House of Commons Hansard #91 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was deal.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Order, please. The hon. member should know that when presenting petitions, one refers briefly to the content of the petition and then presents it, rather than reading the entirety of it or letters from or relating to it.
The hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition from my constituents. It says that Families For Justice is a group of Canadians, people who have had a loved one killed by an impaired driver. They believe Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient, and they want the crime called what it is, vehicular homicide.
The petitioners call for mandatory sentencing for vehicular homicide and for this Parliament to support Bill C-226, Impaired Driving Act and Bill C-247, Kassandra's law.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present in regard to the Falun Gong, which is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline consisting of meditation exercises and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to, in a public way, call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
October 17th, 2016 / 3:20 p.m.
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 297, originally tabled on September 19, could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
With regard to the Canada Summer Jobs Program for the summer of 2016: (a) how much funding has been approved, broken down by riding; (b) how much funding was requested, broken down by riding; (c) how many program requests were turned down, broken down by riding; (d) how much funding was allocated, broken down by riding?
(Return tabled)
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Opposition Motion—Softwood Lumber AgreementBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Winnipeg South Centre Manitoba
Liberal
Jim Carr LiberalMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey—Newton.
I thank the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster for this important motion. I know the member understands, as does our government, the importance of forestry to the people of his riding and to our country.
The forest industry employs more than 200,000 Canadians and contributes $22 billion a year to our GDP. In fact, it provides more jobs per dollar than any other resource sector. We export 33 billion dollars' worth of forest products to 180 countries around the world, and we are constantly looking for ways to expand international opportunities.
Government officials continue to meet regularly with their American counterparts trying to reach a new agreement on softwood lumber. Our goal is to negotiate a durable and equitable solution, one that will be fair to softwood producers, downstream industries, and consumers on both sides of the border. These are the good faith efforts of good friends. Both sides want to arrive at a new agreement because both sides understand the importance of forestry to the health of our economies and the protection of our environment.
For some of us, the forest industry might conjure up images of tarpaper shacks and logging camps, but that image is grossly outdated. Today, forestry is on the leading edge of technology and setting the pace on environmental performance. Its products are strengthening composite car parts, making vehicles lighter, reducing emissions, and replacing plastics made from non-renewable fossil fuels.
Today's forestry worker is as likely to be wearing a white lab coat as a red plaid shirt. She might be a genomics researcher, investigating ways to make trees more resistant to disease, or an economist, working to optimize supply chains. To paraphrase that classic Oldsmobile commercial, this is not your father's forest industry. In fact, the Canadian forest industry has transformed itself into one of the most innovative parts of our economy.
It was not that long ago that forestry seemed to be on the ropes. To many, it seemed like an outdated, even dying industry. Then something remarkable happened. Instead of wringing its hands, the industry rolled up its sleeves and began a transformation whose best chapters are still being written. Forestry leaders reached out to their critics, listened to them, and made changes to their operations. The industry invested in research, developed new products, and established new offshore markets, creating not just a new image but a new vision of what forestry was and could be.
Today, the forest industry is positioned to help address some of the biggest challenges facing our country, such as combatting climate change, driving innovation, creating economic opportunities for indigenous and rural communities, and advancing trade. Let me touch on each of these.
First, on climate change, it would be hard to overstate the importance of the forest sector to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I would even go so far as to say that there can be no global solution to climate change without the forest sector. It is that important. Why is that? It is because forestry is unique. It actually takes carbon out of the air. Most of us will remember enough of our high school science to know that trees suck up vast amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, storing it for decades. However, forestry's contribution goes far beyond that. It is developing clean technologies, producing green energy, reducing its need for energy and water, and lowering both emissions and waste. While Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions were rising between 1990 and 2012, pulp and paper mills were actually reducing their emissions by an impressive 66%, and it is just getting started.
Lignin, a material found in trees, could become the crude oil of the future, with biofuels substituting for fossil fuels in the production of plastics, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals. Then there is wood as a building material. Pound for pound, engineered wood can be as strong as steel, making it safe and practical not only in buildings but also in infrastructure such as bridges.
