SoVote

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

Mr. Mario Simard

Apr/8/24 8:22:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, absolutely, there are plenty of opportunities. There are also success stories. One example is Chantiers Chibougamau, which will provide the beams and infrastructure for all the buildings at the Paris Olympic Games. These examples exist, but unfortunately, the main problem is that the entire forestry processing sector cannot get any support from the federal government, even though this sector could have a considerable influence on our greenhouse gas emissions. I would simply point out that $2.5 billion has been invested in carbon capture and storage strategies. Now the big companies are pulling out of these projects because, ultimately, they are doomed to fail. That is where our money is going.

114 words

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

Apr/8/24 8:23:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have the chance to rise in the House tonight, because I feel it is important to take part in this debate, which is more important than the solar eclipse. I say that because the forestry industry, sawmills and softwood lumber are important to the economy of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. On February 1, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced plans to substantially increase the countervailing and anti-dumping duties it levies on Canadian softwood lumber. These duties could nearly double starting in August, with major negative consequences for us and elsewhere in Quebec and Canada. As we know, the forestry industry has already been impacted by the forest fires that raged last summer. Some 4.5 million hectares of forest burned. As a result, local sawmills have had to slow down production or simply stop altogether. For example, at the end of March, Resolute Forest Products announced that it was suspending operations indefinitely at its sawmill in Comtois, near Lebel‑sur‑Quévillon. Members will recall that this town was hit hard by the forest fires, and all residents had to be evacuated because the town was in danger. The company blamed the weak lumber market and the rising cost of raw materials in the wake of last summer's wildfires. About 50 workers at the Comtois sawmill alone have been affected. Imagine how many more workers could be affected if the U.S. raises its countervailing and anti-dumping duties on softwood lumber. These are difficult times all round, and the government has an obligation to take action and find a solution to prevent these increases. All these good jobs have to be saved. As everyone knows, the cost of food and housing has gone up and is still going up. Now more than ever, families need to hold on to their sources of income. The traditional approach, where the government issues a press release expressing its disappointment or challenges U.S. decisions in court, is not working. The government must do more and support our forestry sector more than ever. The Bloc Québécois urges Ottawa to staunchly defend Quebec's forestry industry in the face of increased U.S. tariffs on softwood lumber. It demands that the government step up and immediately implement concrete measures to protect the forestry industry from U.S. trade tactics. Time is running out, and it is appalling that the federal government has still done nothing to support Quebec forestry companies facing a sharp increase in tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imposed by the United States. As a key trading partner of the U.S., the federal government has a responsibility to secure acceptable trade terms for the representatives of the Canadian forestry industry, a sector that is strongly represented in Quebec. Forestry is the economic backbone of many regions in Quebec, including my own. It accounts for thousands of jobs and a large portion of our exports. As I mentioned earlier, the forestry industry was hit hard by last summer's wildfires, and the same thing could happen again this year. Our forestry industries are facing a number of financial challenges, including trouble getting access to liquidity. The situation is fragile and could easily fall apart if our industry does not receive the necessary support. The federal government must act responsibly and intervene quickly on softwood lumber. The Bloc Québécois is proposing meaningful steps that this government must take. First, the federal government must truly help the forestry industry get through the crisis with a loan and loan guarantee program, to match the amounts being withheld by the United States in taxes. Second, it must work to amend CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, to better frame the litigation process and to no longer allow for unfair delay tactics. Third, it must call for a tax exemption for wood from private forests since the American lobbying allegations have to do only with the public forest. Fourth, it must recognize Quebec's forestry system, which operates via auction and is consistent with the requirements of free trade. The conditions are right for the government to make the case to the U.S. government that it needs to end its unwarranted tariffs, which are harmful for both our economy and its own. Also, it is important for the government to make the U.S. understand that in trying to protect their forestry sector, the Americans might end up hurting their own economy by causing the price of building materials to increase in the U.S., preventing thousands of American families from becoming homeowners. Let us protect our regions, our economy and our forests for a better future.

797 words

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

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

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé

Apr/8/24 8:29:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, there are solutions for the forestry industry in Quebec and Canada. The lethargy we are seeing right now is a result of the fact that nothing has been done for 20 to 40 years. The federal government does not stand up for our forests. We all know what is happening with the forest fires and flooding. With the forest fires, think of the families who are worried and who do not know whether they will have a home. The animals in northern Quebec and Nunavik are not there any more. The caribou are disappearing. Black bears are now in Kuujjuaq and elsewhere. These are things we need to think about. This is not normal. The government needs to act quickly.

