44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/8/24 2:09:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister used to say that no relationship was more important to him than Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, and yet the NDP-Liberal government has been using indigenous contracting to funnel money to well-connected government insiders in ways that produce no actual benefit for indigenous communities. This is a gross betrayal of taxpayers and indigenous peoples.
David Yeo is the arrive scam contractor whose company made $8 million while, according to his own LinkedIn page, he was simultaneously a government employee. We still do not know what he actually did for the money. Yeo's two-person company benefited from an indigenous contracting set aside, even though no indigenous communities saw any of the money.
Indigenous leaders have warned that the Liberal approach to contracting is encouraging shell companies and other modes of obfuscation to gain an advantage in procurement processes, all to the detriment of legitimate indigenous peoples of Canada, communities and businesses.
It is time to end the corruption, to respect taxpayers and to insist that indigenous contracting policies actually benefit indigenous peoples, not well-connected NDP-Liberal insiders.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:51:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my friend and colleague from the Bloc Québécois.
Absolutely, I think we need subsidies, with a preference for Canadian industry, at a time when the U.S. government wants to punish our industry. This is a good opportunity for the federal government to provide financial support to this sector.
At the same time, we must work with the United Nations and with indigenous peoples to better protect Canada's forests, the boreal forests. That is what we need to do to protect our forests in the future.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:52:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I was just reading a quote from the release for Iskum Investments, the new consortium of indigenous companies on the coast of B.C. I was reading a quote from waamiiš Ken Watts. He is the elected chief councillor of Tseshaht Nation. He said:
As First Nations decision-makers and leaders, it is our responsibility to help find positive and productive solutions and be proactive in our efforts to solve the complex problems that society faces.
I want to thank my colleague because that is what she has done tonight.
In addition, Chief Watts said:
Through the shared values of our Consortium, it is our goal to demonstrate how business can work with First Nations and facilitate this change with new ways of thinking. Our Nations have made a commitment to bring our paddles into the same canoe, together paddling as one as we move forward to exploratory opportunities.
What I would really like us to learn from Chief Watts, from the waamiiš, is how to do that here, get ourselves in the same canoe and start paddling in the same direction, because 42 years of going back and forth like this is not working. It is failing everybody.
The government could expand the Natural Resources Canada program, which really helped indigenous communities. However, maybe my colleague could speak about the importance of indigenous ownership when it comes to forestry companies in Canada and the importance of indigenous knowledge.
I want to thank my colleague for her speech and for trying to force that debate to open up tonight, talking about solutions to deal with these problems that are facing us right now.
277 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:53:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the issue of forestry in the Canada-U.S. debate is structural. Let us recognize that most of our forest products are produced from land that is called Crown land, and in the U.S. it is from private land. The stumpage fees we charge are viewed by the U.S. as an unfair subsidy.
Let us strip all of that away. It is indigenous land. If it is called private land, who was it stolen from? If it is called Crown land, where did we take it from? What if we focused our efforts around forests on justice and reconciliation, on land back and economic value, while thinking about the seven generations around projects like the one that my friend, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, just mentioned and Chief Watts' impact there.
We also need to re-examine our Constitution. It is widely assumed that because in 1867 someone wrote down that provinces are in charge of forestry, the federal government should have very little to do with it. Let us back up and say that in 1867 we were not talking about climate change or indigenous rights. Yes, in terms of annual allowable cuts and logging allowances, forests are clearly provincial. However, the federal government has a much bigger role here for biodiversity protection, for reconciliation and for climate action.
Let us take off our 1867 blinkers and figure out how we get everybody into the same canoe.
243 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 10:06:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I too sat on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans with my colleague, and I really appreciated her fighting for rural Canada. Whether it be her in Quebec or me in British Columbia, we work well together.
I was reading a quote that was sent to the Standing Committee on Finance. It was in a pre-budget consultation submission put forward by Paper Excellence. The company wrote:
Greater Support for Indigenous Lead Development in the Forest Bioeconomy—
We are advocating for increased support for economic opportunities in Indigenous communities to foster the development of the forest bioeconomy and promote partnerships and collaborations through the expansion of the Indigenous Natural Resource Partnerships (INRP) program.
Does my colleague agree? Again, while we see Liberals and Conservatives pointing fingers at who is to blame for 42 years of failed softwood, what I have really liked about the Bloc is that the members have brought forward solutions tonight. We have to talk about solutions because what the Conservatives and the Liberals have been doing is not working.
Does my colleague agree, in the upcoming budget, that the federal government needs to invest in and expand the indigenous natural resource partnerships program, and how critical it is that we support indigenous-owned and indigenous-led businesses and initiatives?
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 10:13:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, we know the Conservatives say that the Liberals have not made the softwood lumber agreement a priority, but I can tell members that the Conservatives have made partisan politics a priority.
I want to talk about solutions. I will read from a letter I sent to the minister calling for the federal government to support the biomass proposal that it did put in the fall economic statement. I cited that “With one-fifth of Canada's clean energy businesses being indigenous owned, biomass investments reassert Canada's commitment to their 94 Calls to Action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous-owned biomass facilities, such as the [Natural Resources Canada]-supported Whitesand Bioeconomy Centre, can create hundreds of...jobs for local Indigenous communities while simultaneously meeting local energy needs.”
Hopefully, we can actually get back to solutions. I want to know if my colleague supports expanding the indigenous national partnerships program and funding for companies like Iskum, the new consortium on the west coast of British Columbia. Does he believe that we should be prioritizing investing in indigenous-owned businesses and that we should be working toward solutions that are outside the box, instead of the 42 years of pointing fingers? Obviously, we need to do our due diligence on international trade, but we also need to change what we are doing here at home.
234 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 10:15:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my hon. colleague from the west coast.
We share a passion for getting to solutions on this issue, and engaging with our indigenous friends and indigenous partners on this is critical. It is a huge piece to the puzzle, but it must go beyond just one particular group of individuals or Canadians. It must take on all those who are affected by this across sectors and include what the stakeholders are saying, what the mill owners are saying, and include those who work in the sector. Many times, in the debates in the House, we make decisions and talk about things in esoteric terms, and we lose sight of the workers whose lives are most impacted by the decisions we make, whether it is in natural resources, in fisheries or in any of the energy sectors. Oftentimes, decisions are made without true consultation and without considering the lives and the livelihoods that are going to be most impacted by these decisions. I would encourage all of us to make sure that we are meaningfully at the table to make sure that this situation gets resolved sooner rather than later. It must be a priority.
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