A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the tallest wood building in the world, a new student residence at the University of British Columbia. This magnificent building is not only an engineering and architectural showpiece; it is an environmental game-changer, storing close to 1,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide and saving more than 1,000 metric tons in greenhouse gas emissions. That is like taking 500 cars off the road for a year with a single building.
Forestry also helps to fight climate change through its sustainable management practices. Third parties have certified these practices as among the world's best. Canada now boasts 40% of the world's certified forests, far more than any other jurisdiction in the world. That matters, because our customers can be confident that wood products bought from Canada were harvested through sustainable practices. Any tree harvested on crown lands in Canada must be replaced, and permanent removal of forests for agriculture or municipal development, for example, is declining. The result is that actual deforestation is less than 0.02% a year. Quite simply, when the world wants to learn about sustainable forestry and best practices, it looks to Canada. Therefore, the forest sector has an essential role to play in combatting climate change.
Second, it is helping to drive innovation. For decades, the forest industry has been developing and investing in new products and new ways of operating. We look at the rise of clean tech and bio-energy, a renewable energy source derived from things like wood, wood waste, and straw. In July, I travelled to Port-Cartier, Quebec, to announce $44.5 million for the first commercial-scale facility to convert forest residues into a form of renewable fuel oil. This project is a shining example of governments working together to support the industry and advance Canada's bio-economy. An increasing number of remote and indigenous communities are now using bio-energy to end their dependence on high-emission diesel generators for their electricity. The government is working with industry and provinces to develop the forest products of the future through investments in R and D and innovation, and by helping first-in-kind clean innovations reach commercialization.
Third, forestry is a dynamic engine of growth, creating economic opportunity across our country, including in indigenous and remote communities.
Fourth, and related, forestry creates jobs at home by driving trade abroad. There has been a remarkable rise in the export of wood products to markets such as China, up more than 1,400% over the past 10 years. The U.S. market remains vitally important for Canadian producers of softwood lumber, but continuing to expand into other markets and other types of products is helping to diversify our trade and boost our prosperity. While its reach is global, the forest industry's impact remains local. It is the lifeblood of rural Canada and a major source of income for about one in seven municipalities across the country.
Our government believes in this industry. We have a clear vision of it playing an essential role in some of the most important issues of our times: combatting climate change, driving innovation, and creating economic opportunities for rural and indigenous communities. That is why we are standing by this industry. That is why we are continuing to work hard toward a new agreement on softwood lumber.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for talking about the great importance of the forest industry here in Canada. Certainly in my riding in Alberni Valley, it is the number one employer. I come from a long history of family working in forestry. My great-grandfather, my grandmother's family, and my mother's family all grew up in forestry. Forestry is really the most important employer in Alberni Valley. We have lost a lot of jobs in forestry so we know how important getting this deal done is.
The NDP is urging the Liberal government to secure a new agreement that respects Canada's regional differences and protects Canadian forestry jobs. Tens of thousands of high-quality jobs are at risk, especially in British Columbia.
We want to also ensure that we protect our producers. We want to ensure that there is going to be no tax retroactivity in this agreement. Can the minister assure producers in British Columbia that this will be something the Liberals are going to make sure will be protected?
Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his commentary and his question, and would tell him that I also share the importance of this industry to our country. There are regional differences, but again, in a country like Canada we have to expect that there would be.
The most important point we can make is that the Minister of International Trade shares our anxiety about the importance of this deal and the fact that we are not yet at the point where we can say that we have arrived at one, but I know that she is working diligently, not only with her counterpart in the United States but staying in very close touch with the forestry sector right across Canada.
I also know that she has a very good understanding of what those requirements are from each region, and she takes that intelligence and that passion with her when she meets with her counterpart in the United States, which I know is ongoing.
Opposition Motion—Softwood Lumber AgreementBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister across the way for his in-depth knowledge of the forest industry and the value that it adds to the Canadian economy.