123 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Apr/8/24 8:30:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, this is a very serious issue. Since 2016, 183 companies in the forestry sector have gone bankrupt, and tens of thousands of Canadians in British Columbia, Quebec and all over Canada have lost their jobs. Tonight, in this debate, we have heard the critic from the Bloc Québécois speak to this matter and we have heard the Conservative trade critic speak to this matter, but we have not heard from the minister of international trade from the government, nor have we heard from the parliamentary secretary to the minister of international trade. Does my colleague agree with me that this shows just how unimportant this matter is to the Liberal government and that this is a big reason why this dispute has not been resolved?

131 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé

Apr/8/24 8:31:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his question. For once, I agree with the Conservatives. The fact is, the government is not acting on this issue. This cannot wait, yet that is exactly what is happening right now. The Comtois sawmill is closing and about 50 families will have to move. Lebel‑sur‑Quévillon is not that big. For these people, it is a matter of time. The government has to act quickly. Thousands of workers are at risk of losing their jobs. What is the government doing to help Quebeckers?

96 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/8/24 8:32:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, the NDP has always been there, pushing the governments of the day to negotiate fair trade agreements, as opposed to free trade agreements that disadvantage Canadian workers and Canadian resources. When it comes to the softwood lumber agreement and the renewal of this agreement, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to get the job done. Earlier, I spoke of solutions that would help the forestry sector when I read quotes from the mayor of Kapuskasing. The member for Kenora never spoke to the solutions that Mayor Plourde put forward. Instead, he chose, as Conservatives have been doing all night, to focus on attacking a hard-working MP and other NDP MPs. He chose to attack the MP for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, who we know has always been there for her constituents. Let us think about that. The member has been elected to this House five times since 2008. Conservatives were nowhere to be seen when the forestry sector workers were losing their jobs, not in Smooth Rock Falls, not in Dubreuilville and, most recently, not in Espanola. They prefer to score cheap political points instead of dealing with the real problems and finding solutions. I have a question for my colleague. She knows that this is happening tonight. They are not offering solutions at all. Maybe my colleague can speak about how disappointing it is. We are having this take-note debate, an opportunity for us to bring solutions to this House, to get some work done and to support workers in communities like my colleague's. Could she speak about the importance of actually using time in this House to do just that?

279 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé

Apr/8/24 8:33:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, look at what happened last summer with the forest fires. The government did not take action after the forest fires in northern Quebec. We know that nearly all of northern Quebec went up in flames. The government needs to act quickly when there are disasters like that. I do not understand why the government cannot take action. It seems to act faster when things happen in western Canada than when they happen in Quebec. What is it doing for Quebec? The best solution to all our problems would be for Quebec to become a country.

97 words

Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC)

Apr/8/24 8:34:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. I am honoured to rise tonight to speak in this take-note debate on softwood lumber as an elected representative of the hard-working forestry and related service-industry companies and their families in the North Okanagan—Shuswap. In small towns with sawmills, like Lumby, Salmon Arm, Sicamous, Revelstoke, Enderby, Chase, Armstrong and others, the Canadian softwood lumber dispute is an important issue. It is important because of the jobs that so many families rely on to put food on the family dinner table, the jobs that pay for their children’s clothes and schooling. I want to take us back to March 2016. In a CBC News article dated March 12, 2016, Canada's international trade minister was noted as saying that the current Prime Minister's official visit to Washington helped secure a “real breakthrough” in the contentious softwood lumber negotiations. The trade minister at the time, now the federal finance minister, was quoted as saying, “I don't want people to think this is going to be done and dusted, and we don't have to worry about softwood negotiating for another 10 years. But what we have committed to is to make significant, meaningful progress towards a deal—to have the structure, the key elements there a 100 days from now.” We are now in April 2024, eight years or 97 months or 2,929 days later, more than 29 times longer than the message that the trade minister, now finance minister, was so cheery about in March 2016. Tick-tock, tick-tock. After eight years of the failing government's failed softwood lumber negotiations, sawmill owners, their employees and their families are still paying the price of the government’s ineptitude. Sawmill companies have not invested capital in modernizing their mills to remain competitive because duty dollars are being collected and held by the U.S. Workers are still working with equipment that has not been updated, if they have not lost their jobs already. It is not just the sawmills' direct employees. It is the spinoff jobs, which are even greater in number. The loggers, the road builders, the mill equipment manufacturers and the service providers, from tire shops to lunch trucks and work clothing stores, could be doing greater business and making further contributions to our communities if only the government had done its job and gotten a deal done long before now. The companies, employees and their families in places like the small towns I mentioned and other small communities across the country have waited patiently, getting their jobs done while waiting for the government to get its job done, but their patience has run thin and the government has failed to get the job done. These hard-working people need some certainty in their future, more than just promises. They need a government that is recognized as a valued partner in trade agreements, rather than one that can be taken advantage of. They need a government that understands the common-sense approach that is needed at negotiating tables. If the government strongly believes that the U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber products are unfair and unwarranted, then why has it not resolved this issue before now, or is it because it simply does not care? The anti-dumping and countervailing duties charged, collected and held by the U.S. are now over $8 billion or, according to some, over $10 billion. One would think that the money-hungry NDP-Liberal government would be clamouring and bending over backwards to get those dollars into Canadian hands so it could find some way of taxing them. I am tempted to say that it baffles me and countless other Canadians as to why the government has failed so badly at getting a deal done, but it is not surprising after the many failed promises of the big-on-promises, small-on-delivery government. It is simply not worth the cost. It is time the government recognized its commitment to serving the people of Canada, instead of making the people of Canada serve the government.

