Debates of Oct. 17th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Softwood Lumber Agreement

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague's hard work on committee. This summer, we actually tried to call an emergency committee meeting on softwood lumber. During that meeting, one of the Liberal members from Quebec called the meeting a waste of time and money. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that member's comment, and on what she thinks the committee could have done this summer that would have maybe brought some focus onto this topic.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the committee and for his great work on this file as well.

I was quite shocked by the comments of the member from Quebec when we met in an emergency meeting here in Ottawa over this very important issue. We all knew this was looming, that the agreement was coming to an end, and there was a lot of uncertainty across the sector, both by the workers and by the mills. To hear that comment coming from someone who is sitting on the international trade committee was deeply concerning to me. It is never a waste of time to stand here in the House or to sit on a committee to represent Canadians. In fact, that is what we have been sent here to do.

I believe that in the summer a good motion was brought forward by my colleagues, which I did support, seeking to have a round table, seeking to put some pressure, and to have some collaboration at that critical point. I thank the member for his work on the committee and I support the motion that the members are bringing forward today.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak here this afternoon in favour of the motion because I am concerned about the future of Canada's forest industry.

I come from British Columbia, which, as most people know, has some of the most magnificent forest resources anywhere in the world. From the rainforests of cedar and hemlock on the coast to the vast pine, fir, and spruce forests of the interior, British Columbia produces more than half the softwood lumber in Canada.

The forest industry has been a critically important part of the British Columbian economy for over a century. Today, it contributes $12 billion every year to the B.C. economy. It provides $2.5 billion in direct government revenue in British Columbia. It creates 145,000 jobs in British Columbia alone. That is one in every 16 jobs in British Columbia. That figure was touted to be closer to one in every two jobs when I was younger, but the industry has been hit hard over the past few decades.

The softwood lumber agreement of 2006 came after over 20 years of disputes between the two countries. At the heart of those disputes was the claim by the United States that the Canadian forest industry was subsidized by the way companies paid for the harvesting of wood from public lands. That claim has repeatedly been repudiated by both international and American tribunals. I think we won something like 14 legal decisions in a row between 1982 and 2005. Despite these victories, the actions of the U.S. industry brought uncertainty to the lumber export market and cost our industry billions of dollars.

The softwood lumber agreement did bring back certainty to lumber export access and costs, but the Canadian industry paid a very high price for that certainty and many mills did not survive those added costs and quotas; especially, after years of wearying trade battles with the United States.

In my riding, the Weyerhaeuser mill in Okanagan Falls closed in 2007, putting over 200 people out of work. The Pope & Talbot mill in Midway closed in 2007 as well, but fortunately, has been reopened by the Vaagen Brothers, which has invested in new equipment to create a highly efficient mill that uses the smaller logs that are easier to find in today's wood supply. The Atco lumber company in Fruitvale closed its lumber operation around the same time to concentrate on veneer products for plywood, which are not subject to softwood lumber quotas and tariffs. The surviving mills in my riding strive to be as efficient as possible, trying to get the right logs to the right mill. It does not always work, the system is far from perfect, but for the moment the mills are doing well.

As elsewhere in Canada, waste wood in all the local mills is usually chipped and sent to the local pulp mill, in my case, it is the Celgar mill in Castlegar, to add a bit to the bottom line for the mills. The pulp mills also depend on the input of those chips. I heard testimony from a pulp mill representative, a couple of weeks ago, at the finance committee pre-budget consultation in Alberta, that pulp mills in Alberta would be hooped, in his words, if local sawmills closed because of inaction on the softwood lumber agreement.

As I tour my riding today, I see a forest industry that is innovative and efficient, each mill specializing in some niche that will allow it to survive and hopefully thrive. I imagine that is the case across British Columbia and across Canada.

The industry faces challenges from all sides today, and one of the main challenges these companies face is uncertainty. When I ask representatives from the forest industry about a new softwood agreement, they agree that the former agreement has brought some amount of certainty and stability to the lumber market in Canada, but feel that it failed, in some areas, to protect Canada's interests in an unfair trade negotiation.