As our hon. colleague previously mentioned, I know what it is like to get up at 2 a.m. to drive 200 kilometres to a logging block to start a cold skidder, to run a chainsaw. The livelihoods of our families have depended on the forest industry, much the same as many of the families in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George.
We have a community within our riding that because of the uncertainty it is facing with no softwood lumber agreement has two mills at risk, 400 jobs, a quarter of the municipal tax base. What message does the hon. minister think I should be giving to those 400 families, as well as the mayors in the municipalities that are going to lose that municipal tax base and those jobs in those communities?
Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, the message would be that the Government of Canada understands the importance of jobs in the forestry sector in British Columbia, and that the Minister of International Trade is working diligently in negotiations with the United States to come up with a deal that will be in the interest of both sides of the border.
We understand the reality of trade negotiations. If we are going to come up with an agreement, there has be two signatories to it. I know that the minister has been working diligently to establish trusting relationships with her counterparts in the United States. She is fully aware of the importance of the sector for all regions of our country. The minister is working diligently to come up with an arrangement that is satisfactory to us and to our counterparts south of the border.
Opposition Motion—Softwood Lumber AgreementBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, we know how important the softwood lumber issue is for Canada.
These disagreements have been ongoing for 30 years with the United States. In 2002, the former Liberal government thought we had an agreement that would last some time. It broke down. In 2006, we were finally able to get a softwood lumber agreement. Ninety-six per cent of our lumber here in Canada is exported to the United States. That is why it is so imperative that we get a deal.
The new Liberal government came in, and there is no mention in the mandate, no discussions of any significance taking place. I guess I will just give the minister another chance. We have natural resources, gas and oil, which are in trouble; softwood lumber, which it seems has had nothing happening in the last year; and our economy, which, even with all the spending the government is doing, is not growing. Nothing seems to be working for the Liberals.
Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, the government understands that fully 20% of the GDP of our country is generated in the natural resource sector, including in the forestry sector. We understand that there are very important jobs for the middle class that are generated by investments in the forestry sector.
I have spent much time, since I have had the pleasure of being the minister responsible for forestry, getting to understand, much better than I did before I assumed the office, the passion with which the sector is working on sustainable development practices. As a matter of fact, I know that it is developing a reputation internationally as a world leader in sustainable development. The elements are in place for the sector to thrive, the deal is important, and the minister is working hard.
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Mr. Speaker, today I rise as a member of the international trade committee and a proud British Columbian member of Parliament for Surrey—Newton to address the opposition motion. I am making a point of mentioning my province in my speech because after reading this motion, it is clear that the hon. member and his party have no clue what British Columbians reliant on the softwood lumber industry are saying about the ongoing negotiations with the United States.
I am well aware of the importance of forestry to the Canadian economy, both today and throughout our history as a country. Blessed with some of the most dense and rich forests on earth, Canada moved seamlessly from the fur trade to logging as our dominant industry in the first half of the 19th century, and today, forestry and, more specifically, softwood lumber stand as a significant part of the economic backbone of British Columbia's economy.
The numbers do not lie. The forestry sector contributes $12 billion to B.C.'s GDP and generates approximately $2.5 billion in taxes, revenues, and other fees. B.C. exported more than $5.9 billion worth of softwood lumber globally in 2015. In B.C., there are approximately 145,000 people who are either directly or indirectly employed as a result of this sector, and these are very good-paying jobs. The average skilled employee earns about $75,000 annually. Whether as a logger, a mill worker, or a forest management analyst, these jobs serve as the lifeblood of communities across British Columbia.
This motion makes mention of a framework, and I can confidently report that these facts, these numbers, these jobs, and the families that rely on them represent a framework that this government is using as its foundation for negotiating a softwood lumber agreement. When I read this motion, it screams of an opposition party that is more concerned with scoring cheap political points than securing a deal that puts the best interests of British Columbians and, indeed, all Canadians first.