712 words

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

Apr/8/24 8:39:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, like many of the speeches we heard from the Conservative members tonight, there were lots of slogans and buzzwords, but no actual substance. While our government was providing historic supports for the forestry sector, with over $368.4 million over three years to renew and update forest sector support, over $130 million to accelerate the adoption of transformative technologies and products, and over $12 million to provide economic opportunities for indigenous communities in the forest sector, the Conservatives did nothing but oppose. I would like to hear from the member opposite why, if the Conservative Party truly cares about our softwood lumber industry, it dogmatically opposes any efforts to help support it.

114 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

Apr/8/24 8:40:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, the member's question is a regurgitated question from the PMO. I am not sure how many times it has been asked tonight. Conservatives do care about the softwood lumber agreement and the families who depend on the jobs that are so reliant on this industry. We are having this take-note debate tonight to draw attention to a minister who has failed to get this job done and a succession of ministers who have failed to get this job done. As I quoted, it was March 2016 when the government said it would have a framework in place in 100 days. We are now at over 2,900 days. That is why it is important. It is why Conservatives believe it is important and why we keep pressuring the government to get the job done.

138 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Apr/8/24 8:41:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, there is a key factor at play in the softwood lumber issue. Because of the decision to consider the softwood lumber issue unilaterally from coast to coast to coast, everyone everywhere is subject to the same constraints. My colleague comes from British Columbia. Obviously, we know how important the softwood lumber industry is to British Columbia. However, B.C. is the one imposing constraints that hurt Quebeckers. Would my colleague agree that each province should exercise its own sovereignty in entering agreements with the U.S.? That way, we in Quebec would not be penalized for compensations in British Columbia.

102 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

Apr/8/24 8:42:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, international trade agreements are the responsibility of a federal government. It is possible that the provinces may be able to work a better deal than what the current federal government has done because it has not negotiated anything. It has simply failed. In the province of British Columbia, the lumber industry is also struggling, under an NDP government that will not get permits processed in time. There is a continuous long backlog of applications sitting before a provincial NDP government in British Columbia that is crippling the forest industry sector.

92 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/8/24 8:42:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, 42 years of finger pointing is not getting us anywhere. We can see that tonight. I want to talk about solutions. I have been working closely with Catalyst paper in Port Alberni. This is a mill that has a ton of history. My grandfather worked in that mill. It is so proud of what it is doing. It has retooled its machines so it can do food-grade paper. It has also brought forward an innovative idea to change the clean investment tax credit portion of the Income Tax Act that was supported in the fall economic statement. It is a technology involved in biomass conversion utilizing low-grade and wildfire-prone wood residues that are otherwise left to decompose and burn in forests or landfills. This renewable resource offers an accessible, affordable clean energy source for Canadians, which would help us to meet Canada's climate and emission reduction commitments. It will save mills, such as the one in my riding, up to $10 million a year, but we would need legislation from the government to come forward this fall at the latest to get that moving. Will the Conservatives, instead of pointing fingers, support this proposed change in legislation, which would protect jobs and protect workers? Will they do the right thing when it comes to using waste residue in our forests?

226 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

Apr/8/24 8:44:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I enjoyed working with the member for Courtenay—Alberni when he was on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. His question is about legislation I have not had a chance to read yet, so I cannot say whether I would support it. However, he just talked about clean, affordable energy from wood products. A number of years ago, we put in a pellet stove. We took out the old wood-burning stove and put in the pellet stove because pellets were pretty affordable at that time. A ton of pellets, or fifty 40-pound bags, was about $165. It is no longer affordable. It costs over $6 or $7 per bag, and a ton now costs in the neighbourhood of $400. Because of what the government has done, and because it has sold so much overseas instead of looking after Canadians, we are paying the price. It is not just me this is happening to. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of others across the country who are paying higher energy prices because of the government.

182 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

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

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

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

Mr. Luc Berthold

Apr/8/24 8:51:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle had the opportunity of a lifetime to introduce a private member's bill in the House of Commons. She could have helped the forestry industry or other businesses, but she chose to introduce a bill to change the name of her riding. With all due respect to my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle, I will take no lessons from her, because she did nothing when she had that rare opportunity. I myself have not yet had such an opportunity, in other words, the chance to do something for an industry, for the workers and the people of my riding.

111 words

Riding

SoVote

House Hansard - 295