The forest industry would like to see the agreement renewed, but not at any cost. It does not want to see a new agreement that is more punitive than the last, since it is clear that countervailing duties are not legally warranted at all. It recognizes that we need an agreement that is flexible to the needs and circumstances of the different regions in Canada.

The Liberal government promised quick action on this file. It repeatedly said these negotiations were an example of how things go right when the President of the United States is a good friend of the Prime Minister, but it has failed to deliver and the Canadian forest industry is clearly worried about the future. We need to get a new agreement in place. The government can and must do more for the forest industry than just get this softwood agreement.

The industry, especially in British Columbia, has been working hard to build new international markets for our lumber products. It has been working on innovative new wood products and new ways to use wood in buildings. It would be a great boost to the Canadian forest industry as a whole if the federal government instituted a wood-first policy that promoted the use of wood in government building projects.

In my hometown of Penticton there is a company called Structurlam, which builds huge glulam beams for beautiful structural supports for large buildings. It also manufactures crosslam wood panels, which combine with the beams to allow the construction of very tall buildings without steel and concrete. The company just completed an 18-storey project at the University of British Columbia, called Brock Commons. It is the tallest wood building in the world, and because the parts are built off-site, the Brock Commons building took only 66 days to construct. The UBC project used 1.7 million board feet of British Columbia lumber. Structurlam gets its lumber locally at mills such as Kalesnikoff in Castlegar, so the benefits are widespread.

If we could support domestic markets in this way, it could really help the forest industry in our country and partially shield us from the political vagaries of American trade negotiations.

Despite the challenges it has faced over the past 30 years or so, the British Columbia forest industry is very much alive, and is still very important to British Columbia and the Canadian economy. However, it faces serious challenges: a future with a declining wood supply, a future with more frequent catastrophic forest fires and insect epidemics due to climate change, a future with increased uncertainty around the demand for wood products, and a future with rising costs associated with trade disputes with the United States.

We need the government to do everything in its power to support the forest industry. We need a new softwood lumber agreement that is fair and flexible across all regions of Canada, an agreement that will bring certainty to the forest industry. British Columbia and hundreds of thousands of Canadians across our country depend on it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I find it important to emphasize that, whether it is the Prime Minister or cabinet or my caucus colleagues, their understanding of the importance of the industry is very real. We have a government that is aggressively trying to protect the interests of the forestry sector. Our softwood lumber industry not only provides thousands of direct jobs but it also provides even more indirect jobs. We understand the importance of this particular industry to our economy.

Would the member not agree that it is best to negotiate and attempt to get the very best deal as opposed to trying to appease the few who are asking for the deal to get done? Would he not recognize that at times an issue has to be forced to the very end in order to maximize the benefits for our workers and for our country as a whole?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the forest industry does not want an agreement at any cost. We want a good agreement. We do not want an agreement that would be more punitive than the one that we have.

We recognize that perhaps it is a difficult time to negotiate an agreement with the protectionism that is going on in the United States. I talked to Duncan Davies, who is the CEO of Interfor, when he appeared before the trade committee. He pointed out that the two conditions under which the Americans get cranky about softwood lumber are when the Canadian dollar is low and when lumber prices are low. Right now the Canadian dollar is not very high and lumber prices are going up. It probably would have been a better time if the Conservatives, once they had extended the agreement by two years in 2013, had negotiated then, when the Canadian dollar was more or less at par with the American dollar and lumber prices were looking better.

Here we are today and the Liberal government has to take the reins and get us a good deal. Lumber prices are good and are getting better than they were. The government has to get a new agreement. As I said, we do not want an agreement at any cost. The government should provide supports to the industry beyond this agreement that would keep it thriving pending the outcome of the negotiations.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the considerable work he has done both in the committee and on this side of the House in holding the government's feet to the fire on this matter.

The member mentioned a gentleman by the name of Duncan Davies, who is the president and CEO of Interfor. It is one of Canada's largest forestry producers. However, in recent years, it has divested itself, as some of our major operations have, of Canadian operations and invested south of the border.

When I questioned Mr. Davies in that same committee meeting about the number of operations and percent of operations in the United States versus in Canada, he said that, indeed, Interfor's U.S. operations were 80% or greater, meaning that 20% or less are on the Canadian side. However, he is at the table with Global Affairs and guiding those representatives in their negotiations.

