SoVote

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

Dec/1/21 9:24:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, several factors are playing into this. One is definitely the diplomatic fiasco I talked about earlier, and another is a kind of bad faith on the Americans' part. That is undeniable. Generally speaking, Quebec did its part to implement a system that complies with the free trade rules. Unfortunately, the system is undermined by other provinces' stumpage fees. That is the conclusion we came to. Does my colleague think Quebec's unique system should be recognized as such during future negotiations?

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Jake Stewart

Dec/1/21 9:24:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I am sure the member has a valid point in terms of his own province, and I would dare say the member knows more about his own province than I do. However, every province in Canada is suffering because of the Prime Minister's inability to forge a relationship with the country that is supposed to be our very best friend. If the United States is our best friend, our country should be able to forge that relationship, whether we are Liberal or Conservative or Bloc or anything else. That should not matter. Right now, we have seriously been taken to the wood shed by the United States, and the Prime Minister has done nothing but talk about the climate crisis and electric vehicles. Now everybody is suffering because of that.

133 words

All Topics

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

Dec/1/21 9:25:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, this has been very instructive. Tonight I got to meet the Liberal softwood caucus, with the representatives from downtown Toronto and suburban Toronto and suburban Ottawa. They told us they were going prevail. They told us to call all our relatives and friends in the United States to say how unfair this is. We know we are in really bad shape on a trade deal when the Liberal softwood caucus is telling us to call our relatives and friends in the United States to say we are being picked on. That is not going to restore the jobs in my region or protect the mills that I have across northern Ontario. What I do not see from the government is any real commitment to the working class in forestry communities in this country.

135 words

All Topics

Mr. Jake Stewart

Dec/1/21 9:26:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I could not agree with the member more. Right now I have mills in my riding, the same as the member opposite. I agree with him. We need leadership from the Prime Minister. It has to supercede politics and political parties. We need real leadership. There is an inability by the Liberal government to provide it.

58 words

All Topics

Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)

Dec/1/21 9:27:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells. As this is my first opportunity to speak in this House during this Parliament, traditionally we all thank our voters, I will thank them, but also pledge to do my very best to uphold both their interests and their dreams for Canada. Their interests do extend to softwood lumber and this issue. I know that causes some amusement, but we actually believe that an injury to one is an injury to all, and we can actually all be engaged in this issue equally and care. It may be that people in my riding use those products or they have a corporate interest in those mills doing well, but nonetheless, they care about this issue deeply and profoundly. I would also add that personally, I actually care about it a lot, having grown up as the son of a professional forester who worked in northeastern Ontario for some 40 years, providing softwood lumber for mills in northern Ontario. The fact that my education was paid for, at least in part, by my father's work in the forest industry means that I am committed to this issue personally and passionately. Because I live in an urban centre now does not make me any less committed to the working class, the people who build this country, in every sector, whether it is the extractive industries, the softwood lumber industry or other industries, including agriculture. The softwood lumber industry has been unjustifiably targeted by these U.S. duties once again. The softwood lumber dispute is not a new trade irritant between our countries; it is an ongoing one that flares up consistently and constantly. I will agree with every member in the House that it is not fair. It is unfortunate that our largest trading partner fails to see the harm that it is causing on both sides of the border. Our countries have a highly integrated forestry sector. It relies on predictability and stability to maintain the supply of lumber and meet the demand, which is incredibly high in the United States right now, and that is to make sure we have prosperous economies in both our countries. As a trading nation, Canada has rested and will always rest itself into the international rules-based order, and that trading system, which is dependent upon people playing fairly. We will try to ensure that Canada and Canadians receive fair treatment in the global market at all times. In a relationship as large and as important as the one we have with the United States, there are bound to be trade irritants. That is normal. Relationship building at all levels, respect for the rules-based trading system and enforceable trade dispute settlement mechanisms are the keys to resolving these irritants. I would say that this is not a partisan issue. I think in the House we all need to agree that we need to work together. The reason we were able to keep the trade dispute mechanism in the new NAFTA, in CUSMA is that Conservatives, NDP, Bloc Québécois and Liberals worked together with industry partners to ensure that we got the best trade deal possible. In fact, we improved upon the old NAFTA. We were able to keep that trade dispute mechanism alive, because we worked together. There is no failure of leadership here. There needs to be an engagement co-operatively with the imagination that I am hoping all members of the House will bring to this issue. We need to be working together on this. The Minister of International Trade has said very clearly that she wants help, she wants ideas and she wants to engage with every member of the House to ensure that happens. That means engaging with people we know who are legislators in the United States, so they hear the story of Canada and are reminded that their interests, as well as our interests, are bound together in this. They need our wood, as simply put as that. They need it. We have it. We will supply it well, and our industry needs to be effectively protected by the international rules-based order. We will do it. Our Prime Minister is committed to it. We are committed to it. I know the House is committed to it, and I look forward to working with members and their creative solutions that can only improve our approach on this issue.

