SoVote

Apr/8/24 7:56:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, in the five years I have had the honour to represent the people in the Kenora riding in Parliament, it has been a pleasure each and every time I have had an opportunity to vote against one of the NDP-Liberal budgets because I am voting non-confidence in the government. It is a government that is tired and out of ideas. It is corrupt and has no plan to support our forest industry or to get back to a balanced budget and make life more affordable for Canadians. All of its plans have been failing, and that is why I am proud to stand with my Conservative colleagues and continue to vote non-confidence in the government.

120 words

Voting

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Apr/8/24 7:57:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks of the fact that softwood lumber was not mentioned in either the minister's mandate letter, or the agenda for the WTO ministerial in Abu Dhabi. In both cases, it was a month after the announcement of new countervailing duties. The Liberals agreed to holding this take-note debate more than two months after we started talking about it. Are we witnessing a rather clear display of this government's complete disinterest in this issue?

87 words

Mr. Eric Melillo

Apr/8/24 7:57:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I think a very good point was raised. It is something that is urgent for people in northern Ontario, Quebec and right across the country, but the government has really been dragging its heels on this. The member points out a very obvious example. The fact that we are even here debating it all this time later, after eight years, is perhaps the greatest example of all that the government has been largely ignoring this issue and has been absent from this issue. As I said, even if we take the government's word for it that it has been working on it, then it is clearly incapable of delivering on this issue because it has had eight years to get it done. It is definitely time for change. The Conservatives are going to bring it home.

139 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/8/24 7:58:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I want to talk about solutions. My colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing sent me a letter from the mayor of Kapuskasing, and he wanted to talk about solutions to Canada's housing crisis. He cites that they can be found in the forest. He cites that Canada can: Actively promote Canadian wood and mass timber solutions within a federal affordable housing strategy. Establish a harmonized regulatory framework for permitting processes to expedite approvals safely and responsibly. Adopt a performance-based approach and increasing tall wood building height allowances in the National Building Code. Promote nationally certified, prefabricated building typologies for wood-based structures that meet municipal standards. Offer incentives for developers using a high proportion of Canadian wood products in new construction. Support the development of a future-ready skilled workforce through standardized green education and training programs. That is something my colleague from Timmins—James Bay has been working very hard on. Does my colleague agree with those great recommendations from the mayor of Kapuskasing?

171 words

Mr. Eric Melillo

Apr/8/24 7:59:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I really love the community of Kapuskasing. Last summer, I had the opportunity to travel there with the leader of Canada's Conservatives. We met with forestry workers, many of whom felt left behind by the NDP-Liberal government. They were very upset with the fact that their NDP representative continues to support the Liberal government and continues to support a government that is dragging its feet on the softwood lumber deal and not delivering for the people of northern Ontario. That is what Conservatives are going to do: deliver for northern Ontario.

95 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

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

Mr. Chair, Canada and the United States are close neighbours with an unprecedented, mutually beneficial relationship when it comes to trade. That said, as we all know, even among good neighbours, irritants are bound to arise. The softwood lumber dispute with the United States is a long-standing trade irritant that, unfortunately, has resurfaced on several occasions. We are in the fifth round of the dispute since the 1980s. In past rounds, we have seen a certain pattern develop. First, unfair U.S. duties are imposed against Canadian softwood lumber products at the behest of the U.S. lumber industry. Canada then prevails in contesting these unwarranted duties in neutral international fora. Finally, a negotiated outcome providing predictability and stability to the sector is reached. Right now, we are in the second phase, a phase of active litigation to vigorously defend the interests of our world-leading softwood lumber industry. Members should make no mistake: This trade dispute negatively impacts the Canadian softwood lumber industry, which is a key component of our highly integrated forest sector. Nowhere is it more important than Surrey Centre, a riding that has the highest number of softwood lumber employees per capita in Canada, or at least in British Columbia. The softwood lumber industry provides thousands of jobs across the country and is an economic anchor to many communities, particularly in rural regions. Canada is a trading nation, and our softwood lumber industry is no different. Almost two-thirds of the total softwood lumber production in Canada is exported. The United States is our largest export market. Unfair U.S. trade measures on most of Canada's softwood lumber exports not only undermine our industry's competitiveness in the U.S. market but also affect communities and workers at home. Our government recognizes this burden; at every step of the way, we have supported our industry, our communities and our workers. Our government is mounting a strong legal defence of Canada's interests against the U.S. duties, in close collaboration with provincial governments and industry stakeholders. That is why Canada currently has a total of 13 ongoing legal challenges against the U.S. duties. The hon. Minister of Export, Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development recently announced the latest of our challenges, which contests a biased U.S. decision to maintain both anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian products instead of revoking them. The government has contested every single U.S. decision that has led to the imposition or maintenance of unfair trade measures on our softwood lumber industry. These legal challenges are being heard through various venues. Most of Canada's challenges are proceeding under chapter 19 of NAFTA or chapter 10 of its successor, CUSMA. We have two ongoing challenges through the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and one that is being heard by the U.S. Court of International Trade. Through the many iterations of this dispute, Canada has consistently been found to be a reliable and fair trading partner, while U.S. duties have repeatedly been judged to be inconsistent both with U.S. law and the United States' international trade obligations. We are confident that this will ultimately be the outcome once again. In fact, we have already seen a number of decisions in Canada's favour in the current round of this dispute. We know that the facts and the law are on our side, and we will never waver in our support of Canadian businesses and our workers.

