SoVote

Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC)

Apr/8/24 7:10:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I remember when this first came up. Quebec had done the right thing. It changed its process. It changed the process it used to collect fees from logging within the province to comply with U.S. requirements. It relied on the federal government to negotiate on its behalf, whereas the Irvings, out of New Brunswick, said they were not going to trust the government and would do their own negotiation. The result was that the people who had relied on the federal government paid a tariff of around 21% or 23%, or somewhere within that range, and for the Irvings it was around 3% to 5%. Would the member like to explain how he feels and how Quebec forestry producers must feel knowing the government let them down so badly? The proof is in the difference in the tariffs between what the Irvings paid and what other producers had to pay.

153 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Apr/8/24 7:11:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, Quebec is obviously tired of these punitive tariffs, these countervailing duties that keep coming back. As my colleague knows, when we talk to American elected officials, they too would like this to end, but often these decisions are made by the administrations. Many will say that they look forward to the court's decision and that will be good, except for some states where this topic is more political. I remember one meeting with the U.S. trade representative, they assumed and admitted that this was a political issue. People from his office said that a number of forestry producers are fiercely in favour of countervailing duties, but the opponents of these countervailing duties are home builders. This raises a major electoral issue. Nevertheless, we have the burden of proof: We need to show the Americans that this penalizes them as well. This certainly penalizes Quebeckers and Canadians, but it also penalizes Americans. It is up to us to do the work now.

165 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

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

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

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

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

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

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Apr/8/24 7:15:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, it is simple, quite simple in fact. First of all, forestry accounts for 11% of Quebec's exports. That alone makes it an important industry and an economic driver in the regions. Such is the case for my colleague's region, which was ravaged by forest fires almost a year ago. How time flies. It stands as a reminder of how important forestry is in her riding. I recall that she was often away from the House because she had to be there, on the ground. It cannot have been easy, and I want to assure her again that she has my support; I congratulate her on the work she has done in this regard. That said, the forestry industry is extremely important to the regions and to workers. Yes, cases have been won, and the next case will be won as well. However, and I must stress this point, in the time leading up to the tribunal's ruling, all kinds of abuses are being committed to constantly push back or delay the date of the tribunal's ruling, and this is where the harm is being done. This delay is creating a situation where our industry fails to modernize, becomes less competitive, keeps losing money and workers, and is heading for bankruptcy. This is how this situation leads to absolutely devastating consequences.

226 words

Mr. Gord Johns

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

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Apr/8/24 7:17:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I want to begin by saying that my colleague is probably right about that. On various missions to the U.S., including missions I went on with colleagues from other parties in the House, missions with the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group and in the meetings we held, whether with senators or U.S. representatives, I was pretty much the only one who raised this issue, which says a lot. It is worth mentioning. Allow me to repeat some of the examples I gave earlier. Softwood lumber was not on the agenda at the WTO in Abu Dhabi last month. In 2021, when the increase in countervailing duties was announced, the government was busy panicking over the electric vehicle issue and did nothing at all about softwood lumber. The House adjourned, and the words “softwood lumber” were nowhere to be seen in the paragraph devoted to American protectionism. A few weeks after the announcement of new countervailing duties, and the words “softwood lumber” do not even appear in the paragraph about American protectionism in the mandate letters. I do not know what happened there. Obviously, there is work to be done to raise awareness among the American citizens. The National Association of Home Builders in the United States is doing a remarkable job, but we need to pull out all the stops.

