That is the recommendation from the committee, which included five Liberals. The fact that there has not been a resolution is because there has been a complete failure at the head-of-state level. This falls squarely at the feet of the Prime Minister. It is his job and his duty to resolve the dispute. He has failed miserably, and the Liberals keep coming back with these old bromides, like the “team Canada approach”. It has been eight years. Their so-called “team Canada approach” has produced absolutely no results. In fact, it is getting worse, because the government has so badly mismanaged the trading relationship with the United States that we are just not as relevant as we once were. We are now the United States' third-largest trading partner, as a result of the incompetence of the Liberal government, and that has consequences, because we are not as important a trading partner of the United States as we once were. The Liberals keep saying that trade is up. Trade is not up with the United States. Trade is up by price because of inflation, but the volume of trade with the United States is down. Again, the only people responsible for this are the Prime Minister and the trade minister, who is not even here for the debate on softwood lumber—

492 words

The Deputy Chair

Apr/8/24 6:43:59 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry. The hon. member knows full well he is not to indicate who is in the House and who is not in the House.

26 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Apr/8/24 6:44:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-282

Madam Chair, the trade minister has not participated in this debate. It was not her who led off debate for the government. It shows us how important this issue actually is for the government, that the trade minister does not lead off debate on a simmering eight-year softwood lumber dispute. It is worse than this. We have declined as the United States' trading partner, but we also have continuous own goals in the trading relationship. We have to look at things like Bill C-282, the supply management bill. That did not win us any friends in the United States, and now the Liberals are saying they are going to unilaterally impose a digital services tax, which the United States is adamantly against. We have declined as a trading partner because of the incompetence of the government to manage the trading relationship. The Liberals bring in all of these trade irritants, and they wonder why they cannot resolve this dispute. It all goes back to the incompetence of the government, the incompetence of the Prime Minister and the incompetence of the trade minister. They are the people who are responsible for this, no one else. The buck stops with them. I would love to see the Prime Minister come and contribute to this debate. I would love to see the trade minister come and contribute to this debate, but I suspect I will not, because it is actually not important for them to do so. That is what is causing all of the job losses we are seeing. We have gone from 33% market share down to 26%, and that is old data. That is actually from 2022. It is probably worse. We are probably down to 24%. This is haemorrhaging jobs in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and the Maritimes, and the government's response is to not have the minister lead off debate and to talk about its team Canada approach. It is not doing anything. It will not do anything. Even the Liberals on the trade committee know it will only be resolved by Prime Minister-to-President negotiation. Unfortunately, we are snookered, because our leader has nothing to offer on this.

365 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/8/24 6:46:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I do not want just keeping putting my hands up and saying that the government cannot figure it out and that we should walk away. I do believe in a team Canada approach, but the government has not truly done that. I think about members like my colleague who just spoke, and other colleagues in the House who are impacted, as their constituents and workers are impacted by the softwood lumber agreement. They have never corralled us all together and said for us to get organized, to head to Washington, to get into the regional branches of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary association like PNWER in the Pacific Northwest region and to get out to meet with those state governors and state legislatures. They have not done that. There has not been a full-court press. Does my colleague agree with me that there needs to be a full-court press, not just Prime Minister to president, and that it needs to be now? Some people in the U.S., on that side of the border, do not understand the ramifications of what they are doing to their own people, never mind to Canadians.

196 words

Lumber

Mr. Kyle Seeback

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

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

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

Mr. Kyle Seeback

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

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

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

Mr. Kyle Seeback

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 295