581 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

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

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Apr/8/24 8:05:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, we all know that the mechanism to fight these unfair duties is through legal means, through NAFTA chapter 11 or CUSMA chapter 10. We have fought those, but we can only have a favourable outcome and settlement if the other party is willing. Unfortunately, despite continuous legal victories on Canada's behalf, we need a willing trading partner who agrees to abide by those. We have seen that the Americans have been inconsistent in that regard, and it takes a long time to pressure them into doing that. I am very confident that our government and our minister of trade will continue to do those talks, and we will get to a resolution so that our softwood exports will be traded at a fair and an appropriate value, free of any trade barriers.

135 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Apr/8/24 8:06:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, does my colleague not find it odd that at no time in the minister's mandate letter, when it talks about trade disputes, is there any mention of the words “softwood lumber”? Is that not a clear admission that the Government of Canada does not care about the softwood lumber dispute and that it is trying to use the regions of Canada that live from the forestry sector as a bargaining chip to secure the automobile sector with U.S. partners? Does my colleague interpret the absence of the words “softwood lumber” in the minister's mandate letter as clear evidence of what I just described?

112 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Apr/8/24 8:07:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I could not disagree more with my colleague. I think Canada fights equally for these. I regularly meet with stakeholders, particularly small and medium-sized sawmills and even larger privately owned sawmills that are located in my constituency of Surrey Centre. They have faith that the government is fully trying and that our trade minister is working on it; they receive regular updates in regard to that. Therefore, I am confident that there is no impropriety being done between one region and the other. When Canada speaks, it speaks on behalf of all its provinces.

97 words

Mr. Wilson Miao (Richmond Centre, Lib.)

Apr/8/24 8:07:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, while the Conservative Party continues to debate whether climate change is even real, 2023 was the most severe wildfire season in history for British Columbia and Canada. The impact that wildfires will have on our forestry sector going forward is obvious to everyone, except for the Conservative Party. Does the Conservative Party have a plan, any plan, to help our world-class forestry sector deal with the ravages of climate change? Do the Conservatives not recognize that failure to act on the climate file will have significant long-term impacts on the forestry sector?

96 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai

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

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

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

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Apr/8/24 8:11:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I agree with some points that my hon. colleague from British Columbia has made. We need to increase mass timber projects. We have been doing that by changing the building code to accept that, with the building of even 18-storey buildings now using mass timber. This is a renewable and carbon-sequestering methodology of building more homes. However, we also do not want to revert back to what the Conservatives did and tax $1 billion on these sawmill owners and then give half to rich lobbyists who act on their behalf. However, we need a willing partner on the other side. What we have been seeing is a very litigious partner. As lawyers can appreciate, it is no different from people who commence lawsuits frivolously time and time again. When the outcome is always the same, it is a very frustrating program. I agree that perhaps a new approach, a new agreement, with the Americans needs to be reached where this does not happen over and over again. When NAFTA was created, it was thought that the chapter 11 method would be safe and secure. We were able to retain it in this round, which the Americans did not want to have. However, we need to implement better teeth, so it is a quick, prompt decision that is executed right away.