751 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Williams (Bay of Quinte, CPC)

Dec/1/21 9:32:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I agree with the hon. member across the way that we have to work together, because the government has just failed to make this negotiation. We had so much time in the last six years to make this happen. President Biden said in his presidential run that he did want to continue the Trump tariffs on their allies. The U.S. Lumber Coalition last June said that it had not seen Canada come to the table. It said that it wanted to make a deal, but that Canada was not bringing it a deal. We have had all the time. The biggest thing we have in the negotiation is that we have the wood and the U.S. does not. It does not have enough domestic supply to supply its own nation. We have the negotiation tactics. Will the government go back with some harder negotiations to make the deal done for our Canadian softwood industry?

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Robert Oliphant

Dec/1/21 9:33:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, with all due respect, that is not the way international trade disputes work. The fact is that we will steadily and carefully take our case to the places where trade dispute mechanisms actually exist. I remind members of the House we have consistently won. This is because we are clear, we know where Canada stands on these issues, we listen to our industry partners, we are able to look at this issue in a holistic way and understand those mechanisms will work. I received criticism at one point from one of my colleagues because in a question in the last Parliament, I said that we will win. I used the definitive “we will win” in this dispute, and we did, and we will again because we will be careful, clear and consistent.

136 words

All Topics

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

Dec/1/21 9:34:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I listened carefully to my colleague from Don Valley West's speech, and I strongly disagree. He claims there was no failure of leadership, but there was. The United States said it was planning to double the duties long ago, in May. That was six months ago. What did the government do? It did not respond. Once again, we are in the same situation we have been experiencing year after year. They say we must go through the mechanisms. How many times has Canada sought recourse before the World Trade Organization? Its decisions are not binding. We have to raise our voice when our neighbours disrespect us. I will ask my colleague: What is the silver bullet?

120 words

All Topics

Mr. Robert Oliphant

Dec/1/21 9:34:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I will simply repeat that we will not use bully tactics. We will use steady, careful negotiating tactics using the laws at hand, whether it is the WTO mechanisms, the CUSMA mechanisms or other trade mechanisms that are in place to ensure we have fair disputes. This is not a new situation. Whether it is in Canada, the United States or any of our trading partners, we are a trading nation and we understand domestic politics play in every country. We will continue to make our case politically as well as legally, and we will win once again.

100 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC)

Dec/1/21 9:35:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I asked in question period the other day whether we could expect, for the first nations-owned lumber mill in my riding, to have the $20 million that have been withheld in tariffs returned to it through this process. The hon. member speaks of the process and playing it through to the end in an appropriate manner. Can this lumber mill in Saskatchewan that has $20 million tied up, which is not being used for first nations to provide social housing and other benefits to its communities, expect to get its $20 million back, and when it might happen?