Does it not bother my hon. colleague that we have producers who have increased their U.S. operations at the table negotiating on behalf of Canada?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at that same committee meeting where Mr. Davies was testifying, when asked about the kind of conflict of interest he might have in this regard, he did point out that Interfor and the various other Canadian companies that have bought up U.S. mills still have considerable Canadian operations, and they do not want those operations to get in trouble if we have a bad deal. He made that claim. I do not want to defend his words, but that was his argument.

My point is that whoever is at the table, they should be speaking for Canada, and I hope we can get a good deal very soon.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

It is disturbing that we are at this point today where some 400,000 jobs are in jeopardy across Canada going forward this winter, not 200,000 jobs that the minister claimed were at stake. That is approximately 650 communities that do not have a certain future because the Liberal government decided not to think seriously about having an agreement on softwood lumber in place.

If we look at the minister's priorities and the mandate letter she was given when she took on the role, softwood lumber was nowhere to be mentioned. When we talked about softwood lumber at committee and said that we needed to have an emergency meeting to talk about it to see where things were at, the committee member from Quebec called it a waste of time and money. That shows the attitude of the Liberal government toward the forestry sector and all resource jobs in total. Its disdain for that sector is obvious. The fact that it did not make it a priority is very disappointing.

The Prime Minister talks about his special relationship with President Obama. That special relationship got him a dinner at the White House and a whole pile of photo ops with the President. It brought the president here, where they embraced the “bromance” right in the area of the Chair in June. However, if that relationship is so special, we would think he would have been able to say, “You know what? I need this deal done, Mr. President.” He could have done this in June. Then we would have no insecurity in this sector going into the winter season. However, he chose not to. I think he took his time and decided to have a photo op instead of sitting down and talking seriously about getting this done, noting how important it was to Canadians.

I want to remind the House that the previous government not only got the negotiations done within the first three months of taking office in 2006, but also renegotiated the agreement in 2012, both with two different presidents. The Liberals talk about how the previous government has such a bad relationship with the U.S. when in fact it was able to use that relationship and get things done for Canadian workers. Now we have this supposed bromance, which is nothing that can be cashed in on.

I know the Liberals like to deal with their friends. That is quite obvious from the history of the Liberal Party if we go back to the Gomery report, and the like. However, they do not realize that dealing internationally is done in a business-to-business format and that we have to take these things seriously, that when we sit down at the table the friendship ends when the negotiations start, as my colleague said in a press conference today. However, they do not seem to get that. The do not understand what is at stake and what is important.

There are some other things that the previous government managed to get done: the beyond-the-border action plan of 2011 to expedite legitimate trade and travel across the border, which is something that needs more co-operation on to keep moving forward; the Canada-United States energy dialogue in 2009 to strengthen the bilateral co-operation and development of clean energy technology; the expansion of the Nexus program to make it easier for pre-approved individuals to cross the border; and the Gordie Howe bridge. There are many examples of the previous government's success in dealing with Washington, both with Democrats and Republicans, yet this bromance produces nothing but photo ops.

If I go back to the riding and talk about jobs—because this does impact my riding substantially—I look at the mill at Carrot River, for example. This mill was expanded. Millions of dollars was spent in redoing the line. It was putting some stability back into a small town where forestry is very important. I now have to go back to those workers and tell them that the Liberals did not try to negotiate a deal until the last minute and that I cannot promise them any type of bankability as they move forward. Therefore, I have to go to the guy who owns 10 trucks and probably has millions of dollars tied up in equipment and tell him I do not know what the future holds. I have to go to the employees of that sawmill and tell them that the Liberals have not done it and that I do not know what the future holds for them. These are families. These are people who will be going into Christmas unsure of what they can or cannot spend on gifts for their kids. These are people who invest in things like tree cutters, parts, and service across the community as a whole. They do not know what they can or cannot do now because there is no stability in the market.

I was in Prince Albert when the mill shut down. That was back at the time of the old trade dispute in 2004 and 2005, when the pulp mill and the sawmill were shut down. The impact on the community was devastating. If it were not for Fort McMurray and the growth in that sector, it would have been even more devastating and taken the feet right out of the city of Prince Albert. It would not be the city it is today.

