SoVote

Dec/1/21 8:00:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I look forward to working with her on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. My colleague spoke a lot about the relationship with the United States. This relationship is a big part of the issue we are discussing tonight. However, we cannot ignore one of the major issues for the forestry industry, which is that there is no support for secondary and tertiary processing. The forestry industry is a great industry to combat climate change, but the federal government's programs are pathetic. This industry accounts for $20 billion in exports for Quebec, but it receives just 0.2% in financial support from the federal government. Furthermore, 75% of that support comes in the form of loans. That is beyond pathetic; it is dreadful. Does my colleague agree that the federal government's support for the forestry sector is extremely lacking?

151 words

All Topics

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Dec/1/21 8:01:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I very much look forward to working with my colleague on natural resources because I understand how important that sector is to his riding. I think we actually have a lot of commonality on what we can work on together. I very much agree with him that the federal government should be doing more to support value-added processing of forestry products. At the same time, it has to make sure that our relationships with major export markets are secure. It should be able to do both. What we have seen through the government is an atrophy on both fronts. I certainly hope that we can work together on the natural resources committee to hold the government to account, in the best interests of all Canadians.

128 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Dec/1/21 8:02:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the one thing we know about the Americans is that they fight for their workers. Joe Biden went to COP26. He talked about a trillion dollar investment in a clean energy economy that was going to be tied to good union jobs. I have never heard our Prime Minister say that. Our Prime Minister went to COP26 and he announced an emissions cap. The people I know in the sector understand an emissions cap is coming. The world is expecting it but we got no details, no plan, no talk about a financial investment for the 140,000 energy workers who are getting ready for a transformation that is coming. Why is it that we have never heard our Prime Minister stand up and say that the plan for creating a clean energy economy will be tied to major investments, major opportunities and the good union jobs that Joe Biden is promising?

154 words

All Topics

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Dec/1/21 8:02:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it seems like unanimity is breaking out in the opposition ranks. I also look forward to working with my colleague from Timmins—James Bay on this matter because he is right. We should be ensuring that we are not offshoring jobs in natural resources and we are not being priced out of competitiveness because of our failed relationship with the Americans that has happened under the government. This is exactly what the Liberals need to be held to account on. It is exactly why the natural resources committee needs to be reconvened immediately. I look forward to working with him and my colleague from the Bloc Québécois as well on the fact that we have lost jobs, we have lost opportunity and we have lost that ability to transition to a clean energy economy. Very briefly, I would also like to wish a very happy birthday to the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