224 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Apr/8/24 8:12:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. Usually, the best thing a person can do is to tell the truth. Let us tell the truth this evening. The government has never been willing to provide real support for the forestry industry. That is rather easy to prove. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot did so earlier when he said that the words “softwood lumber” do not appear anywhere in the Minister of International Trade's mandate letter. That shows how much this government cares about the forestry industry. Meanwhile, the forestry industry is currently facing a perfect storm. If we look at everything the forestry industry is dealing with, we see that this economic sector that supports our regions is in jeopardy. This evening we are talking about punitive tariffs. If nothing is done and if the minister does not grow a backbone by then, these tariffs may increase from 8% to almost 14% in August. The federal government's financial support for the forestry industry is pathetic. I will come back to that later. It is absolutely nothing. It is peanuts compared to the support being given to another natural resources industry, the oil industry. It is downright appalling. Our forestry sector has been going through major transformations over the past 15 years because the pulp and paper industry is gradually disappearing. We need to replace it with something else, but, unfortunately, we never get the financial support we need to make that happen. We also have a crisis caused by the woodland caribou, especially in Quebec, with the Minister of Environment threatening to enforce an order under the Species at Risk Act that would scuttle the efforts of many communities in Quebec that depend on the forestry sector. Then there was last summer's forest fire crisis. All these factors add up to a perfect storm for the forestry sector. I think the only person who does not see that is the Prime Minister. Quebec MPs do not see it either. I rarely hear Conservative Quebec MPs talk about forestry. It is not just rare, it is practically unheard of. I have never seen them show any interest in the forestry sector, even when we studied it at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I am sure that Quebec is, by far, the biggest player in Canada's forestry sector. In 2000, the sector accounted for 95,000 jobs in Quebec. By 2010, that number had fallen to 64,000. The latest figures show 59,000 jobs in 2020. Why the decline? It is because the federal government refuses to support the forestry industry. I would like to give members a very simple example. In the forest sector, no support is ever provided by Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions or any federal government program for primary processing. Why is that? Whenever primary processing is involved, people are automatically told to go through Global Affairs Canada to request federal government support and, de facto, the request will be refused. Let us try to name another sector of economic activity unable to obtain any federal government support. They are few and far between. However, this is what happens. The federal government does not want to address this issue. For small and medium-sized lumber mills that produce roughly 300,000 cubic metres a year, the main customers are local, in other words, in Quebec or Canada. Even if they do not do business with the United States, they are paying a heavy price for the trade dispute we are in, because they cannot get federal government support. The government bragged about planting two billion trees. Does anyone know why the government is having trouble sending those trees to the forestry people who could plant them? It is because there is a fear that they will be harvested. If those trees are harvested, the federal government says that would violate its trade agreements with the United States. That is fear for fear's sake. They are essentially saying that since those trees might be harvested in 70 years, we might as well not plant them. That shows how much courage the federal government has. In closing, I would say that this is a sad spectacle, one that has been going on for more than 20 years. There has never been any real willingness on the part of the Liberals or the Conservatives to support the forestry sector.

754 words

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

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

Mr. Mario Simard

Apr/8/24 8:18:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, indeed, a billion dollars stayed on the table in the last softwood lumber agreement. Now there are solutions that the current government could put in place. The majority of the key players in the forestry sector are asking us for a liquidity program. That has never been brought in by the government. The majority of people in the forestry sector are asking us to diversify. What they want is the opportunity to benefit from federal support either through BDC or CED, as all other sectors of economic activity have. The government has never wanted to offer this type of support to the forestry sector because it is too afraid of losing its cash cow. This would run counter to the trade agreements that benefit the automobile sector, the automobile sector being the federal government's cash cow. We are a bargaining chip and that is unfortunate.

148 words

Mr. Rob Morrison (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC)

Apr/8/24 8:19:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, in British Columbia, especially in rural British Columbia, we have a lot of small mills with fifth-generation owners. They understand forestry management. They understand the business, and they have managed to stay in business even during these tough times. It has been eight years since the government had the opportunity to deal with the softwood lumber issue, and nothing has happened. I think the member is onto something when he talks about how there is nothing in the mandate letter about lumber. If there is nothing in there about lumber, where is the accountability to even move forward on this, other than talking about it in a take-note debate?

113 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Apr/8/24 8:19:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, the major problem is the laissez-faire attitude that the government has had on this issue for over 20 years. The federal government has never had a strong, clear desire to support the forestry industry, even though it claims that the forestry industry is one of the most promising industries in the fight against climate change. When we harvest a tree in the forest, we have just sequestered and captured carbon. The more we build from wood, the more carbon we sequester and capture and the better our record on greenhouse gas emissions becomes. However, there has never been a Conservative or Liberal government that has been willing to include the use of wood in its tendering in a binding way. An NDP member introduced a bill to that effect, but it is not binding, so what does it really accomplish in the end? It is little more than a petition or wishful thinking. We need to use lumber more, but we are not giving ourselves the tools to do so. We are not giving ourselves the tools to help the forestry industry with measures that are actually very simple. We are doing even less when it comes to helping the forestry industry with economic levers. Those do not exist in Canada. The only explanation I can think of is that perhaps it is because Quebec is the biggest player in the forestry industry and because no one has enough power in their party to exert the influence necessary to change things. The solution is fairly simple. We need to become independent. If we were a country, we could do it ourselves.

275 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/8/24 8:21:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, the member is talking about solutions again. That is what we need more of tonight. It is good to see my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia bringing forward that approach as well. Let us talk about how we could move forward. What we have had for most of the night is partisan bickering about the 42 years of failed negotiations with the United States. Tonight we have this take-note debate. What would be the outcome that my colleague would like to see tonight in terms of how we use the fibre in our communities and how we add value the most? There is this false dichotomy that we cannot protect the environment and have jobs at the same time. We have to do both, and we can do both. Does my colleague see potential opportunity in tonight's debate, if the government were actually listening?

148 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 295