We can look at the resource sector and see how important it is to our economy. To see the disdain that the Liberals show towards it and their inability to get results, whether in a softwood lumber agreement or a pipeline to port, shows they do not understand the importance of this sector.

The Liberals used the election and the protectionist climate as an excuse. The Conservatives negotiated the last extension agreement in 2012 during a presidential election. Protectionist measures are nothing new in dealing with the United States. We must deal with them as they come up. We can remember dealing with buy American in the House, and how we had to deal with those issues as they came up. The Conservatives dealt with them.

Country of origin labelling is another example. We were able to resolve those issues while we were in government. It took a lot of hard work and consensus building with our American partners, but we did the hard work and we did it together.

If we look at country of origin labelling and what was involved in getting that result the way we needed it, it was not just litigation. It was actually a matter of working with like-minded professionals, industries, and people who understood the importance of having Canadian beef come across the border, the importance of consumers, and the importance of building alliances down in the U.S. with those types of groups to put political pressure on Congress to say this needed to change. We got it done.

One other concern I have about the government is the secrecy of negotiations. When I go to industries or the provinces and ask what is in the negotiations, what is being proposed, what is being offered, they do not know and cannot tell me because the government will not tell them. I say they could sign a confidentiality agreement, and then at least they would know what is involved in the negotiations. It is not even being offered.

The minister is basically doing these negotiations in secret, in private, with only four major players who have an interest on both sides of the border sitting at her side. How can that be fair to the small players in the sector, the small forestry companies in Canada? How can that be fair to the provincial ministers, who do not know? Why do we have to go to the U.S. to find out bits and pieces of what is in the agreement? That is so disappointing.

How does Parliament function without knowing what is in the agreement? Again, I encourage the minister to come to Parliament and tell us what the government is proposing, what is being put on the table, what the numbers are, if she is using a quota system in the proposal or a tax exemption or taxing system such as tax pricing? What is it?

Those are things the committee could have worked on this summer. Those are the things we could have assisted the government in moving our sector forward and seeing this agreement happen. However, it thought it was a waste of time and money.

Forgive me when I do not take the government seriously when it says it takes this seriously. Forgive me when I look across the aisle and see that the priorities of the Prime Minister lie somewhere else, and not on dealing with this issue, because I do not believe him, and Canadian forestry workers definitely do not believe him.

Let us look at the jobs at stake. I go back to Carrot River, Big River, Meadow Lake, and look at the sector as a whole. It is a very tight-knit sector. When one piece of it fails, it has domino effects on other areas. For example, with the closure of the pulp mill at The Pas, all of sudden Carrot River did not have a source for its chips to go to in The Pas. What would they do with their chips? They had to go to Hudson Bay or somewhere else.

If the saw mill is taken out of Carrot River, then how does Hudson Bay, which shares a forestry management agreement with the company out of Carrot River on hardwood, get their hardwood? When hardwood is cut, the softwood is cut at the same time. It is a coordinated effort, so it is harvested properly.

As we can see, when one of these things fails, the domino effect goes into the sector, and not just into the softwood sector but also the hardwood sector, into particleboard, into pulp and paper. Whole sectors start to fail. The cluster becomes no longer viable.

I will not go into the carbon tax. I will not even talk about what that would do to the sector. Again, let us talk about 11 cents a litre or 45 cents a litre and what that does to the price of diesel. All of this forestry product moves out of the bush by truck. It has to compete with people around the world, including our American competitors and other markets. They do not have a carbon tax. They are not going to have a carbon tax. Yet we are expected to pay for that.

In fact, when we look at the forestry sector, what is so ironic is that these trees sequester so much carbon. It is amazing. It is about one tonne per metre, I understand. If we look at a per acre basis, we can see the amount of carbon that our forestry sector sequesters. When that tree is cut and another tree is planted, again, more carbon is sequestered.

In closing, this is something that the government needed to take seriously. It did not. The result is that we do not have an agreement in place. If the Liberals could do one thing right now, it would be to get a stay of litigation. They could say that while they are negotiating, no illegal activity should be going on in the background, so that there are no duties coming into play at this point in time.