163 words

All Topics

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

Dec/1/21 8:03:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since I just returned yesterday from an observation mission in Colombia, this is my first speech in the House since the last election—not counting the small point of order that I made earlier, of course. I would like to take this opportunity to warmly thank the electors of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for their renewed trust. I will do everything in my power to live up to this second term that I had the honour of being entrusted with. Rather than engage in petty games by passing the buck and throwing accusations at either the Liberals or the Conservatives, I will try to bring the debate to another level, even if I do think that both are to blame. Focusing the debate on something else will only elevate the discussion. First, let us quickly review the facts. Last week the U.S. administration announced that, starting in 2022, countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber will double from 9% to 18%, on average. Of all the companies affected, the primary victim is Quebec’s Resolute Forest Products, which will be slapped with a combined tax of 29.66%. That is why the Bloc Québécois wanted to have this take-note debate tonight, in which I am participating as my party’s international trade critic. The trade war over softwood lumber is an old and never-ending issue. It has been said before, and it needs to be said again: There have been countless missed opportunities to resolve this problem. The forestry industry accounts for 11% of Quebec’s exports. Our forests are a source of economic development, jobs, and tax revenue, and they have great ecological value. That must also be said. The forestry industry presents immense carbon sequestration and storage capacity, and it inspires many innovative Quebec SMEs to produce bioenergy and bioproducts. Some issues require international co-operation. The environment, the fight against climate change, and green trade are among them, and our wood can play a key role. The new tariff war will hurt almost everyone. It will certainly hurt us because it could result in a large increase in the price of lumber and serious consequences for our businesses and the 25,000 direct Canadian jobs tied to the sale of softwood lumber to the United States. Things will not necessarily be any better in the United States either. The cost of housing will increase, which will further restrict Americans' access to housing, even though the Biden administration is claiming that access to housing is one of its priorities. Who will win in the end? The U.S. lumber lobby and a few politicians who see that the mid-term elections are quickly approaching. Let us review the facts of this matter. Year after year, the United States accuses the Canadian forestry industry of benefiting from public subsidies that hurt the American sector. The American decision is based on what could be called a structural dynamic. This happens a lot. This is not the first softwood lumber crisis. There have been four rounds of trade conflicts: in 1982-83, in 1986, from 1991 to 1996 and from 2001 to 2006. We are now at the start of a fifth conflict. It makes no sense. Canada has turned to the World Trade Organization and North American Free Trade Agreement dispute resolution bodies for help several times. Canada has won all of its cases. In May 2020, the WTO even said that Washington had not been objective or fair and that its tariffs were unlawful. Free trade agreements generally set time limits on disputes to prevent them from dragging on. The Americans knew that they would lose their case, though, so they did what they always do. They used every trick in the book to stall the arbitration tribunal, for example, by filing petitions to take up the tribunal's time or by blocking the appointment of arbitrators. The longer this goes on, the worse things get for our forestry industry. The Americans’ strategy is therefore clear: Set tariffs that they know will be found to be wrong and take advantage of the years they are in effect to bankrupt, or at least undermine, the Canadian industry. This will allow the United States to further develop their industry in the meantime, modernize it, improve its competitiveness, and therefore get a head start. That is what is behind the push for a trade war. Is this not precisely what can easily be described as unfair competition? It seems to me that it is. Still, there have been many missed opportunities to address this. The Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, or CUSMA, passed in the House in March 2020, represents a very large missed opportunity in this regard. CUSMA needs to be amended. The government could have taken the opportunity to close these loopholes when renegotiating North American free trade over the past few years to ensure that the litigation process is much better regulated so that we could avoid overly long delays when time is not on our side. There is also another item that needs to be amended in CUSMA. It should provide for a permanent softwood lumber advisory board. I tried to introduce a similar amendment in the House in March 2020, but unfortunately it was rejected by the Chair. This brings me to another urgent matter, that of getting the Quebec system recognized. Since 2013, Quebec's forestry regime has been fully compliant with the free trade framework and requirements, which should save it from vagaries like the ones we are experiencing right now. The regime is simple to explain. One quarter of the timber from the public forest is sold at auction, where anyone can bid. The price obtained is then applied to all the timber from public forests. This system is very similar to the one used in the United States. The price of timber is set by the market, not by the government. It is not subsidized, which passes the free trade test 100%. It was actually designed specifically for that purpose. In contrast, that is not how B.C.'s stumpage system works. In that case, it is set by the government. Recognizing the specificity of the Quebec system would save us a lot of trouble. I will make an aside to talk about one of the reasons I am in politics. When people ask me why I am a sovereignist, I tell them that it is so we can have the power to sign our own agreements and treaties, which sounds a bit abstract and seems quite theoretical. However, here we have the perfect example, and it is a fairly typical case: we want to be able to negotiate on our own behalf, in our own interests, instead of letting a government that does not see us as a priority do it for us. Of course, in the short term, the government urgently needs to support the industry with a loan and loan guarantee program, to match the amounts being withheld by Washington. It is the only way to get through the crisis. Ottawa could also argue for an exemption for timber from private forests. Although the vast majority, or 90%, of the timber harvest in Quebec comes from public forests, certain private forests are quite large and have real value in some regions, and therefore deserve our attention. The point to be made is quite simple. The Americans wag their finger at public forests, saying they do not respect the free market system and they benefit from hidden subsidies. Why, then, is timber from private forests, which I would point out is not subject to the Quebec regime, also subject to these new tariffs? This should be a very simple argument for our friends in government. It seems to me that it should be pretty easy to argue that. Since the new duties do not apply to processed products, as my colleague from Jonquière mentioned earlier, this is a great opportunity to develop a value chain to promote the processing of forestry products. I think this presents a great opportunity for secondary and tertiary processing. What does the government do? It tells us it is working very hard for all Canadians and that softwood lumber is a priority that it is, and I quote, “vigorously” defending. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister took part in the first three amigos trilateral summit in many, many years. Barely one week later, new softwood lumber tariffs were announced. Make of that what you will, but there is still a problem here. Tomorrow, the Minister of International Trade will be in Washington. Let us hope for better results. Will the government take a firmer tone? Will it retaliate with measures on U.S. goods? We will have to wait and see. We have yet to hear any real announcements. Empty buzzwords like “priority” and “vigour” have run their course. Now, a major industry—

1509 words

All Topics

The Chair

Dec/1/21 8:14:03 p.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

11 words

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Dec/1/21 8:14:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I would like to congratulate the member for his speech. When the Liberal government was elected in 2015, there were a lot of problems with the mandate letters that the government released. In fact, I remember asking the government to prioritize softwood lumber in the mandate letters in 2015. It was the first thing I said when this chamber came back after the election. Would the member agree that the government needs to prioritize this issue at a much higher level so his workers know their government is actively working on this? As I said earlier, the government only talks about softwood lumber when we talk about it in an emergency.