228 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/8/24 7:19:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, it is an honour and privilege tonight to join this debate. This is a debate that is long overdue. We need new ideas around the softwood lumber dispute and we need a different approach. Canada and the United States have been fighting over this softwood lumber issue for over 42 years, and it is time to stop the partisan politics. We need to work collectively in this place, come up with new ideas and take a team Canada approach, a united approach. I live in a community that has been hit hard by this dispute, and believe me when I say that many of the people, the mills and the businesses in our community will not be here for another 42 years if this dispute carries on. It is time to change our approach. Forty-two years might be a long career for someone working in our mills or in the forests, for people who are working hard, but I can tell members that they cannot wait another 42 years, and our communities will not make it. Mill workers, timber workers, lumber workers and forestry workers and those who are out felling in our forests are the backbone of the community where I live. We know that the fallers get up before dawn. They are ready to face some of Canada's most rugged and dangerous terrain. April 28 is a day of mourning, a day when we recognize those who are lost at work, and many of those people are foresters and mill workers. They do some of the most dangerous jobs in our country, and their work is crucial for Port Alberni, for the Alberni valley, for Vancouver Island and for the Canadian economy from coast to coast. It is time to spend way more time ensuring that we tie this issue into the need for people to have a place to live. We have an opportunity to use softwood lumber to build homes. I think about some of the mills in my riding, like San Group, where they mill western red cedar, yellow cedar, Douglas fir, hemlock and spruce. We use softwood lumber for the roof over our heads, and we need to capitalize on that, given that we have a housing crisis. Timing is also critical, because we have wildfires and a changing climate, which obviously threaten those mills and our lumber industry, and loggers and mill workers need economic security now more than ever before. I will cite that the United States, in moving forward, is looking at raising duties and causing even more harm. The bigger problem is that it is not only harming Canadians but is actually harming its own citizens and people around the world. It is driving up inflation. We have an inflation crisis, which we know is global because of global supply chains, but this is an absolutely unnecessary cost and impediment to people in the United States south of the border. We need to do a better job of educating Americans about the impact that those lobbyists are having on their own people. Again, after 42 years, 13 Liberal and Conservative governments, eight prime ministers, three temporary agreements, two prime ministers with a last name that starts with T, which I am not allowed to say here, we are still dealing with the same trade dispute. For decades, the Liberals and Conservatives have bickered back and forth about who has achieved the best deal, but we know it is who has achieved the best of a bad deal, which is really what it has come down to. I appreciate that the Liberals have been in court fighting the harmful duties set up by the United States, but it is important to uphold the rules that form the foundation of our international agreements. This needs to be fixed. This cannot keep going. Every time Canada wins in court, we see that we have proved that the actions of the United States are not only harmful but in fact illegal. The American government just shrugs it off, despite the fact that this is illegal. Then there are more tariffs, more jobs lost in communities and cities like Port Alberni and on the west coast and across Canada. They are gone for good, and they are hard to get back. The San Group opened the first mill in 15 years on the coast of British Columbia just in the last few years. Now it is being hit with this. We know that conservatives would like to cost our lumber industry more than it can afford by bringing in these tariffs. They call it “certainty”, but it costs our lumber industry and those producers more, and they are at an unfair playing advantage. I was sitting with Ken McRae, four-time mayor, just the other day. He was the negotiator for the Canadian Paperworkers Union for over a decade and also ran the labour council in Port Alberni for five years. He told me that back in 1995, he wrote a letter to Jean Chrétien, who was prime minister at the time, asking him to make this a top priority. I have not seen that priority as part of the Canada-U.S. agreement. As my friend from the Bloc said, he has gone on these trips across the border and I have gone to PNWER repeatedly to talk about the impact of the softwood lumber agreement on our relationship, but we have not seen the Canadian government get organized and create a strategy of going across the border. I hope that comes out of tonight's debate. In 1986 and 2006, the agreements the Conservatives established created export taxes on our softwood lumber in an attempt to appease the United States. Following the 2006 agreement, our lumber exports ended up being taxed by both Canada and the United States. We could say that the Conservatives taxed the axe. That is language they will understand. For mill workers in Port Alberni, the Liberal court battle does not mean much. Mills are being overcharged for wood; some are closing their doors for good, and many mill workers will not see a dime of the money that the Liberals win in court. Another Conservative tax, though, would make sure those businesses would never recover. Either way, most mill workers cannot afford to wait another 42 years for real change. It is time to fix it. It is time for the government to look at new possibilities instead of just trying the same thing over and over. It is time that we support our lumber industry in supporting itself. We have already taken a step in the right direction. Catalyst Paper, for example, in my riding, retooled its mill so it could make food-grade paper. When people go to Costco and buy a hot dog, that is where the paper is made. It is adding eight times the value per tonne of fibre. We brought forward a biomass expansion to the clean technology investment tax credit, working with the Minister of Natural Resources, and my riding led the charge, working with Catalyst Paper in my community. It is projected to save mills in British Columbia up to $10 million per year. This was in the last economic statement in the fall. We are hoping legislation comes forward quickly to enact that tax credit, because this money would go back into communities, giving workers in the industry some breathing room and a little more security, but it is just a start. After 42 years, we need to take another look at our dependence on raw softwood lumber. For 42 years, we have been propping up the same failing issue in how we manage with loans and programs, which only lead to more tariffs. Now we need to support our lumber industry in a transition toward more lucrative, environmentally friendly and future-forward enterprises. Port Alberni has seen prospective investors hoping to bring money into the community to create mass timber plants. Through targeted federal funding, we can support them and other lumber towns that rely on softwood lumber, creating new jobs in a growth industry that uses all the same resources that those communities already have. Mass timber can benefit Canada in more than just the health of the lumber industry. My NDP colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay brought that forward. It could provide a new material that is more carbon-friendly than metal or cement, and we could use it to build infrastructure, skyscrapers and the housing that our nation desperately needs, a point that I raised earlier. We also need to further support the growth in our domestic market by encouraging Canadian companies to use wood in place of less sustainable materials in manufacturing. New developments in wood alternatives to plastic could open up new industries to our supply of softwood lumber. We could reduce waste by helping the environment and generating Canadian wealth, as I talked about earlier with that tax credit. After 42 years, we could finally try to do something different. We can strengthen mass timber and other Canadian wood product manufacturing and we can improve domestic demand and ensure that softwood moves away from logging companies to Canadian mills and manufacturers. Funding for mass timber and wood manufacturing would create new jobs in regions where logging and mills have historically been a major industry. Families in Port Alberni that have worked in lumber for generations can remain in their communities and harvest timber or create new, higher-value products, which then can be exported to the United States or other trading partners. We need to look at those other trading partners. Those manufactured wood products, by the way, would be unaffected by the raw log tariffs. It is time that we stop repeating the failures of the last 42 years and start looking at what we can do to strengthen the timber industry for the next 42 years. I know it is past my time, but it is certainly time to start something new.