The wording of this motion is not only inflammatory, but, I would argue, also intentionally misleading when it comes to the government's actions on this file. It seems that I am not alone in this belief. As an example, I will read a quote from the Premier of British Columbia, the hon. Christy Clark, speaking about the efforts of the Minister of International Trade. She stated, “I’ve got to give her credit, she’s worked day and night to try and resolve this. It’s been her central focus for the last several months”.
I am very proud to speak about the collective effort that this government has taken to support the minister's tireless efforts. Negotiations are happening with the full involvement of the Government of B.C., B.C.-based industry representatives, and first nations' community leadership and members. The minister is in frequent and close contact with the premier, as well as the B.C. minister of forests, lands and natural resource operations, Steve Thomson.
Over the past year, Global Affairs Canada officials have travelled across B.C. to hold 27 meetings with a wide range of industry representatives, including the British Columbia Lumber Trade Council, the B.C. Coast Forest Products Association, the Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association, the Independent Wood Processors Association of British Columbia, the Private Forest Landowners Association, and the Truck Loggers Association, to name a few.
Consultations have also included extensive outreach and involvement with representatives of the BC First Nations Forestry Council, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, the BC Assembly of First Nations, as well as the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council.
I can understand how the hon. member and his party across the way are so confused by this level of engagement and collaboration. It is because he served in a government that never made consultation a part of the way it governed.
For example, I remember how, during the 2011 election campaign, the member and his government promised farmers that they would be able to vote on any planned changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. However, after winning a majority, that promise was broken, with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster stating that the only vote necessary on the proposed legislative updates was the one that happened in the election.
This Liberal government has a far different attitude, as I just described in mentioning the stakeholder outreach that shapes our negotiations for a renewed softwood lumber agreement. It is through these extensive consultations that our government has heard one simple message consistently repeated over and over: Do not make a deal that sells our sector and our country down the river.
In fact, we have heard resolve from stakeholders that the federal government should move to litigation if necessary, because taking a deal at any cost is not an option for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on a fair, sustainable deal being signed.
The member's motion speaks about the threat to the livelihood of Canadian workers and communities, and yet that same motion is asking for an end to what is referred to as “delaying”. Well, what the Conservatives call delaying, we refer to as negotiating and fighting for the best interests of Canada.
Canadians can rest assured that this government is taking a strong and decisive position in our negotiations with the U.S. With the support of stakeholders, the minister and her team are pushing hard for a deal that is not about a quick political announcement for a media headline, but rather one that will look out for the interests of our softwood lumber industry for many decades to come.
There is no way I can support this motion, which calls on Canada to just throw up its hands and give up in the name of signing a deal at any cost. This government is going to take whatever time necessary to properly defend this country's interests.
To conclude, I want to say that it is a good thing that those members across the way, who are so ready to roll over, are no longer the ones negotiating this agreement. The stakes are too high not to fight, and fight hard, in the name of Canada.
Opposition Motion—Softwood Lumber AgreementBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, I find the comments of my hon. colleague for Surrey—Newton almost laughable. As a matter of fact, for the last 10 and a half to 11 months, actually coming up to a year this Wednesday, we have been standing in the House and fighting for the folks in small communities from coast to coast to coast, the small communities such as the ones in my riding where their jobs are dependent on this agreement.
For my hon. colleague to say that we would rather just roll over and accept something is wrong and misleading. We have been challenging the government to fight for Canadian jobs, fight for industry, and to make sure that everyone is at the table, all of the provinces and all of the industry, to make sure that the next agreement is a fair and balanced one.
Does my colleague not understand that this means thousands of jobs in B.C. alone, and that we have been fighting for them?
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member that the opposition needs to stop political posturing.
My colleagues on the committee from the opposition in fact appreciated the complexity of this file and have recognized the efforts that have been made by our government.