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Robert Oliphant

Dec/1/21 9:36:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the member will know very clearly I am not privy to that information. I do not know the facts of this particular mill. I am interested in it, though. I am interested in anything where the entrepreneurial spirit of indigenous communities of Canada can be unleashed and work. This government has been more committed than any government to ensuring indigenous companies, corporations and investment and employment opportunities receive not only fair treatment but the best treatment possible. I am happy to hear more about this. I am happy to take that to our own government to ensure we find a solution to it.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Dec/1/21 9:37:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, although this is not the first time I have risen in the House since we returned, I should take a moment to thank everybody in Fleetwood—Port Kells for sending me back here for a third time. I do not know if they just wanted me out town or if they really like the work that we have been doing, but I presume it is the latter. I am pleased to join my colleagues in defending our forest industry, and referring to the comment from my colleague for Don Valley West, this is what we are all here to do. We are all here to defend the sector, its workers and the suppliers, and a huge contributor to our economy across the country. We are dealing with the latest set of unfair and unwarranted duties by the United States. I think we can assure Canadians that we do have means at our disposal to defend the workers and communities that depend on the work that they do, which includes, by the way, indigenous people who, in many places, rely on this vital part of our economy. Canada will use all the methods at our disposal to combat unfair trade actions by the United States as we have at every stage of this dispute over the years. This includes legal recourse available under our bilateral trade agreements in the World Trade Organization. Time and time again, we have won. Panels in these venues have consistently ruled against U.S. duties. Our government will do whatever else we can to defend workers and communities, just as we did in 2017 when we came up with the $867 million softwood lumber action plan. That was a plan that focused on expanding markets and diversifying products, and on assisting workers, including those transitioning to other parts of the economy. In the long run, we have an advantage. We have a vast, healthy and unusually resilient forest ecosystem, with parts of B.C. this year being an unfortunate exception. We have an ecosystem that absorbs carbon pollution. In fact, there is no path to net-zero emissions that does not involve our forests. Our government has underscored this reality with a plan to plant two billion additional trees over the next 10 years. This is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 12 megatonnes annually by 2050. Canada is also taking global leadership in reversing tropical forest loss and land degradation. It makes sense that we are out in front in this area, because our strong system of forest laws, monitoring and enforcement ensures sustainable forest management practices across the country. Canada is home to 9% of the world's forest, but we have 36% of the world's sustainably managed forests. Canada's forests are monitored closely. Each year, the Government of Canada publishes “The State of Canada's Forests” annual report. It tracks a number of indicators pertaining to sustainability. The government will continue to work with industry, provinces and territories to protect and sustainably manage our forests, because that is our long-term advantage, but as today's debate highlights, we need to invest in order to encourage this industry's transformation. One example is the investments in the forest industry transformation program. It supported innovation for more than a decade and, to date, it has successfully funded 43 capital investment projects. These initiatives have secured approximately 6,600 forest-sector jobs and another 450 innovation-related jobs. The program supports forest-reliant communities and improves the environment and performance of the sector. These projects help diversify the forest product market through high-value bioproducts, such as bioenergy, biomaterials, biochemicals and next-generation building products. Budget 2021 recognized the program's success by injecting up to $54.8 million over two years starting this fiscal year to increase its capacity. We also recognize, as I said, how important this sector is to many indigenous communities, which is why we are investing to create forest-sector jobs as well as increased knowledge and economic opportunities. Normally when we are in a negotiation with somebody, we expect to deal with somebody who is rational. However, we have seen over the last number of years any number of irrational decisions made in the United States or by Americans. These are interesting and difficult times, but as my colleagues have suggested, we have the means at our disposal, the patience and the talent to get this over the line successfully.

751 words

All Topics

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC)

Dec/1/21 9:42:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I appreciate the speech from the member opposite. I just want to bring this back to the workers, those on the ground whose lives are impacted by this, because this is something we have seen in the Kenora riding throughout the course of this dispute. Just a couple of years ago, Kenora Forest Products had to lay off over 100 workers when its parent company filed for bankruptcy, citing the ongoing softwood lumber dispute. I mean this question in the most collegial way possible. What would the member want to say to those workers who have lost their jobs and their families who are looking for action from this government?

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken Hardie

Dec/1/21 9:42:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I have lived in many communities where forestry is a big industry, including in our riding where we have the Teal-Jones mill, which is a very large operation. Throughout Canada we have had these dislocations on the paper side and the lumber side, etc. There is no doubt that our industries are going through a transformation, and it is support through the transformation to new technologies, new innovations or perhaps simply new jobs in other sectors that would make a difference for these workers. That is what the federal government should and will be doing.

98 words

All Topics

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

Dec/1/21 9:43:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, since my colleague is from British Columbia, if I am not mistaken, I would like to hear what he has to say about the stumpage system in his province. The stumpage system in British Columbia is set by the government, as opposed to the Quebec system, where prices are set by the market. That seems to be the sticking point for the U.S. How would my colleague defend British Columbia's system under free trade rules?

80 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken Hardie

Dec/1/21 9:44:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I know that in past softwood disputes the Government of Quebec attempted to make changes that would more closely harmonize with New Brunswick, especially, in order to escape some of the impacts of American retaliation. That has not worked. In British Columbia, we have taken the brunt simply because our forest tenure system and access to Crown land is significantly lower in cost than it is in the United States. I want to add one thing. I was close to some of the people working on the softwood lumber agreement that was struck in 2006, including David Emerson. This is an anecdote from when they were talking to a forest operator in Georgia who was very critical of the Canadian system. He said that Canadians were spending all this money to become more efficient, and all he needed to do was take a couple of hundred thousand dollars to Washington in a suitcase and he could get what he wanted.

162 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Dec/1/21 9:45:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I want to say that six years ago it was this member to whom I asked my first question in the House of Commons the first time I spoke, so it has come a bit full circle. I would ask him this. To get away from this dependence on the United States, is there anything more we could be doing to expand our markets, both here and abroad, as well as to value or monetize our forests in ways other than just for fibre and two-by-fours?