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Dec/1/21 8:15:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, we are hearing a lot of empty words like “priority” and “vigour” while workers and industries are struggling. We have had enough of these empty words. They are like buzzwords. They need to be tweaked to say that it is important to the rest of us. Enough buzzwords. People are waiting. This should indeed be a key priority. However, I am curious, and I have to wonder. President Biden holds the first three amigos summit in several years, bringing together the three North American heads of state, and a week later, new tariffs are announced. If that is not a diplomatic triumph, I do not know what is. I hope my colleagues caught my sarcasm.

121 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.)

Dec/1/21 8:16:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I am interested in my colleague's thoughts on expanding export markets beyond the United States. We can talk about the diversification of the industry into secondary markets such as furniture or whatever else might be a wood product, but one of the biggest things the government can do is look at ways in which industry can increase the number of markets for the products we have, whether it is in Quebec, B.C. or my home province of Manitoba. Could the member provide his thoughts on whether there are countries the Bloc believes we should be pursuing to expand those markets? I would like to hear what he has to say on that issue.

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Dec/1/21 8:17:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, first I would like to know what to think. I have not heard any intentions. What I mean is that I have heard the intention, but I have not seen anything of substance. I would really like to be the first to say that I have seen the proposed policy and that it makes sense, or that this or that element should be improved. However, right now, there is nothing. There is absolutely nothing, just wind. Once again, there are just empty words. My colleague asked me if I support processing and market diversification. I have spoken about that. Now, when are they going to put their money where their mouth is? We are not in government. It is up to the Liberals to answer that question.

129 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Dec/1/21 8:17:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, the softwood lumber dispute is having huge repercussions for forest communities in northern Ontario. However, it has also led to the transformation of the industry, especially in terms of efficiency and the use of natural resources in the north. My question is as follows. Where is the federal government's plan to work with the forestry industry and the northern regions? How does it plan on developing new markets to harness the transformation of the industry and create new opportunities for it in Canada?

86 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Dec/1/21 8:18:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his question, but I have no answer for him. My colleague asked where the plan is. Had I seen it, I could have definitely answered him. Unfortunately, I am very saddened to come to the conclusion that it does not exist.

48 words

All Topics

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Dec/1/21 8:19:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, first I would like to congratulate my brilliant colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on his speech. The forestry industry is a major player in our region. It accounts for nearly 20% of the Lower St. Lawrence economy and nearly 40% of the region’s manufacturing jobs. History tends to repeat itself. My colleague put it very well. We have already seen this bad movie before. In 2006, the industries had to leave on the table nearly $1 billion of the $5 billion that was imposed as countervailing tariffs. I would ask my colleague what is the solution that will prevent Quebec from suffering the repercussions of the tariffs being imposed on softwood lumber by the Americans.

120 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Dec/1/21 8:19:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, my heart goes out to the workers in my colleague’s region who have been affected by these various shocks and who may still be affected in 2022, if this continues. My colleague mentioned the 2006 agreement. When it expired in 2015, there was some lofty rhetoric, but there was no new agreement afterwards. Nothing concrete was announced. To answer his question about how to prevent this from happening, I would say that Ottawa needs to acknowledge that Quebec has a genuine system. The real solution is obviously for Quebec to negotiate its own agreements directly as a free and independent republic.

105 words

All Topics

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Dec/1/21 8:20:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, the hon. member and I sat on the trade committee earlier this year. The minister attended a committee meeting back in June, and we were asking questions on the notification of the duties that were coming. What were the member's thoughts on that meeting and was the minister reassuring in her comments?

55 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Dec/1/21 8:21:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I commend my colleague and former peer from the Standing Committee on International Trade. We had a lot of fun working together. We had a very good rapport. Usually a visit from the Minister of Trade is spent with her eating up the time for questions. When we ask a solid question that calls for a short and solid answer, we get a response that begins with a long preamble involving thank yous, kowtowing and that sort of thing just to eat up time. Then we are told that they are working hard for Canadians, that this is a priority, that they are working vigorously on this and so on, yet we never get an answer from the minister. In fact, we have never gotten one from most of the ministers in this government. I do not feel reassured. Even if I did, I would be wrong to feel that way. It would be naive of me. We got the answer a week ago.

166 words

All Topics

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC)

Dec/1/21 8:22:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that the member mentioned the environmental benefits of forestry, especially Canadian forestry. We have one of the greenest, most environmentally friendly industry in the world. I wonder if he would comment further on the benefit of supporting Canadian forestry from the perspective of fighting climate change.