These are some of the things they could do at this point to bring some stability to the market, for this year at least. The best thing they could do is get a good agreement. However, in order to get an agreement, they have to be at the table and have to understand the impacts of their decisions. I do not think they are at the table seriously, and I do not think they seriously understand the impacts.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the speech, I was thinking that the member might be simplifying the negotiation process. The Canadian government is working with the provinces, territories, first nations, stakeholder groups, and industry representatives. It has had 50 such meetings since October 2015. It had meetings last week with the American government to work on this file.

It seems there is a suggestion that we are not meeting with the other stakeholders and that this is somehow a simpler process. Could the member elucidate on how simple the process is in his mind?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the process is not simple. Governing is not a simple thing. I believe they are having meetings, but are they listening? Are they actually consulting or just talking? That is the concern I have. Are they actually informing their partners on the proposals they are putting forward in Washington D.C.? They are not, because they do not know or understand what the government is proposing. It is being done in secret. It is done quietly behind closed doors. The big four know, but no one else does.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member's comments. We have been in government now for less than a year, and our government has aggressively pursued this issue.

The former Harper government would have been aware of the situation that was looming, yet it chose not to do anything about it. That is a very important point that has been lost. Ever since our government has taken office this issue has been raised, on a multitude of different levels, including with stakeholders, as my colleague pointed out.

If the member really believes, as we believe, that those jobs are so valuable to our economy and that this is such an important industry to our economy, would he not agree that the best agreement we can achieve is what we should be striving for, not to appease the Conservative caucus, but rather to look at what is in the best interests of the industry as a whole? People should be comfortable in knowing that we have a government that is aggressively pursuing this file, and we are not going to settle for the sake of settling. We want an agreement that is going to make a positive difference for the industry as a whole. Would he not agree that is what Canadians need?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I laugh at the member's assumptions. He said that they have only been in power for a year. We did it in the first three months, and then we renegotiated in 2012. It was in fact with the same president who sits there today, who supposedly they have this great bromance with. They should cash it in and get results for Canadian jobs. That is all we are asking.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been a member of Parliament for eight years, as I have. Can he ever remember a Liberal asking a question about softwood lumber in the eight years that he has been a member of Parliament?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do have a good memory, and I have to acknowledge that they have not. In fact, in the committee this summer, we tried to do an emergency meeting on softwood lumber. Do you know what was said? The member from Quebec said that it was a waste of time and money. How shameful. Now they tell us they are taking it seriously? I am sorry we interrupted her summer holidays to talk about this issue, but this is not a waste of time and money. This should have been talked about and dealt with a long time ago, and they have failed.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too laugh at the vim and vigour we are seeing from the other side, defending how they have only been in government for 10 months, and gosh darn, it has been a priority for them.

If this were such a priority for the government, how many times was it mentioned in their campaign, in the minister's mandate letter, or how about in the Speech from the Throne, the very first address to the House?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, again, we should ask the opposition party how many times it talked about it, but I am not sure what kind of answer we would get.

However, it was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It is not in the minister's mandate letter. It is not a priority, obviously, and it has not been a priority. Now members are sitting there saying, “oh my God, 400,000 jobs”. In fact, they call it 200,000 jobs. There are 400,000 at stake, and the Liberals do not know what to do. It is obvious. It shows up in their actions.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a duty to speak to this matter today. Since arriving here in 2007, I have always felt that it has been my responsibility to stand up for the forestry economy of all regions of Canada, from northern British Columbia to the Atlantic regions, in order to protect communities, because the forestry industry is often their sole provider of jobs.

I have always been told that people are judged more by their actions than by their words. We can say many things, but we have to look at the facts and the results. A bill to abolish the title of minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec was introduced recently. They abolished the position of the political lieutenant for the regions. I get it: they do not want complaints from the regions. No one is going to stand up for their region because they will be rapped on the knuckles.

The Economic Development Agency of Canada was often the only department to wave the Canadian flag in Quebec's regions. People never see other federal government departments or officials. Now the government is going to abolish the department of Economic Development. Perhaps if the sawmills we are talking about today were not located in Rivière-aux-Rats, Port-Cartier, Girardville, or Saint-Thomas-Didyme, which are in my riding, but rather in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, or Winnipeg, we would have heard quite a bit about them earlier.