90 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken Hardie

Dec/1/21 9:45:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, that is a tricky question simply because a lot of other factors have come into play that have robbed us of our opportunity to do value-added in the forestry sector. The era of Reaganomics, Margaret Thatcher and some of the other neo-Liberal policies back in the seventies stripped a lot of manufacturing from Canada and sent it overseas. That is where the value-added activities are happening. British Columbia has continuously increased shipments of raw logs, because we cannot compete with the low-wage sectors in Asia for those value-added products, so it is difficult. I think in the bigger picture we need to think about reshoring a lot of the things that we have lost over the last 50 years, and bringing those industries back. Right now Canada has a housing shortage. We have a lot of lumber. Let us get that together and make something happen here.

154 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC)

Dec/1/21 9:47:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time tonight with the member for Kenora. As this is the first time I have risen in this 44th Parliament, I would like to take a minute to thank the constituents of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for re-electing me and sending me back to Ottawa to be their representative. It is a privilege and a responsibility that I do not take for granted. I would also like to thank my entire team for their time, their effort and their professionalism during the campaign. Without an awesome team, none of this is possible. Last, I would like to thank my family, and especially my wife Lori, for continued support on this journey. For many of us, I know the support of our spouses makes it possible for us to do this important job. The debate tonight has a direct impact and far-reaching consequences for the people of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. The forest industry in northern Saskatchewan is an economic driver that provides direct and indirect employment to approximately 8,000 people. Forest product sales are worth over $1 billion every year, and 30% of the timber supply in northern Saskatchewan is allocated to indigenous businesses. This is the highest of any province in Canada, and indigenous people make up roughly 30% of the forestry workforce, which again is the highest of any province in the country. These stats only look at the current situation. With long-term growth in the sector having the potential to generate over $2 billion in annual sales and well over 12,000 jobs, this vital renewable resource industry is in a growth phase and is proving to have the ability to bring Saskatchewan residents together to solve many of the socio-economic problems in our communities. Just yesterday, there was a major announcement made between Paper Excellence, the company that is restarting the pulp mill north of Prince Albert, and One Sky Forest Products, which is building a new oriented strand board mill. These two companies are moving together on a co-location partnership. They are sharing log storage areas and existing infrastructure, including electrical, natural gas and rail lines. The shared purpose in this collaboration should be celebrated as an example of navigating problems through mutual coordination and respectful dialogue. This is something that the Liberal government could learn in its dealings with the United States administration. The development of these large forest-product manufacturing facilities is one of the many reasons why northern Saskatchewan, in September, was in the top 10 across the entire country for job growth. It is a statistic worth emphasizing. I point out that when the government, in this case the provincial Government of Saskatchewan, creates the framework for economic opportunity for all, it is the people who win. Speaking of opportunity for all, I want to highlight a unique company in my riding. NorSask Forest Products is the largest 100% first nations owned and operated sawmill in Canada. As I stated recently in question period, NorSask currently has paid around $20 million in tariffs. The announcement of softwood lumber tariffs doubling will add to the damage that is being caused by these punitive actions. NorSask's profits are shared among the nine first nations of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council. These communities now have to deal with the shortfall in revenue. This means millions of dollars not being utilized for education, for health care including mental health and addictions programs, for housing, for youth and elder activities, etc. This is not just an economic and international failure, it is another failure in reconciliation. First nations communities that have worked tirelessly to provide jobs for their people and created own-source revenues to help invest in the social issues they are facing deserve a federal government that works equally as hard at fighting for them to get back what is rightfully theirs. In conclusion, as was so aptly described by the member for Abbotsford earlier tonight, from 2006 to 2015 under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper and presidents Bush and Obama, Canada and the United States had a softwood lumber agreement. Since being elected in 2015, the current government has seen three different U.S. administrations, and still we have no deal. As the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development is leading a delegation to Washington today, I implore her, on behalf of the residents of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River not to come home empty-handed. The people of northern Saskatchewan deserve better. Canadians deserve better.

771 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.)

Dec/1/21 9:52:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the member made reference to the 2006 deal with Stephen Harper, and I would suggest that getting no deal is better than getting a bad deal. The deal that Harper achieved saw us surrender literally hundreds of millions of dollars to the United States at the cost of the industry here. What is important for us to recognize is that we are on the right side of this. We know that if we continue to proceed through the apparatus that is set up and established, whether through the World Trade Organization or even our trade agreements, and have the negotiations that are so critically important, we will prevail. Would the member agree that it is better for us to push, and push hard, and be patient in order to protect the interests of the tens of thousands of jobs and the hundreds of communities that will directly benefit if we get this right and make sure that Canada does prevail on this important issue?

166 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 8