SoVote

Mr. Wilson Miao (Richmond Centre, Lib.)

Apr/8/24 9:15:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, we have always believed that the best deals are reached at the bargaining table. Our government is prepared to negotiate in good faith with our American counterparts, but we are not willing to accept just any deal at any cost. When our government was renegotiating CUSMA with the Trump administration, former prime minister Stephen Harper urged the Canadian government to fold and capitulate. Can the hon. parliamentary secretary share with the House what is being done when it comes to resolving the softwood lumber dispute and supporting our lumber industry?

92 words

Mr. Maninder Sidhu

Apr/8/24 9:15:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague from B.C. for his tireless advocacy on this very important topic and for his constituents. Of course, we will continue to advocate on behalf of Canadian exporters and producers, but really when we come back to this agreement that the Conservatives keep highlighting from the Harper era, lumber producers are still feeling the impacts of that. Absolutely, we will take no lessons in terms of signing an agreement like that where we just fold and capitulate on the entire industry. They asked us to do that when we renegotiated the CUSMA. The Conservatives have consistently voted against measures to support the industry, and we are still feeling the impacts of the deal they desperately signed in 2006. For seven years, that burdened lumber producers across Canada. It really hurt employees and it hurt the innovation in the sector.

148 words

Mr. Rob Morrison (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC)

Apr/8/24 9:16:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time. There is a critical issue that has been plaguing Canada's economic landscape for decades: The softwood lumber dispute with the United States. This long-standing conflict has added strain on the livelihoods of countless Canadians who depend on the forestry industry. Softwood lumber, a vital component of Canada's forest sector, especially in Kootenay—Columbia, has been subjected to punitive tariffs by the United States under the pretext of unfair subsidies provided by Canadian governments to their lumber producers. The lasting resolution remains elusive due to the inability of the Liberals to close, leaving Canadian lumber producers, both large and small, in a constant state of uncertainty and vulnerability. These duties have devastating impacts on the small lumber producers, and the effects are felt right down to the employee loading wood on a belt, and if one has ever worked in a sawmill, it would be known as the “green chain”. The forestry sector is 10% of the workforce in Kootenay—Columbia. The only industry larger is steel coal. Despite promising to prioritize the softwood lumber dispute and to work toward a fair and equitable solution, the government's actions have fallen short of expectations. Time and time again we have witnessed a lack of strategic foresight and proactive engagement from the current government, leading to prolonged periods of uncertainty and frustration. Softwood lumber was not mentioned in the 2019 budget and, in 2021, I specifically asked the minister to take a stance to protect Canadian workers and the forestry industry. Here we are three years later with no action. The lack of action directly relates to the capital investments in mills when no agreements are in place. Just the other day, I was in Salmo, talking with the owner of a cedar mill. He is ready to invest $10 million into modernization, but with no solid agreement in place and access to fibre, it is difficult. It is not only Porcupine, but also ATCO, Huscroft, Kalesnikoff, McDonalds and Galloway. Those are generational mills that contribute significantly to our communities and that know how to sustain the environment for future generations. Instead of leveraging diplomatic channels and trade negotiations to secure a favourable outcome for Canadian lumber producers, the Liberal government is stuck in a cycle of inaction. Its failure to effectively address the underlying grievances of the United States, coupled with a lack of decisive action on the home front, has only made the situation worse, leaving our forestry industry at the mercy of arbitrary tariffs and of protectionist measures. The absence of any sort of plan to the softwood lumber issue has undermined Canada's credibility on the international stage and has shaken the confidence in our ability to safeguard the interests of our citizens. In the face of mounting economic pressures and global uncertainties, there is a need right now for strong and principled leadership, and that has never been more apparent. Canadian manufacturers are currently facing the longest period without a negotiated settlement in the U.S. softwood lumber dispute, resulting in the accumulation of nearly $10 billion in countervailing duties and duty fees. This ongoing issue has significantly impacted the industry, creating challenges and skepticism in the process. After speaking with the Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association, we found that value-added producers are facing another unique challenge when it comes to the softwood lumber dispute. They pay duties based on a higher sale price. As a result, it costs them more money to manufacture. When a raw material leaves Canada and goes to the U.S., we lose that. We used to have, in 2006, under a Conservative government, a $500 per thousand board feet maximum duty. That was it. Now, we do not have that, so these high-end products are more expensive. What is the Liberal plan moving forward? It is imperative that the government takes immediate action to resolve the softwood lumber dispute by engaging with our American counterparts. The softwood lumber issue represents a glaring failure of leadership on the part of the Liberal government. It is time for the government to step up to the plate, to demonstrate true commitment to the interests of the hard-working folks in the forest industry and to finally put an end to this dispute. How long will Canadians have to wait for the government to deliver on its promises?

