SoVote

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

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Apr/8/24 8:52:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable. The current government is not doing much to support the forestry sector. Even worse is that no government has ever done much to help the forestry sector. Under the last agreement that was negotiated by the federal government, $1 billion was left on the table. To me, the future does not look bright, because if there were to be a Conservative government, I am not sure anyone in it would be interested in the forestry industry. Never in my life have I seen a single member of the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party show up at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and try to advance the issue of wood. I have never seen them there. I have never heard them there. I live in a forestry region. I have never seen them take part in any activity about caribou, tariffs or the forestry sector's urgent request for support. If the past is any indication, I fear that the same thing will happen under a Conservative government. I hope that my colleague can reassure me on this.

195 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Apr/8/24 8:53:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I would like to point out to my colleague that the member for Carleton was the first to rise in the House to speak out against the Minister of Environment and Climate Change's desire to create a whole saga around woodland caribou. We expected the leader of the Bloc Québécois to ask a question about that, but he did not. There is something else that I would like to add. My Conservative colleagues on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources have shown up and have been very clear and very vocal in defending the softwood lumber industry. We make a great team, and we are able to work together to defend the interests of Quebeckers. As it states in their platform, the Bloc Québécois's number one interest is to achieve Quebec sovereignty. Its members are applauding what I just said. We can therefore be certain that they will do anything they can and take every opportunity to try to stir up trouble, while we are trying to find solutions for producers, those I spoke about in my speech. In Quebec, 50% of forestry producers are basically going bankrupt because this government is incapable of finding solutions to the softwood lumber crisis, which has been affecting them for far too long.

222 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/8/24 8:55:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, it has been 42 years and 13 governments. It is getting weird in here. We have each side blaming the other side for who is responsible, but neither has negotiated a good deal. One is on litigation. The Conservative approach is based on tax the axe, adding taxes to softwood lumber manufacturers. The mayor of Kapuskasing has called on us and asked if we could support an approach that leverages affordable, expedient and climate-resilient solutions to address this crisis, one that leverages the benefits of wood-based products and mass timber construction. I want to get back to solutions instead of pointing fingers. Maybe my colleague can actually talk about solutions, because what we have been doing for 42 years is not working. Again, tonight's debate is getting weird. Finger pointing is not why we were sent here. We were sent here to get things done and find solutions to our problems.

156 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Apr/8/24 8:56:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, with regard to the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, which was approved by the NDP, I would point out that the recommendation is to entrust this to the Prime Minister, because he is the only one capable of speaking to the U.S. President to find a definitive solution to the softwood lumber crisis. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is not doing his job. What is more, this Prime Minister is supported by the coalition with the NDP, which includes my colleague. Perhaps my colleague should have included some fine print in this agreement to the effect that the softwood lumber issue needs to be resolved. If he had, we would not be where we are today.

121 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/8/24 8:56:48 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind folks to keep the comments and questions short, so everybody can participate. I really want to keep us on time.

25 words

Mr. Maninder Sidhu (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.)

