SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 295

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24
Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)
  • Apr/8/24 6:30:59 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Chair, it was wonderful to hear PMO speech number two. It is interesting that we are debating softwood lumber, which is something that has been going on for eight years. It has cost tens of thousands of Canadian jobs, and the United States is holding 10 billion dollars' worth of duties, which is crippling our softwood lumber industry. The Minister of International Trade does not participate in the debate; that shows how important the issue actually is for the corrupt Liberal government. The trade committee produced a report that said that the only way the softwood lumber dispute would be resolved is through direct head of government negotiations. Therefore, after eight years, the failure for there to be a resolution is because of the failure of the Prime Minister on this file, just like on every other file. Does the member agree with the trade committee that the reason the dispute is not resolved is the failure of head-to-head government negotiation, and that this lies at the feet of the Prime Minister?
175 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24
Mrs. Brenda Shanahan
  • Apr/8/24 6:31:52 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Chair, this has been an ongoing problem since the 1980s. I believe we are on the fifth round of negotiations around softwood lumber. It is an important issue in the province of Quebec, and it is certainly one I am following closely. Indeed, we have seen the Prime Minister and our ministers engage very closely with their counterparts on this issue.
62 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)
  • Apr/8/24 7:00:57 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Chair, on this eclipse day, I rise to take part in a take-note debate, not about the eclipse—we are probably the only place not talking about it—but about the ongoing softwood lumber crisis that has been going on for some 40 years. I have the impression, however, and I say this candidly, that I am wasting my time. I will explain why. On February 1, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced plans to substantially increase the countervailing and anti-dumping duties it levies on Canadian and Quebec softwood lumber. In the days that followed, shortly thereafter, I requested an emergency debate in the House. We all know the procedure. A written request must be submitted and then it must be verbally requested. The Speaker, of course, refused, saying that other avenues had to be explored first, that a take-note debate should happen first. I thought, okay, I will try for a take-note debate. I went to see my House leader. The Bloc Québécois said it wanted such a debate, and negotiations began. Like the messiah we were waiting for, we finally got it this evening, on April 8, more than two months later. That is how much interest the government has in this issue. When the Minister of International Trade attended the World Trade Organization's ministerial conference in Abu Dhabi on March 2, did she take advantage of the opportunity to raise this issue? It was not on the agenda. Is that the great team Canada approach that the government is always going on about? I think that I will stick with team Quebec. I will be better off. It is more reliable. This crisis has been going on for 30 years. The ups and downs continue. On November 24, 2021, the U.S. administration announced that the tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber would double in 2022, going from an average of 9% to 18%. A week or two later, we held a take-note debate here in the House. Admittedly, two weeks is better than two months. The problem is that the forestry industry is not the oil industry or the automotive industry, in other words, it is not a strategic industry for the rest of Canada. While the federal government provides billions of dollars in support for the Canadian oil industry, it provides only millions for the forestry industry, mainly in the form of loans. Lumber will never be one of Ottawa's top priorities, despite the lumbering rhetoric we hear from key officials in successive governments in Ottawa. In fact, that may be the only time lumber is given any attention. The trade war over softwood lumber is an old and never-ending issue. There have been countless missed opportunities to resolve this problem, even though Quebec has done what it takes to meet the international trade requirements. This issue has been ongoing for 40 years. Let us come back to the last episode of December 16, 2021. We know that a month earlier, the U.S. government announced an increase in countervailing duties. Taking advantage of the fact that the House of Commons had just adjourned for the holidays, the government disclosed the contents of the ministerial mandate letters. The House being adjourned, the opposition cannot react, cannot ask questions, and that is when we saw the mandate letters. As we know, this is an exercise where the Prime Minister puts in writing the priorities he wants to see his ministers work on. When these letters came out, I naturally acquainted myself with the one dealing with my file, the letter for the Minister of International Trade. I saw that there was an entire paragraph devoted to the challenges of U.S. protectionism. I thought that was great. Then I looked for the words “softwood lumber”. I never did find them. I reread the letter four times. They were not there. I did not misread the letter. The words were not there. Ottawa is not even pretending any more that the problem exists. In 2021 and 2022, when the U.S. Congress was debating the possibility of offering a tax credit for the sale of electric vehicles, but only those assembled in the U.S., which would have had serious consequences, the international trade minister organized a visit to Washington. We supported the government in that. She wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate threatening countermeasures if Congress decided to go ahead. In the case of softwood lumber, however, there was no visit to Washington, no letter, no announcement of retaliation, no assistance programs for the industry; nothing, nyet, a big fat “O” as in Ottawa. The forestry industry accounts for 11% of Quebec's exports. Our forests are a source of economic development, jobs and government revenue in the form of taxes. The two members seated behind me are actually from forestry regions. They could talk at length about how important forests are to their regions. The tariff war hurts virtually all of the parties. It could increase the price of wood in Quebec and Canada significantly. It could threaten our businesses and the thousands of jobs directly related to the sale of wood to the United States. Things will be no better in the United States. The National Association of Home Builders in the United States understands that. I have met with association members in Washington, and they understand that very well. They are against these anti-dumping duties because housing prices will go up, denying more Americans access to home ownership despite the Biden administration's claim that access to housing is one of its priorities. Who comes out ahead? The American lumber lobby and a few American politicians attempting to make political hay. In the aftermath of tariff wars, Canada has repeatedly filed complaints with WTO and North American Free Trade Agreement tribunals and has always won its case. I hear representatives of the governing party tell us today that Canada is going to win again. It is true that we will win again. Spoiler alert—we are going to win again. We might not know the exact moment, much like with the eclipse earlier, but we know that we are going to win. I am announcing it. It is scientific too. In May 2020, the WTO stated that Washington had not acted objectively or fairly and that its tariffs were unlawful. Free trade agreements impose time limits to prevent disputes from dragging on for an excessive amount of time. The problem is that delay tactics are common. Knowing that they are going to lose their case, the Americans are using every trick in the book to slow the arbitration tribunals' work. For example, they file petitions to waste time or drag their feet when appointing arbitrators. As time goes by, the situation facing our forestry industry keeps deteriorating. We are losing jobs. We are losing money. We cannot modernize. It is as simple as that. It makes no difference that Ottawa claims to want to challenge the decisions in court; the problem is not going to go away. That said, there have been missed opportunities everywhere. When NAFTA was renegotiated a few years ago, Ottawa could have seized that opportunity to plug the gaps in the litigation process, to strengthen the framework, to avoid excessively long delays when time is our enemy. CUSMA was passed by Parliament in March 2020, yet this issue was not settled. That was not the only missed opportunity. As I proposed in the House, CUSMA could have included a permanent advisory council on softwood lumber. That would have ensured ongoing monitoring. Not only does the Quebec plan fully pass the free-trade test, it was even designed specifically for that purpose in 2013. This is a good example of what it costs us to not be at the negotiating table defending our own reality. Meanwhile, Ottawa tells us that softwood lumber is a priority and that it is vigorously defending it. This is an eclipse, an eclipse even more obvious than the one we saw today.
1367 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border