Today's motion is politically motivated. I can tell the hon. member that our government is concerned about every British Columbian and all those 145,000 jobs that are dependent on this, including the workers from Cariboo—Prince George.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from across the way for speaking with great passion about the importance of the forestry industry in British Columbia. As fellow British Columbians, we both know how important forestry is to British Columbians. We also both understand that the failure to sign a new agreement is creating enormous pressure on producers, on the employers, on the employees, and on their families in forest communities like mine in Port Alberni, in the Alberni Valley, on Vancouver Island.
I want to make sure that the member understands the sense of urgency to get this deal done, that the producers are under so much pressure to ensure that we have a good agreement, and that there is also going to be no tax retroactivity imposed upon the producers.
I want to hear the hon. member talk about ensuring that there will not be any tax retroactivity and that they are going to stand up for producers so that there is some certainty as they go through this difficult period of volatility or uncertainty. If the member could actually speak to that, it would be greatly appreciated by the people on Vancouver Island and, certainly, by all of those in the forestry sector on Vancouver Island.
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from British Columbia, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, for talking about his concern with respect to the jobs in his particular region, and across British Columbia, particularly in regard to free trade.
When negotiating free trade with the U.S., we realize that more than 50% of the softwood lumber trade is with the U.S. As I mentioned earlier, we want to have a deal that is good for British Columbians, that is good for Canada, and not just any deal.
I can assure members that our Prime Minister, the Minister of International Trade, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, and their team are fully committed to face any challenges in future that might arise out of this.
Opposition Motion—Softwood Lumber AgreementBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with our hon. colleague from Yellowhead.
Today we are talking about the longest trade dispute with our major trading partner, the U.S. While some would say that this trade dispute has gone on for decades, it could be argued that the softwood lumber dispute has been longer, perhaps a century. It has been one of the longest and most costly trade disputes our country and our major trading partner, the U.S., have had.
The actual term used when we are talking about softwood lumber and the trade dispute is “war”. We talk about a trade war. When an agreement is in place, the term “truce” is what we use. We had a truce and came to some sort of agreement. To date we have had four softwood lumber wars.
I want to bring this back to my riding of Cariboo--Prince George and talk about a community just north of Prince George. There is a little town in northern British Columbia called Mackenzie. This town has weathered many storms and should have gone under many times. In 2007, the town's six mills shut down one by one. Fifteen hundred of the five thousand jobs that were available in the town were lost.
Mackenzie is over 100 kilometres from the nearest major centre. Since the devastating job losses in 2007, new forestry operations have once again begun to pop up, and while the job numbers have not returned to pre-2007 numbers, forestry investment has slowly come in over the years thanks to private investment and a secure softwood lumber agreement that our Conservative government secured in 2006.
I use the town of Mackenzie as an example, because when an industry is faced with uncertainty, jobs leave. This leaves residents with nowhere to turn. When jobs go, so do schools and small businesses, and so does critical infrastructure.
Over the course of the last 11 months, we have seen a lot of inaction on this file. I go as far as saying that the Liberal government has completely and utterly left forestry families in the dust.
The Minister of International Trade has come to the House time and again to say that reaching a new deal was a priority for the Liberal government right from the get-go. How much of a priority are the thousands of families who depend on the forestry industry to put food on their tables when in the 219 promises in the Liberals' campaign platform there was not one mention of softwood lumber? There was not one mention of softwood lumber in their platform and not in the Minister of International Trade's mandate letter, either, nor in the Speech from the Throne. As a matter of fact, in one of the very first speeches the Prime Minister gave he said that Canada will become known more for its resourcefulness than its natural resources under his reign. The first time softwood lumber was even mentioned in this Parliament was on this side of the House.
The minister has time and again regurgitated talking points and offered simple platitudes, much the same as what we saw earlier today.
In March, the minister trumpeted a real breakthrough in the softwood lumber talks. She said that the government had the Americans at the table. In an interview, the minister went as far as to reference Canada as the girl next door who has not been noticed, but it was not the case anymore. With the President and the Prime Minister's new relationship, things were great. Things were going to be amazing. As a matter of fact, I think the minister said that the President was giddy about this new relationship, so giddy in fact, that his handlers said they had never seen the President so happy.