739 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/8/24 9:21:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, for many years, as a parliamentarian, one frustration has been the issue of softwood lumber. It is an issue that comes up far too often, but to say that it is the fault of the Government of Canada verus, let us say, the previous government and former prime minister, does a disservice to how the U.S. lumber barons control the market in the United States to the degree that it has been devastating for many companies here in Canada. I would like to suggest to the member that we need to be talking about ways in which we can continue to walk with our producers and others, industry stakeholders, to protect Canadian interests from those large lumber barons in the United States. Could the member provide his thoughts on those barons?

134 words

Mr. Rob Morrison

Apr/8/24 9:22:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, right now, it is demonstrating that eight years has been a long time. It has been over eight years. For the last four years, I have been pushing for the minister to start looking at resolving it, with nothing. It is time now to show leadership. When we were talking earlier about solutions, we need strong leadership so that we can actually start making some headway. Right now, we are not going anywhere. It is good to have this debate because I have so many sawmills in my area. I just named the smaller ones. I have big ones as well, which are suffering the same fate of losing staff. It is time to get somewhere. We have not moved forward in eight years. It is time to move forward.

132 words

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

Apr/8/24 9:23:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, it is nice to have so many British Columbia MPs here tonight, standing up for our forests and for the industry. I am wondering if he would agree that while the U.S. is imposing these unfair duties, it would be a good time to ask the federal Minister of Trade to stop approving any permits for the export of sawlogs when our mills still need logs to process locally.

72 words

Mr. Rob Morrison

Apr/8/24 9:23:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I live in the Kootenays, and one of the border crossings is Kingsgate. I see raw logs heading south, because that is the border. I have some sawmills that do laminated processes. They are trying to use all the wood, and they cannot compete with the price in the U.S. because the raw logs are going. That is where we are losing jobs. That is one half. The other half, of course, is the fibre that we cannot get. Raw logs heading south just takes jobs away from Canadians.

92 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/8/24 9:24:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, one thing we have not talked a lot about tonight is rail service. We need to ensure that a rail service in and out of mills from coast to coast is dealt with. It is a huge deal, actually. We often find ourselves at the whim of our shippers, whether it is CN or CP, and we have no other options to get our product to market. Does my colleague agree that the federal government needs to develop a strategy to improve rail service for rural and remote communities in the sector, so that we can actually get our products to market efficiently and affordably?

107 words

Mr. Rob Morrison

Apr/8/24 9:24:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I totally agree. It is very challenging through the Rocky Mountains, through all our mountain passes, for rail. That is so much different from Europe, for example. We do need to be able to open the door to be more effective and efficient in our cross-border trade with the United States as well. I have one sawmill that has its own train, which can go down into the U.S. right through Deer Trail. We do have one of those, but for the rest, we have one line. We only have CP in the southern part of the province, so to actually improve how we deliver the product will also keep the cost of our product down, which makes us the most competitive internationally.

127 words

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

Apr/8/24 9:25:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I know my colleague comes from a region where softwood lumber is an important issue. Does he agree with me that the renegotiation of NAFTA, which became CUSMA, represents a major missed opportunity and that, when it comes time to renegotiate in 2025, we must not miss out on such an important opportunity?

55 words

Mr. Rob Morrison

Apr/8/24 9:26:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, absolutely. That should have been dealt with on the day we did CUSMA, and we did not do it. We are back to where we will have to do it now, and hopefully, we will get this done in the next short period. Otherwise, we will lose a lot more jobs in the upcoming years.