1682 words

Mr. Rob Morrison (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC)

Apr/8/24 7:29:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the forestry industry is significant, especially in Kootenay—Columbia. There are a lot of family-owned saw mills, some owned for five generations. Another problem in British Columbia is access to fibre. I am wondering whether my colleague could give some examples or ways he could see for our mills to get the wood, regardless of the fires. There is wood there, but we cannot seem to get access. Could the member explain what kind of ideas he has?

82 words

Mr. Gord Johns

Apr/8/24 7:30:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, that is a great question. I hope this debate leads to all of us working collectively. I appreciate the demeanour and tone my colleague brings. This is something that has come up. Mosaic, which owns private lands on Vancouver Island, actually asked the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development for relief during COVID, for 18 months to three years, whereby it could bypass B.C. timber sales, basically the raw log export board federally. If it had been granted that permission, it would have creamed everything. San Group and mills would have been closed. We would have lost hundreds of workers, and they would have never come back. We fought tooth and nail, and we got the minister to back down on that request. Thank God, because the price of timber went through the roof. It would have demolished that area. We have an opportunity right now to change the structure of how logs are sold internationally. We should not have raw log export. At a time like this when we have issues when it comes to fibre, we should be focused on all of that fibre being manufactured here in our country. We also need provinces to demand changes in how the federal government works on international trade. They need to work together on this issue. The model is not working. It is not working for the environment. It is not working for workers. It is certainly not working for the future of British Columbians and Canada.

253 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

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

Mr. Gord Johns

Apr/8/24 7:32:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I know the member has raised many times in the House her concerns around raw log export. Especially when we look at the Alberni Valley, where I live, she knows full well there are still boats being loaded to the hilt with raw logs right now, when our local mills cannot even get access to supply. It is absolutely ridiculous. As I said, Mosaic came forward with a request for relief, basically to bypass putting its timber up for bid to local mills. It would have put them completely out of business. It was actually our party and I that went to the wall to get the federal government to back down. That is not good enough. We actually need a restructuring and a new model of how we do B.C. timber sales and how the raw log export board works. We need to make sure that on fibre that is put up for bid we do everything we can to ensure that the fibre goes to our local mills. That is certainly not a priority right now for the federal government. If the timber companies go after the wood, they get blocked by the big players, and they get penalized. That is exactly what happens. They get hammered. We are seeing businesses sidelined and put out of business. Right now the big conglomerates can block and knock them right out. That is not working for small producers and small mills. It needs to be completely revisited. I am glad my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands asked her excellent question. The Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development needs to show leadership on this. It has been going on for decades and has not been resolved.

292 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Apr/8/24 7:34:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I am not entirely familiar with the reality of the forestry sector in British Columbia. I am more familiar with the situation in Quebec, but there is one fundamental issue, and that is processing. We need to process more wood. Unfortunately, we do not have the support of the federal government. One simple measure would be to use the carbon footprint of federal government buildings as a criterion for awarding contracts. Unfortunately, the government does not want to implement this simple measure, which would allow us to use more wood in federal buildings. I wonder if my colleague agrees with that.