50 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Dec/1/21 8:22:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his question and the opportunity to provide some details. With respect to the benefits of forestry, we have seen some extremely innovative businesses. They are developing derivatives, wood-based bioproducts, rather than relying on yesterday's energy sources. I think that is one way forward along with other energy sources of the future. We are a nationalist party. We are not against economic nationalism. There are issues we have to deal with on a continental and global basis, and the environment is one of them. It took centuries for trees to develop. It is almost miraculous. All kinds of studies on trees show that their benefits are legion, ranging from oxygen to well-being. Some studies show that they improve well-being and create cool islands. Trees are all pro, no con. They supply us with extremely high-quality wood. There is no doubt that the forestry industry has not always been up to snuff. I recall a film that made an impression in Quebec. It was called Forest Alert and was produced by Richard Desjardins, a great Quebec artist who is popular with all my Bloc Québécois colleagues. Fortunately, things have changed, and this is a sign that social movements must continue to mobilize. Today, we have a great industry. We have a great sector that can always do better, of course, as long as it has the support of the public and a strategy, and political priorities are put in place.

254 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Dec/1/21 8:24:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. I have heard great things about your wisdom, and I look forward to working with you. I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor West. This is my first speech since being re-elected, and I want to thank the people of Timmins—James Bay. It is very moving to me that, in the first speech I give, I am speaking about an issue that is impacting our communities. I am thinking of the incredible community of Elk Lake and the mill workers there. The EACOM mill in Timmins has been taken over by Interfor. They are people with an open-door policy and they welcome me to the mill. I have visited with the workers and seen the production lines. One of the things we learned from the long crisis with softwood lumber is that we lost so many mills in the north, along with the collapse of the paper industry: the loss of Smooth Rock Falls, the loss in Kirkland Lake and the huge loss of the Abitibi mill. However, the mills that survived became very efficient. Just this spring I was talking to representatives from EACOM, who said they were finally having a good year. They were finally starting to reinvest, and then they got hit with this. This is an issue that we have to address. I am not going to attack my good friends over on the Conservative side, but their sense of history is, I find, a little strange. Yes, Stephen Harper signed a softwood lumber agreement, but he came in and threw out every WTO win that we had. We had won at the WTO time and time again, but then the agreement was that we would take a billion dollars' worth of subsidies that our industry had to pay, which should have come back to us, and give $500 million to competitive mills in the United States. Do members not think those mills thought that was a great idea, and that as soon as the softwood lumber agreement ended, they thought they would hit up Canadian companies for more money? The fact that our industries had to subsidize American competition shows how wrong this is. That is the history of this. In six years, the current government has not negotiated the softwood agreement, and it has an effect. It has been a ticking time bomb. When the Biden administration came in, we knew it was going to take a hard line on job protection, and I do not hold that against it. I do not hold it against Joe Biden that he is standing up and saying he is going to fight for good union jobs. I have never heard the Prime Minister say that. I wish he would. What worries me about the Prime Minister is that he is like the last of the Davos free traders. He believes that he and the Deputy Prime Minister can go to Davos and talk about this great international order where all the trading partners make agreements, but that is not what is happening. Around the world, countries are defending their own financial interests, and we have been left out in the cold. We saw it with the inability of our country to make PPE when we were hit with the pandemic, and our inability to make sure our people were safe with no investments in vaccines. Well, Brian Mulroney sold off our vaccine capacity, but the Prime Minister was going to trust in the international market. The Americans were investing in massive amounts of medical research during the pandemic so they would never be in that situation again. We were hoping for the best, and that is what we have been hoping for with softwood. We are hoping for the best, that everything will work out. The Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade went to Washington on November 17. This was going to be the big hug. The Prime Minister was going to do the schmooze charm. Seven days later, the Americans hammered us. What did the Prime Minister say that pissed them off so badly that within seven days, they doubled the tariffs on us? I am not sure the trade minister even mentioned softwood. We never heard any talk about it, but within seven days of their being there, we got hammered. We know how the Americans are going to operate. We know where they stand, and we know how they will bend to their lobbyists and their vested interests in Washington. That is not news to us. The question is what we are going to do to stand up for our industry, our workers, the union jobs we need to defend in forestry and the auto sector, and the massive transformation we need to make in the energy markets. We have not heard that from the Prime Minister. Now the Liberals are telling us it is complex. “Trust us. Trust us,” they say. The workers in Elk Lake, the workers in Timmins, the workers in Cochrane and the workers in Kapuskasing, in my region, are not going to trust. They want to see action.

873 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Dec/1/21 8:30:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, it is a real pleasure to stand this evening and talk about timber, to talk about softwood lumber and the impact it is having across rural Canada. I appreciate the member for Timmins—James Bay raising the plight of workers. In my riding, workers have lost their jobs. They have lost their livelihoods and the ability to provide for their families because of government policy and government inaction in not reaching a softwood lumber agreement. Could the member explain what benefits we could see from the forestry industry if the government actually took it seriously and followed through on its commitment in 2016, when it said it had almost reached a deal. Close to six years later we are still waiting for that to come to fruition.

130 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 8