Today, the situation affects 400,000 jobs across Canada in regions that have fewer voters. However, it is important that we maintain the economic health of all regions in Canada so there are jobs for the people.

Our party came to power in 2006, and I arrived in September 2007. The government really did not need me to deal with the softwood lumber issue because it had already done so. What was the situation when the government came to power in January after 10 years of inaction by the Liberal government? Between 27% and 37% of export duties and $6 billion were frozen in a trade war with the United States. We dealt with that in three or four months. In April, everything was settled. We brought in $5 billion out of the $6 billion.

Members are saying that Canada gave the United States a billion dollars, but what they fail to mention is that we brought in $5 billion. We brought in $5 billion of the $6 billion that was on the table and we gave that money back to the forestry industry. We signed a deal that brought 10 years of peace and stability.

Of course, the former minister had begun working on this issue. He had begun discussions but not negotiations. He too consulted with our Canadian partners. What was said earlier is not true. We began paving the way for future negotiations. We were moving firmly in that direction.

When we look at which party or which government resolved international trade issues in the past, it is not the current government. It is our former government and Brian Mulroney's government.

The Liberals have always been more reluctant to sign trade deals, so we need to be careful. We jumped in. We opened doors and we signed a 10-year agreement.

As my colleague said earlier, we are talking about softwood lumber, but those who know forestry know that trees must first be felled and limbed, loaded onto trucks, and transported to sawmills. Milling produces byproducts that go to secondary and tertiary manufacturing facilities, which make cushions, mattresses, and all kinds of other things. Wood chips go to pulp and paper mills. All of that will be jeopardized. Not just lumber mills, but the entire forestry industry supply chain will be jeopardized, from truckers to equipment manufacturers that sell machinery used to cut and process wood.

The government has been in power for a year but says it has not had enough time to get anything done. It blames everything on the big, bad former Conservative government that did not get the job done. The Liberals wanted power. They have it. Now they have to keep their promises. It is up to them to seal a deal for this whole economic sector.

We understand that the deal with the Americans has to benefit the country and all regions of the country. Of course we agree with that; that is what we did in 2006.

Whenever someone tells me we have to reach an agreement that is good for the whole country, I say we did.

What is currently at play? When we came to an agreement in 2006, the provinces could opt for percentages with no quota, or unrestrained exports, as British Columbia did. It was between 5%, 10%, and 15% according to the prevailing price per thousand board feet. That is how the measure was drafted. The price could vary, and accordingly, so did the export percentage.

It was 5%, 10%, or 15%. Now we are being told that if there is no agreement, and I hope there will be one, the cost of exporting will be 25%. That is hundreds of millions of dollars that will go toward export costs instead of to jobs or the people who are already working in this sector.

We read the press release that said that negotiations were ongoing and that the government hoped to conclude an agreement. I hope so too.

The Canadian province that exports the most lumber to the United States is British Columbia. Statistically speaking, the numbers are there. Quebec is the second-largest exporter. More importantly, especially seeing that 40 Liberal members come from the regions in Quebec, Quebec exports roughly 48% of its softwood lumber products. In other words, half of its two-by-fours go to the United States. Of this 48%, 98.5% of the lumber exported from Quebec goes to the United States. It is easy to see why this agreement is so important. That is why Quebec's entire forestry industry is quite anxious today. They know what is at stake.

Today, it takes a lot of courage and I hope that my colleagues across the way have that courage. I would like the government to deal with this issue and to conclude an agreement that is good for the entire country, one that respects regional differences. Quebec changed how it allots timber: 75% remains public and 25% is sold at auction, as is the case in a number of U.S. states.

We would like the particularities of every region of the country, including the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, and the western provinces, to be recognized and a good deal to be negotiated, rather than having to take our partners to court. Of course we are enjoying a warmer relationship with the U.S., as the Liberals claim. All these grand dinners and accolades are all well and good, but what about jobs, results, and salaries for those workers?