57 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Apr/8/24 9:26:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States has been going on for decades, generating significant trade tensions. If the temporary direction of the U.S. government holds, the countervailing and anti-dumping duties it imposes on Canadian wood would go from 8.05% to 13.86%, which would cause considerable harm. Of all the forestry companies in Quebec, nearly 250 are from first nations communities. These experienced entrepreneurs know the forestry well. We underestimate the concerns of these entrepreneurs during the forestry industry crises, which bring their own set of uncertainties. Think of how hard it is for the communities to get funding when their businesses are shaken by these crises. These problems are exacerbated. Think of the programs that are not adapted to the reality of first nations and to which these businesses are often ineligible because they are not incorporated under law, because they cannot be. When the forestry industry goes through a crisis, the most isolated first nations communities are the ones that are affected and impoverished. Indigenous communities' involvement in the forestry industry is both economically and ecologically beneficial as a result of their deep ancestral connection to forest lands, which encourages sustainable and responsible practices. The companies help create local jobs, train qualified workers and diversify the economic opportunities available in remote or economically fragile regions. Over 80% of indigenous forestry companies are very small businesses, but they are are also essential to our communities' economies. Only 20% of indigenous companies have the ability to offer greater employment opportunities in indigenous communities. On another note, I want to reiterate that the Quebec forestry regime meets the requirements of international trade agreements and respects the principles of free trade. This is a very frustrating situation. The problem is not Quebec. The allegations that our companies practise dumping and benefit from backdoor subsidies are unfounded and completely unwarranted. The rulings of international courts have systematically rejected the Americans' arguments, but the United States continues to maintain these unfair, punitive tariffs. That jeopardizes our Quebec and indigenous companies and consequently, our jobs. In light of this critical situation, the Bloc Québécois is proposing meaningful action and solutions to support our forestry industry and communities. First, the federal government must implement a loan guarantee program sufficient to cover the amounts withheld by the United States through taxes. Second, it must officially recognize the Quebec forestry regime because it meets the free trade standards. The federal government must also amend the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement so that the litigation process is better regulated and leaves no room for unfair delay tactics. The government must also request a tax exemption for private lumber. These measures are essential to protect our jobs, our businesses and our resource regions from the United States' unfair trading practices. It is time to take decisive, concerted action to defend our forestry industry and guarantee its prosperous future. In our regions, small towns like Nédélec have been hard hit by the softwood lumber crisis. They have suffered greatly as result of a government that invests billions of dollars in the oil industry while providing only tens of millions of dollars, mere peanuts, to Quebec's forestry industry. That has an impact on small towns in my region. Close to 26,000 jobs were lost in Quebec as a result of this dispute. What is even more frustrating is that Quebec has developed its auction system, which means less investing. We are the victims. If ever there was an argument for how Quebec sovereignty would be an economic game-changer, particularly in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, it would be the fact that we could have our own free trade agreement with the United States, and we would not be penalized for British Columbia's decisions. I should also say that I cannot wait for us to invest in processing so we can offer more than just planks, perhaps by driving a nail or two into them to create an item with some added value. We could eventually offset certain elements of the free trade agreement. Why not dream of creating a Quebec IKEA in La Sarre? Quebec's forestry industry can dream big.

711 words

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

Apr/8/24 9:31:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I have been listening to industry and hearing about the impacts of wildfires on the lumber industry. As we know, wildfires have destroyed thousands and thousands of acres of forest land. When we talk about supporting industry and innovation, the conversation should also be about climate change and how we can help mitigate its impacts on industries such as the lumber industry. What more can we do in working with the industry, according to my colleague, to ensure that we are supporting and protecting our environment?

88 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Apr/8/24 9:32:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I would especially like to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his question and his concern about the forest fires. This had a major impact on forestry entrepreneurs in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, northern Quebec, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the north shore. These forestry entrepreneurs had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment that they had placed in the woods and that was ravaged by the forest fires. Unfortunately, the federal government has not stepped up to provide compensation. As a result, that wood must be harvested quickly. The government did not give these entrepreneurs any room to manoeuver, any cash or liquidity to recover their machinery and equipment, to recover the wood and revitalize the industries. Some EI assistance was also needed. The weeks lost by the workers could not be made up at the end of the summer. These people did not receive adequate compensation through EI. These are solutions. The federal government will have to find major solutions when it comes to investing in climate change programs. In agriculture in particular, compensation will be absolutely crucial, because people are suffering on the ground.

193 words

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

Apr/8/24 9:33:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue mentioned government loans and government security to reinvest in businesses and the forestry sector. The forestry workers I know are very proud of their work. The small mill owners, the loggers and the road builders, I think, would far rather develop things on their own. However, they are not able to because of the billions of dollars, $8 billion to $10 billion, being held by the U.S. in these countervailing duties. Would he agree that it would be far better if those companies could get those countervailing duty payments made to them, so they would not be reliant on government loans and security?