Apr/8/24 8:57:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, I am proud to participate in this vital take-note debate and to highlight our government's steadfast support of Canada's softwood lumber industry. We are here tonight because the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States is a long-standing trade irritant in an otherwise fruitful bilateral trading relationship. Unfortunately, this latest round is hardly the first time that the U.S. lumber industry has sought undue protections from fair competition with Canada's leading-edge softwood lumber products. Even worse is the fact that some of our American allies continue to succumb to protectionist pressures by imposing unjustified duties on Canadian softwood lumber products. The current round of the dispute is the fifth of its kind in the last 40 years. While we will always stand shoulder to shoulder with the companies, workers, innovators and exporters who make Canada's lumber industry second to none, the fact that we have to yet again revisit this dispute speaks to the need for our continued engagement and advocacy on this file. As members know, the unwarranted duties imposed by the United States on Canada's softwood lumber exports have caused harm to our industry and to the communities and workers that rely on it. The softwood lumber industry is a key component of our highly integrated forestry sector. It contributes to over 200,000 well-paying jobs for hard-working Canadians. The federal government recognizes the importance of the softwood lumber industry to communities across the country and to the Canadian economy more broadly. That is why resolving the softwood lumber dispute has been a top priority of our government and will continue to be a priority until we see a resolution. The federal government has been relentless in its pursuit of legal challenges against U.S. duties. Canada has contested every U.S. decision imposing or maintaining unfair U.S. duties on Canadian softwood lumber. The most recent example dates from just a few months ago, when the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development announced a legal challenge to a U.S. decision to maintain the duties on Canadian softwood lumber instead of revoking them. This decision implied that it would be harmful to the U.S. lumber industry if duties were removed from Canadian products. That is just plainly inaccurate and unfounded. The truth is that the United States cannot produce enough lumber to meet its domestic demand, so it needs lumber imports. Fair competition from Canada should be treated fairly. To be clear, impartial international arbitrators have consistently found Canada to be a fair and reliable trading partner in previous rounds of the softwood lumber dispute. In the current round, we have already seen favourable decisions for Canada, which recognizes what we have said since the beginning, that the Canadian softwood lumber industry is not unfairly subsidized and does not dump its products in the U.S. market. I will mention just two examples. In August 2020, a WTO panel ruled on Canada's challenge to U.S. countervailing duties. That panel ruled overwhelmingly in Canada's favour. In particular, it stated clearly that U.S. countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber are inconsistent with the United States' international obligations. More recently, in October 2023, a binational NAFTA chapter 19 panel reviewed the lawfulness of U.S. anti-dumping duties and issued a decision that was, overall, in Canada's favour. Canada has 13 ongoing legal challenges against U.S. duties, and we firmly believe that, as these challenges proceed, we will see more and more of these legal rulings confirming our position that U.S. duties are not in compliance with WTO obligations or with U.S. law. We expect additional developments in our legal cases this year and look forward to welcoming further recognition of Canada's fair trading practices. That said, our government recognizes that while these U.S. duties remain in place, they are having a negative impact on Canadians. That is why our government swiftly reacted to the imposition of U.S. trade measures in 2017 with the announcement of a comprehensive support package, the softwood lumber action plan. This package was designed to help mitigate the wide-ranging effects of the unjustified U.S. measures on our workers and communities in a manner consistent with Canada's international obligations. In addition to our legal challenges to the U.S. duties, Canada is pressing the United States at every opportunity to find a mutually acceptable outcome to this dispute. The Prime Minister has stressed the importance of finding common ground to President Biden, including during President Biden's recent visit to Canada in March of last year. Moreover, the minister of international trade routinely raises concerns over the continued imposition of U.S. duties on softwood lumber products with her U.S. counterpart, Ambassador Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative. In those conversations the government has consistently reiterated to Ambassador Tai that Canada is, as always, ready and willing to work constructively toward a durable outcome that provides stability and predictability to the sector. Sadly, the United States has yet to demonstrate that same willingness. However, we are confident that a positive outcome for all parties can be reached. It is in the United States' own interest to engage collaboratively on this issue. Its own domestic lumber industry remains unable to satisfy growing U.S. demand, and that is where Canadian industry steps in with high-quality products. Many Americans recognize how beneficial it is to have such a reliable source of lumber to build new homes and complete renovation projects. U.S. home builders and certain U.S. lawmakers have called for prompt U.S. action and the removal of U.S. duties, because they are rightfully concerned over housing affordability. At a time when affordability is a significant issue for many, it is very disappointing that the United States recently signalled its intention to increase these unfair duties later this year, but this only strengthens our resolve. Canada will continue to push back and defend the interests of our softwood lumber industry through all available avenues. I would be remiss if I did not highlight our close collaboration with the provinces and territories as well as industry stakeholders, indigenous partners and other key players in our effort to defend Canada's interests. For example, our government works closely with stakeholders and partners to mount the best legal defence possible. We provide information and support to companies about navigating the complex U.S. trade remedy proceedings, and we regularly consult with stakeholders on their specific interests within the broader context of this dispute. As the parliamentary secretary, I have the honour of working closely with the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development to deliver upon her ambitious mandate and stand up for Canadian businesses, exporters and hard-working Canadians. Recently I have had the honour of visiting Kelowna, British Columbia, to visit with local businesses. I have travelled to Washington D.C., to help advocate for Canadian exporters, and to Nairobi, Kenya, to help enhance our trade ties with Africa. In all of these instances, as well as in my role on the Standing Committee on International Trade, I have been acutely aware of both how important the softwood lumber industry is to Canada's economy and how and why Canada must continue to be tireless in our advocacy for a fair, rules-based approach to international trade disputes. I am convinced that the same approach is one we can and should take here tonight as part of this important debate. I know that everyone in the House stands united in their support of our softwood lumber industry. I am convinced that a true team Canada approach is the cornerstone to achieving a positive outcome for Canada in this dispute, and that is why we will continue to work closely with key stakeholders and partners, including members of the House from all parties, in all aspects of this unfortunate dispute. The federal government's approach to this round of the softwood lumber dispute is comprehensive. We are taking concrete action through both legal avenues and through bilateral engagements to have these unfair U.S. duties revoked. Separately, we have also acted swiftly to mitigate the impacts of the U.S. trade measures on workers and communities. While we continue to pursue a durable negotiated outcome, let there be no doubt that the Canadian softwood lumber industry and the communities and workers who rely on it know that we have their backs, and we will continue to have their backs.

1455 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 295