Why are we even talking about job creation? Some 400,000 jobs already depend on that deal. Before we create any more, let us protect the ones we have. This sector already provides a lot of good jobs. It is the government's duty to reach an agreement quickly to give these workers some job security.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech made by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, who, like me, comes from a forestry region. I have a very important question for him.

If his party managed this issue so well when it was in government, why did the previous deal expire during that time, and why was this issue not resolved before his party left office? If it was so easy, why was his party incapable of doing it?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there were 10 years of trade wars with the Americans dating back to 2006 when a former Liberal government was in office. There was an agreement from 2006 to 2013. Then, we agreed with the Americans to renew the agreement for two years, until 2015. In 2015, there was a one-year grace period until 2016.

It is clear that our government provided better stability for the forestry industry than the former Liberal government did. We believe that it is important to continue to move forward on this issue. We resolved this issue in four months. However, the Liberals have been in power for three times four months and they still have not resolved it. We believe that the most important objective is to reach an agreement today.

The Liberals never talk about the money that was recovered by Canada during the negotiations. I would therefore like to remind members that $6 billion was on the table and we recovered $5 billion of it. We helped the Canadian forestry industry. Now, the Liberals are in power and it is their responsibility to resolve the problem. They need to do so.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. We both represent a riding in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, which is a forestry region. We have the same problems since our ridings are right next door to each other.

It is true that a good negotiated agreement would be a good thing, but I would like my colleague to elaborate on what such an agreement might consist of. There has been a lot of talk about helping our forestry industry and sending a strong message of support to our workers given what is currently happening, even in my colleague's riding. For example, one business is no longer going forward with its plan to expand. Workers are very concerned.

What does my colleague think about a support program and a loan guarantee program, for example?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 25% of Quebec's standing timber is in my riding.

Every day, no matter where I go, I meet worried workers who have lost their jobs, or who see that their employer is not investing in new equipment. There were some with us yesterday on the plane bringing us back to Ottawa. There are equipment manufacturers who are making more efficient planers, for example. All these people are worried about their future.

I know one thing for certain: by revealing our negotiating strategies, it is very likely that the Americans will say that they will resolve it, and we will not be allowed to do so. When I was minister, I never revealed details of ongoing negotiations, and I would not do so today.

It is not for us to speak on behalf of the government about what should be in the agreement. The agreement should respect the individual needs of all regions and provinces, and find solutions.

I would prefer that we first have a negotiated agreement instead of looking for solutions, which will happen in due course. Meanwhile, there is still time to negotiate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked from a Quebec perspective in good part, and I concur with him. Whether it be for residents in Quebec, and we know how important this industry is to Quebec, or those in other provinces, in particular, British Columbia and my home province of Manitoba, they are all at the table in different ways and different formats. Stakeholders are trying to ensure that the government does what is necessary, which is to achieve the best agreement possible, which will better serve this industry in the years ahead. We all acknowledge that.

However, would the member not agree that it is in the best interest of the industry as a whole that we not settle, that we strive to get the best deal that would preserve and encourage growth in the industry? We should be holding this up high. We should say what we want to get and not attempt to settle for anything less until we are absolutely convinced that there is nowhere further for us to go.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to follow one of my friends from B.C. and another friend from Saskatchewan. We are talking about all of the country in our speeches today. I talk about Quebec, because I come from there. However, we need to have a deal. We had a good deal in the past, and we cannot accept less. We already had a deal, which we can continue to work on and build on to get results.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Roberval, the deputy leader of the official opposition, has significant experience in public administration as a veteran minister in the previous government. The lumber industry is vital to Canada's economy and especially to Quebec's economy.

Can my colleague talk about the risks we will be exposing ourselves to unless and until we have a proper long-term softwood lumber agreement with the United States?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I am very concerned about decisions this government is making that affect regional economic development and the link between central and remote regions.

The government did away with regional ministers and is getting rid of the minister for economic development agencies of Canada for the regions. There will be nobody left to speak on behalf of the regions. I know that other members will pick up the slack, but those roles were part of the structure of government.

Considering that nearly 50% of Quebec's softwood lumber output is exported to the United States, it is vital that we get to an agreement and make sure it is watertight.