114 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Apr/8/24 9:34:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from British Columbia for his thoughts for the workers and the business owners. In this case, we are talking about a dispute that is political. Who is being political? It is the federal government, who should be there to defend us. If it does not, then it should pay the bill. It is not for the business owners to do that. It is not for the workers to pay with their jobs for the political risk that the government took because it did not want to go into battle with the Americans. It is not for the business owners and the workers to pay the cost of the Canadian government choosing to invest in the oil industry instead of the forestry industry, which is renewable. At some point, it will have to take action and give priority to sustainable, truly sustainable development. If there is a political cost to pay, the workers should not have to cover that cost. If there is an economic cost to pay, it is simple. The money needs to be put in a fund and the workers on the ground need to be compensated. Obviously we are going to win against the Americans because we always win when we know that what they are doing is illegal. When the legal battle is won, the government will be reimbursed. Its pockets deep enough to do that.

236 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/8/24 9:35:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, one thing I really want to thank my colleague for is talking about the importance of indigenous-led forestry companies and the role they play. There is a new forestry company that just launched last week called Iskum, which is basically a consortium of over 20 first nations in coastal British Columbia. It is led by Chief John Jack of the Huu-ay-aht Nation and the former elected chief, Robert Dennis. We know the forest industry currently employs about 10,000 indigenous individuals, both directly and indirectly. It is crucial to provide more support for economic opportunities in indigenous and rural communities, fostering the development of the forest bioeconomy and encouraging diverse partnerships and collaborations. The indigenous natural resource partnerships program led by Natural Resources Canada needs to be expanded. If this is done, it could play a crucial role in supporting projects related to forest management, workplace training and the production of conventional forest products. Especially, investing in the forest bioeconomy will establish community-based employment and businesses promoting diversification and scalability. Does my colleague agree that the federal government needs to invest in renewing and expanding the Natural Resources Canada program as a broader strategy for the sector?

203 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Apr/8/24 9:36:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague for his comment. It is indeed very important for me to talk about the indigenous file. Enabling indigenous communities to have better alternatives is part of reconciliation, so yes, that involves reviewing programs to invest in communities for and by indigenous people who will develop the forest in a very sustainable way. Just look at the forestry companies in Kebaowek, a very inspiring example in my riding.