103 words

Mr. Gord Johns

Apr/8/24 7:34:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I know the Bloc worked with the NDP when it came to the bill that was brought forward by my good friend and colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay, who lives in Penticton, on mass timber used by the federal government, in order to do exactly that. However, the federal government has not done it. When it comes even to things that pass in the House, it is moving so slowly on getting direction from the House. Despite the fact that there is a housing crisis and that it is buying materials to build buildings, the government is ignoring the House. We passed legislation directing the federal government on what it has to do. On the retooling of our mills and making sure we add value to every single board foot that goes through, I think of San Group, which is using small logs and processing them. It is not using big logs, but is processing small logs and creating more value. We need to create more value. We need to make sure we purchase and support wood and timber through federal procurement, and we need to stop raw log exports, especially at a time like this, when we are seeing the impacts of climate and we know we are going to have fibre supply issues down the road. We need to do this immediately. It is critical to job security, to our communities and to the longevity of our forest sector. It is actually smart. I cannot think of another first world country, if we want to call it that, or a developed nation, that is mismanaging its forest like this. It is absolutely unbelievable that we are shipping raw logs when our mills are starved for fibre. It absolutely does not make sense.

298 words

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

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

Mr. Gord Johns

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

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

Apr/8/24 7:40:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kenora. We come forward tonight talking about the softwood lumber issue. It has been an issue I have been very close to for most of my life. My first job out of high school was working at the local pulp mill in construction in Taylor, B.C. That is where I learned to work hard, building the mill that was going to cost $150 million but provide hundreds of jobs over generations using residual fibre, which normally would just be waste fibre, from the local mills. However, what we have seen from the current Liberal-NDP government, and the provincial NDP government particularly in my province, is inaction on the softwood file. Let us put this into context a bit first, because I think folks out there wonder what softwood lumber means. For me, it means jobs. I have already said that I have worked in the softwood sector, working on one of the mills. My kids have all worked in it, whether it was for a logging company, working on trucks, or at an OSB mill. We are all very familiar with the forestry sector. However, a CBC article on January 11, 2023, reported, “‘We expect about 300 jobs in Prince George will be lost across the Canfor Pulp organization with the shutdown of the pulp line at PG Pulp and Paper Mill. This includes staff and hourly positions,’ a spokesperson for the company said in an emailed statement.” The CBC, on January 25, 2023, reported, “In an email to CBC News, Canfor said its plants in Chetwynd employ 157 people, adding that ‘where possible, employees will be prioritized for hiring and redeployment to other Canfor locations.’” This was after it was announced that Canfor would shutter that particular mill, which was absolutely the backbone of Chetwynd. I recently talked to one of the former councillors in Chetwynd, and the parent has to go work in northern Alberta now, because there is no longer a mill for her dad to work at. These were two different mills, both in my riding. Of Houston, B.C., which is slightly out of my riding, Canfor said, “it is too early in the project planning to fully understand how many of the 333 employees who work at that facility will be laid off.” Energetic City, in September 2022, reported about the mill that I worked at growing up, “In May, the company stated that the curtailment would most likely stay in place until the fall. At this time, Ward had confirmed that around 80 employees had been affected, saying the company ‘sincerely regrets its impact’” and that another 20 jobs would be lost. This all comes around to the inaction on the softwood lumber file. I was criticizing the trade minister for her lack of action. I would ask her regularly, when she was meeting with our trading partner, Katherine Tai, on the U.S. side, whether she was actually negotiating the softwood lumber agreement. I would constantly get no answer back. We know in this place that when someone is not answering, it probably means it is not being discussed. On May 16, 2021, CTV reported from Washington: Tai told U.S. senators that despite higher prices, the fundamental dispute remains and there have been no talks on a new lumber quota arrangement. “In order to have an agreement and in order to have a negotiation, you need to have a partner. And thus far, the Canadians have not expressed interest in engaging,” Tai said. This was in 2021. Now the government has come to the table, and it is finally talking about softwood lumber. That is great, but what happened about six years before? It did absolutely nothing about it, and that is why our mills were closing. This is the government's game: protecting 25% of lands and waters by 2025 and upping that to 30% by 2030. It is all part of the game to shut this stuff down with a bunch of other different excuses as the reason to do so. What we need is better forest management, and according to Jesse Zeman, “Forestry could play a critical role in mitigating the effects of wildfire by reducing fuel loads and thinning forests.” It is about time we had a government that takes our softwood sector seriously, and I hope that with this conversation we cause the government to do so.

763 words

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

Apr/8/24 7:45:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I listened to the speech of my colleague with great interest. Clearly, he wants to tell us that he supports the softwood lumber industry, and I know the Conservatives in general talk a big game when it comes to supporting the industry and Canadian workers, but unfortunately it is all talk and no action. We hear a lot of buzzwords, and we hear a lot of slogans, but the simple fact of the matter is that, when it came to voting for funding support for the management of the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber file, every single Conservative in the House voted against it. Therefore, I would like to know how the member can defend that vote to the companies and workers they care so much about.

129 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 295