75 words

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

Apr/8/24 9:37:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, it is an honour to rise at this hour to speak in this important take-note debate. I feel compelled to start with the sad news that was originally shared earlier tonight by the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola about the Hon. John Fraser, former Speaker of the House, former member of Parliament and a valiant conservation champion. He served as minister of the environment in the government of the Right Hon. Joe Clark. He served as the minister of fisheries. He was a British Columbian, a Progressive Conservative and a very close friend, and he died a few days ago. There are flowers in the hallway outside under his portrait. We are talking about British Columbia forests and softwood lumber disputes. Over many years, John was very involved in advocating for the protection of our forests. He played a key role, as I mentioned on the floor of this place not that long ago, with the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney with respect to the logging of the old-growth forests, the forests of what is now Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve. He played a key role in that even as Speaker of the House. I will briefly reflect that in Centre Block, in the Speaker's chambers, with a number of visiting conservationists and first nations, he proposed a toast to “the conspiracy to save the planet”. It was a non-partisan conspiracy, with Progressive Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats and members of the Bloc all working together. In his memory, I want to dedicate this reflection on the state of our forests and the ongoing softwood lumber disputes and to say how dearly he will be missed. He was 92 years old when he passed, but there is no stronger environmentalist in the history of this country than the Hon. John Fraser. As these brief remarks and reflection might suggest, I have been following the softwood lumber dispute for some time and written much about it over the years, going back to what some Canadians will remember in the 1980s. It sounded like some kind of awful disease, that we had to deal with shakes and shingles, but it was not a joke. We have had relentless opposition from the U.S. to a fair shake for the Canadian forest industry. A very active participant in tonight's debate, my friend from Courtenay—Alberni, has reflected on the fact that it has been 42 years of being somehow unable to resolve what appears to be a long-running and bad soap opera. We have had moments of clarity and moments that fell apart. I certainly think that the current Minister of Trade could be far more active in making it a top-priority issue when dealing with the United States, but I also think it is unfair to suggest that nothing has been done by the current government on trade disputes. I think it is quite remarkable that, again with the late Brian Mulroney's help, the current government was able to get to any trade agreement with the former U.S. administration and president. Let us hope to God we can continue to refer always to him as the former president, Donald Trump, who is, at his essence, protectionist and not really interested in liberalized trade, fair trading rules or even in the global trade regime, of which I also have many criticisms. It is close to a miracle that we have CUSMA and that we were able to improve on the agreement by getting rid of chapter 11 and the investor-state dispute resolution processes, and to improve on the energy chapter. However, we were not able to improve on the perennial crisis of softwood lumber. We know that the deal we had did buy us quite a lot of time in 2006, but at a cost. I should pause here again. In a take-note debate, there really is no such thing as a prize for best line of the night, so let this be a first. I wish I had a trophy, which I would not be able to use as it would be a prop, for the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni for “tax the axe”. It should go down in history. Unfortunately, as my Bloc Québécois friends have already said, it is impossible to translate that into French, but it is a good joke. For “tax the axe”, hats off to the member for Courtenay—Alberni. I wish I had thought of it, but I give credit where credit is due. We did not really protect our forest industry in the deal that bought time in 2006, and since it expired in 2015, we have had nothing in place instead. We keep winning. Let us be clear that we win in the World Trade Organization, before NAFTA panels and against the efforts of the U.S. Department of Commerce in saying that our industry is somehow unfair to the U.S. industry. On those arguments, with a fact-based approach in response, we win in the courts; however, the U.S. Department of Commerce is a domestic and political organization. Again, if I were giving a prize, it would be to the champion lobbyists. The U.S. Lumber Coalition is able to come back over and over again. Tonight, we have a take-note debate, and again I am backing up to give credit where credit is due, to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and to say thanks. I thank him for his attempt to hold an emergency debate on softwood lumber on February 5. There was an attempt made by the Bloc in early February to have an emergency debate. Back in February, the U.S. Department of Commerce said that the duties it had been applying at about 8.05% were going to go up to 13.86%. That was just what it was doing, and it did not need to have a reason. It is often the case that I look at the United States of America and say that Barack Obama is not George Bush, and George Bush is not Donald Trump, but the United States of America is the United States of America; it just keeps doing what it does. It is not fair or right, and Canada should be able to do something more. It is not nothing to go back to another international tribunal, as our government is doing, to complain of the unfairness of the situation and that it is not right to keep hiking duties. However, I will focus on solutions, as we have heard quite a few tonight. Let us look at the solution that was originally put forward in the Bloc request for an emergency debate. In the budget coming up on April 16, let us put some money forward so Canadian industries that are being unfairly impacted by this can receive some compensation from our government. We will eventually try to get it out of the U.S. some other way, to keep our industry afloat and keep it whole. The amount of U.S. structural lumber going into the U.S. has been going up steadily. That is why it is raising the tariffs. Over the last couple of years and the explosion in demand for construction materials, we are getting more of the pie for Canada than we did, say, even five years or six years ago. This is why American manufacturers in the lumber group are upset about it and looking for more duties to hit us hard. What else could we do? We could make sure that Canadian structural lumber is used more in Canada. We could stop raw log exports, because that requires a federal permit. We could make sure our mills in Canada are not lacking for fibre supply to keep our workers going on triple shifts seven days a week if they want to. Shipping out raw logs is wrong. Recently, at COP28 in Dubai, essentially all the countries on earth embraced something I do not think has been spoken of in this House. It is called a “circular economy”. The rip and strip idea, which is exemplified by logging in places that need to be protected, and particularly old growth forests, is that we just rip and strip and get that out, ship it someplace else and not create the jobs here. If we are serious about raising Canadian productivity, we want a circular economy. If we are serious, I know we could stop raw log exports and make sure we take better care of the ecological health of our forests while also protecting our workers. Lastly, we need to act on the climate crisis, because the biggest threat to our forests is not the U.S. Lumber Coalition; it is the climate crisis.

1494 words

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

Apr/8/24 9:47:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, today we heard about this wonderful deal that was signed during the Harper era. It really hurt the industry and hurt jobs across the sector for seven straight years. It imposed an export tax on producers, from 5% to 15%. Does the member opposite think that is a fair approach? What does the member opposite think about what the Conservatives are doing in terms of protecting our environment and fighting climate change? We know we need to protect the forest industry, but we also need to protect our environment.

91 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 295